Aa
hrough oil-fouled water, big government looks better and better
hrough oil-fouled water, big government looks better and better
By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
There is something exquisite about the moment when a conservative decides he needs more government in his life.
About 10:30 Monday morning, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), an ardent foe of big government, posted a blog item on his campaign Web site about the huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. "I strongly believe BP is spread too thin," he wrote.
The poor dears. He thinks it would be a better arrangement if "federal and state officials" would do the dirty work of "protecting and cleaning up the coast" instead of BP.
About an hour later came word from the Pentagon that Alabama, Florida and Mississippi -- all three governed by men who once considered themselves limited-government conservatives -- want the federal government to mobilize (at taxpayer expense, of course) more National Guard troops to aid in the cleanup.
That followed an earlier request by the small-government governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal (R), who issued a statement saying he had called the Obama administration "to outline the state's needs" and to ask "for additional resources." Said Jindal: "These resources are critical."
About the time that Alabama, Florida and Mississippi were asking for more federal help, three small-government Republican senators, Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama and George LeMieux of Florida, were flying over the gulf on a U.S. government aircraft with small-government Republican Rep. Jeff Miller (Fla.).
"We're here to send the message that we're going to do everything we can from a federal level to mitigate this," Sessions said after the flight, "to protect the people and make sure when people are damaged that they're made whole."
Sessions, probably the Senate's most ardent supporter of tort reform, found himself extolling the virtues of litigation -- against BP. "They're not limited in liability on damage, so if you've suffered a damage, they are the responsible party," said Sessions, sounding very much like the trial lawyers he usually maligns.
All these limited-government guys expressed their belief that the British oil company would ultimately cover all the costs of the cleanup. "They're not too big to fail," Sessions said. "If they can't pay and they've given it everything they've got, then they should cease to exist." But if you believe that the federal government won't be on the hook for a major part of the costs, perhaps you'd like to buy a leaky oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.
It may have taken an ecological disaster, but the gulf-state conservatives' newfound respect for the powers and purse of the federal government is a timely reminder for them. As conservatives in Washington complain about excessive federal spending, the ones who would suffer the most from spending cuts are their own constituents.
An analysis of data from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation by Washington Post database specialist Dan Keating found that people in states that voted Republican were by far the biggest beneficiaries of federal spending. In states that voted strongly Republican, people received an average of $1.50 back from the federal government for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. In moderately Republican states, the amount was $1.19. In moderately Democratic states, people received on average of 99 cents in federal funds for each dollar they paid in taxes. In strongly Democratic states, people got back just 86 cents on the tax dollar.
If Sessions and Shelby succeed in shrinking government, their constituents in Alabama will be some of the biggest losers: They get $1.66 in federal benefits for every $1 they pay in taxes. If Louisiana's Vitter succeeds in shrinking government, his constituents will lose some of the $1.78 in federal benefits they receive for every dollar in taxes they pay. In Mississippi, it's $2.02.
That may explain why, as the oil slick hits the Gulf Coast, lawmakers from the region are willing to swallow their limited-government principles as they dangle federal aid before their constituents. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said he would "make sure the federal government is poised to assist in every way necessary." His colleague Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) said he is making sure "the federal government is doing all it can" -- even as he added his hope that "industry" would pay.
President Obama tried to remind the government-is-the-enemy crowd of this situation in a speech on Saturday. "Government is the police officers who are protecting our communities, and the servicemen and -women who are defending us abroad," he said. "Government is the roads you drove in on and the speed limits that kept you safe. Government is what ensures that mines adhere to safety standards and that oil spills are cleaned up by the companies that caused them."
For the moment, some of the conservatives have new appreciation for governmental powers. "We're going to have the oil industry folks, the BP folks, in front of us on the Commerce Committee," Florida's LeMieux vowed in the news conference Monday. "We're going to talk about these drilling issues."
But not before the taxpayer sends some more big-government money down to the small-government politicians of the gulf.
By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
There is something exquisite about the moment when a conservative decides he needs more government in his life.
About 10:30 Monday morning, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), an ardent foe of big government, posted a blog item on his campaign Web site about the huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. "I strongly believe BP is spread too thin," he wrote.
The poor dears. He thinks it would be a better arrangement if "federal and state officials" would do the dirty work of "protecting and cleaning up the coast" instead of BP.
About an hour later came word from the Pentagon that Alabama, Florida and Mississippi -- all three governed by men who once considered themselves limited-government conservatives -- want the federal government to mobilize (at taxpayer expense, of course) more National Guard troops to aid in the cleanup.
That followed an earlier request by the small-government governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal (R), who issued a statement saying he had called the Obama administration "to outline the state's needs" and to ask "for additional resources." Said Jindal: "These resources are critical."
About the time that Alabama, Florida and Mississippi were asking for more federal help, three small-government Republican senators, Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama and George LeMieux of Florida, were flying over the gulf on a U.S. government aircraft with small-government Republican Rep. Jeff Miller (Fla.).
"We're here to send the message that we're going to do everything we can from a federal level to mitigate this," Sessions said after the flight, "to protect the people and make sure when people are damaged that they're made whole."
Sessions, probably the Senate's most ardent supporter of tort reform, found himself extolling the virtues of litigation -- against BP. "They're not limited in liability on damage, so if you've suffered a damage, they are the responsible party," said Sessions, sounding very much like the trial lawyers he usually maligns.
All these limited-government guys expressed their belief that the British oil company would ultimately cover all the costs of the cleanup. "They're not too big to fail," Sessions said. "If they can't pay and they've given it everything they've got, then they should cease to exist." But if you believe that the federal government won't be on the hook for a major part of the costs, perhaps you'd like to buy a leaky oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.
It may have taken an ecological disaster, but the gulf-state conservatives' newfound respect for the powers and purse of the federal government is a timely reminder for them. As conservatives in Washington complain about excessive federal spending, the ones who would suffer the most from spending cuts are their own constituents.
An analysis of data from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation by Washington Post database specialist Dan Keating found that people in states that voted Republican were by far the biggest beneficiaries of federal spending. In states that voted strongly Republican, people received an average of $1.50 back from the federal government for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. In moderately Republican states, the amount was $1.19. In moderately Democratic states, people received on average of 99 cents in federal funds for each dollar they paid in taxes. In strongly Democratic states, people got back just 86 cents on the tax dollar.
If Sessions and Shelby succeed in shrinking government, their constituents in Alabama will be some of the biggest losers: They get $1.66 in federal benefits for every $1 they pay in taxes. If Louisiana's Vitter succeeds in shrinking government, his constituents will lose some of the $1.78 in federal benefits they receive for every dollar in taxes they pay. In Mississippi, it's $2.02.
That may explain why, as the oil slick hits the Gulf Coast, lawmakers from the region are willing to swallow their limited-government principles as they dangle federal aid before their constituents. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said he would "make sure the federal government is poised to assist in every way necessary." His colleague Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) said he is making sure "the federal government is doing all it can" -- even as he added his hope that "industry" would pay.
President Obama tried to remind the government-is-the-enemy crowd of this situation in a speech on Saturday. "Government is the police officers who are protecting our communities, and the servicemen and -women who are defending us abroad," he said. "Government is the roads you drove in on and the speed limits that kept you safe. Government is what ensures that mines adhere to safety standards and that oil spills are cleaned up by the companies that caused them."
For the moment, some of the conservatives have new appreciation for governmental powers. "We're going to have the oil industry folks, the BP folks, in front of us on the Commerce Committee," Florida's LeMieux vowed in the news conference Monday. "We're going to talk about these drilling issues."
But not before the taxpayer sends some more big-government money down to the small-government politicians of the gulf.
I still say response is almost irrelevant. The damage was done the second that rig exploded. I read somewhere that for app. 1/2 million dollars a safety mechanism could have been added that would have minimized the damage at the moment of explosion. BP didn't have this in place. Nope, I still stand by my statement....regulate them on an International level. All of them. Drill...yes. But do it safely and responsibly. All the money in the world cannot and will not repair the damage caused here. And the impact will be felt for many many many years to come.
no I didnt mean that at all but I did imply you didnt know about the US government setting up a planned response in 1994...Fire booms would have helped control this before it reached the coastline and the federal government, had none in place ...and they dint act quickly enough ...
Amen. And if I remember right when this all first happened, it was reported that there was no leak. Then it turned to 1000 gal a day, then 5000, then 50 thou, and so on. So yep, its on BP and them being too greedy to spend their profits on safety equipment. But does it really matter who and why at this point? Now we gotta concentrate on the cleanup and higher prices of seafood, the death and destruction and how many mil being put out of work again. Yep, this one is on BP. I think we ought to boycott them.
It should be the Oil Companies responsibility to have fire-booms readily available for such emergencies. Destruction of the environment and wildlife etc. is a problem the entire world will suffer from.
Hope they regulate the $hit out of the Oil Companies!!!!! And while their at it, regulate the $hit out of Wall Street and the Banks too!
Hope they regulate the $hit out of the Oil Companies!!!!! And while their at it, regulate the $hit out of Wall Street and the Banks too!
Just thinking about it now....are you saying that because I am not American, I am not welcome in this forum? Or I just shouldn't have an opinion?
What has what country this happened in have to do with anything? This is an International problem unfortunately, unless for some reason the spill stops at the border. This oil and gas companies are making money hand over fist (I live in an oil and gas city, trust me, I know this for certain) and scrimp on safety regulations. Had certain precautionary measures been taken the whole thing may very well have been prevented. I fully recognize the response may not have been fast enough, but it still should never have happened in the first place. Should everyone that borders the Atlantic Ocean pay the price for lack of regulation in this industry? I am also not just talking about the lack of regulation in the US. We have the same problem here. We are a huge oil producing country and it is a very large part of our economy. As a result, oil and gas companies get away with whatever they want here. I don't understand your comment about "this is the US, not Canada". What exactly does that have to do with any of this?
In the US it is the coastguards and the federal officials who make sure firebooms are in place ..the 1994 Response plan would have worked and contained some of the oil before it reached the coastline,, if the administration had bothered in time .This is the US not Canada... ...
Its fine to complain about the response, but we need to find a way to prevent these types of accidents from occuring. Even had the spill been contained, a serious amount of damage would have been done. I still say regulate the heck out of them.
Not a single fire boom was on the Gulf coast at the time of the oil spill....if US officials had immediatly got the 1994 response plan into motion it may have contained the spill.............
That is for sure. I just heard on the news that if this cap (dome), doesnt work, the oil being spilled out will increase by 40 thou gal a day. We have a watch up where I live but the winds and the calmness of the sea have delayed its travels to a degree and alot of it seems to have gone down deep, which is not good. We will pay for this one for decades.
I hope they regulate the heck out of the oil companies. It seems to me though that Obama is sort of darned if he does, darned if he doesn't in this situation. If he calls for strict regulation, he will be accused of socialism again. If he doesn't he will be accused of doing nothing. This problem exists in all oil producing nations (Canada included). I wish they would find a way to get together and come up with International regulations. Oil spills don't recognize borders...this is going to have devasting results.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
