I read with some amusement Mr. Jared’s column about nuclear power (April 8), and how this country should let the markets decide our “energy policy.” While we all can agree that the markets might get this right, we should also agree that they mightn’t, and the consequences of failure would be grave. Oil is strategic, and yet we rely on other countries for over half of what we use. It certainly makes sense to me to have the government take a long-term view and invest in a mix of technologies. Yes, of course we should have a “policy” on this, just as we should have, as Mr. Jared sneers, a “grocery policy” – food security is rather crucial as well. But are these legal government functions?

Mr. Jared glibly states that “energy” isn’t in the Constitution, and he is technically correct. It’s difficult to fault our founders on this oversight though, since in 1776 “energy” hadn’t really been invented yet. Most people were farmers that relied on animals for power and candles for light. Modern “energy” was centuries in the future. However, the smart people who wrote the Constitution thought in broad terms and put in words like, from Article 1, section 8, “provide for the Common Defense and general Welfare of the United States,” knowing they’d need flexibility in their short document. A lawyer should know this. So of course our government has the power to set policy concerning the long-term health of the country.

And a final point, about subsidies: Just how much of the annual $750 billion military budget should one figure goes to ensuring our oil supply? Compare any fraction of that to any of the paltry investments being castigated, and Mr. Jared’s emperor just lost his clothes.

Rob Price, Kirkland