Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

What is Boehner willing to support to hold BP liable?

Yesterday I noted that John Boehner's office had clarified that he does, in fact, believe that BP should be held liable for the costs of cleanup and damages.

"No taxpayer money for cleanup or damages -- period. BP pays," Boehner's spokesman told me.

This has lots of people on the Hill asking today: What, precisely, is Boehner willing to support that would actually ensure that BP is held accountable for damages?

As it happens, there exists a legislative vehicle for accomplishing this. Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey is pushing a measure in the House that would lift the liability cap on oil companies -- and insure that it applies retroactively to BP. This proposal originated in the Senate, courtesy of Robert Mendendez.

Boehner's office has not said whether he's willing to support any specific means for ensuring that BP is held liable. In a sense, Boehner's position on this doesn't have any real-world consequences -- only political ones. Many expect the Holt measure to pass the House with or without the GOP leadership's support.

But Dems think that if Boehner doesn't ultimately back it, or hedges, it will hand them a potent political weapon, enabling them to bludgeon Republicans as stooges for Big Oil. This will be a key dynamic to watch, and we'll be digging into it a bit more later.

By Greg Sargent  |  June 11, 2010; 10:46 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Climate change  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: New Kagan document undercuts right wing attack

Comments

Thank you Greg, this is great great, necessary reporting.

Ultimately, imho, this issue -- the extent to which the Republican Party is willing to lift the liability cap on BP/oil disasters -- is THE MOST CRITICAL ISSUE TO THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

The Boehner/Murkowski crowd just lobbed the fatest of all softball right over the plate to Pelosi/Reid. If the roles were reversed, the GOP would've been in the wells of both Houses yesterday with punitive bills aimed at the oil companies. The Dems need to take advantage while the outrage is still palpable.

Posted by: bmcchgo | June 11, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Game changer...

O/T.

You know, I was thinking the other day.

Remember how noble it seemed when we heard some Wall Street CEO's, rather than paying themselves payroll checks, they instead payed themselves in stock.

Do those stock payments get taxed as payroll?

And if not, the only tax they would have to pay on that would be the 15% capital gains tax or even have the option in the event the stock lost value to write off of capital gains losses, of which the payment of stock it self was most likely written off as a company expense.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 11, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I would like to see the Justice Dept. go into court, and request that BP be ordered to set up an escrow account of at least twenty billion dollars, to be set aside for payment of legitimate claims.

BP should not be allowed to handle the claims, and decide which get paid. It should be put in the hands of an independent adjudicator.

Do not trust BP to keep their promises. Once the furor dies down, and the media takes off after some missing blonde story, BP will fight every claim tooth and nail.

Get a binding court order now, while the spotlight and heat are on BP.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 11, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Greg. And sorry for getting carried away with the Trolls. I should know better.

You are dead right, of course. Start asking hard questions and making concrete proposals, then let the chips fall. Again I ask: just what is Agent Orange proposing that we Americans acting through the federal government do? Raise the paltry 75M cap on liability? No? What then?

Can't let them get keep getting away with pretending the federal government is an illegal alien to be used as a pinata. In the real world, governing in about governance, not propaganda. I hope you keep hammering on this (especially when you get that Plum seat in the WH press room).

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Great post , Greg. Keep this up today.

The consequences of the GOP's wholesale and blind support for corporations needs to be exposed for what it is. Capitalism without smart regulation and government partnership leads to exploitation and disaster. We can see it palpably in the gulf, but it goes on every day in many other ways.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 11, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"I would like to see the Justice Dept. go into court, and request that BP be ordered to set up an escrow account of at least twenty billion dollars, to be set aside for payment of legitimate claims."

Liam: It was reported in the British press today that that is EXACTLY what is going to happen. BP is going to put its dividend payment into escrow for GOM victims.

http://www.timesplus.co.uk/tto/news/?login=false&url=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article2551599.ece

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

One good thing about the Trolls: Every time I get disgusted with the Dems (pretty much everyday now), the Trolls remind us of the alternative. So, thanks for that.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Slave Sargent:
"What, precisely, is Boehner willing to support that would actually ensure that BP is held accountable for damages?"

Just out of curiosity, what would make you happy?

Passing an ex-post-facto law?

"As it happens, there exists a legislative vehicle for accomplishing this. Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey is pushing a measure in the House that would lift the liability cap on oil companies -- and insure that it applies retroactively to BP. This proposal originated in the Senate, courtesy of Robert Mendendez."

That's unconstitutional, Sargent. You should know better.

I know some of your cattle are advocating going down that road. but then they draw paychecks from Hugo Chavez, (or should if they weren't so "bedbug-in-a-sleeping-bag" crazy).

You're just interested in playing politics with this.
You know that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution with this, right?

Right?


Posted by: Bilgeman | June 11, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

When are those State Governments going to go into court, to get the courts to order BP to set up an escrow fund?

Anyone who takes BP promises at face value are gullible fools. Use the law, to make them set aside the funds, and to remove them from the disbursement decisions.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 11, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

resist the urge to feed the troll, everyone...I know its tempting...

Posted by: srw3 | June 11, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

When are the affected states going to go into courts, to get an order making BP establish a large escrow fund, and to remove them from the payout decisions?

Posted by: Liam-still | June 11, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I equate this disaster to a child and a lazy parent.

A parent that was too lazy to enforce its own rules (MMS) and a child that without strict rules and negative reinforcement of the breaking of those rules, will do whatever it wants.

Allowing BP to coordinate at the beginning would be akin to walking into your kids room and finding it with spilled paint over every inch of the room and stepping back and allowing the kid to tell the parent how to clean it up.

Although 20/20 hindsight makes all the difference.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 11, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Moonbat gangsters trying to use the government to run an extrortion racket before the well is even capped.

Hey, Slave Sargent, before you go tilting at your masters' next windmill, you might want to familiarize yourself with the existing law...the Oil Prevention Act of 1990.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/96567-oil-liability-bill-could-face-court-challenge

The relevant part, highlighted by the Hill article is here:

"Hartman also noted that OPA includes a number of instances in which the cap could be exceeded. For example, the cap does not apply if companies are grossly negligent or operated with willful misconduct or are found to have violated federal regulations. Hartman said those caveats may mean the $75 million cap already would not apply in the case of the Gulf spill."

Now we all know that there is going to be investigations into possible criminal negligence, (why this hasn't already begun, nearly two months after the disaster, is something you should go ask the Odministration about, instead of pestering PermaTan Boehner).

Then maybe you'd be doing something constructive for the Gulf region, instead of flacking for some unconstitutional showboating by New Jersey lawmakers.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 11, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Before BP files for bankruptcy and wipes out all of its debt, the U.S. Govn't should seize enough of its assets in U.S. waters as collateral to pay for the spill in the event they don't want to pay up.

If BP doesn't want to pay up, the proceeds of auctioned off BP wells will pay for the spill.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 11, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Bilgey,

For shame, you aren't supposed to bring up what the law actually provides for, or inconvenient facts.

This disturbs the herd and gets them off their feed and all agitated.

Let's note one of the many thread of irony and cognitive dissonance currently afoot among the herd.

Just yesterday our man Ethan was saying that an incident of domestic violence by an unknown former GOP functionary proves that Republicans care nothing for the rule of law and have lost their minds.

Remarkably, every suggestion I see from the libs, however, shows contempt and disregard for the rule of law.

wb wants criminal prosecution to extort money for moratorium (Obama) damages.

Liam wants summary justice with 20 billion paid into escrow.

Someone else wants summary expropriation of assets.

All the libs want ex post facto lifting of the cap -- funny how they didn't do that at any point before when they had the opportunity.

It goes on and on. What do all these ideas have in common? Complete disregard for the rule of law. Banana republic justice.

Moonbats take note: The time when the rule of law really counts is when it isn't as convenient or the results aren't aligned with your political interests.

So much for liberals and principles.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

And I forgot the best part:

"But Dems think that if Boehner doesn't ultimately back it, or hedges, it will hand them a potent political weapon, enabling them to bludgeon Republicans as stooges for Big Oil. This will be a key dynamic to watch, and we'll be digging into it a bit more later."

Isn't it Plum Line dogma that Republicans are focused on partisan politics and attacks, while Dems are 24/7 focused on the public good????

The reality is the opposite, as this story shows: All partisan politics all the time for Democrats. Cheap shot attacks for political gain, good of the country be damned.


Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Far Right Wing Nut Jobs, such as Toon Town Lawyer, Love BP(Big Polluter),, and hate all the ordinary hard working people of the Gulf Coast who's livelihood, and way of life, has been destroyed by A Criminally negligent Foreign Corporation.


Why do Republicans Love A Foreign Corporation, and hate hard working Americans?

Posted by: Liam-still | June 11, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

New Kagan document seriously undermines right wing attack on her:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/kagan_document_seriously_under.html

Posted by: sargegreg | June 11, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"Why do Republicans Love A Foreign Corporation, and hate hard working Americans?"

Because they have no respect for things that actually matter in society: the health and well-being of fellow human beings, the environment, communities, working families. Their only concerns revolve around human fabrications: money, "god," "power," politics.

Who do you want to protect, the people and the environment (things with intrinsic value not only to human society but to LIFE as we know it) or money and power (things with no real inherent value to society other than what they represent).

It really is the struggle of good versus evil.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

And THIS is a perfect example @tpm:

* Back To The Future: Boehner's Recipe For Recovery Same As Bush's *

Boehner: "The reductions in '01 and '03 were to respond to an economic problem. '01 was done before 9/11. '03 was done in response to what happened to the economy. But that's not what led to the budget deficit."

Boenher is not just wrong. He is LYING. Quite clearly, the Republican Party is LYING about the effect of the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich.

And they are just ITCHING to get into power TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN THE SAME WAY.

CHECK OUT THIS CHART:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/bushtaxcuts.jpg

It's all here:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/back-to-the-future-boehners-recipe-for-recovery-same-as-bushs.php

As I've said numerous times, the Republican Party is THE problem with this country.

Money, power, politics and nothing else.

*VERSUS*

Trying to help families, help people, improve people's lives, have a stable economy, while protecting the planet and our natural treasures.

It couldn't be any clearer to me that one is good and just and the other is bad and unjust.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

How can you tell when liberals just got their asses kicked?

When they start saying "don't feed the trolls."

News flash to my liberal friends: Call me whatever, I really don't care. Respond or not, I really don't care.

Your direct responses aren't necessary to the exposure of your errors and derangments. Bilgey, Scott, sbj, and I have been pretty successful at that lately, and the ass kicking -- or what apparently feels like ass kicking to you --will continue.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Republicans Are American Traitors. They Want To Return To British Rule Over Americans.

Far Right Wing Nut Jobs, such as Toon Town Lawyer, Love BP(Big Polluter),, and hate all the ordinary hard working people of the Gulf Coast who's livelihood, and way of life, has been destroyed by A Criminally negligent Foreign Corporation.


Why do Republicans Love A Foreign Corporation, and hate hard working Americans?

Posted by: Liam-still | June 11, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Republican Party LOVES them some corporate greed, and refuses to support the notion that BP should clean up after THEIR OWN MESS.

Democratic Party wants to avoid taxpayers having to pay to clean up the worst corporate/environmental disaster in U.S. History.

How can you tell? The GOP is blocking the vote on the liability cap!

Forget what they say. What is their VOTE?

They speak LIES. But their votes tell the TRUTH.

The Republican Party SOLELY EXISTS to be corporate shills.

The Republican Party is just simply on the side of everything that's wrong with this world.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Those are some big lies, Ethan.

Apparently you've just thrown all pretense of honesty to the wind. Good do see.

No one has suggested that BP should not "clean up after THEIR OWN MESS."

Clean up and liability are not the same thing, genius.

"Democratic Party wants to avoid taxpayers having to pay to clean up the worst corporate/environmental disaster in U.S. History.

How can you tell? The GOP is blocking the vote on the liability cap!"

See above. Clean up is not liability. Liability cap is irrelevant to clean up.

And, genius, the liability cap is irrelevant to any imagined responsibility of taxpayers. If the liability cap is not lifted, and BP is not liable for all damages, it in no way means taxpayers are.

If you are going to lie, at least get a grasp of the basic facts first.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The OPA passed both houses unanimously in 1990, per wiki. And Dems at no time afterward lifted the liability cap.

Apparently, then, the Democrats have been just as bad, unjust, and evil as Republicans.

Wow, you are such an easy mark, Ethan.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Republicans said:

NO to saving the economy.
NO to fixing our broken health care system.
NO to financial regulatory reform.
NO to energy reform.
NO to immigration reform.
and now NO to corporate liability reform...

...and now, while attacking the President for every move he makes, they accuse Democrats of playing politics!

Even THEY have to know that this is a party without a message for the people.

Even THEY have to know that, despite the faults in the MSM and despite the preponderance of "low-info voters" and people who are not engaged in politics, people can see right through their lies.

Even THEY have to know that they are exhibiting to the world that they have no morals nor sense of what is right.

Of course, they DO know these things...

...and they JUST DON'T CARE.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Republicans back British Criminal Enterprises over the rights of Ordinary Americans.

That makes Republicans, such as Toon Town Lawyer, and Birther Bilgey, mere Benedict Arnolds.

They are traitors to America, and the Republican Party is the Party of Traitors.


Posted by: Liam-still | June 11, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Bush admin officials are even helping BP "repair their image". Bush's CHIEF OF STAFF is now on an "international advisory board" to help BP:

The Times understands that Mr Prodi, who twice served as Italy’s prime minister, is a key member of an “international advisory board” assisting BP that also includes Josh Bolten, the former chief of staff to President George W. Bush. Both Mr Prodi and Mr Bolten are former employees of Goldman Sachs, the investment bank that advises BP. BP’s former chairman Peter Sutherland also held a senior role at Goldman.

The group has been helping the oil giant to defend its interests against a fierce onslaught from the US Government

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/10/bolten-bp/

ANY pretense that the GOP cares about the United States of America is now completely gone.

They are now unequivocally standing FOR the single organization that has caused the most damage to United States property since 9/11.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

@qb1:And, genius, the liability cap is irrelevant to any imagined responsibility of taxpayers. If the liability cap is not lifted, and BP is not liable for all damages, it in no way means taxpayers are.

So I guess your solution is to leave people that don't get part of that 75 million out in the cold with no recourse. Lifting the liability cap is the correct response to dealing with a disaster that BP insisted in several documents couldn't happen...

Posted by: srw3 | June 11, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Cheney's former campaign press secretary Ann Womack-Colton has recently become BP's head of U.S. media relations

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/10/why-haven-t-we-heard-from-dick-cheney-on-the-oil-spill-.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Ethan at 1:06:

That was hysterical. I had a mental image of Ethan collapsing into a corner and sobbing into a hankie at the end.

Hilarious stuff.

srw,

Did I say that? I was only (yet again) refuting the falsehood being peddled by Ethan and others that taxpayers are liable for the damages if BP isn't.

That's not only stupid but obviously nothing more than partisan political propoganda.

I don't think lifting the cap is constitutional, but the courts might or might not agree. If Democrats think the cap is unjust, they shouldn't have sponsored and voted for it 20 years ago, and should have gotten rid of it when it repeal did not raise obvious constitutional problems.

As I understand, the cap was included as part of the comprehensive scheme of the OPA to address oil spills. Now, the always cynical and opportunistic Dems want to make a political issue out of removing that one feature. There might be an ethical case to make for it, but I have yet to see it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

SRW, just like any other Republican, when pressed on corporate liability in an environmental disaster, QB's response is semantics and blaming Democrats.

Quite clearly NOBODY in the GOP is willing to say that they should do away with -- or significantly raise -- the liability cap.

That is the true deceit in all of this. You can argue semantics about "clean up" versus "damages." That is the SEMANTICS part of their argument.

But when it comes time to VOTE for reform of ANY kind (see the list I posted above), it's nothing but OBSTRUCT OBSTRUCT OBSTRUCT.

That is why THIS ISSUE is so critical and needs to be addressed both in Congress and in the media.

Discuss semantics if you want, but your VOTE is your position. Period. It's an inconvenient truth for the Republican Party. And the American people are just beginning to catch on that this is the case in this scenario.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"That is the true deceit in all of this. You can argue semantics about "clean up" versus "damages." That is the SEMANTICS part of their argument."

Ridiculous. You are a liar, plain and simple.

Liability for damages, that is, economic injury to other parties, is quite a different issue from responsibility for costs of cleanup and containment.

Facts and truth are irrelevant to liberal democrats in their neverending quest for domination and power over others.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"Discuss semantics if you want, but your VOTE is your position. Period. It's an inconvenient truth for the Republican Party. And the American people are just beginning to catch on that this is the case in this scenario."

Righto, that's why Obama's approval ratings continue to fall, and Dems are bracing for political disaster.

LOL

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

The nickel and bileman are sure kicking some ass defending the rule of law.

Except of course when it comes to war crimes.

You guys really are beautiful.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | June 11, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Simple questions:

If the liability cap is unjust, why did Democrats include it in the OPA in 1990, and why didn't they ever remove it before now?


How is its ex post facto removal consistent with the rule of law?

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

When the truth is held right up to their faces, their arguments dissolve into personal attacks on liberals and President Obama.

They, as a party and as individuals, are completely and thoroughly absent any sense of morality as well as any concept of the specific qualities of our country that have made us exceptional above all others in history.

THAT is why they oppose raising the liability cap.

They praise the almighty dollar while kicking sand in the faces of those who've had their family's way of life for generations destroyed.

It is time to substantially lift or totally remove the liability cap on ALL damages and ALL economic injury and ALL environmental clean-up.

Right Republicans? Right John Boehner?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Analysts at BofA say a "conservative estimate" for BP's total liability is $28 billion dollars. That, I think, is what this Chamber of Commerce/Boehner thing is all about. That includes a lot more than the narrow clean-up expenses. And even for BP that's real money.

Who should pay for this nickel? bileman?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | June 11, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"When the truth is held right up to their faces, their arguments dissolve into personal attacks on liberals and President Obama."

Interesting in that you have been typing nothing but lies and vitriolic attacks on Republicans and conservatives all day . . . not to mention up until today.

But I hope all Democrats follow your lead, which will only help amplify the political ass kicking coming your way.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

It is time to substantially lift or totally remove the liability cap on ALL damages and ALL economic injury and ALL environmental clean-up.

Right QB?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

All, the Weekly Standard is now selling an "Obama stress head" doll that allows you to crush the president's head in your hand:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/you_too_can_pretend_to_crush_o.html

Posted by: sargegreg | June 11, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"How is its ex post facto removal consistent with the rule of law?"

I'm assuming you were voicing the same concerns about ex post facto laws when telecom immunity was passed?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 11, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Right QB?

Where'd ya go?

It is time to substantially lift or totally remove the liability cap on ALL damages and ALL economic injury and ALL environmental clean-up.

Right QB?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Here's a little perspective on the moratorium and the impact on our oil supply. I know there are other economic concerns re workers and communities, but at least I think this shows the exaggerated claims of loss of oil production.

"But in a report [pdf] issued on Thursday, the International Energy Agency, an intergovernmental group that studies energy policy for industrialized nations, put out some preliminary projections on the disaster’s impact. The group projects that a one- to two-year delay for all planned new deepwater oilfield projects in the gulf could reduce daily production by 100,000 to 300,000 barrels a day by 2015. At the high end, that would be nearly 18 percent of current production in the gulf and 5 percent of total domestic production, but less than 2 percent of total national oil consumption."

"That’s nothing to sneeze at, but it’s not a game changer, at least not in the short term."

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/the-oil-supply-picture-post-spill/

Posted by: lmsinca | June 11, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"Right QB? Where'd ya go?"

The Trolls, having been busted on their latest BS meme du jour, are awaiting new instructions from Karl Rove and Dick Armey. Sort of like when that robot goes blank in Lost in Space (an oldie but goodie).

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

BP knew from the very start of the massive oil leak, what the real numbers were. After all they were the one's who knew how much oil their pipeline would carry up to the surface, when they installed the damn thing.

They did not want to let the true massive size of the daily leak be known, because then they would never have been allowed to piddle around, and try all their ways of capturing the oil, and selling it, instead of having being forced to seal of the entire pipeline, and entomb it.

They were lying about the amount of oil leaking, and that makes them willful operators of a massive criminal enterprise.

Time to arrest them, and file charges against them. They having committed an ongoing act of economic and environmental terrorism.

The residents of the gulf coastal areas are feeling terrorized, and defenseless, while The Republicans rush to defend The Foreign, Terror Perpetrating, Criminal Enterprise.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 11, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"It is time to substantially lift or totally remove the liability cap on ALL damages and ALL economic injury and ALL environmental clean-up.

Right QB?"

I don't know. I try not to make rash, emotion-based judgments about complex issues like this, particularly when I have only limited familiarity with all the facts and factors involved.

Your party thought the cap was a good idea from 1990 up to now.

It's a bit much for you to suddenly decide it is unjust and evil not to retrocactively repeal it.

And, btw, if you've read the cap section, you know it doesn't apply to "removal" costs, so you need to stop trying to mislead everyone about that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"I'm assuming you were voicing the same concerns about ex post facto laws when telecom immunity was passed?"

No, probably not, since that wouldn't any issue of imposing retroactive liability, and clearly wouldn't raise a constitutional ex post facto issue.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"I don't know."

Exactly.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Nor do you "know." You are merely reacting emotionally. I doubt you can even explain what your declaration means.

"It is time . . . ." What does that even mean? It is time because your party didn't do anything to change it for 20 years? Because it now looks unwise in retrospect?

Do you even know what you mean by "lifting" the liability cap on "All damages and ALL economic injury"? Are you proposing to redefine the categories of compensable loss in the statute?

Of course, you don't even know these are questions raised by your assertion, let alone what the answers are.

You are venting an emotional and irrational response.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Shorter QB:

"Anything over $75 million should be paid by a taxpayer bailout."

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Shorter Ethan:

I am a liar. I can't deal with facts, and have limited analytical reasoning capacity, so I just lie.

But I'll give you yet another chance, Ethan. Please do explain, with specific reference to the statute or other relevant laws, how the alternative to lifting the cap on damages means "taxpayer bailout."

Knock yourself out.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Let's say the total damages is $28 billion.

And the liability cap is $75 million.

That leaves:

$27,925,000,000 unaccounted for.

Who pays that amount, QB?
Or does nobody pay it?
Those who were damaged get NO financial remediation?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

If the 28 billion is actually damages and not removal (i.e., cleanup), that is what current law appears to provide -- no one pays it (unless BP agrees to anyway).

Your claim was that taxpayers would have to pay the rest.

Are you ready to admit that isn't true?

If this cap is unjust and evil, why did your party vote it into law and never repeal it?

And why is it the only just thing to do now to retroactively repeal it and impose ex post facto liability?


Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"no one pays it (unless BP agrees to anyway)"

EXACTLY!

So the most profitable industry and one of the single most profitable companies in the history of the universe can tell the American public and the American economy: "SCREW YOU SUCKAS!"

And you're perfectly fine with that.

I don't understand how you can live with yourself, holding those views. It's just downright mean and truly immoral.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

You must really revile your own party, then, for passing and never repealing the cap. What a bunch of hideous monsters you serve.

Wasn't me. Hahahaha

The odds that an exception to the cap won't be invoked are negligible, I think.

But that reality would deprive you of your latest mania and political hatchet job on Republicans, which is, after all, what you live for.

Your constant projection tells me you really aren't able to live with the immorality and lack of principle you seem to embody.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"The reality is the opposite, as this story shows: All partisan politics all the time for Democrats. Cheap shot attacks for political gain, good of the country be damned."

I'm rubber, you're glue, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

The good of the country according to Republicans: corporations feed the country (the disparity in wealth has never been higher, the lowest number of jobs created for decades under Bush), deregulation feeds the economy and keeps people employed (the economic collapse, the coal mining disaster, the Gulf oil spill), preemption trumps diplomacy (a budget busting, endless war that further destabilizes the Middle East, contempt from our allies, a geometric growth of terrorism around the planet), but you were saying?

Posted by: Koko3 | June 12, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company