America in the Balance
President Obama -- or was it David Axelrod? -- decreed that British Petroleum pay $20 billion into an account managed directly by the President through a political appointee. BP "voluntarily" agreed. Sadly, not much imagination is required these days to envision Hugo Chavez del Norte from firing the board, reducing management salaries, or otherwise kicking more props out from under the rule of law in our evanescing constitutional republic.
So along comes Representative John Barton, the one congressman with the temerity to point out the illegal nature of this shakedown – inarticulately, to be sure: he should have apologized to the American people, not to BP – and he comes under attack from, well, from everybody.
GOP leaders summoned Barton to the Capitol and demanded he apologize in specific terms. The leaders threatened to launch a process to strip Barton of his seniority on the powerful panel, a particularly painful threat to any long-term lawmaker, according to two knowledgeable Republican officials who demanded anonymity so they could speak freely about private meetings.
Rob, it looks like the Republicans have already started to “fritter away” their big mid-term election opportunity.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
May '10
Re: America in the Balance
Principle: Never apologize for telling the truth....even if it is inarticulate.
Jun '10
Re: America in the Balance
Everybody loves it when the Godfather, the Don, goes after the guy that everybody hates, and makes him dig deep in his pockets. Sometimes that guy is happy too--happy to leave under his own power. But next time, in another situation, the guy may be just some guy that the Godfather doesn't like. What then?
Jun '10
Re: America in the Balance
So, a congressman who (wisely or unwisely) calls out the shakedown perpetrated by this administration is in turn the object of a Republican shakedown, by those who fear the predictable media firestorm. What else to make of the threat of losing his post? "Apologize, or else." And the congressman caved. The use of threats and/or the shakedown is not a sign of strength. It is quite the opposite. I believe this was an unnecessary hyper-reaction by House Republican leadership.
May '10
Re: America in the Balance
If you're following this controversy, I recommend reading the analysis offered by both Reihan Salam and Daniel Larison. Weirdly, I find them both persuasive.
Jun '10
Re: America in the Balance
So President Barak Hussein Obama forced BP into a 20billion dollar fund. Now Ladies and Genttlemen: Who is going to pay for the 20billion? I will bet my dollar that it will be Joe Public. Note: The theme of the liberals: Tax the rich, Tax the corporations, who has always paid these taxes you and me the consumer. It is very easy to pony up 2obillion when you hold a product that every one needs and its price is set by supply and demand. Let us be democrats socialists and spread the cost around to Joe Taxpayer. Obama has no clue on how to handle a crisis and here I am to foot the bill for it.
Cheers! my fellow Americans!
Sergio Manancero
Jun '10
Re: America in the Balance
John Barton should of course be silenced in today's New America since we know that no Democrat or Liberal has ever said anything inarticulate.
Problem is, if you ask 'the man on the street' this simple question: True or false, the President of the US is elected to run the country? Far too many people would answer: true. In fact the answer is false. The President is elected to run the government - more precisely the federal government - as proscribed by the legislature, within the restrictions of The Constitution.
I think what Representative Barton was trying to say (I don't want to put word in the Representatives mouth, so if wrong I apologize) is we now have a President of the United States that would answer the above question in the affirmative. And, he would continue to act as if it were true even if it were pointed out why the answer should be false.
Jun '10
Re: America in the Balance
Two other thoughts:
1. Is the $20B fund available to those workers who have been idled by the direct actions of government (the drilling moratorium), an indirect (and possibly unnecessary) response to the spill? In other words, is the government going to force private industry to pay for the actions and decisions of government? (I think the answer to the latter is obvious).
2. It seems to me the proper place for claims is in court. If BP elects to be proactive in this area, fine, but there are already legal options in place for reparations. A government that can lean so heavily on a single corporation to extract such financial concessions sets a precedent allowing it to do the same to any business at any time. And in BP's case, the Justice Department isn't even done with them yet.
The politics of the shakedown is an old game. It is now just being played out in the open.
May '10
Re: America in the Balance
I'm surprised that everyone thinks this is so clear cut, especially when the details of the "shakedown" haven't yet emerged. I can imagine scenarios that would make me very uncomfortable, and others that wouldn't bother me very much.
And I must say, as a critic of excessive executive power, that while I sympathize with Obama's critics here -- like I said, there are possible scenarios that would make me very uncomfortable -- I find it pretty weird that this is the exercise of executive power that is causing such an uproar.
Look, Obama claims he can declare any American citizen an enemy combatant without any judicial oversight, and that he can assassinate American citizens abroad even if they haven't been convicted of anything! That seems like a stunning assertion of executive, extra-Constitutional power to me, far more troubling than exerting pressure to set up a BP trust fund.
But I'm in the minority on this one. So help me out. If you're troubled by this BP thing, and not by executive power that (ostensibly) relates to national security... why?
Jun '10
Re: America in the Balance
Conor - I'll allow the term "alleged" should be used with "shakedown," although I would argue that the characterization of how the BP fund came about is being played as such by the media, albeit positively ("look at the President, he got tough with BP and got them to pony up. What a guy!") I'll also allow that this example of excessive executive power doesn't bother me as much as those you suggested.
What bothers me is the government's pattern of picking winners and losers. The BP claims fund was demanded and set aside before a legal finding of fault. Yes, BP acknowledges responsibility, and that may yet be binding in court. But is BP the only entity at fault? We don't know. The government has already decided the loser in this, and the oil still flows.
This administration made it clear early their intention to throw the book at BP, threatening criminal investigation before attempting to address the real crisis. The government has the power to bring a multinational to its knees, without ever going to court. Left unrestrained, it sets a precedent that leaves no business or private industry safe. That, to me, is an abuse of power.
Jun '10
Re: America in the Balance
I totally agree with Conor. Obama did a great thing. Who cares about BP? 20 billion, so what? They are just another crony capitalist corporation run by a bunch of leftist Europeans with their lips pursed up against the Democrats backside. BP has spent hundreds of millions in ad dollars promoting themselves as global good guys developing other than nasty carbon based energy. Aren't we all convinced yet that they aren't a dirty oil company? Obama got them to ante up. Good on him. But wait, did they really pay 20b or is this a multi year pay out? Where is the money going? Where is the money coming from? Who's going to control the money? Lots of questions, blurry details. No dividends to their shareholders, 40% Americans, 40% British. How much will BP save by not paying dividends to the "small people" who rely on the money for their livelyhoods? Obama is my hero. He is really givin' it to BP. One small problem, our CEO has forgotten that all that oil is still polluting the gulf and he is doing a terrible job of rounding it up, but that is hard, sweaty not very cool work. Oh well..
May '10
Re: America in the Balance
Cdor,
You've imputed to me things I did not say and beliefs I do not hold. If we're going to disagree, let's at least debate what actually separates our viewpoints.
Jim Chase,
If the government has decided a loser in this I agree with your analysis. What I suspect, however, is that they've decided on a loser as a matter of rhetoric, bowing to the optics and the probably though not definitely correct public perception that BP is at fault, but without actually making BP a legal loser. I'd also note that if BP concedes fault without coercion -- a big if, I know -- then I don't see why legal proceedings should have to precede payouts.
I also submit that the way to restrain government is with checks and balances, and that an executive as powerful as the one that Professor Yoo envisions is inevitably insufficiently checked and balanced by the other branches -- at first during national security emergencies, and then during other serious emergencies, for The Cult of the Presidency, as Gene Healy terms it, gradually transforms our expectations of the president, and the latitude we permit him.
Jun '10
Re: America in the Balance
Conor..."That seems like a stunning assertion of executive, extra-Constitutional power to me, far more troubling than exerting pressure to set up a BP trust fund."
cdor..."I totally agree with Conor. Obama did a great thing. Who cares about BP?"
I was kind of exaggerating when I said Obama did a great thing, and I sure wouldn't want to impute on you. Considering the eleven dead and many injured, as well as the loss of property and livelyhood, wouldn't it be better for the POTUS to avoid declaring absolute blame in advance? My questions above concerned whether or not BP even did anything substantial, moneywise, in the first place. How much is it really going to cost them to set up this trust fund? Is this whole activity just a shell game to take the heat off Obama's terribly ineffective response to containing and extracting the spilled oil?
Accidents happen, terrible accidents happen, and this is a terrible accident. For a President to apply moral heat on a corporation to take financial responsibilty for a terrible accident, does not seem illegal. Other actions, during the auto takeover and in the counter terror operations, do seem illegal.
Re: America in the Balance
Conor Friedersdorf writes, "I'd also note that if BP concedes fault without coercion -- a big if, I know -- then I don't see why legal proceedings should have to precede payouts." My understanding is that BP was already making payments prior to the President's demand. Legal action was not a requirement, though disgruntled claimants had the option to sue, providing an incentive for BP to write checks expeditiously.
The President's pressure transferred the payout process from the realm of tort law to politics. Obama now controls where the $20 billion will go and at what pace, effectively appropriating funds from BP, administering their disbursement, and no doubt adjudicating disputes. A glance at the domestic auto industry reveals that this president does not shrink from rewarding his political allies and punishing his enemies. Is it a wise practice for the executive of our constitutional republic to be seen as appropriating funds on his own initiative directly from private entities?
Jun '10
Re: America in the Balance
I agree, the use of C&Bs is one way to restrain government. Another is at the ballot box. Over the past decade, Congress has all but abdicated their oversight responsibilities, and rarely C&Bs the executive/bureaucracy. I see this as due less to the Cult of the Presidency (the national security push of Bush's years, the hope & change of Obama), than to one of two factors: 1) Common ideologies; 2) Fear of populist moods/polls (few dared question anything in days after 9/11). C&B is not used according to principle, but rather for short-term political advantage - including "optics."
Decision-making based solely on optics is as bad as that based on pure ideology. Although, if the President was truly worried about "optics," I would think he'd play a little less golf.
May '10
Re: America in the Balance
This is an excellent point.