Alexander Haig, Reagan's Secretary of State, famously said in the immediate aftermath of the 1981 attempted assassination of the President, "As of now, I am in control here in the White House [pending the return of the Vice President]." That, of course, was hubris. Although lawyers can quibble over what "control in the White House" means, in fact, the Secretary of State follows the Vice Presidient (G.H.W. Bush), Speaker of the House (Tip O'Neill), and President Pro Tempore (Strom Thurmond). (In fact, Reagan had not formally turned over the reins to Bush that afternoon.)
Obama and his representatives (including Carol Browner) have made it very clear that that the Administration is in charge; the President assures he takes full responsibility, that BP can't do squat without playing "mother, may I?" with the Obama Administration. Well, President Obama, you can't have it both ways: if "Big Nanny knows best", aren't you as vested as BP is in their multiple failures of trying to resolve the matter prior to an estimated August target date of relief well drilling? Clearly, Big Nanny doesn't have a better idea, or it would refuse to approve BP's own solutions and basically say it would only approve its own solution.
This is "leadership"? A pro-environment President who threw millions of dollars of newer clunkers, subsidy-dependent green companies, but not a penny towards a long-pending request for fire booms? A government which has money for high-speed trains in Florida, but no barrier islands off the Louisiana coast since Katrina? Dithering on the barrier island decision, long after it became apparent oil was progressing towards the ecologically-sensitive Louisiana coast?
What we hear from the Administration is purely political. It seems that the Obama Administration feels the need to remind us, at least every other day, that BP will pay for economical hardship to coastal businesses, BP will pay for cleanup costs; we need the ugly threats of Interior Secretary Salazar to keep the boat on the throat of BP (Why exactly is that necessary? Are BP executives on vacation while each day the spill continues adds thousands or millions of dollars of damages to the company's liabilities?), and now we have the all-wise Eric Holder whom certainly knows how to set his priorities--putting KSM on trial in New York City, appealing the Arizona immgration law, and now clearly trying to intimidate BP management by ugly threats of a criminal probe into the tragedy?
I read the following statement by an investment writer, Michael Robinson, which is salient to my own discussion:
I can’t figure out for the life of me if Team Obama wants to send BP executives to jail, get them to help stop the spill, or just wants to take the company over all together...At his televised press conference last week, Mr. Obama looked about as strong and decisive as a deer caught in the headlights...Announcing a Justice Department probe of the matter yesterday after a long weekend in which the Obama White House faced withering attacks from liberals smacks of brazen political maneuvering.Watching the market correct yesterday under the thuggish behavior from the AG (as if Obama didn't get a clue from the market nosediving under his badmouthing the economy early last year and adverse reactions to his crony bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler, his demagoguery against banks, etc.) is just another example of failed Presidential leadership. Here we are, over $13T in debt, and like an inexperienced boxer who gets stung by a hard punch and starts going back to his old, bad habits (like dropping his hands), Obama gives the usual failed political rhetoric over throwing the next generation's tax revenue at make-work clean energy projects, eliminating alleged vast tax loopholes for the oil companies, tax-and-trade, etc. Are you kidding me?
We currently have a grossly out-of-balance trade deficit, and energy supply imports account for the second highest category of imports. What makes this utterly unacceptable is that we are not Japan, with very limited national resources; we have vast deposits of oil and gas off our coasts, oil shale in the western/central states, Alaska, etc., which are not being tapped purely for ideological reasons. Obama was offering tiny concessions in an effort to bribe Republicans into buying into his alternative energy boondoggle. Let us be very clear: there is not enough production capacity to replace over 100 million vehicles with high-priced electric and hybrid vehicles. We cannot afford these trade deficits in the long run. With limited global surpluses of oil, and developing nations like India growing their own demand for oil imports with $3000 autos, we cannot afford Obama's game of an occasional bone to oil companies (since suspended) off Virginia and the Gulf Coast. It's not a matter of whether we are going to revisit $4/gallon gasoline but when. And I guarantee we are going to hear the same old same old when that happens: oh, lifting the moratoriums off the coasts won't help get oil into tanks within a year or two--so let's keep the moratorium in place now....
Obama's using the BP oil spill to create a scapegoat, a whipping boy against domestic energy production is morally unconscionable. But should we really be surprised? "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Obama is repeating a well-known pattern: he often starts by gratuitously paying lip service, denying what, in fact, is his real intention. (Remember his famous statement "I don't begrudge success and wealth...", but he is increasing taxes on wealth across the board.) Double talk fools nobody; calling BP the government's partner in one breath and paying tribute to BP's technology and know-how is one thing, but then announcing criminal and civil probes of their "partners"? This perpetuates an adversarial relationship between business and government; the message is aimed not just at BP but for any energy company (where but for the grace of God...) and, in fact, businesses in general. How does this help business investment, growth, and jobs? Obama just doesn't get the corrosive effects of his irresponsible behavior on the economy...
Is Robert Reich on Hugo Chavez' Twitter List, Too?
The former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary, now a professor at Berkeley, wrote a recent post advocating a temporary takeover of BP for a number of reasons, principally on simplifying formal responsibility for the spill and the public interest involving the oil spill. His comparison of takeovers in the same way the government handled AIG, the GSE's, GM and Chrysler is, of course, apples and oranges. This is so unconscionable, it hardly seems necessary to treat this seriously. First, the government bailed out the failed companies; the government has no analogous vested interest in BP. Second, if there's one thing we've learned, it's that the Obama Administration lacks the necessary know-how, leadership and managerial skills to run private companies. Third, this would be unconstitutional on its face, a clear violation of property rights. BP has clear cleanup costs and liabilities to coastal businesses; taking BP over doesn't change that liability. However, the government could make decisions adversely against interests of shareholders, and they would not be held responsible for bad business decisions. Do we honestly believe an administration which has piled up over $3T in new national debt in just 2 years can be trusted with a private company's assets? Fourth, there's a slippery slope argument here: where do you draw the line? Refinery explosions, chemical spills, etc.?
Should we really be surprised that progressives like Reich are pushing socialist principles on a string? Watching Hugo Chavez destroy the private sector in Venezuela no doubt has inspired Reich and others...
Political Cartoon
IBD cartoonist Michael Ramirez notes if Bush ran the economy into the ditch, Obama drove it off the cliff....
Quote of the Day
There's only one way to succeed in anything and that is to give everything.
Vince Lombardi
Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100 (continued)
#69. "On the Good Ship Lollipop"
#70. "Summer NIghts"
#71. "Yankee Doodle Boy"
#72. "Good Morning"
