GOP Blocks Oil Spill Liability Bill

[Cheezy the Wiz]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005333-503544.html

Republicans for the second time blocked legislation that would increase oil companies' liability for oil spill damages, setting off criticism from Democrats seeking to make BP pay for the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) on Tuesday blocked a bill Democrats have put forward to raise the liability cap from $75 million to $10 billion. He said on the Senate floor he agrees the cap should be raised, but the Senate should "wait and see where the cap should be."

"If you have it too high you are going to be singling out BP and the other four largest majors and the nationalized companies, such as China and Venezuela, and shutting out the independent producers," he said.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) blocked the legislation last week.

President Obama released a statement saying he is disappointed by the Republicans' objections.

"This maneuver threatens to leave taxpayers, rather than the oil companies, on the hook for future disasters like the BP oil spill," he said. "I urge the Senate Republicans to stop playing special interest politics and join in a bipartisan effort to protect taxpayers and demand accountability from the oil companies."

Roll Call reports that Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), one of the sponsors of the legislation, reportedly asked, "This is really about whose side do you stand on? Do you stand up with the taxpayers or with multibillion-dollar oil companies?"

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), another co-sponsor, similarly derided the GOP.

"What we're watching here is a sham," Lautenberg said, Politico reports. "We see our friends on the other side--correct that, the people on the other side... not friendly in this case, [and we want them] to stand up and say, 'Yeah. You did it? Pay for it.'"

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday that a $10 billion cap is inadequate.

No, the GOP isn't the party of Big Business, of course not. They take the side of the little man, and always stand up for the Average Joe. They believe in accountability and the right of people to suffer the effects of their own stupidity and negligence.

 

[Merkinball]

"If you have it too high you are going to be singling out BP and the other four largest majors and the nationalized companies, such as China and Venezuela, and shutting out the independent producers," he said. - Article

No, the GOP isn't the party of Big Business, of course not. They take the side of the little man - Cheezy

Seriously? The worst thing we can do right now is over react to an accident.

They believe in accountability and the right of people to suffer the effects of their own stupidity and negligence. - Cheezy

I haven't seen much evidence that anybody has been negligent of anything here.

 

[Jabarto]

"If you have it too high you are going to be singling out BP and the other four largest majors and the nationalized companies, such as China and Venezuela, and shutting out the independent producers,"

Ah yes, the time-honored Republican tradition of claiming that placing checks on big business will actually hurt small ones.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Seriously? The worst thing we can do right now is over react to an accident.

It would be literally impossible to over-react to this. At least in the way that they are proposing.

I haven't seen much evidence that anybody has been negligent of anything here.

I'm thinking of something, and it gets ~50,000 barrels larger every day.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I haven't seen much evidence that anybody has been negligent of anything here.

http://us.hadnews.com/oil-spill-blame-game-over-60-minutes-uncovers-severe-bp-negligence-led-to-explosion-video.htm

 

[The Imp]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005333-503544.html



No, the GOP isn't the party of Big Business, of course not. They take the side of the little man, and always stand up for the Average Joe. They believe in accountability and the right of people to suffer the effects of their own stupidity and negligence.

Dems need to play this to the hilt.

 

[Ergo Sum]

The Republicans' plan is perfect. Tell the voter how ineffective and corrupt the government is...and then prove it.

 

[bhsup]

COngress had the chance to force BP and others to install safety features. Congress chose to, knowing the risks, not force them to do that. BP operated within the law.

 

[JollyRoger]

COngress had the chance to force BP and others to install safety features. Congress chose to, knowing the risks, not force them to do that. BP operated within the law.

And now they are working on making better law going forward.

And actually, the executive branch can likely do some things along the regulation lines without Congress. Just make stricter regs under existing law.

 

[Birdjaguar]

COngress had the chance to force BP and others to install safety features. Congress chose to, knowing the risks, not force them to do that. BP operated within the law.

So you are saying that it is congress's fault because they under regulated the oil companies and BP should get a pass on the clean up because they put profits over safety and their failure to protect the ocean wasn't technically illegal?

Now if if the oil companies have lobbied congress over the years for less regulation how would that affect your thinking?

 

[Godwynn]

Will the higher cap be retroactive to include this oil spill or only future ones?

 

[Birdjaguar]

It should be.

 

[bhsup]

So you are saying that it is congress's fault because they under regulated the oil companies and BP should get a pass on the clean up because they put profits over safety and their failure to protect the ocean wasn't technically illegal?

Given that Congress had the chance to force oil companies to implement safety equipment that would have prevented this but willfully chose not to, yes BP should not be held responsible for this. BP operated within the law and Congress deemed additional safety equipment unnecessary even though they knew what could happen without it. That is TOTALLY on Congress.

Now if if the oil companies have lobbied congress over the years for less regulation how would that affect your thinking?

It wouldn't. Congress is still responsible for choosing to not pass the bill that would have required the safety equipment that would have prevented this. They willfully prevented such legislation and it doesn't matter whether they did so due to lobbying or not. if that is the case, vote the congressmen out that were susceptible to lobbying efforts.

In the end, Congress is responsible for this mess and therefore us taxpayers have to pay for the cleanup.

 

[JollyRoger]

Doesn't matter what congress does. Sarahia Palinista evidently thinks Obama is in bed with Big Oil. I sure hope Michelle doesn't find out.

I don't know why the question isn't asked by the mainstream media and by others if there's any connection with the contributions made to president Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration.

 

[Jabarto]

The Republicans' plan is perfect. Tell the voter how ineffective and corrupt the government is...and then prove it.

Did you know there's actually a specific term for that strategy? I'm serious, it's called "starving the beast".

 

[Birdjaguar]

Given that Congress had the chance to force oil companies to implement safety equipment that would have prevented this but willfully chose not to, yes BP should not be held responsible for this. BP operated within the law and Congress deemed additional safety equipment unnecessary even though they knew what could happen without it. That is TOTALLY on Congress.

It wouldn't. Congress is still responsible for choosing to not pass the bill that would have required the safety equipment that would have prevented this. They willfully prevented such legislation and it doesn't matter whether they did so due to lobbying or not. if that is the case, vote the congressmen out that were susceptible to lobbying efforts.

In the end, Congress is responsible for this mess and therefore us taxpayers have to pay for the cleanup.

So much for personal responsibility. Corporate welfare is so much more costly to the nation than social welfare and yet you appear to be a big supporter of it.

So congress is responsible for what it does but BP is not.

You let BP off the hook because they did nothing illegal, but Congress did nothing illegal either. Why should they be held to a different standard than BP?

 

[bhsup]

Because Congress flat out told BP not to worry about it by voting down the bill. They said "you don't need this safety equipment, so don't worry about it."

 

[mangxema]

Did you know there's actually a specific term for that strategy? I'm serious, it's called "starving the beast".

Starving the beast doesn't involve effectiveness though. It's purely economic. Cut down the revenue base and then slash spending (namely areas you don't like) under the guise of 'fiscal responsibility'.

 

[JollyRoger]

Because Congress flat out told BP not to worry about it by voting down the bill. They said "you don't need this safety equipment, so don't worry about it."

Congress set a floor, but BP can still be held liable even if it only met the floor. You can obey the law but still commit a negligent or even reckless act for which you would owe damages to those harmed by your legal, but negligent/reckless acts. At least that's the way our Founding Fathers' law books read - yours may have a living twist.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Because Congress flat out told BP not to worry about it by voting down the bill. They said "you don't need this safety equipment, so don't worry about it."

You used quotation marks to imply that such words were actually said. Care to link me to your source for that?