I'd go a few steps further than President Obama did in making a key point during his Politico interview with Roger Simon: that the last 30 years of the nation's conflict between economic interests and the environment has been ALL about the appropriate role of federal authority in relation to the states. What Obama might have added, is that so many of the people rightly outraged in the Gulf today have not supported federal laws protecting the environment and have strongly pushed away from government intervention as antithetical to "the free market" and property rights.
From news this weekend, it is apparent that Obama is getting ready to push BP but certainly not as hard as I think he should: that the federal government seize BP's US assets until remedies, funding, and implementation is in place to make Gulf Coast residents, workers, businesses, and the environment whole. The point I made in an editorial last week is that the American public needs to see these issues before the US Supreme Court: this question of the appropriate role of the federal government in the face of an environmental catastrophe caused by private industries needs to be fully aired, for the American public (and voter) to understand the skewed nature of the relationship between the interests of people and corporations. I don't believe the US Supreme Court would support the interests of people. And to make this clear would be very, very interesting from a political point of view. Unfortunately, President Obama will not press that hard. He could, because he knows in his heart what the issues are, but he won't.
"Obama also talked about what he considers a key issue: the role of the federal government. “I will say that there is a debate that we’ve been having for a long time and we’re going to keep on having in this country about the proper role of government,” he said. “And I think that this crisis has been a good case study in how some people feel pretty contradictory about that role. (click 'read more')
“Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much. Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying, this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms.”
There was some real irritation in his voice when he said: “And so — and this translates into very concrete terms — I think it’s fair to say, if six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies, and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, Big Government over-regulation and wasteful spending.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38458_Page4.html#ixzz0qp2bwved
5 comments:
It is important for the government to realize that BP is accountable to its shareholders first and, therefore, will not act in the best interest of the country. Here are key things, in my humble opinion, that should happen.
1. All workers being employed should be employed through a third party outside the discretion of BP and protected from their reach (with claims or future employment).
2. Congress needs to immediately address the tax code to address treatment of claims and compensation. We should not be using government guaranteed loans such as the SBA to bail out terminal businesses. We need to give these people money and suggest that many of them find another job for the near future.
3. All claims should be handled through Public Adjustors as third party agents.
4. The government should not worry about the price of BP stock. It is going to deteriorate if the right thing is done. If so, they will most likely be acquired by another company. We should let that happen and other oil companies should fear being put in the same position in the future.
5. The MMS should compile (in a painfully short period of days) a matrix of the highest possible drilling regulations in the global market and adopt the strictist measures.
6. The government should initiate a shared oceans treaty process that protects diligent nations from regulation arbitrages that might chase operations to other waters and other countries. The US is the largest consumer. We can do it and force our will on others.
7. An emphasis to pay claimants should be with large, front end payments followed by extreme actions to adapt local economies to a recovering reality that jobs in seafood will shift and be lost for an extended period of time.
8. If claimants sue, they are going to lose. (I.e., Exxon Valdez.) Bleed the corporation and f*(ck the shareholders if you have to. Other corporations will shutter at the thought of being the next one. Sorry, Great Britain.
9. A moratorium does not help to keep shared oceans safe - it only serves to chase rigs to places like Africa. I know this is controversial, but this problem needs addressing from other directions.
10. The EPA needs to start doing its job. Make the chemical dispersant companies disclose those patented chemical compounds and get medical protocol information to health care facilities. In other words, get your head out of your *&^%$ and start doing your job or you will be the next one to be skewered after the oversight committees are done with the MMS.
Sorry....too much info. I am having an angry day.
Yes TMI and not really a good grounded assesment either.
Seriously think through the consequences of some of the actions you are calling for beyond the first step.
1- Who wold be that 3rd party the soviet....oooops excuse me the US Government? Who else would pay employees without benefitiing from their labor.
2- So we shouldn't gaurantee any loans just fork over money? How about neither.
3-Works great for hurricanes my premiums are really low (SARCASM).
4- What company is going to acquire BP in the climate of fear you suggest? Hint starts with n and ends with e. Does due process ring a bell?
5-compile, matrix, stirctest ... come on Rahm is that you?
6-10 just as baseless as 1-5
My day wasn't as bad hope yours gets better Citizen Anon
Goodnight companero Gimspierre my oil lamp is running low.
This might be a minor impediment to the course you are suggesting, my dear Gimlet.
On second thought, a continuing coterie of "progressive" elected officials and/or Attorneys (a title of nobility also prohibited by our Constitution) have so deposed the illustrious document, it probably doesn't mean much at all.
Or, they have sidestepped the Constitution completely using the powers granted the Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 and extending them outside the District of Columbia, US territories, and military installations. I know that's a lot of Article this, Section that, and Clause so-and-so and it could make your head hurt or make you go poopy, but it's oh so very important.
I checked the Constitution closely and it did not say anything about the federal government taking over private corporations because the president is mad at them.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 17 & 18: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Article iV, Section 3, Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Cato
1. Third party can be contracted employment agency hired by the government (I am no socialist)
2. Who said anything about loans to anyone? I didn't. In fact, I don't believe we should be using the SBA to give loans and guarantee them. WHere did I say that?
3. Public adjustors will work fine with this. There is $75M to draw against. Let's start with that. People are turning in correct records and are not getting anything back. THey have asked for 3 years of tax records and a whole bunch of logs and trip records. I don't know what more they would need. I do feel, however, that they should not be compensated for wages that they would pay to employees. The employees have been fired. Common sense prevails.
4. Actually, there is a Chinese Company that is skulking and also BP has another subsidiary that is into mining, I believe. That's what happens in a free market, right? Didn't BP buy Enron and a few other companies. I think the fisherman are going to get screwed, but if they sue, it will be even worse. I am saying...draw down that $75M in a logical way and get it to the people and tell them to find another industry for now. It's a hard reality.
Cato, your ego gets in the way of your brain.
Cato,
Watch this ... it's very illuminating. This guy lived in Alaska and talks about a 20 year retrospective of what happened in the Exxon Valdez spill incident.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/294042-3
Post a Comment