Slippery Slope to Statism
Big Bucks You Can Believe In!
By now, almost everyone who cares knows that the US President sat down with BP executives and received a commitment to hand over twenty billion dollars towards oil-spill compensation. Also, that there’s no cap on liability and that the criminal investigation of the company will continue. The fund will be run by a Presidential appointee, and the President made it perfectly clear that the $20,000,000,000. fund was only a good-faith payment (in quarterly installments) that does not preclude unlimited liability over indefinite periods of time.
Payment to businesses even remotely-related, and inland from the gulf, would not be beyond consideration. Payment for direct income loss, as well as opportunity-costs for those not immediately affected. Compensation to all victims of the President’s moratorium of new, deep-water drilling. Without time or geographic limits.
Senior management gave their spill testimony to Congress this past week. The standard ritual-evisceration of the demon-ized executives for the benefit of the angry congressional constituents back home. Some other, related items, received less attention. We’ll attend to those, even as we segue into your favorite blog feature, and ours:
FREQUENTLY UNASKED QUESTIONS
- BP was already paying gulf victims, but slowly, as processing the applications was time consuming.
Could the federal government have played a greater role in speeding-up the process? That is, couldn’t a large number of federal employees and volunteers have been marshaled to accelerate a task that a foreign corporation would lack the US resources for?
Wouldn’t that have been a sign of the total government dedication the President promised; and wouldn’t it have further assured the American people that the federal government is, in fact, competent, and should be encouraged to take a prominent role in disaster relief? (Note here a recent report that the Justice Department lawyers say they are totally unprepared to respond – as is their mandate – to a national attack.)
- BP neither explicitly nor implicitly denied liability for the accident or their willingness to pay for all damages. These statements were broadcast repeatedly in interviews with BP executives.
That being so, why were all utterances from the administration based on the unspoken assumption that BP could not be trusted to do what they were already doing (restitution and compensation) and had committed to continue doing?
Why was there an unspoken assumption that one of the world’s largest corporations wouldn’t be able to meet that financial obligation?
If the facts of the accident were still being determined, a process expected to last a great while longer, why would our Department of Justice announce the beginning of a criminal investigation against the very people they were relying on to stop the spill and contain the damage?
If it’s true that BP is a large campaign contributor to the President and other Democrats, and if it’s further true that BP was completely on board with the proposed Cap & Trade plan and the switch to renewables, isn’t it odd that they would be pilloried and forced to turn over their shareholders’ dividends, in effect, to a foreign government – us – for discretionary use?
And why would that be done with absolutely no concession other than a statement that the Administration didn’t believe BP should be put out of business?
- Back to the President. He belatedly said he was taking charge and, then, after floundering a while longer, discovered his only response could be lots of meetings and speeches, blaming Bush (required) and suing somebody (he’s a lawyer). Since this accident was unprecedented, no federal employee could possibly have the experience to cope with it, so the Administration was reduced to watching helplessly as the people who make a living drilling oil tried their best to solve the problem.
Hence, his Oval Office speech. Reassure, threaten, cajole; everyone was disappointed, and it was widely interpreted by the press as a place-holder of a speech with only symbolic significance. Not so. He set the stage for the extortion of the $20,000,000,000. from BP.
- The Economist magazine, a British publication, is upset enough with this extortive behavior to label him Vladimir Obama. Makes me look shy and reticent.
The Bully Pulpit in Action
- This brings us to the widely-reported congressional hearing in which Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas apologized to the BP CEO for what he termed the “shakedown” of his corporation. This was widely regarded as a gaffe, even by other Republicans, who hastened to apologize for his conduct. He even apologized later, himself. He shouldn’t have; and other Republicans are ass-covering cowards for not backing him.
He just expressed something poorly that he made clear was not a defense of BP, but of principle. He said BP was at fault and restitution should continue to be made; but the “shakedown’” was not a reasonable way to do it. (It abuses our allies, undermines our laws, and soils our image as principled world leaders.) In other words, though poorly expressed, it was a principled stand for American rule of law, not a defense of BP.
- Political analyst Charles Krauthammer, appearing on the dreaded and thoroughly discredited Fox News show hosted by Bret Baier, said the statement was the worst political statement of the year, and declared the contest for that honor over. He then went on to say that the congressman had mistated his own case, inadvertently failing to point out that extorting large sums of money from public corporations, ala Henry Paulson and the money-center banks was an extra-legal maneuver that should not be encouraged.
If this is approximately correct, are we allowing the anger of the American public to stampede us into supporting authoritarian behavior that puts us on a slippery slope to rule by angry mobs impatient with the principles of law that have provided Western Civilization in general, and the United States, in particular, with true “social justice?”
Is that the kind of leadership we really want?
Isn’t having the patience to let our system work – in order to preserve it – worth the doubt and aggravation?
Finally, do we still have enough informed, serious citizens who will place principle above passion, in order to preserve the Republic?
A Cincinnatus, a Man of Principle – Read His Story
