Video images and statistical projections related to the BP oil well disaster are nauseating. The reaction is shared universally. Equally nauseating were Thursday’s Congressional hearings during which hours were committed to the interrogation of BP chief executive Tony Hayward.
Shepard Smith, the Fox News anchor known for a left-of-center world view, said bluntly, “Today’s public dress down is as much about politics as it is getting to the bottom of this national tragedy.”
Members of the Congressional subcommittee who spent the day grilling, rebuking, admonishing, even mocking, Hayward have a lot more in common with the reserved Brit than any would care to admit. It is also shared by President Barack Obama. The lawmakers, Hayward and Obama did nothing on Thursday to further reduce the volume of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, nothing to dramatically step up the containment or removal of oil from the vulnerable waters.
Blaming BP is not a solution. Feeding populist rage is not proactive. It is reactive.
If blame is essential amid this crisis, why are Obama, his administration and members of Congress so unwilling to accept any responsibility for their complacency at the outset of the explosion and failure to recognize the magnitude of the uncontrolled oil flow? Why does President Obama travel to the Gulf Coast for photo ops but not to oversee a massive clean up effort that marshals experts and technology from around the world? Why does Obama hesitate to waive a law that prohibits foreign vessels from being dispatched to the Gulf to help collect oil?
And one other question trumps the rest: Why is there so little outrage among lawmakers and American citizens toward the nauseating politicization of the BP accident that took the dangerous turn Wednesday of subverting the rule of law? The U.S. government effectively seized $20 billion in assets of a multinational corporation, then selected the “independent” body that will determine who has been a victim of the disaster and how much money they need to be “made whole”.
The czar of this independent body is attorney Ken Feinberg, the same Ken Feinberg who presided over the Obama attack on executive pay among the nation’s financial institutions. This is the Feinberg who “independently” ruled these institutions — many of which never asked to be bailed out and, in some cases, repaid the money — were prohibited from honoring their compensation agreements with selected senior-level officers. Feinberg is an Obamatron, period.
Texas Rep. Joe Barton called the seizure of $20 billion from BP a “shakedown”. Later, he was compelled during the Hayward hearing to reiterate that he holds BP responsible for the environmental disaster. The two are completely unconnected. The $20 billion transfer of wealth to the U.S. government represents naked exploitation in the aftermath of the rig explosion, and another example of a government takeover of a private enterprise. By the way, that $20 billion is an initial amount. The U.S. likely with extort more. And it is separate from $100 million allocated to compensate for Obama’s worst decision since the accident: shutting down all offshore drilling for six months, crippling an industry. When Obama says BP will pay he apparently means “for my reckless decisions.”
Conn Carroll, writing The Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell analysis Thursday, gets to the heart of it. “Yesterday’s ‘voluntary’ deal between BP and the Obama administration was nothing less than a continuation of (Obama’s) ongoing assault on the rule of law,” he concludes. “From Fannie Mae to Freddie Mac, from GM to Chrysler, from AIG to Citibank, our government continues to subvert the established rule of law. This lawlessness creates uncertainty in the business environment, and it is a huge reason why our economy is not recovering as it should be.”
An environmental crisis meets an economic crisis. Which will take longer to clean up?