Robert Reich: Why Obama Should Put BP Under Temporary Receivership

http://robertreich.org/post/650145579/why-obama-should-put-bp-under-temporary-receivership




The reasons given are too long to quote in full, but they are:

1. We are not getting the truth from BP.

2. We have no way to be sure BP is devoting enough resources to stopping the gusher.

3. BP’s new strategy for stopping the gusher is highly risky.

4. Right now, the U.S. government has no authority to force BP to adopt a different strategy.

5. The President is not legally in charge.

BP is a British company, and there's not much we (the U.S.A.) can do about putting them into receivership. I suppose we could pull a Chavez and seize their assets, but I'm not sure where that would get us.

BP operations in the U.S. are, by and large, conducted by U.S. incorporated subsidiaries. Legally, they and BP are separate.

Thanks.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

First of all, an oil company isn't a financial services company. The government can run a bank, it does not have the expertise, as Reich points out, to run an oil rig.

Secondly, Reich is basically saying nationalize BP and let them continue to work.

This entire logic is flawed: The government, with no expertise, should nationalize BP and allow them to continue doing what they are doing.

The only thing this does is open the government up to liability.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

BP's modus operandi has been to lie its ass off about the scope of the problem at every turn, try to bury the evidence using a million gallons of toxic dispersant, and do as little as possible to actually clean up its mess.

Sorry, did Reich advocate removing BP?

If BP isn't to be trusted, why on earth would anyone advocate nationalizing them while admitting they would still be needed?

Right now, BP is primarily responsible to it's shareholders, not the public. The opposite is true of government.

This is a public disaster, and should not be handled by a for-profit corporation any longer.

Reich:



Now explain how that stops the gusher.

The government is already directing the efforts. Why on earth would the government want to legally assume the liability?

BP has an interest in not losing their well. The government has no interest in maintaining access to that well. This disaster is far too big to leave in the hands of a private industry.

This would not make the government liable for BP's catastrophe.

"BP has an interest in not losing well. The government has no interest in maintaining access to that well."

What does that have to do with nationalizing the liability when BP will still be working to stop the gusher?

Are you claiming the government will magically become liable for BP's mess if the company is put into temporary receivership, or are you saying there would be no difference in management between the US government and BP Executives?

running the show, including our military planes spraying a million gallons of toxic dispersant on the ocean.

Reich clearly knows this is about appearances and semantics:



He is advocating that the government nationalize to become legally responsible.



Why on earth does the government want to become legally responsible for an effort that will be in the hands of BP?

BP's response to the spill has proven inadequate and the US government needs to take over in the interest of the public. BP is only interested in protecting itself from liability and clean up costs.

Reich is advocating that the government take legal responsiblity.

directing it to act in the public interest. What do you see now?

Note that your argument could be used against a single payer health plan. You know, since the US health care system is so fucked now, why should the government make itself liable by trying to clean up the mess?

Maybe because that's what governments are supposed to do?

Free markets got us into these messes. But we should leave BP in charge because of legal worries? Considering BP's response to this crisis, how could putting this effort under direct government supervision make matters any worse?

Joe Biden isn't going to manage the rig after nationalization. We'll hire someone competent, regulate the drilling and USE FUTURE PROFITS TO CLEAN UP THE MESS AND COMPENSATE THE VICTIMS.

Right, we'll assume responsiblity by hiring "someone competent" to run an oil rig.

Have any suggestions?

In a few weeks, if the gusher is still not capped, BP can start pointing fingers at the government.

This is lunacy.

exclusively doing for the Gulf?

There comes a time when you need to cast aside issues of blame and do whatever it takes to get the job done right. Isn't that what governments are supposed to do in times of crisis?

"There comes a time when you need to cast aside issues of blame and do whatever it takes to get the job done right."

And you don't think the administration is doing that?

How does demanding that BP be nationalize stop the gusher or change the fact that the administration is doing all it can? In case anyone needs reminding, all you can do is not a static phenomenon. Everyone knows that it's going to be difficult to stop this.

Obama could have stopped BP from trying to cover up the problem by sinking the oil with toxic dispersants and ordered supertankers to vacuum up the oily water at BP's expense.

Instead he is leaving the day to day decision making up to BP, and BP is protecting its PR, clean up liability and legal liability interests by aggressively trying to sink the soil using hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic dispersants.

This ludicrous suggestion originated here.


Not only are these tankers not availble, they are huge and hard to maneuver, and would require repurposing (if that's even possible) to do this.

Sure, there are some logistical issues, but are you really suggesting that it is beyond the capacity of the world's superpower and BP to do something the Saudis and Aramco managed to do 20 years ago?

Obama is ProSense's pope, infallible. NOBODY ever has a better idea than obama. ProSense=AntiSense. And this will never change.

Democracy is a government of, by and for the people (in theory anyway). What you are saying is that WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE are the incompetent ones, not the profit whores at BP who CAUSED THE FREAKING DISASTER. Do you get that? You honestly believe that the American people, whose interest should be "protecting America", should stand aside to allow BP profit whores further chances to fuck up? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result!

Now, if you believe that Democracy is a bad thing and only private enterprise should make every decision, then I suggest that you leave this Nation and relocate to Somalia. They're the sort of fascist State that you've been dreaming of!

YOU MAY BE A LIBERAL IF ...
You think Robert Reich is not only right, but sexy.

Mr. Reich,
I'll be adding this item to the Liberal Personality Inventory at www.missbleedingheart.com, where I dispense advice to the lib-lorn and share my Liberal Limericks:

DEREGULATION BLUES

When free-market principles reigned unabated,
The banks got in bed with Wall Street.
Our jobs they exported.
“Consume!!” they exhorted,
Your craving for credit we’ll meet!
Small businesses failed or were globally merged;
Big Business got bigger and unions were purged.
Our wages went flat and our benefits shrank.
“Your house value’s up! Take a loan!” said the bank.
They chopped up the loans into gambling chips
And gambled those houses on Wall Street.
When real estate crashed,
The banks, unabashed,
Evicted and foreclosed on Main Street.

-- Beverly (“Bleeding Heart”) Jones

like this shit..where is our government on this crap????????




Deepwater Horizon survivors allege they were kept in seclusion after rig explosion, coerced into signing legal waivers

According to two surviving crew members of the Deepwater Horizon, oil workers from the rig were held in seclusion on the open water for up to two days after the April 20 explosion, while attorneys attempted to convince them to sign legal documents stating that they were unharmed by the incident. The men claim that they were forbidden from having any contact with concerned loved ones during that time, and were told they would not be able to go home until they signed the documents they were presented with.
Stephen Davis, a seven-year veteran of drilling-rig work from San Antonio, told The Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg today that he was held on a boat for 36 to 40 hours after diving into the Gulf from the burning rig and swimming to safety. Once on a crew boat, Davis said, he and the others were denied access to satellite phones or radio to get in touch with their families, many of whom were frantic to find out whether or not they were OK.
Davis' attorney told Goldenberg that while on the boat, his client and the others were told to sign the statements presented to them by attorneys for Transocean — the firm that owned the Deepwater Horizon — or they wouldn't be allowed to go home. After being awake for 50 harrowing hours, Davis caved and signed the papers. He said most of the others did as well.
Davis' story seems to be backed up by a similar account given to NPRby another Deepwater Horizon crewmember earlier in the month. Christopher Choy, a roustabout on the rig, said that the lawyers gathered the survivors in the galley of a boat and said, "'You need to sign these. Nobody's getting off here until we get one from everybody.' ... At the bottom, it said something about, like, you know, this can be used as evidence in court and all that. I told them, 'I'm not signing it.' "
Choy said that once he was finally allowed to get off the boat, he was shuttled to a hotel, where he met up with his wife. At the hotel, representatives from Transocean confronted him again and badgered him to sign the statement. Exhausted, traumatized and desperate to go home, Choy said that he finally relented and signed.
Choy's lawyer, Steve Gordon, is incensed over what transpired in the hours after the explosion. He, along with other attorneys for Deepwater Horizon workers, is trying to get the documents voided by the courts.
"It's absurd. It's unacceptable, and it's irresponsible," Gordon told NPR.
— Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100521/sc_ynews/ynews_sc2191

nice idea but BP is above the law.

will end up as the property of the US Treasury. $1000/bbl fine. The flow rate of the gusher is about 60,000 bbls/day.

And possibly put US on the hook?

Nothing is ever that simple, IMO.

:patriot:

to deal with indirect issues might be in order.

Maybe we could seize their US assets, get involved in an international mess, make trouble for them.

But it wouldn't stop the leak, and it wouldn't clean up the environment.

If you can show me a precedent, please post it.

:patriot:

they are a multinational that is from Britian! Not America. I think there is a little problem with taking over a company that is not ours.

It's no problem seizing assets when an emergency is determined, as with terrorism or the war on drugs.

BP has done a lot worse to the US than Iran ever did.

you CANT just take over companies from foreign countries

Which I don't believe would be either illegal or overwhelmingly difficult.

is the same as the competency that exists out there -- where ever it is.

we are the landlords in this instance and there can be no way to escape blame -- especially if in the face of really tough incompetence -- the government is seen to be lax.
that's an argument that can be made now and with good reason.

... off our private enterprise oil spill.
Signed,
A concerned Teabagger

Make it permanent.

Expropriate without compensation