Joe Barton (R-TX) Apologizes To BP CEO Over The White House "Shakedown" For $20 Billion.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

He has a legitimate point.

The idea of the government demanding money from anyone on a whim without some sort of lawsuit is absurd and has no legal grounds....

---------

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008020-503544.html

BP CEO Tony Hayward is in the midst of a harsh grilling today on Capitol Hill, where he is testifying House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing on "The Role of BP in the Deepwater Horizon Explosion and Oil Spill."

But not long after the hearing began, Hayward got something not many expected from lawmakers: An apology.

Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, apologized to Hayward for what he described as a "shakedown" at the White House yesterday. He was referring to the deal worked out between the Obama administration and BP to set up a $20 billion fund administered by a third party to pay for damages from the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday," Barton said. "I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a $20 billion shakedown."

He complained that "the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people, [is] participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, that's got no legal standing, and which sets, I think, a terrible precedent for the future."

"I apologize," Barton added. "I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is -- again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize."

"I'm speaking now totally for myself," he noted. "I'm not speaking for the Republican Party."

Not long after Barton spoke, the White House released a statement calling his comments "shameful."

"What is shameful is that Joe Barton seems to have more concern for big corporations that caused this disaster than the fishermen, small business owners and communities whose lives have been devastated by the destruction," said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. "Congressman Barton may think that a fund to compensate these Americans is a 'tragedy', but most Americans know that the real tragedy is what the men and women of the Gulf Coast are going through right now. Members from both parties should repudiate his comments."

According to the Associated Press, Barton has taken more than $100,000 in political contributions from oil and gas interests since the beginning of 2009, more than all but one other member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

At the hearing, Rep. Ed Markey (D - MA) said he "could not disagree more strongly" with Barton's comments.

"Not only is the compensation fund that was created yesterday at the White House in an agreement reached between BP and President Obama not a slush fund and not a shakedown, rather it was the government of the United States worked to protect the most vulnerable citizens that we have in this country right now - the residents of the Gulf," he said.

"American citizens are being harmed," Markey added. "We cannot wait, as unfortunately so many victims of the Exxon Valdez had to wait years to see those families compensated. We can't lose sight of fact that the 1984 Bhophal disaster and lawsuits related to it, were only settled last week. We have to make sure American citizens are protected."

"The families of the Gulf will be crushed financially unless this compensation fund is put in place," said Markey, arguing that the history of Gulf families will be "permanently altered" without action.

Markey added that the creation of the slush fund reflected "American government working at its best" to ensure that families do not become "roadkill" as a result of corporate practices.

As Markey spoke, Barton leaned back in his chair reading what appeared to be the newspaper Investor's Business Daily.

[Heracles 417]

It does seem to be a shakedown.

Why is the department accountable to overlook this not put on stand and asked to explain their failure?

Edited June 17, 2010 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the administration is grandstanding on the issue. Then again - you can see why given that they're being blamed for the failure to stop the leak.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I think the administration is grandstanding on the issue. Then again - you can see why given that they're being blamed for the failure to stop the leak.

with good reason.

Gary and Alla pointed it out perfectly in another thread. Obama has had the power since Day 1 to stop the leak and could do it today.... but then again, this isn't about the leak at all and it all about politics and eventual new taxes/control.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't see how - from what I understand a leak at that depth requires specialised equipment and is something of a first in the industry.

The real question should be on how licenses to drill that deep are awarded in the first place.

[Teacher Mark 53]

...Barton is hardly the only lawmaker in Washington that's friendly with Big Oil. For the current election cycle, which includes 2009 and 2010, the top recipients in the House from the oil and gas industry are:

1. Dan Boren, D-Okla.--$139,700

2. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.--$133,100

3. Chet Edwards, D-Tex.--$123,630

4. Mike Conway, R-Tex.--$116,950

5. Joe Barton, R-Tex.--$100,470...

http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/06/15/where-big-oil-puts-its-money-on-capitol-hill/?partner=yahootix

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

I think the administration is grandstanding on the issue. Then again - you can see why given that they're being blamed for the failure to stop the leak.

a +1 from me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The idea of the government demanding money from anyone on a whim without some sort of lawsuit is absurd and has no legal grounds....

BP could have refused to compensate anyone w/o a court order to do so. They chose not to do that. The idea of a corporation not being able to make such decisions w/o another party being blamed for them is absurd. BP knows good and well that they are under no obligation at this point to pay any family, business or community that currently suffers financially due to the reckless damage they did and continue to do to the Gulf region.

As for the quick kill on the spill that was floated here, seeing that the potential civil fines for this spill are accumulating at a rate of hundreds of millions of dollars a day, I would say it's a pretty safe bet that BP would pursue whatever viable option is available to stop the leak. If a detonation was viable, the load would have gone off some time back. Read this morning that BP's liablility could easily reach 3 times the $20BN set aside - and that would be on top of said $20BN. Are they ever going to be held liable to the full extend? I don't think so.

Acting in the way they do - i.e. not dragging those whose livelyhoods they've destroyed for years, perhaps decades to come through decades of litigation - may save them more down the road. Trust me, the corporate bean counters at BP have worked through this. They're doing this out of sheer self-interest.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Think slush fund, and you will have it about right. The Campaign to Reelect Obama in 2012 wants to, "Make sure the money goes to all the right people."

[Texanadian 10]

Something that hasn't been said in the midst of all this talk of ruining jobs for Gulf residents is that the oil rigs have provided jobs and a way of life for those very same people. Who works on these rigs? People who live in the Gulf states. Who benefits from locally explored oil? People who drive and use oil based products. Fishermen need boat fuel etc.

I don't doubt there will be some hoop jumping to get through to actually make a claim on the money. Because anytime you put up a pot of money to give away, you'll find that the list of people wanting it will grow.

I can see Barton's side of it. But really, this was BP either agreeing to it or simply giving away the money for publicity. Sure it's in their self interest to do it. Why else would they give the money away?