Yesterday turned out to be a pretty busy day. I answered three days of accumulated email, assembled and set up an indoor outdoor thermometer (so I don’t have to hang my head out the window with a hand held), emptied my cabinets and put stuff back organized, backed up this entire site and upgraded to WordPress 3.0. Then I replied to 48 comments here. After all that, I was too pooped to do any visiting, so I watched a movie. Today I hope to get in quite a bit of blog visiting, but I have a grocery delivery to put away when it comes. With my COPD, that can be quite tiring.
Jig Zone Puzzle:
Today it took me 3:55. To do it, click here. How did you do?
From LA Times: Embattled BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward, who endured a ferocious daylong grilling this week on Capitol Hill, was replaced Friday as the point man for the day-to-day response to the gulf oil disaster, a move that drew praise from BP critics and suggested the company was growing increasingly concerned with damage to its image.
BP’s chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, told Sky News television in Britain that Hayward was handing over daily operations to managing director Robert Dudley, a Mississippi native who started his career at Chicago-based Amoco Corp.
It looks like BP sent Tony “I know nothing” Heyward” to Congress as a sacrificial goat, not caring how angry Congress became at him, as he was about to be pulled back. Congress should immediately subpoena Dudley and ask him all the same questions.
From Raw Story: The US government would be barred from buying any Chinese goods or services under legislation unveiled Friday by US senators angry at Beijing’s policy of buying only from domestic sources.
The prohibition would last until China, a World Trade Organization (WTO) member for nearly 10 years, signs on to the WTO’s "Agreement of Governmental Procurement," enabling Washington to challenge Beijing’s procurement rules.
I would support this legislation. The US has been bleeding jobs to China, ever since we allowed them into the WTO, by removing our veto. Due to the lower cost of living and lower worker pay in China, it’s difficult for the US to compete. In those areas where we can compete, we cannot allow China to deny us that opportunity through unfair trade practices.
Pelosi has it right. While we, myself included, have been pointing the finger at Barton, we need to recognize that Barton was merely expressing the GOP party line. I would be very surprised, if he did not do so under orders. Other Republicans threw him under the bus, only when they saw how vehemently the public reacted to his vile statement.
Yesterdays grilling of Tony Hayward, BP CEO, had two stars. The first was Hayward himself. I have not seen such overt obfuscation since Alberto Gonzales was grilled on the firing of US Attorneys, because they refused to file bogus prosecutions against Democratic office seeker shortly before elections. Hayward did not know, could not remember, was not part of the decision making process, and could not comment until BP’s internal investigation is complete. I have some entertaining video that hasn’t made the news shows, but I’ll save that for last.
The second was Ranking Member Joe Barton.
In a jarring departure that caught fellow Republicans by surprise, Barton, the top GOP member of the panel, used his opening statement to apologize — twice — for the pressure put on the company by President Barack Obama to contribute to a compensation fund for people in the afflicted Gulf of Mexico states…
…Barton said the U.S. has “a due process system” to assess such damages, and he decried the $20 billion fund that BP agreed to Wednesday at the White House as a “shakedown” and “slush fund.” Since 1990, oil and gas industry political action committees and employees have given more than $1.4 million to Barton’s campaigns, the most of any House member during that period, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics… [emphasis added]
Barton was not the only Republican to betray BP’s victims on the corporate behalf. In addition to Michelle “Batshit” Bachmann, Haley “Oily” Barbour and John “Bad-Tan-Limp” Boehner, a few more spoke out for BP.
Last night, the Republican Study Committee (RSC), the largest [GOP delinked] caucus of Republican House members, fired off a statement declaring that the $20 billion dollar negotiated by BP and the Obama administration for victims of the oil catastrophe in the gulf is a “Chicago-Style Political Shakedown. [GOP delinked]” Echoing this sentiment, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) told BP executives that he is “sorry” for Obama’s “shakedown” of their company.
This morning, ThinkProgress traveled to Capitol Hill to interview lawmakers about the escrow fund. Several members of Congress, like Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), agreed with the RSC’s criticism of the fund. Even though Fleming’s home state of Louisiana has been devastated by BP’s spill, Fleming attacked the administration for not trusting BP and for daring to “take control of all the money from BP.” Asked about Barton’s apology to BP, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said any lawmaker has a right to “do what they want”:
TP: He announced the $20 billion dollar escrow fund, funded by BP, to compensate some of the victims of this catastrophe. The Republican Study Committee put out a press release last night saying it’s a Chicago style power grab, do you agree with that sentiment?
FLEMING: I do because what we have seen from this administration is whenever something like this happens — look at automotive industry, financial industry — what they do is take control of dollars then they begin to disperse them along political agendas. And we’ve seen this happen before, and it looks like its the development here. BP has said, time and time again, that they will process all legitimate claims, we have no reason to believe they won’t. Why does the administration feel like it’s got to take control of all the money from BP?
TP: So Congressman, the Republican Study Committee last night said that the $20 billion dollar escrow fund is just another Chicago style politics kind of power grab. Do you agree with that, do you think that’s a fair characterization?
JORDAN: I’m, look, I’m always worried about this unprecedented involvement by the government in the private sector and look, BP obviously made some mistakes, but do we really believe the Federal government is going to do a better job?
TP: What do you think about Joe Barton in the hearing this morning, he said ‘I apologize’ to the BP executives for the escrow fund, saying again it’s a shakedown […] Do you have any kind of reaction to a member of Congress apologizing to BP executives?
NUNES: Look, every member of Congress represents seven, eight hundred thousand people and they can do what they want.
From a Democratic perspective, what could be better? We knew that the GOP is BP’s pawn, because of all the times they have filibustered Democratic attempts to raise the liability cap. However this behavior is suicidal. On the other hand, if they do not support the giant corporations Teabaggers claim to hate, the Teabaggers will Teabugger them.
And finally here’s that special video of Hayward’s testimony. 😉 Enjoy!
The GOP has once again aligned themselves against the victims of the Republican Recession.
In a 56-40 vote, the cloture vote on extending jobless benefits, FMAP state funding, and tax extensions failed. Ben Nelson and Lieberman joined Republicans, Byrd did not vote, and Reid voted yes, without changing his vote, signaling that this iteration of the bill is indeed dead.
Reid followed the vote by attempting to pass the emergency provisions of the bill, the "doc fix," unemployment benefits extension, and FMAP as well as the homebuyer tax credit, as separate bills under unanimous consent. McConnell objected to each, so we’re stuck in further limbo.
All afternoon, Republican Senators stood up and said that the American people were demanding that the deficit be cut, that the Congress stop spending. Republican Senators, and the moderate Dems who enable them, are full of shit. Gallup says so:
Among four pieces of legislation Congress could consider this year, Americans are most supportive of authorizing more economic stimulus spending. Specifically, according to a June 11-13 USA Today/Gallup poll, 60% of Americans say they would favor "additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy."
We expected this from the Republicans. They don’t care how many people suffer, because they want to blame the human misery they are causing on Obama and Democrats.
However, there is no longer any reason whatsoever to support Traitor Joe LIEberman. There is no excuse for the Democratic Caucus to keep this Republican as Chair of Homeland Security.
Claire McCaskill is on the verge of introducing legislation to end this anti-democratic process.
In the Senate, every man or woman can be king.
Each can hold up a billion-dollar spending bill on a whim, or block one of the president’s nominees from ever getting a hearing.
Whether they’re in the majority or minority doesn’t matter. They also don’t even have to explain why. But the best part of all?
They never have to admit that they did it.
So blame Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri if pretty soon it’s just not as much fun as it used to be.
McCaskill, a first term Democrat, apparently has persuaded enough of her colleagues to back her effort to take the "secret" out of the Senate’s practice of secret holds.
If her bill gets to the floor, which is appearing more likely since every Democrat supports it, plus enough Republicans to grease passage, no senator would be able to block on a nomination or a piece of legislation without leaving fingerprints.
McCaskill cautioned that it was too early to start tossing confetti.
"We have 67 people who said they want to abolish the rule," she said. "Now we have to translate 67 people into 67 votes. I haven’t been here very long, but long enough to know this is going to be the hard part."
Indeed, she intends to continue her hunt for more supporters so she has "some wiggle room in case some senators get cold feet."
Senate watchers and open government advocates said that eliminating the secret holds would be a significant step toward reform… [emphasis added]
Yesterday I was gone all day, and had no opportunity to reply to comments or return visits. I have a lot of catching up to do and I plan to begin today, although I have quite a bit of housework to get done before my grocery delivery tomorrow.
Jig Zone Puzzle:
Today it took me 4:49. To do it, click here. How did you do?
From Raw Story: Israel on Thursday approved a plan to ease its blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip following weeks of international pressure, but provided few details on what new goods would be allowed in.
Easing the blockade will not make up for the criminal policy, especially when Israel won’t divulge the specifics of the plan.
From TPM: Dino Rossi is keeping his day job while he runs for Senate in Washington. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. But Rossi’s day job entails very publicly helping rich people profit off the misfortune of those unlucky enough to have bought a house in the last four years or so. And that’s leaving some in Washington a little confused about his priorities.
Rossi is a former gubernatorial nominee, and national Republicans are stoked about him now that he’s decided to run for Senate against incumbent Sen. Patty Murray (D).
If he wins, he will have no trouble adjusting to his new role. Helping the rich bilk the poor is the GOP raison d’être.
From News Hounds: Last week (6/10/10), Glenn Beck looked into the Fox News camera and announced, in his sincere voice, that President Obama’s administration has given so much power to 1960’s radicals, that they can now accomplish their former goal of killing off 10% of the U.S. population.
Beck said, "We had a group (in the United States) whose goal it was to eliminate 10% of the U.S. population. Why? Because that’s what anarchist, Marxist, communist, revolutionaries, Maoists do to be able to gain control."
Geez! Beck continues to fill his role as the poster child for the GOP’s brown-shirts and as the epitome of Teabuggery.
Yesterday Barack Obama took BP executives to the woodshed and emerged with a fistful of cash for the victims. Most of the reactions I hear indicate that almost everyone is pleased, except for the Republicans.
Four days of intense negotiations between the White House and BP lawyers allowed President Obama to announce Wednesday that the oil giant would create a $20 billion fund to pay damage claims to thousands of fishermen and others along the Gulf Coast.
The fund will be administered by Kenneth R. Feinberg, the lawyer and mediator who ran the fund for victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and has emerged as a troubleshooter on issues like executive compensation and resolving claims for asbestos and Agent Orange victims.
While acknowledging that oil is likely to continue spewing from the well for perhaps months to come, Mr. Obama was able to throw something of a lifeline to desperate coastal residents worried about meeting payrolls, mortgages and shrimp boat payments… [emphasis added]
Much of the criticism I have hears about Obama’s speech has been centered on its apparent lack of outrage and indignation. Although I share those feelings, I did not think it would serve a useful purpose. I thought that if BP was pushed too hard, they would not settle. The following article shows how sensitive the situation is.
How many companies could take a $20 billion body blow and still be left standing?
Not many. The amount of money BP said it would plunk into an escrow fund for oil-spill claims is enough to cover the entire NASA budget for a year. It’s enough to buy all the shares of the Kellogg Co. And it’s larger than the annual economic output of 90 countries.
But BP is an unusual company. It made profits of $5.6 billion in the first quarter of this year and $14 billion in 2009. It produces about 2.5 million barrels a day of crude oil from Russia to Angola, from Britain’s North Sea to Alaska’s North Slope. Until Wednesday, BP also had been planning to pay out $10.5 billion in dividends this year, which would still have left it with $5 billion to $10 billion in spare cash.
It could raise the money for the escrow fund this year without borrowing another dime.
That arsenal of cash and crude hasn’t been enough to placate the Obama administration, however, as the company wades through the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. And BP has struggled to convince markets that it can meet its obligations to both investors and victims of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In eight weeks, BP stock has fallen to about half its earlier value. On Tuesday, Fitch Ratings slashed the firm’s credit rating to BBB, two rungs above junk. And early on Wednesday morning, investors in credit default swaps — an insurance-like financial instrument — were pricing an almost 40 percent chance the oil giant would default on its debts within five years.
So although the deal struck at the White House on Wednesday was designed in part to reassure Gulf Coast residents that BP would put aside enough money for their claims, it was also designed to give shareholders a sense that the financial damage was manageable and could, over time, be contained along with the oil spill.
That’s why one thing BP asked in exchange for the big escrow fund was a signal from President Obama that he was not trying to run the firm out of business. “BP is a strong and viable company,” the president said after his meeting with BP’s chairman and top executives, “and it is in all of our interests that it remain so.”
That is hard to accept for many Americans who want to punish BP. But anything else might be counterproductive. So far, the company, drawing on its worldwide operations, has paid for everything from National Guard troops to air quality testing by the Environmental Protection Agency, from $5,000 checks for shrimpers to the $100 million or so for each relief well.
“This agreement underscores that as long as we need oil, Big Petroleum is better than Bankrupt Petroleum,” Lincoln Mayer, a lawyer specializing in energy and antitrust at McDermott Will & Emery, said in an e-mail. “Few companies could afford a $20 billion mistake. BP is one of them, and that’s a good thing.”
Investment analysts appeared reassured after the White House meeting. “It takes the political heat off the company and it steadies the ship in rough waters,” said Fadel Gheit, an oil analyst at Oppenheimer. “BP is stabilizing its financial position so it can handle cleanup costs and damages.” BP stock rose 1.4 percent on Wednesday, closing at $31.85 a share. And the cost of BP credit default swaps dipped slightly, indicating a bit less anxiety about corporate default… [emphasis added]
Yesterday, I criticized Obama for not stating that he has a fully developed energy plan. I take it back. I want to watch this and see how it develops.
Then there are the Republicans. You’d think they would be overjoyed at red states getting all that money, but nope. Here are just a couple GOP reactions out of many:
Even as President Obama and his administration were working out the final details of a $20 billion escrow fund for compensating victims of BP’s oil spill, Republicans were crying foul, saying that the escrow fund was unfair and and overly harsh.
Leading off the crazy was Michele Bachmann, who called the escrow fund a “redistribution of wealth fund.” She told Dave Weigel that she worried that BP was being “fleeced” by the Obama administration.
Not to be outdone, Missisippi Governor Haley Barbour — a potential 2012 contender — saidthe escrow fund was overly harsh, and could cause BP so much economic pain that it wouldn’t be able to offer victims any compensation whatsoever… [emphasis added]
The GOP is dismayed, because this is such a huge victory for Obama. The Senate Democrats only had the courage to try to lift the damages cap from $75 million to $10 billion. Of course the GOP filibustered that to protect BP. Obama doubled it, and it’s not even a cap. It’s a down payment.
This is pure speculation, but I think I know what went down in that meeting. I think Obama told BP that the success or failure of everything he wants to do for the American people is riding on a successful outcome to this crisis. I think BP hedged. I think Obama reminded BP that he can take them down and asked them if they want to survive together or go down together. How else could he have convinced BP to pay?
How many Presidents in US history has taken a major multinational corporation on and walked away the winner? Who else? Thank you, Mr. President.
I also believe that the workers that saw failed testing, knew of faulty equipment, had direct knowledge of corner cutting practices and anything along those lines. I do have a caveat, to this, however. People in those positions should be the LAST people prosecuted using the deals, payoffs, political favors, etc. that all of the others I hold responsible (Which is all but Cheney and Obama) will use if prosecuted.
I don’t hold my breath on criminal prosecutions, however. A group of about 11 execs successfully destroyed 10 years of economic prosperity, and no charges were filed. Don’t get me started on the last Administration, either.
Money is not only speech in this country, it is also justice. Sorry, TC, the truth hurts (the Middle Class most of all)
From Otisin reply toOtis on June 15, 2010 at 11:52 pm.
And for those wondering why not Cheney, it is because as VP, he had no real power, and he made no decisions on Haliburton’s board. What he did behind the scenes, or off the radar, I can only speculate. Speculation is not enough to bring charges against someone in this country.
From SBT on June 8, 2010 at 12:36 pm.
Can someone explain to me why this oil disaster is President Obama’s fault…and I will verify through research,
the statements given?
From Grung_e_Gene on June 2, 2010 at 2:29 pm.
This is The Right’s New October Surprise/ Dick Cheney
personally asked Halliburton engineers to sabotage the Deepwater Horizon in the hopes the damage would undercut President Obama…
From Cellophane on May 31, 2010 at 2:40 pm.
Those who were responsible for the safety of the wells. Those are the ones who should be charged with (at minimum) negligent homicide. That includes all the execs of the various companies who ran the site and the MMS inspectors who were supposed to ensure the safety of the procedures.
I voted for:
BP execs, because they cut more corners than a DINO has GOP fleas.
Bush, for giving Cheney free reign.
Cheney for gutting MMS, packing it with oil cronies, and letting Big Oil right their own regulations.
Halliburton execs, because they botched the cement job.
MMS inspectors, because they let company men write their own inspection reports.
Transocean execs, because they operated the rig.
I would change my vote for Transocean, because I have since learned that they tried to stop at least some of the corner cutting, but BP had final authority.
There is a new poll for your enjoyment. Please vote.
