Yesterday Ben Stein posted an article at the American Spectator about the deal worked out between BP and the Obama Administration to pay for damages along the Gulf coast. Mr. Stein points out that there is no legal justification for this deal. Admittedly, there is a huge mess growing daily in the Gulf of Mexico and BP is partially responsible, but what is the legal basis for a $20 billion that we are demanding from BP and who is going to oversee this?
The fact that BP will not be paying its stockholders for the next three quarters is very troubling. This is not playing well overseas. Our already strained relationship with Great Britain is getting worse. The headline of todays Mail.online is:
"Obama bullies BP into £13.5bn fund for oil spill victims... but British pensioners will pick up the bill"
Ben Stein also points out in his article:
"Without any new legislation, President Obama has used returned TARP money as a political slush fund to prop up favorite industries. This is the same problem: serious executive action without legislative authority.
"The same goes for Mr. Obama's demand that BP pay the lost wages of oil and gas workers suspended from work because of the moratorium on Gulf of Mexico underseas drilling. There simply was no legislation allowing this kind of specific demand. Mr. Obama's demand was in the nature of a threat, more than a Constitutional act."
The actions taken regarding BP are not constitutional and need to be addressed. Yes, BP should be required to clean up the mess and pay restorations, but what happened at the White House between President Obama and BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg was a shakedown.
Leave a comment