GOP reaction to the government-created $20 billion BP escrow fund highlights a core conservative/liberal difference. Whom do you mistrust more, a big evil corporation or the big evil feds?
GOP reaction to the government-created $20 billion BP escrow fund highlights a core conservative/liberal difference. Whom do you mistrust more, a big evil corporation or the big evil feds?
I distrust them both equally
I almost felt bad about my wish for a petroleum hurricane to cover the Republican Gulf states this fall, but after listening to Dennis Praeger and a little Rush Limbo, and their callers, I have to say Republicans aren’t just totally useless, brainless and worthless they’re actually bad for America. To hear people defend the rights of an “oppressed” corporation from the “tyranny” of our government.
I don’t know how or why or what happened with that Oil well happened, but I can’t find anyone else to hold accountable who could possibly have more responsibility than the company that is doing it. Estimates say there may be over 100 billion dollars worth of damage when this thing is all done. But the shareholders of BP could be hurt financially? The government should hold BP responsible financially? It’s complete moral bankruptcy within the most prominent spokesholes of the GOP.
Republicans always tout personal responsibility, but when it comes to taking responsibility it seems they’re always there with a finger extended in somebody elses direction.
*Praeger said, “The Government should not hold BP responsible”.
My concern is that $20B will not be enough but that BP will then balk at anything more than that.
Isn’t “Beyond Petroleum” the company that was totally behind cap-and-trade and the rest of the Democrats’ agenda? BP and GE were first among the corporate giants to decide feeding the crocodile was better than fighting back, and for that reason, BP’s reputation was high amonst Dems and libs. Now, like Enron, the Dems want to pretend like things weren’t so cozy after all. Ha!
The reality is, I can drive past the BP station and head to Shell, Exxon, or even Wal-Mart. But unfortunately, I can’t tell the taxman to go take a hike. Evil corporations can only reach true evil status with the help of friends in government. That fact alone should be enough to implicate government as being a far worse evil than corporations.
As for the GOP reaction, the issue boils down to respect for the rule of law. If you set laws and regulations, and BP runs afoul of them, then you punish them based on the laws on the books. But passing laws that punish retroactively, and applying political pressure to corporations with threats and arm-twisting, are two things that should make any law-abiding businessman cringe. Really, who wants to participate in an economy where you are dependent on the good favor and whim of your government overlords? How is that any different than corrupt economies and political systems like Mexico?
The thing is, this is becoming a pattern with this administration. The kind of political pressure demonstrated during the shakedown of GM’s bondholders during the auto bankruptcy crisis was once absolutely unfathomable — and now that kind of behavior is becoming SOP with this administration. It’s truly sickening.
What’s sickening are people who don’t think BP should be held fully responsible and accountable for their mess. What’s sickening is someone who defends irresponsible corporations at the expense of Americans suffering. What’s also sickening are people who pretend not to know that GM would not exist today if the government didn’t intervene to save the company.
What’s wrong with GM not existing? There exists a bankruptcy process precisely to deal with these sorts of messes; Obama stepped in, went against legal precedent, fleeced the bondholders, pumped in billions of taxpayers’ dollars, and handed ownership to the unions. I’d rather have seen GM go bankrupt.
Then again, the only reason GM, Chrysler, and Ford were all on the rocks were due to the incredible lunacy of the CAFE regulations. By forcing the American automakers to pump out money-losing small cars to balance the popularity of their trucks and SUVs, the American auto companies bled red ink all through the previous economic boom, and when the economy went off the cliff in 2008, too much damage was already done.
As for BP, I fully agree with holding them accountable and responsible under the law. The extra-legal arm-twisting and political pressure being foisted on BP today is not a good precedent. Under the Dems, we are fast becoming a banana republic.
AML @ 5 . . . that is so last week 🙂
“My concern is that $20B will not be enough but that BP will then balk at anything more than that.”
Kenneth, they will surely Balk [I’ve tried & failed to concoct a workable Pitcher’s-mound metaphor to insert here ;], but reportedly the
shakedownagreement Omits any kind of Waiver of additional claims, or liability cap beyond which they are held harmless, etc. / Some talkingheads have been wondering aloud exactly what BP got out of this “negotiation.” I’m guessing maybe they got Rahm Emmanuel out of their Shower room but Hey, what do I know about this Big Dealmaking business, I’m just one of the Small people. :}“…applying political pressure to corporations with threats and arm-twisting, are two things that should make any law-abiding businessman cringe.”
True enough, Andrew. And I’d imagine you’d criticize, on similar grounds, JFK’s reported deployment of IRS agents to scrutinize U.S. Steel executives’ tax returns — and FBI gumshoes to investigate their private Peccadilloes! — after USS CEO Roger Blough had (a) personally promised the POTUS that he wouldn’t raise prices and then (b) promptly raised prices? ;> BUT: will you say the same of Harry Truman’s drafting of the striking Coalminers, with orders cut to Mine Coal? And, of Reagan’s mass Firing of the air traffic controllers in order to break the Union? (If Yes, then you’re Cool. 🙂
“Really, who wants to participate in an economy where you are dependent on the good favor and whim of your government overlords?”
Among my best guesses would be, Boeing Co. ;>
“How is that any different than corrupt economies and political systems like Mexico?”
I’m not sure. :}
BUT: will you say the same of Harry Truman’s drafting of the striking Coalminers, with orders cut to Mine Coal? And, of Reagan’s mass Firing of the air traffic controllers in order to break the Union? (If Yes, then you’re Cool. 🙂
I am decidedly uncool then, because I do not feel unions are worth their weight in ball sweat and have an intrinsically negative impact on economic growth. They protect the few at the expense of the many.
I’d almost say “touche” on the other part of your comment, but there’s a fundamental difference between defense contracting and commercial business, and unfortunately, defense contracting is very political (perhaps necessarily, but still, the drag on decision-making, schedule, cost, and execution is palpable).
The real key here is, the government should set rules and stick to them. If the rules don’t work, you go back and improve them. What you don’t do is say, “Screw what the law says — we’re coming after you with our own agenda and you will do what we say.”
They protect the few at the expense of the many.
Whereas management / business interests protect the “many”? HAHAHAHA.
Mind you, I’m not saying business = EEEVIL, but if you’re going to speak in broad sweeping generalities about unions, while employing nuance when it comes to analyzing business interests, that’s a bit inconsistent.
I mean, REALLY, just look at what we were talking about here: the BP escrow fund. The whole reason Obama feels that’s necessary is because, absent government pressure, BP’s management will inevitably try its best “protect the few [shareholders] at the expense of the many [people who have been fucked over by the catastrophe that the company caused].” If your argument was, “it doesn’t matter, this sort of government strong-arming is always wrong, the ends don’t justify the means,” that’d be one thing. But when it comes to UNIONS, you say government strong-arming is just fine and dandy, because unions “protect the few at the expense of the many”?! And this is different from BP how, exactly?!
I don’t think it is inconsistent at all. Businesses generate profit and wealth; unions act as an economic drag on profit and wealth. The better way to reward employees is to give them an ownership stake in the company — not enact an adversarial approach that distracts from business success. And when unions utilize monopoly-like power to directly impede citizens’ day-to-day life (e.g., transit strikes, air traffic controller strikes, etc.), the government has every right and reason to force an end to the strike. The “punishment” is merely that the workers must return to work.
As for BP, they should pay for the cleanup, but otherwise your math is ass backward: There are far many more millions of shareholders dependent on BP profits / dividends than there are people who will be directly affected by the spill in the Gulf. But BP isn’t being asked to merely pay for cleanup and fix the problem. Obama is shaking them down to pay for other companies’ oil workers who can’t go to work because of Obama’s decree to shut down ALL drilling in the Gulf against the direct advice of his experts (oh and by the way, then the administration misconstrued to the public what his experts told him to make it sound like they supported the ban!). I find it laughable that you can equate that kind of outrageous behavior with forcing union workers to go back to their jobs.
Your second paragraph is a far better argument than your first one. It’s a substantive attack on what Obama is doing based on the specifics of the situation. I have no problem with that. But your original statement was FAR broader. You said:
The issue boils down to respect for the rule of law. If you set laws and regulations, and BP runs afoul of them, then you punish them based on the laws on the books. But passing laws that punish retroactively, and applying political pressure to corporations with threats and arm-twisting, are two things that should make any law-abiding businessman cringe.
This comment is not dependent on the specifics of what BP did, or the specifics of why Obama is doing what’s he’s doing. You’re making a much broader pitch: it’s about “respect for the rule of law,” and about preventing the chilling effect of “laws that punish retroactively,” and the application of “political pressure…with threats and arm-twisting.”
My dad then responded with examples of unions havnig their arms twisted in a similar way (or at least, you haven’t argued why it’s NOT a similar way), and your answer was, basically, “Yeah but UNIONS ARE BAD.” Challenged further on that point, you elaborate, in your first paragraph, on WHY you think unions are bad. Which, again, is fine. But because it’s so wrapped up in your own ideological opinion of the world, it’s not actually a defense of your failure to apply your original, supposedly universal, non-ideologicy-dependent opposition to “laws that punish retroactively” and the use of “political pressure…with threats and arm-twisting” to coerce economic actors, to unions as well as corporations. A modified, more accurate version of your original statement would be:
The issue boils down to respect for the laws that I, AMLTrojan, agree with. If you set laws and regulations, and an economic actor runs afoul of them, then you punish them based on the laws on the books, provided I agree with those laws, and/or provided the economic actor is, in my opinion, an economic net positive rather than an economic net negative. But passing laws that punish retroactively, and applying political pressure to economic actors with threats and arm-twisting, are two things that should make any law-abiding businessman cringe — unless the retroactive punishment, political pressure and arm-twisting is being applied to economic actors that I, AMLTrojan, regard as unproductive, in which case it’s fine.
This position might not be “inconsistent,” but it’s certainly not as universally applicable as what you originally seemed to be stating.
Brendan, you seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that the federal government has legal authority to force unions to end strikes and go back to work. That basically makes everything you wrote after “I have no problem with that” a complete waste of everyone’s time.