I firmly believe that forcing British Petroleum to set aside $32.2 billion (in a fund they would not administer) for the Gulf oil spill was a shakedown. Regardless of the integrity of the man overseeing the payment program, I suspect that somewhere hidden in the small print, Chicago politics are in play. Well, there are some unintended consequences.<\/p>\n
CBS News<\/a> reported yesterday that BP took a $17 billion loss<\/font><\/strong><\/a> in the second quarter. <\/p>\n According to the article:<\/p>\n “BP set aside $32.2 billion for the cost of the spill, a charge that led to the $17 billion quarterly loss. But according to the msnbc.com report, BP plans to offset the entire cost of the spill against its tax bill, which will slash its U.S. taxes by $10 billion.”<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I would like to point out that BP did nothing illegal or unethical here–they took legally allowed tax write-offs. What this essentially means is that the government treasury will be receiving $10 billion less revenue because of BP’s losses. BP may be paying for the clean-up and the impact on the Gulf residents, but, as usual with this administration, the American taxpayer is left holding the bag. Had the administration allowed BP to pay expenses as they came up, I suspect their tax burden would not have been as greatly affected.<\/p>\n I really think this is poetic justice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I firmly believe that forcing British Petroleum to set aside $32.2 billion (in a fund they would not administer) for the Gulf oil spill was a shakedown. Regardless of the integrity of the man overseeing the payment program, I suspect … Continue reading \n