John Boehner Wants You to Bail Out BP

[Unabogie]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...rs--should-help-pay-for-oil-spill.php?ref=fpa

"I think the people responsible in the oil spill--BP and the federal government--should take full responsibility for what's happening there," Boehner said at his weekly press conference this morning.



On Friday, Donohue made clear that he opposes efforts to stick BP, a member of the Chamber, with the bill. "It is generally not the practice of this country to change the laws after the game," he said. "Everybody is going to contribute to this clean up. We are all going to have to do it. We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies and we will figure out a way to do that."


So I asked Boehner, "do you agree with Tom Donohue of the Chamber that the government and taxpayers should pitch in to clean up the oil spill?" The shorter answer is "yes".

I thought Teabaggers hate bailouts?

What say you, my Tea-Toting friends?

 

[headscratcher4]

He is no teabagger...he's a chamber of commerce Republican...(that's the Chamber's position regarding the clean-up), and he's been trying to walk it back all morning...staff claims he didn't understand the question. Very credible.

 

[Unabogie]

He is no teabagger...he's a chamber of commerce Republican...(that's the Chamber's position regarding the clean-up), and he's been trying to walk it back all morning...staff claims he didn't understand the question. Very credible.

I'm really talking about all the Teabaggers who spent the last year screaming about bailouts while supporting Republicans. Here is the head Republican saying that we should all help BP out with a bailout.

I'm just hoping for some consistency (and maybe some screaming town halls in Ohio).

Somehow, I'm predicting we won't see that.

 

[Unabogie]

"Boehner made a general statement about who is responsible for the spill, and the federal government oversight was clearly lacking, but he has said repeatedly that BP is responsible for the cost of the cleanup."

Missed this. I see what you mean. Yes, he's walking it back. Let's see if it stays back.

 

[Unabogie]

It's walking forwards again...

No one disagrees that BP is on the line for the clean up. And the numbers tossed around for that job are in the billion or two billion range. The question is whether they have the liability for the damage. Under current law, their liability for the damages are capped at $75 million, in other words, virtually nothing compared to the true scale of the liability. That cap could be thrown out if BP is found to have acted with gross negligence or violation or certain federal regulations. But let's set that aside for the moment. The question is who's going to pick up the tab for everything else? BP or the federal government with some sort of massive rescue bill?


There's a move afoot to raise or get rid of the cap altogether. BP and the Chamber of Commerce is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that. That's what Tom Donohue was talking about last week. And that's what our reporter asked Boehner about today. Boehner's office is now saying he misunderstood the question and they're sending quotes around to reporters with Boehner saying he thinks the government shouldn't pay for the clean up. But no one ever said the government would pay for the clean up. It's who pays the really big money -- the damages. So we've asked repeatedly whether Boehner agrees or disagrees with Donohue about BP having to pay damages. They refuse to answer the question. And there's your answer.



BP doesn't pay. So either the Gulf Coast collapses or the taxpayers bail everyone out.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It's walking forwards again...

What a bastard, quoting the law and stuff. To hell with that, make BP pay everything and then line them up against a wall and shoot them. Rule of law be damned!

 

[Unabogie]

What a bastard, quoting the law and stuff. To hell with that, make BP pay everything and then line them up against a wall and shoot them. Rule of law be damned!

The law can be changed. That's what this is about. Changing the law. You support BP getting away with not paying for the damage they caused?

 

[thaiboxerken]

If it was a Republican President doing this, Newton wouldn't care.

 

[johnny karate]

What a bastard, quoting the law and stuff. To hell with that, make BP pay everything and then line them up against a wall and shoot them. Rule of law be damned!

Here's my tip to any corporations worried about the "unfairness" of retroactive punitive law-making: Don't completely rape the environment out of greed and incompetence, and you probably won't have to worry about it.

 

[Aoidoi]

Here's my tip to any corporations worried about the "unfairness" of retroactive punitive law-making: Don't completely rape the environment out of greed and incompetence, and you probably won't have to worry about it.

What if I only mostly rape the environment out of greed and incompetence?

 

[leftysergeant]

I would suggest to those congress critters working on the repeal of the cap that, to avoid a court challenge on the basis of its being an ex post facto bill of attainder against Big Pollution, the wording should include: "in as much as a cap on liability infringes upon the rights of injured parties to petition the government for redress of a grievance, to the benefit of wealthy parties, no such cap may be considered permissible under the Constitution of the United States of America."

 

[dudalb]

He is no teabagger...he's a chamber of commerce Republican...(that's the Chamber's position regarding the clean-up), and he's been trying to walk it back all morning...staff claims he didn't understand the question. Very credible.

Agreed. Teabaggers and the Chamber of Commerce Republicans don't like each other very much. The CoC Republicans are very much sell outs to the "Establishment" to Tea Baggers. That Tea Baggers are going after GOPers who voted the for the Bank Bail out in 2008(which BIg Business loved)(and have gotten a couple of them, including the incumbent senator from Utah shows the bad blood between them.
Unabogie accepts the theory that the whole Tea Party movement is funded by corporate interests,and since admitting the bad blood between the Tea Baggers and the GOP establishment undermines that theory,Unabogie just dodges it or claims the feud is all for show.

 

[leftysergeant]

What a bastard, quoting the law and stuff. To hell with that, make BP pay everything and then line them up against a wall and shoot them. Rule of law be damned!

Nah! Let the board of directors and their accomplices within the government stand trial for murder first. (Theory of depraved indifference, plus conspiracy to corrupt government officials as an aggravating factor.)

(Yes, that would include the Shrub and his nosferatu VP.)

 

[Newtons Bit]

The law can be changed. That's what this is about. Changing the law. You support BP getting away with not paying for the damage they caused?

I don't like ex-post-facto laws. And neither does the Constitution. Changing something that is just liability and not punitive MIGHT (probably?) pass a Supreme Court challenge. But, as I said, I don't like ex-post-facto laws.

And, just in case you thought your strawman was totally great: I support changing the law for future acts. Not for past ones.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Nah! Let the board of directors and their accomplices within the government stand trial for murder first. (Theory of depraved indifference, plus conspiracy to corrupt government officials as an aggravating factor.)

(Yes, that would include the Shrub and his nosferatu VP.)

What about the previous head of the MMS and the person who appointed, and later fired, her?

 

[johnny karate]

What if I only mostly rape the environment out of greed and incompetence?

You're good.

 

[Unabogie]

Unabogie accepts the theory that the whole Tea Party movement is funded by corporate interests,and since admitting the bad blood between the Tea Baggers and the GOP establishment undermines that theory,Unabogie just dodges it or claims the feud is all for show.

It's not a theory, it's a fact. Those town hall events were funded and organized by Freedom Works. They promoted the hell out of them with the help of Fox News. They physically bused people to the rallies. And this year, with no corporately funded rallies, there are no screaming people descending on their congressmen.

Now, I'll admit to having a little fun with calling people Teabaggers. And I will also admit that the GOP may have created a monster that's getting harder and harder for them to control. But really, wake me up when the Teabaggers start voting Democratic and protesting the GOP for their latest bailout. Or protesting Wall Street. Or doing anything that isn't simply a rebrand of the Palin rallies from 2008.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't like ex-post-facto laws. And neither does the Constitution. Changing something that is just liability and not punitive MIGHT (probably?) pass a Supreme Court challenge. But, as I said, I don't like ex-post-facto laws.

And, just in case you thought your strawman was totally great: I support changing the law for future acts. Not for past ones.

Great. I think we're pretty much in agreement here. But take a look at what the GOP did today on this very issue:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/more_detail.php?ref=fpblg

They've asked unanimous consent to pass that bill at least four times, and each time the Republicans have blocked it (May 13, 18 & 25, then again on June 8). Murkowski and Inhofe have objected. Senators Vitter and Sessions have introduced legislation that would raise the cap on damages to four times the last quarter's profits or $150M, whichever is greater. So, in this case, $20B (assuming BP's 1Q10 profits were $5B). Dems aren't biting. Vitter also tried to lock in a solution specific to this spill, again without Democratic support.

It seems as though the Dems are more in line with what you are advocating: removing liability limits on future lawsuits. Vitter is actually the one who is trying to do something much more likely to be ruled unconstitutional. Almost a bill of attainder, right?

Anyway, it's pretty clear that the Democrats are trying to remove caps and Republicans are running interference on that. I don't think it's a post-facto issue for them, do you?

 

[leftysergeant]

What about the previous head of the MMS and the person who appointed, and later fired, her?

Birnbaum? She got what she had coming, because she did not make any effort to clear out the dirt balls that the Shrub stuck in there. It is to Salazar's credit that she was shown the door because of her failure.

Who did the Shrub ever fire for being incompetant?

 

[shadron]

Concerning the cap, might it have made BP a little more amenable to spending the half million per well for the safety equipment they nixed if the stakes had been a little higher than $75 million? How about the other oil companies (since BP seems to be unusually obtuse to safety concerns)? It is understood, of course, that we'd eventually pay that at the pump.

As for the theory that BP wants the well to keep leaking, conspiracy theories are everywhere, and that's a damned fine one.