swimming freestyle

BP $20B escrow account vs. the 'rule of law'

Yesterday, conservative columnist George Will appeared on "This Week" and fretted about the $20B escrow account set up by BP to compensate those effected by the (BP caused) Gulf oil spill.  Full transcript is here.  Mr. Will's comment:

"Look, there is no defense of BP which has an execrable safety record in this country, from the refinery disaster in Texas in '05, the Morris Slope leak in '06, all of that and so no apology from BP. But if you don't want to live in a Northern Hemisphere Venezuela, you ought to be a little queasy about the fact that a president, any president of any party, using raw political power, without recourse to courts that exist for this sort of thing, under laws, with due process, essentially confiscates $20 billion from a publicly held corporation, about half of its shares held by Americans, to be dispensed, again, with out judicial supervision, as the political branch sees fit. That is worrisome."

Rep. Joe Barton's charge that the escrow account amounted to a "shakedown" failed miserably.  This new GOP offensive - that this escrow account disregards "the rule of law" - is the charge du jour against the Obama Administration's handling of the Gulf oil spill.

Since the Exxon Valdez spill seems to be the precedent by which oil spills are now measured, maybe there's some value in looking how that worked out in terms of compensating those who were most effected by that spill.

Keep in mind the Valdez accident occurred in March, 1989.

The fight over the punitive damages reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999. Since then, Exxon filed more than 60 petitions and appeals, sought 23 time extensions and filed more than 1,000 motions, briefs, requests and demands. The company requested a reduction in the damages amount, a reversal of the verdict and a new trial, claiming jury misconduct and jury tampering, according to Rodgers.

More than 3,000 claimants died waiting for an outcome in the case. (Link)

The first trial ended five years after the accident and ordered Exxon to pay $5B in damages to fisherman, Alaska natives, local businesses and others.  A federal appeals court later reduced those damages to $2.5B and In 2008, nineteen years after the accident, the Supreme Court reduced Exxon's punitive damages to $507M.

The GOP's new concern for the rule of law, after years of not giving a shit about the rule of law, is good news.  But the court's track record for being an expeditious way to address litigant's financial claims, at least based on the Exxon Valdez case, is pretty lousy. 

I seriously doubt there are a whole lot of Gulf fisherman, hotel workers and local businesses who are concerned, like George Will, about circumventing a judicial system that takes nineteen years to provides damages to folks who need the money immediately. 

Rep. Joe Barton's in trouble. But what about all the others that agree with him?

Rep. Joe Barton committed a cardinal sin for politicians yesterday; he said what he really thought.  Barton, during opening statements before BP's Tony Hayward testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, apologized to BP for the Obama Administration's audacity at demanding BP put into escrow $20B to take care of all the anticipated claims sure to come from the oil company's negligence in the Gulf. 

Most folks, and certainly most career politicians have enough sense to self-censor.  Those that can't usually realize when they've said something really, really stupid and clumsily try to recover - "I didn't mean that", "I misspoke" or, more commonly, "You misinterpreted what I said".

Barton apparently falls into the even smaller group that's so out of touch with the mainstream they have no idea when they say something stupid, offensive and grossly tone deaf.  He may end up paying for it.  

Two House Republicans, Reps. Jo Bonner and Jeff Miller, have called for Barton to step down as ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. From Bonner's statement:

I believe the damage of his comments are beyond repair and, as such, I am today calling on Joe to do the right thing for our conference and immediately step aside as Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee," 

Barton may well wind up the GOP's sacrificial lamb here.  But as he gets slaughtered, the question remains as to how many more Republican politicians think exactly as Barton does - that BP's fortunes are way more important than Gulf coast residents - but have the good sense not to say it out loud on national television.

Andrew Sullivan posted a compilation video of conservative pundits defending Barton's position. 

Granted, these guys get paid to say provocative things.  But it's a reasonable bet that, if these influential conservative pundits all think providing for Americans whose lives are now fucked as a result of BP's negligence amounts to a "shakedown" (classic use of a word to label the president as some kind of inner city  gangster), there are a big bunch of Republican representatives and senators that think exactly the same. 

It's ALL about jobs

One need look no further than the new National Journal poll for a Democratic Party winning strategy for near term electoral success. 

What's the bigger problem for Democrats right now, high unemployment or government spending? 

                                          High Unemployment      Government Spending

Democrats (99 votes)                      91%                                  7%

Republicans (97 votes)                    54%                                 28%

Add this piece of evidence from a new Gallup poll:

 

There are a couple things striking about the Gallup poll.  One is that the top three items are liberal policy options in what's supposed to be a Republican resurgence.  You know that old expression about there being no atheists in a foxhole?  Maybe there's no such thing as conservatives in a killer recession.

The other thing about the Gallup poll; deficit and debt don't make it into the top four, meaning support for addressing them falls below 50% support.  The message is pretty clear; push come to shove, Americans want job creation.  Don't worry about the debt now.  CREATE JOBS.

The logical place to dump stimulus money to effect employment is into the states, nearly all of which are now suffering from lost tax revenue and making deep cost cuts (i.e., services and employees).

Tyler Cowen makes one suggestion:

The real fiscal problem is spending contraction at the state level (expanding and contracting spending are not symmetric in their effects; contracting spend hurts more than expanding spending helps). The correct fiscal policy move would have been, and still is, to take Medicaid away from the states and make it fully federal. This would give state budgets a huge break, and help employment, yet as a one-time change it reduces the moral hazard problems from ongoing outright grants. Furthermore federalizing Medicaid is a good idea in its own right and it also could be a spur to make other improvements in the program.

This isn't rocket science; get employment back to acceptable levels and electoral success is guaranteed.

Sharron Angle following the GOP playbook

The Republican Party's approach to granting media access to their most wingnut candidates is simple; don't.  It worked for Sarah Palin.  It became the campaign rule following Kentucky Senatorial candidate Rand Paul's implosion.  And now Nevada's Senate candidate, Sharron Angle, talks only to "friendly" media like right wing talk radio and Fox News.

Yesterday, a local Nevada television reporter cornered Angle:

For being relatively new to Republican politics, Ms. Angle certainly has the GOP playbook down:  Avoid any unfriendly or impartial media and when confronted with some crazy position (e.g., Palin's "I love AND hate the Bridge to Nowhere", Paul's "I'm OK with racism" and Angle's "My ideology is more important than the elderly") the GOP standard operating procedure is to cast the question as a "gotcha" attempt by biased media and avoid answering.

It really says a whole lot more about the media and voters willingness to accept their candidates refusal to admit their positions than it does the candidate's strategy itself.  After all, the strategy seems to work.

Give me the best case and the worst case cost of the spill

In a more sane world, some busted oil well spewing some 60,000 barrels a day of noxious crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico off the coastlines of Louisiana and Mississippi would mean everyone...and I mean everyone would want to stand in the line to get a turn kicking the responsible parties in the ass. 

That there are some Reps. Joe Barton and Michele Bachmann who are apparently more concerned about whether BP executives will be getting their Christmas bonuses than they are about the millions of folks who rely on the Gulf for their livelihood is mindboggling.

But if there's anything at all good that could come out of this mess it's a national consensus on one, making sure no drilling ever occurs again in locales where accidents can't be immediately remedied and two, beginning a full fledged commitment to eliminate carbon based energy sources.

But it seems that, even with the Gulf fouled beyond our imaginations, we're a long ways from that consensus.

One thing that's been missing from the coverage of the Gulf spill is scale.  Yeah, we know BP has spent something close to a billion dollars at this point, but what about the rest of the costs, both in terms of the economy and the ecology?  What will it mean to the Gulf coast (and other effected areas) if the well is finally plugged at the end of August?  How many fisherman, resort hotel workers and oil rig workers will be out of work?   Add their families to the list of effected, not to mention the folks that work at the grocery stores where they shop and the McDonald's where they sometimes have lunch.  How much lost tax revenue will there be as a result of people losing their jobs or working fewer hours? 

What does it mean if half the shrimp fisheries of the Gulf are poisoned?  What if all the Gulf is so polluted that the shrimp, oysters and fishing areas are off limits for years?  How much is that worth?  What happens to all the other marine life in the area?

What happens when the hurricane season begins and the storms spew oil inland.  How many are effected then, either by their businesses closing or their crops being destroyed?

Now what happens if the well isn't repaired in late August?  Do they just give up and wait for that well to eventually empty?  How much oil is there?  How long would it spill?  What would that mean?

I have a feeling the costs of both scenarios are unimaginable.  I have a feeling there would be a whole lot more consensus if we knew those costs.

Health care reform gaining popularity

A new AP/GfK poll shows public support for the recently passed health care reform is growing.  While the gap between supporters and those opposed is still fairly small, there's been a significant swing towards support for the bill.

Opposition to the overhaul increased after Congress passed it in March. And last month, supporters were outnumbered 39 percent to 46 percent. But the latest survey found the strongest backing for the health care plan since the AP-GfK poll began asking in September. 

"I thought when people began to realize what was in the health care package that they would see it's a good, solid program and that would dispel some of the misinformation," said Claudia Harris, 72, of Orem, Utah, an English professor at Brigham Young University. Electrical contractor Kerry Eisley of Moscow, Pa., said he thinks people are starting to get nuts-and-bolts information on how the legislation affects them.

"If we can insure more people across the United States and get the cost of health care down, I think that's a better thing," said Eisley, 43, a Republican who supports the health care plan, though not a single GOP lawmaker voted for it. (Link)

The shift was predicted.  And there's a lesson here for additional reforms.  Sadly, it seems the public is vulnerable to mischaracterizations and forms an initial impression that's present throughout the debate.  Over time, those deliberate mischaracterizations are replaced by real information and the public shift occurs. 

It must make things really difficult in the process of legislate reform though.  Imagine having to stand up before a crowd of pissed off, misinformed constituents and have them boorishly sound off about what a piece of crap politician they have representing them. 

How much oil is leaking?

A nice graphic from TPM of the evolving estimates of oil leaking from the BP oil spill.

Obama to Hayward: 'I drink your milkshake'

My fantasy of Barack Obama's and BP's Tony Hayward meeting this morning.

I'm gonna have to stick up for Sarah Palin here

I really can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm writing a post that is (kinda) supportive of Sarah Palin.

Bill O'Reilly had the former half term governor on his show last night following President Obama's address on the Gulf oil spill.  A number of folks are writing about Palin's assertion the Obama Administration should be more ready to accept foreign assistance.  Sparing you most of the blabbering, incomprehensible Palinese, go to the 5:00 mark to reach the excerpt:

Now, I agree that Palin recalling the Dutch boy's finger in the dike fairy tale and calling that evidence the Dutch know how to fix mile deep oil leaks is wildly funny.  She's also incorrect that the Dutch and Norwegians hadn't received a call back, but she is correct that the Obama Administration refused the initial Dutch and Norwegian offers to help.

The Obama administration declined the Dutch offer partly because of the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from certain activities in U.S. waters. During the Hurricane Katrina crisis five years ago, the Bush administration waived the Jones Act in order to facilitate some foreign assistance, but such a waiver was not given in this case.

The Dutch also offered assistance with building sand berms (barriers) along the coast of Louisiana to protect sensitive marshlands, but that offer was also rejected, even though Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had been requesting such protective barriers.

I know some have excused the Obama Administration's handling of the spill because their hands are tied by the Jones Act and provisions of the 1990 Oil Pollution Act passed after the Exxon Valdez accident that requires the offending oil company to clean up its own mess.

I believe in playing by the book but, in this case, it seems like there was absolutely no downside to allowing foreign help.  All the help we could get.  Clearly.

The Obama speech and missed opportunities

First, to those that questioned why Barack Obama would speak from the Oval Office, a stage historically used for the most grave situations; what the hell do you think is going on down in the Gulf?  Crude oil is spewing into the Gulf at a rate of 60,000 barrels a day and, best case, it won't end for another two and a half months.  An area where the three largest industries are fisheries, oil and tourism and where millions of people once relied on what's now a big, putrid black soup for their livelihoods.

The transcript of the president's speech is here.  The video is here.   There's plenty of good analysis available from Kevin Drum, Jonathan Chait, and Ezra Klein, and James Fallows. 

There's only two things I would add to their comments.  Towards the end of the president's speech, he said:

The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet... time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is the capacity to shape our destiny -– our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don’t yet know precisely how we’re going to get there. We know we’ll get there.

It’s a faith in the future that sustains us as a people.

Damn, I really want to believe that, but find it increasingly difficult.  I believe it was once true, but now I'm not so sure - the notion that, as a country, we can tackle the most difficult objectives.  And, if Barack Obama really believes that, why didn't he make the specific commitments required to finally address oil dependence and climate change?  I'd love to be wrong about this, but more and more I feel like the ability to accomplish the big tasks may now be beyond our reach.

Finally, I'm good with prayer.  But prayer as a substitute for policy will not get the Gulf clean, allow the millions effected to find support for themselves and their families, and set in motion the kind of things required to assure this never happens again.