Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes, “If the government can take over giant global insurer AIG and the auto giant General Motors and replace their CEOs, in order to keep them financially solvent, it should be able to put BP’s north American operations into temporary receivership in order to stop one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.”
Robert Reich:
1. We are not getting the truth from BP. BP has continuously and dramatically understated size of gusher. In the last few days, BP chief Tony Hayward has tried to refute reports from scientists that vast amounts of oil from the spill are spreading underwater. Hayward says BP’s sampling shows “no evidence” oil is massing and spreading underwater across the Gulf. Yet scientists from the University of South Florida, University of Georgia, University of Southern Mississippi and other institutions say they’ve detected vast amounts of underwater oil, including an area roughly 50 miles from the spill site and as deep as 400 feet. Government must be clearly in charge of getting all the facts, not waiting for what BP decides to disclose and when.
2. We have no way to be sure BP is devoting enough resources to stopping the gusher. BP is now saying it has no immediate way to stop up the well until August, when a new “relief” well will reach the gushing well bore, enabling its engineers to install cement plugs. August? If government were in direct control of BP’s north American assets, it would be able to devote whatever of those assets are necessary to stopping up the well right away.
3. BP’s new strategy for stopping the gusher is highly risky. It wants to sever the leaking pipe cleanly from atop the failed blowout preventer, and then install a new cap so the escaping oil can be pumped up to a ship on the surface. But scientists say that could result in an even bigger volume of oil – as much as 20 percent more — gushing from the well. At least under government receivership, public officials would be directly accountable for weighing the advantages and disadvantages of such a strategy. As of now, company officials are doing the weighing. Which brings us to the fourth argument for temporary receivership.
We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.
In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.
Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.
Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.
Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.
BP’s hypocrisy on the matter of that oil spill
shouldn’t come as a surprise to everyone, taking the long-term history of theirs, into the consideration.
I’ve come to read an interesting article on the history of BP and its predecessors and, which is much more important,
on the issues of their connection to the Wall Street financiers.
Oh, and their shared profiteering, of course.
P.S. Still, this is a one hell of an infantile thought to believe that such a “poor” lad like Obama would be allowed to be in control of the tremendous money-making mechanism BP is.
it’s time to say NO to greed and hubris
and YES to green energy and sustainable practices
we CAN make a difference for the future generations
if we clean up our act and bring BP and accomplices to justice!
By Nora Dunn, June 2, 2010 at 11:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I guess I don’t understand how the federal government could stop the oil leak,
and even more so why or how they would take over an oil company. If they did,
we would have to foot the bill for this clean-up. The problem was created when
BP was allowed a permit without the means to address an accident like this, and
bypass safety inspections.
Mr Yell:
Your surname, as I’m sure you’ve heard countless times before, is appropriate.
“This incident was not an accident, it was a deliberate violation of law.” REALLY???
Nobody on earth, except maybe you, expects anyone but BP to pay for the cleanup and upcoming lawsuits. Why in hell would BP “deliberately” incur billions of dollars of cleanup expenses and watch $40 billion of stock value disappear? To what purpose?
“The government can and has been effective…” I ask AGAIN—Show me a concrete example, other than wealth redistribution and building the best military in the world.
What a boneheaded idea and comparison by fmr. sec. Reich. The federal government used its leverage as a creditor to take over AIG and GM, two insolvent companies. The US has no leverage in this case. BP is still solvent, for now.
I was not able to find anything in the text of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, that would grant the president power of receivership. Maybe you can find it. Reich provided no citation in his article. Typical.
By Jim Yell, June 2, 2010 at 5:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
This incident was not an accident, it was a deliberate violation of law. It was at the very lest reckless endangerment. It was premeditated. BP refused to follow safety regulations, used un-do influence on regulators and used campaign donations to undercut our elected officials ability to make just descisions. Another way to say it is BP bribed our lawmakers so that they could get away with dangerous practices.
Sure go ahead and nationalize BP and seize their assets, otherwise the states and National government will be cleaning up this mess without compensation for decades.
The government can and has been effective, that it is less so now is business has found a way to buy their way out of regulation and get loopholes built into what would otherwise be good laws. This is largely done thru campaign donations and now the idiots in the Supreme Court have given the complete and unconstitutional right to buy every election. It is all disgusting, but the right wing is most disgusting as their supposed ideals are what got us into this mess in the first place.
How in the hell will taking BP over stop the leak???? When has the government done ANYTHING better than private industry——other than take from the haves and give to the have-nots.
Pop up quiz 2: Is it morally okay for millions of living creatures—men, women, children, sea animals, coral, plants,—to suffer from irreparable environmental disasters caused by the inhumane negligence of private enterprise managers who value money over life?
By last_boy_scout, June 14, 2010 at 4:56 am Link to this comment
BP’s hypocrisy on the matter of that oil spill
shouldn’t come as a surprise to everyone, taking the long-term history of theirs, into the consideration.
I’ve come to read an
interesting article on the history of BP and its predecessors and, which is much more important,
on the issues of their connection to the Wall Street financiers.
Oh, and their shared profiteering, of course.
P.S. Still, this is a one hell of an infantile thought to believe that such a “poor” lad like Obama would be allowed to be in control of the tremendous money-making mechanism BP is.
Report thisBy Sam7, June 2, 2010 at 11:10 am Link to this comment
it’s time to say NO to greed and hubris
Report thisand YES to green energy and sustainable practices
we CAN make a difference for the future generations
if we clean up our act and bring BP and accomplices to justice!
By Nora Dunn, June 2, 2010 at 11:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I guess I don’t understand how the federal government could stop the oil leak,
Report thisand even more so why or how they would take over an oil company. If they did,
we would have to foot the bill for this clean-up. The problem was created when
BP was allowed a permit without the means to address an accident like this, and
bypass safety inspections.
By rico, suave, June 2, 2010 at 9:58 am Link to this comment
Mr Yell:
Your surname, as I’m sure you’ve heard countless times before, is appropriate.
“This incident was not an accident, it was a deliberate violation of law.” REALLY???
Nobody on earth, except maybe you, expects anyone but BP to pay for the cleanup and upcoming lawsuits. Why in hell would BP “deliberately” incur billions of dollars of cleanup expenses and watch $40 billion of stock value disappear? To what purpose?
“The government can and has been effective…” I ask AGAIN—Show me a concrete example, other than wealth redistribution and building the best military in the world.
Report thisBy Fat Freddy, June 2, 2010 at 7:20 am Link to this comment
We are not getting the truth from BP. BP has continuously and dramatically understated size of gusher.
Well, duh. BP doesn’t want any of its competitors to know how much oil is actually down there.
Report thisBy Fat Freddy, June 2, 2010 at 6:52 am Link to this comment
What a boneheaded idea and comparison by fmr. sec. Reich. The federal government used its leverage as a creditor to take over AIG and GM, two insolvent companies. The US has no leverage in this case. BP is still solvent, for now.
I was not able to find anything in the text of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, that would grant the president power of receivership. Maybe you can find it. Reich provided no citation in his article. Typical.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=33USCC40
Report thisBy Jim Yell, June 2, 2010 at 5:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
This incident was not an accident, it was a deliberate violation of law. It was at the very lest reckless endangerment. It was premeditated. BP refused to follow safety regulations, used un-do influence on regulators and used campaign donations to undercut our elected officials ability to make just descisions. Another way to say it is BP bribed our lawmakers so that they could get away with dangerous practices.
Sure go ahead and nationalize BP and seize their assets, otherwise the states and National government will be cleaning up this mess without compensation for decades.
The government can and has been effective, that it is less so now is business has found a way to buy their way out of regulation and get loopholes built into what would otherwise be good laws. This is largely done thru campaign donations and now the idiots in the Supreme Court have given the complete and unconstitutional right to buy every election. It is all disgusting, but the right wing is most disgusting as their supposed ideals are what got us into this mess in the first place.
Report thisBy rico, suave, June 1, 2010 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment
How in the hell will taking BP over stop the leak???? When has the government done ANYTHING better than private industry——other than take from the haves and give to the have-nots.
Report thisBy doublestandards/glasshouses, June 1, 2010 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
No mystery here. Obama took in 3 million in campaign contributions from BP.
Report thisBy Aaron Ortiz, June 1, 2010 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment
Of course not. But is nationalization going to rescue the environment?
Report thisBy gerard, June 1, 2010 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment
Pop up quiz 2: Is it morally okay for millions of living creatures—men, women, children, sea animals, coral, plants,—to suffer from irreparable environmental disasters caused by the inhumane negligence of private enterprise managers who value money over life?
Report thisBy Aaron Ortiz, June 1, 2010 at 12:13 pm Link to this comment
Nationalization of oil….
Pop up quiz: what system of government owns all the means of production?
Report thisAnswer: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _