Whose ass to kick

[Taco John]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Quk0tb2qUwY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Quk0tb2qUwY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Popcorn Sutton]

Obama is truly in a no win situation. He is expected to fix the HUGE mistakes Bush made with Iraq, end our dependence on China (made MUCH worse during the Bush administration), fix the lax oil regulations (which Cheney allowed the oil execs/lobbyists to write), fix an economy sailing into the next great depression, somehow turn around a 1.2+ trillion dollar yearly deficit handed off by his predecessor all in the first year and a half or he is an epic failure.

Seriously, Taco, can you say with a straight face that Obama is to blame for the lax oil regulations? Being completely honest with yourself?

Are you in the "it doesn't matter" camp, Obama is in power so regardless of what Bush/Cheney did he should have fixed it (all in his first year in office)?

Obama can certainly be blamed for a poor response and overall handling of the oil spill, but it boggles my mind how he can be blamed for the oil regulations.

This is one more example of Bush/Cheney fail.

[Popcorn Sutton]

In regards to the $75 million cap.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aAXjVbtbeGzg


June 3 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. House Democrats, responding to the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, are preparing legislation to eliminate the $75 million cap on damages that large companies must pay over oil spills and tighten regulation of the industry, Democratic aides said.

The measure will be introduced after Congress returns next week from its Memorial Day recess, said the aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposal is still being revised.

The legislation would lengthen the 30-day review process for new drilling permits, require new environmental safeguards and increase congressional authority over the Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that oversees offshore drilling, the aides said. They said Democratic leaders haven’t decided whether the plan will be introduced as one legislative package or several bills.



Republicans have blocked efforts to raise the cap to $10 billion.

‘Cumulative Effect’

“We also must consider the cumulative effect of the different levels of liability, which could be economically devastating,” said Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Lisa+Murkowski&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) of Alaska at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on oil-spill liability issues last week. “Thousands of jobs, particularly along the gulf coast, could be lost.”

Oil companies oppose raising the liability cap, saying it would discourage domestic exploration and make independent oil and natural gas operations in the gulf uninsurable.

Raising the cap, American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Jack+Gerard&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) said on May 13, “would limit gulf operations to only the largest companies, forcing mid-size and smaller firms who cannot self-insure from the market.”

Republican Senators David Vitter (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=David+Vitter&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) of Louisiana and Jeff Sessions (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Jeff%0ASessions&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) of Alabama have introduced a bill that would raise the cap to $150 million or an amount equal to the last four quarters of a company’s profits, whichever is greater.

[Taco John]

Seriously, Taco, can you say with a straight face that Obama is to blame for the lax oil regulations? Being completely honest with yourself?

I never said he was. He is responsible for his horrible response to it. It's absolutely atrocious that he hasn't even spoken to the CEO of BP yet. He should be on the phone with the guy every day - or at least once a week at the minimum.


Are you in the "it doesn't matter" camp, Obama is in power so regardless of what Bush/Cheney did he should have fixed it (all in his first year in office)?


Obama is pusuing all the same policies that Bush/Cheney pursued in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These are his wars now. He is responsible for them as far as I'm concerned. The guy I voted for would have our troops home by now. In fact, this is what Obama promised and failed to deliver.

[Rohirrim]

I never said he was. He is responsible for his horrible response to it. It's absolutely atrocious that he hasn't even spoken to the CEO of BP yet. He should be on the phone with the guy every day - or at least once a week at the minimum.

Why? At the onset of this disaster we could have argued about the failure of regulation, but now the issue is a failure of technology. Nothing Obama, or BP's CEO can do about that. Now, the entire mess is in the hands of engineers who are trying to come up with something that will work. And that is the failure of Cheney allowing BP and others to write the regulation. Those "worse case" technologies should have been created prior to drilling approval. What should Obama do - call up the CEO and yell at him? Pointless.


Obama is pusuing all the same policies that Bush/Cheney pursued in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These are his wars now. He is responsible for them as far as I'm concerned. The guy I voted for would have our troops home by now. In fact, this is what Obama promised and failed to deliver.


Right about that. Obama has become Bush Lite.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I never said he was. He is responsible for his horrible response to it. It's absolutely atrocious that he hasn't even spoken to the CEO of BP yet. He should be on the phone with the guy every day - or at least once a week at the minimum.

Agreed. Even if he was doing things behind the scenes, the administration should have been more forthcoming with the American people.


Obama is pusuing all the same policies that Bush/Cheney pursued in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These are his wars now. He is responsible for them as far as I'm concerned. The guy I voted for would have our troops home by now. In fact, this is what Obama promised and failed to deliver.

Well, agreed Ron Paul talks a big game and I love his thoughts on closing down military bases and bringing our troops home. I believe him too. However, I think even Ron Paul would have been overwhelmed if he went in and immediately ordered all troops home in Iraq. Regardless if we like it or not, the Bush regime got us into this war and it's not going to be easy to get out.

In terms of Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda, I support fighting those that actually attacked us. I think the fight against Al Qaeda is justified.

Anyhow, I think your video here is a lacking any credibility. Blaming Obama because the oil spill happened on Federal Land, as well as, blaming Obama for lax oil regulations --- weak.

[bronclvr]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-dems-cant-put-blame-genie-back-in-the-bottle-96127809.html#ixzz0qY91I5du

[Rohirrim]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-dems-cant-put-blame-genie-back-in-the-bottle-96127809.html#ixzz0qY91I5du

Ha! What a joke. You want to know what "simplistic philosphy" represents this oil spill best? The rightard dogma that "all regulation on business is bad" and if we just get rid of all the regulation, everything will turn out better. We got rid of all the regulation on Wall Street and they destroyed the world's economy. We got rid of the regulations on big oil and the worst oil spill in history is taking place. And now, of course, the rightards flail about trying to blame anything and anybody but the place where the blame should lie, at the feet of their failed ideology.

You give big business a knife and they'll use it to cut your throat.

[bronclvr]

Ha! What a joke. You want to know what "simplistic philosphy" represents this oil spill best? The rightard dogma that "all regulation on business is bad" and if we just get rid of all the regulation, everything will turn out better. We got rid of all the regulation on Wall Street and they destroyed the world's economy. We got rid of the regulations on big oil and the worst oil spill in history is taking place. And now, of course, the rightards flail about trying to blame anything and anybody but the place where the blame should lie, at the feet of their failed ideology.

You give big business a knife and they'll use it to cut your throat.

Ro,

I have a question-when is Obama offically responsible for anything?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Ro,

I have a question-when is Obama offically responsible for anything?

Obama is responsible for a poor effort in regards to the response and the poor public relations effort that ensued.

How you could blame the lax oil regulation on Obama is beyond me. Unless of course, you are in the camp of "Obama is President now," he should have fixed all of Bush's problems within his first year.

You know, just wave a magic wand and the economy is better, we are out of Iraq and lax oil regulations are just wiped away.

You know for a fact that if Obama came in his first year and said "Big oil, we are going to inflict much stronger regulations on you," that you and others would have been appalled at him.

[gunns]

Ro,

I have a question-when is Obama offically responsible for anything?

When you blame him for something he is officially responsible for.

[Rohirrim]

Ro,

I have a question-when is Obama offically responsible for anything?

He's responsible for what's happening in Afghanistan. He owns it. Same with Iraq. He's responsible for whatever comes out of the health care bill. He wrote it. Anything he instituted, started, accepted, or took over, he owns. Like the bs Patriot Act which he has chosen not to touch. His failed Israel policy, he owns.

But this Gulf catastrophe was created by the deregulation of big oil under Bush/Cheney. Hell, one of Bush's last acts going out the door was opening 32 million acres of federal land to oil and gas exploration. It was a giveaway to the industry. Like so much of what Obama has had on his plate, this spill is another left-over from the worst president in U.S. history.

[bronclvr]

When you blame him for something he is officially responsible for.

So, right now it's blank check?

[Popcorn Sutton]

So, right now it's blank check?

Notice gunns said when YOU blame him for something he's officially responsible for. You haven't done that.

The oil regs are from his predecessor so who's to blame?

[bronclvr]

He's responsible for what's happening in Afghanistan. He owns it. Same with Iraq. He's responsible for whatever comes out of the health care bill. He wrote it. Anything he instituted, started, accepted, or took over, he owns. Like the bs Patriot Act which he has chosen not to touch. His failed Israel policy, he owns.

But this Gulf catastrophe was created by the deregulation of big oil under Bush/Cheney. Hell, one of Bush's last acts going out the door was opening 32 million acres of federal land to oil and gas exploration. It was a giveaway to the industry. Like so much of what Obama has had on his plate, this spill is another left-over from the worst president in U.S. history.

Thank you, I appreciate this response-he's been in office what, about 16 Months? At some point, he is responsible for everything just like all past Presidents are. I like some of the decisions he's made, however there are so many promises not kept at this point-

[Popcorn Sutton]

Thank you, I appreciate this response-he's been in office what, about 16 Months? At some point, he is responsible for everything just like all past Presidents are. I like some of the decisions he's made, however there are so many promises not kept at this point-

He is certainly responsible for a number of issues but this thread is about the oil spill.

[bronclvr]

He is certainly responsible for a number of issues but this thread is about the oil spill.

Sorry for the Thread jack-

[epicSocialism4tw]

He is certainly responsible for a number of issues but this thread is about the oil spill.

...which he is responsible for, as he himself has said. The buck stops at him. Thats what he told us. Then we found out that he has been in more contact with Paul McCartney then he has been in with the CEO of BP.

[Phantom]

So I guess Clinton is to blame for 9/11 and Al Qaeda - since he did nothing about the first WTC attack, 2 embassy attacks and USS Cole. Al Qaeda was allowed to inch closer, grow confidence, stature, and resources necessary to pull off 9/11.

Do you think the 'pre-regulations' would have prevented the methane bubble that caused the explosion?

I'm being sarcastic with a point - this kind of logic is pointless and has no beginning nor end.

[Fedaykin]

I never said he was. He is responsible for his horrible response to it. It's absolutely atrocious that he hasn't even spoken to the CEO of BP yet. He should be on the phone with the guy every day - or at least once a week at the minimum.


To what end? How would that help anything?

[DBruleU]

To what end? How would that help anything?

Does it hurt the situation?

Obama should be talking to the guy in charge of BP - It's that simple.

[Rohirrim]

Send in the Army Corps of Engineers. They'll fix it right up. Look what they did for New Orleans? :rofl:

[Smiling Assassin27]

Levity time, though Reason TV ain't called that for nothing--props TJ.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2AAa0gd7ClM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2AAa0gd7ClM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[Taco John]

Well, agreed Ron Paul talks a big game and I love his thoughts on closing down military bases and bringing our troops home. I believe him too. However, I think even Ron Paul would have been overwhelmed if he went in and immediately ordered all troops home in Iraq. Regardless if we like it or not, the Bush regime got us into this war and it's not going to be easy to get out.

Ron Paul wouldn't feel overwhelmed by doing the right thing. He knows its the right thing, and is more interested in doing the right thing than being re-elected.


In terms of Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda, I support fighting those that actually attacked us. I think the fight against Al Qaeda is justified.

If this is what you think Afghanistan is about, then you are woefully misinformed (with apologies for saying so). If Afghanistan was ever about Al Qaeda, it isn't anymore. Al Qaeda has been pretty well splintered and ineffective for over a year now. Afghanistan is now about having a military position on that side of the world. That's all that war ever really was about anyway, though 9/11 gave good cover for it, giving people the cause to righteously say things like "I support that righteous cause over there" and believing it.

Anyhow, I think your video here is a lacking any credibility. Blaming Obama because the oil spill happened on Federal Land, as well as, blaming Obama for lax oil regulations --- weak.

Is this what you got out of the video?

Here's what it actually said:

The Federal Government was a major player in this disaster and shares significant blame for it for these three major reasons:

1. The Spill Happened on Federally Owned Land
My own commentary: The implcations here are staggering when you consider that we as individuals are responsible for our own property and that there is precedent that gives us responsibility for injuries that happen to burglars tresspassing on our own property. The government is, of course, trying to pass the buck by blaming everyone else.

Further than that, whatever you want to say about Bush and Cheney (neither of which I care to defend for any reason), the fact is that the permit for this happened during Obama's administration, and even further than that was "categorically excluded" (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/46831) from from environmental analysis because it "posed virtually no chance of harming the environment." The Obama Administration ignored the laws on the books and gave out the permit anyway. These guys are supposed to be stewards of the public land, and instead they cut corners.

2. The Federal Government Regulates Offshore Drilling -
The point above established the responsibility of the government as a steward of the land. Point two shows just how bad they are at it. Type into any search engine the following: "Minerals Management Service sex, drugs, and financial favors". Obama's people were in place when BP was given a permit to drill deep in the ocean on federal land without an EPA review. It doesn't take too much to connect the dots here. Especially when you look at Obama's hand picked guy, Ken Salazar as seceratary of the interior:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/17/us/17transition2-600.jpg

“It’s time for a new kind of leadership in Washington that’s committed to using our lands in a responsible way to benefit all our families,” Mr. Obama said. “That means ensuring that even as we are promoting development where it makes sense, we are also fulfilling our obligation to protect our national treasures.”

Environmentalists weren't happy with the selection (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/us/politics/18salazarcnd.html?_r=1), but oil companies where doing backflips for the fact that he wasn't an "ideologue:"

Oil and mining interests praised Mr. Salazar’s performance as a state official and as a senator, saying that he was not doctrinaire about the use of public lands. “Nothing in his record suggests he’s an ideologue,” said Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association. “Here’s a man who understands the issues, is open-minded and can see at least two sides of an issue.”

Because, of course, being an ideologue is a "bad" thing in this country. We're not supposed to hold onto ideals, we're supposed to compromise. You can clearly see what compromising got us.

3. Fed Capped economic liability - True, that Obama isn't responsible for this cap. But what is true is that the Democrats bear the ownership of responsibility for setting this cap in the first place.

WHO Set The Liability Cap At 75 Million?
In 1990, in response to the Exxon Valdez spill, Congress and the President enacted the Oil Pollution Act. The liability cap was set at $75 million. Any amount above that requires claims made against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Fund is funded by an 8 cent tax for every barrel produced or imported into the United States and is projected to have $1.6 billion in it by the end of FY10. However, there is a $1 billion per incident cap on payouts from the fund.

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/rush-holt-introduces-big-oil-bailout-prevention-act-to-protect-taxpayers


So, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Written and put forth by who?
The bill was introduced to the House by Walter B. Jones, Sr., a Democratic congressman from North Carolina's 1st congressional district, along with 79 cosponsors following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, which at the time was the largest oil spill in U.S. history. It enjoyed widespread support, passing the House 375-5 and the Senate by voice vote before conference, and unanimously in both chambers after conference. The U.S. Constitution, as interpreted in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), gives Congress the sole authority to regulate navigable waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Pollution_Act_of_1990

As an important note on the 101st Congress in 1990, which enacted the "Oil Pollution Act of 1990": Both chambers had a Democratic majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101st_United_States_Congress).


Liability caps are not free market economics. Right now, Congress is moving to up the cap to another arbitrary number: $10 billion. For what reason is there a cap at all? It's governments attempt to stabilize markets by limiting the liability of companies. That's not free market economics. That's, for lack of a better word, progressive market economics. They cap it, and then socialize the rest of the liability against something called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund - better known as taxpayers.

People don't like the word "socialism" but that's exactly what this is. This is the economic model in full action, and you can see what it's given us: corrupt beauracracy and a poisoned environment.

And we're funding it.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Even though I'm president of the United States, my power is not limitless," he told Grand Isle, La., locals in the video, released Friday. "So I can't dive down there and plug the hole. I can't suck it up with a straw. All I can do is make sure that I put honest, hard-working smart people in place ... to implement this thing."

Our president is an insensitive pr!ck.

If there's ONE thing he can do, it's suck. He sure hasn't kicked as much arse as he's sucked in this debacle.

[Popcorn Sutton]

...which he is responsible for, as he himself has said. The buck stops at him. Thats what he told us. Then we found out that he has been in more contact with Paul McCartney then he has been in with the CEO of BP.

Who allowed big oil to basically write their own regulations? Hint: It happened between 2000 and 2008.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Does it hurt the situation?

Obama should be talking to the guy in charge of BP - It's that simple.

I agree. You hold BP accountable by going straight to the top.

[Taco John]

Who wrote the lax oil regulations smart guy?


Walter B. Jones, Sr., a Democratic congressman from North Carolina's 1st congressional district did, along with 79 cosponsors.

It passed the house 375-5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Pollution_Act_of_1990

[Popcorn Sutton]

Walter B. Jones, Sr., a Democratic congressman from North Carolina's 1st congressional district did, along with 79 cosponsors.

It passed the house 375-5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Pollution_Act_of_1990


OIL & GAS REGULATORY ROLLBACKS --- from 2005 Energy Bill

Section 322
Exempts from the Safe Drinking Water Act a coalbed methane drilling technique called “hydraulic fracturing,” a potential polluter of underground drinking water. One of the largest companies employing this technique is Halliburton, for which Vice President Richard Cheney acted as chief executive officer in the 1990s. This exemption would kill lawsuits by Western ranchers who say that drilling for methane gas pollutes groundwater by injecting contaminated fluids underground. Only 16 companies stand to significantly benefit from this exemption from clean water laws: Anadarko, BP, Burlington Resources, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Dominion Resources, EOG Resources, Evergreen Resources, Halliburton, Marathon Oil, Oxbow (Gunnison Energy), Tom Brown, Western Gas Resources, Williams Cos and XTO. These companies gave nearly $15 million to federal candidates—with more than three-quarters of that total going to Republicans. Moreover, the 16 companies spent more than $70 million lobbying Congress.

Section 323
Provides an exemption for oil and gas companies from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for their construction activities surrounding oil and gas drilling.

Section 311
The section severely limits the ability of local communities and states to have adequate say over the siting of controversial Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) facilities. The section states that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) “shall have the exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal” under the Natural Gas Act (emphasis added).

The language is clearly aimed at a July 2004 lawsuit filed by the State of California claiming that FERC illegally ruled in March 2004 that states have limited jurisdiction over the permitting and siting of LNG facilities inside their borders. The lawsuit is being closely watched by other states, where officials have expressed alarm about the inability of state and local governments to have adequate input into these projects. LNG projects are particularly controversial because liquefied natural gas is extremely volatile and dangerous. Even if one supports increasing the number of LNG terminals in North America, there is absolutely no justification for limiting the ability of states and local communities to have control over the permitting and siting of these facilities. (See our Liquid Natural Gas section.)

LNG proponents claim that states still can veto LNG projects, as they retain jurisdiction over the facilities under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. But these three acts have very limited jurisdiction (for example, LNG facilities don’t really pollute the water or air, so states have no real ability to raise objections under these laws). The broadest possible law is the Natural Gas Act, so it is no surprise that natural gas companies and their allies in Congress pushed to give FERC “exclusive authority” under the one law (Natural Gas Act) with the most sweeping power.

Language added during the conference committee (meaning it wasn’t in either the original House or Senate bills) gives the Department of Defense veto authority over LNG projects proposed near military bases, directing FERC to “enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Defense for the purpose of ensuring that [FERC] coordinate and consult with the Secretary of Defense on the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities that may affect an active military installation.” FERC is further required to “obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense before authorizing the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities affecting the training or activities of an active military installation” (emphasis added).

But a similar proposal in the Senate to provide states with these exact rights now given to the DoD was rejected by a vote of 52 to 45 (a “yea” vote is bad, in that it was a vote to kill, or table, the amendment that would have forced FERC to get the approval of states to permit LNG facilities).

The House also rejected an amendment that would have removed this section entirely, thereby preserving the status quo and allowing the state of California to continue its challenge in federal court (so an “aye” vote is good, as it was to remove the entire LNG section).

Section 357
Authorizes a survey of the oil and natural gas available underwater off the coasts of states. This is the first step in opening these areas to more drilling. There was an amendment to strike this language that failed 52 to 44.

Section 390
Increases the ability to exclude a broad range of oil and gas exploration and drilling activities from public involvement and impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Section 381
Limits the ability of states to protect their coastlines from oil and gas exploration by limiting their appeals process under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Section 369
Mandates that the federal government make available oil shale and tar sands extraction on federal land for oil companies.

[Popcorn Sutton]

The conference report that emerged “included the worst provisions of both bills,” (http://www.lcv.org/images/client/pdfs/2003lcvsc_final.pdf) such as:

An exemption for all oil and gas construction activities, including roads, drill pads, pipeline corridors, refineries, and compressor stations from having to obtain a permit controlling polluted stormwater runoff caused by construction activities, as previously required under the Clean Water Act (Sec. 328).
Applicants for federal drilling permits could take up to two years to comply with application requirements, but would have given the Bureau of Land Management only 10 days to make decisions on drilling permit applications (Sec. 348).
Sweeping new authority for the Department of Interior to permit new energy projects in the Outer Continental Shelf without adequate oversight or standards (Sec. 321).
A $2 billion program to encourage already-profitable oil companies to drill in “ultra deepwater” (Title IX, Subtitle E part II).

[Popcorn Sutton]

Cheney finally finds success

Republicans retained the White House (with the help of over $2.5 million (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres04/indus.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00008072) from the oil and gas industry) and increased their majorities in both houses of Congress following the 2004 election. Rep. Tauzin retired and was replaced as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee by another Cheney ally, the equally pro-oil Joe Barton of Texas—the recipient of more than $1.4 million in campaign cash (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00005656&newMem=N&recs=20) from the oil and gas industry.
Barton shepherded a bill through the House (http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2005&rollnumber=132) that included tens of billions in subsidies for Big Oil and other forms of dirty energy and dozens of other provisions to reduce or eliminate royalties paid by Big Oil to taxpayers, waive or eliminate environmental and safety reviews, and otherwise enhance Big Oil’s ability to exploit our natural resources with little or no oversight and with maximum profit.
Lobbying records show (http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=4475993e-1aa3-48f2-83eb-b9b50a20f791) that Andrew Lundquist, the executive director of Cheney’s energy task force, left government to become a lobbyist (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/25/cheney_aide_now_lobbyist_on_energy/) (at a firm later joined by since-jailed Deputy Secretary of the Interior Stephen J. Griles (http://thinkprogress.org/interior-scandals-under-bush)) and was actively lobbying on the legislation on behalf of BP and other energy companies.
One of the worst elements of what has come to be known as the “Dick Cheney energy bill” had a direct role in eliminating the kind of regulatory oversight that may have prevented the blowout of BP’s Mississippi Canyon 252 well on April 20 of this year. Section 390 of the legislation dramatically expanded the circumstance under which drilling operations could forego environmental reviews and be approved almost immediately under so-called “categorical exclusions” from the National Environmental Policy Act.
The use of such exclusions went on to widespread abuse under the Bush administration (http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_1076d810-5fce-5930-853b-e4fed7a0ed69.html). BP’s blown-out well did not undergo an environmental review (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html) thanks to a categorical exclusion. (BP was lobbying as recently as April (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html) to expand the use of such exclusions.)
The expansion of categorical exclusions in the bill is far from the only giveaway to Big Oil at the expense of the environment and taxpayers. Other troubling provisions include:


Tens of billions in subsidies for dirty energy, paid for by deficit spending.
Exempted hydraulic fracturing, a process invented by Cheney’s former employer Halliburton (http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/energybill.html), from the Safe Drinking Water Act (Sec. 322).
Relieved oil companies of paying royalties to the taxpayers for millions of barrels of oil produced from deepwater wells (Sec. 345).
Permanently exempted all oil and gas construction activities, including roads, drill pads, pipeline corridors, refineries, and compressor stations from having to obtain a permit controlling polluted stormwater runoff caused by construction activities, as previously required under the Clean Water Act (Sec. 323).
Required a study to “identify and explain how legislative, regulatory, and administrative programs or processes restrict or impede the development of identified resources and the extent that they affect domestic supply, such as moratoria, lease terms and conditions, operational stipulations and requirements, approval delays by the federal government and coastal states, and local zoning restrictions for onshore processing facilities and pipeline landings.” Such “impediments” could typically include policies and regulations designed to protect human health, fish and wildlife, wild lands, and valuable cultural and historic sites on public lands (Sec. 357).
Weakened states’ ability under the Coastal Zone Management Act to have a say in projects and federal activities that affect their coasts including limiting appeals related to pipeline construction or offshore oil development (Sec. 381-82).
Allowed oil companies to have their leases reinstated if they had been terminated because of nonpayment of rental fees during Bush’s first term (Sec. 371).
Created a loophole to allow oil companies to drill under a national seashore by transferring the mineral rights to private ownership or ownership by the state of Texas (Sec. 373).

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, achieved many of the goals set out by Cheney’s secret task force in 2001 and ushered in a new era of deregulation, self-regulation, and utter disregard for environmental and safety laws. It also coincided with a culture of deep and widespread corruption at the Interior Department (http://thinkprogress.org/interior-scandals-under-bush), including the Minerals Management Service. This era unquestionably set the stage for the BP oil catastrophe—Cheney’s Katrina (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/oil_timeline.html).

[Popcorn Sutton]

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_1076d810-5fce-5930-853b-e4fed7a0ed69.html

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was enacted to expedite oil and gas development on federal lands and included new procedures to fast-track the permitting process.


Section 390 of the act authorized the BLM to use categorical exclusions to streamline the environmental analysis required when approving certain oil and gas activities. That basically gave the BLM the leeway to bypass environmental reviews for new drilling -- if there is already some oil and gas development in an area, and if previous environmental analysis was conducted for that area within the past five years.

[Arkie]

The elite want you to blame everything on the free market. Liability caps and "too bid to fail" companies can only exist in a rigged market. The best regulation would be to bring back the fear of failure. Politicians, banksters, and oil execs all have each other's back.

[Popcorn Sutton]

The elite want you to blame everything on the free market. Liability caps and "too bid to fail" companies can only exist in a rigged market. The best regulation would be to bring back the fear of failure. Politicians, banksters, and oil execs all have each other's back.

I agree. Executives of all major corporations... oil, healthcare, insurance, banks, technology... you name it. They've figured out how to manipulate Washington regardless of who is in power. That is more a problem with the power of the lobbyists. I don't see how you can allow corporations to go unregulated. Banks have obviously proven they will do anything and everything to make the numbers look better.

If you remember Credit Card companies a while back were given the opportunity to sell across state lines just like Republicans wanted for health insurance. So what did the CC companies do? Went and found the state that would allow them to write their own regulations (South Dakota I believe) and set up shop creating an environment for consumers that was worse than it was prior to selling across state lines. Literally, South Dakota was desperate to bring a big company to their state so they let the CC company write the legislation. Look up credit card and race to the bottom. How about Enron? Tyco? World Com? Adelphia? So many more. I also find it interesting that Democrats are now trying to lift the $75 million dollar liability cap for big oil companies and Republicans are trying to block this effort. It's as though the Republicans are saying, let the oil companies write their lax regulations and when they screw up, let the tax payer foot the bill. It's asinine. That certainly flies in the face of "fear of failure."

[cutthemdown]

Obama is responsible for a poor effort in regards to the response and the poor public relations effort that ensued.

How you could blame the lax oil regulation on Obama is beyond me. Unless of course, you are in the camp of "Obama is President now," he should have fixed all of Bush's problems within his first year.

You know, just wave a magic wand and the economy is better, we are out of Iraq and lax oil regulations are just wiped away.

You know for a fact that if Obama came in his first year and said "Big oil, we are going to inflict much stronger regulations on you," that you and others would have been appalled at him.


Yes but since he was elected he looked at the offshore drilling, and actually decided to expand it right? That was one of his bones to the oil industry to try and squeeze cap and trade through.

I think it's safe to say though that Bush and Cheney not quite smart enough to foresee that this was a danger. I think we all knew oil could spill etc etc but everyone has been educated now that the pressure and temps at these depths can make it impossible to stop.

What happens is the politicians like the money, they like what cheap oil and gas does for the economy. So when oil experts tell them they can safely do it they want to believe and go along with it.

Come on though repubs no way Obama can stop this leak. He could call the CEO and bug him everyday and it wouldn't help one bit. At the same time though one reason they are so deep is because the dems and left want them deep. The oil companies would rather be in 500 feet of water were they can work easier.

The reality is it's all of our fault. Every one of us and all of our politicians. Let's clean it up, learn, get smarter and move on.

[cutthemdown]

corporations only gave us all what we wanted.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Yes but since he was elected he looked at the offshore drilling, and actually decided to expand it right? That was one of his bones to the oil industry to try and squeeze cap and trade through.

I think it's safe to say though that Bush and Cheney not quite smart enough to foresee that this was a danger. I think we all knew oil could spill etc etc but everyone has been educated now that the pressure and temps at these depths can make it impossible to stop.

What happens is the politicians like the money, they like what cheap oil and gas does for the economy. So when oil experts tell them they can safely do it they want to believe and go along with it.

Come on though repubs no way Obama can stop this leak. He could call the CEO and bug him everyday and it wouldn't help one bit. At the same time though one reason they are so deep is because the dems and left want them deep. The oil companies would rather be in 500 feet of water were they can work easier.

The reality is it's all of our fault. Every one of us and all of our politicians. Let's clean it up, learn, get smarter and move on.

You are right. He did put forth a proposal to expand drilling areas but the actual drilling of those areas would not have begun for several years. I don't recall though, any mention of strengthening regulations before opening up these areas so perhaps he is a player in this too. I can acknowledge that. I suppose before proposing expansion of drilling, if he was truly concerned with it, he would have also proposed tougher safety regulations.

[watermock]

It's the MMS.

WTF is BP doing in our deep water?

BP hit the motherlode and ****ed up.

This is bullshiat.

[watermock]

You are right. He did put forth a proposal to expand drilling areas but the actual drilling of those areas would not have begun for several years. I don't recall though, any mention of strengthening regulations before opening up these areas so perhaps he is a player in this too. I can acknowledge that. I suppose before proposing expansion of drilling, if he was truly concerned with it, he would have also proposed tougher safety regulations.

How amusing.

[That One Guy]

You are right. He did put forth a proposal to expand drilling areas but the actual drilling of those areas would not have begun for several years. I don't recall though, any mention of strengthening regulations before opening up these areas so perhaps he is a player in this too. I can acknowledge that. I suppose before proposing expansion of drilling, if he was truly concerned with it, he would have also proposed tougher safety regulations.

Obama was over 25% of the way through his term as president when this happened. If he had issues with the way oil was being drilled, he'd have had time to make a change.

Instead, he's been more concerned with topics like trying to get gays into the military without upsetting anyone.

If he wants to be a good leader, he needs to make decisions and move on. Quite literally, nothing has changed since he came into office as he's trying to cater to everyone.

[BABronco]

Obama was over 25% of the way through his term as president when this happened. If he had issues with the way oil was being drilled, he'd have had time to make a change.

Instead, he's been more concerned with topics like trying to get gays into the military without upsetting anyone.


Don't forget about beer summit.

[Spider]

Obama was over 25% of the way through his term as president when this happened. If he had issues with the way oil was being drilled, he'd have had time to make a change.

Instead, he's been more concerned with topics like trying to get gays into the military without upsetting anyone.

If he wants to be a good leader, he needs to make decisions and move on. Quite literally, nothing has changed since he came into office as he's trying to cater to everyone.

wtf ? seriously do you think the president goes over every drilling plan ?
what changes should he have made ? ( ps Google wont help you much )

[Spider]

Alright let me say this .. If Deep Horizon and BP had followed standard drilling protocol this is a non issue ...........All Partisanship aside , Cheney and Bush opened this door , you bedwetters can cray all you want , but thats the cold hard facts ...... But with that said just cause they opened the door to lax protocols , doesnt mean BP had to short cut this ...... BP would have been better off doing it right , regardless of the laws ....... This is in BP ,BP lied in the beginning about how much was bein spilled , and BP is still lying today .....The Driller knew , all the hands knew , no one listened , it was costing BP a million Dollars a day , so BP said lets short cut it , what could go wrong ...........

[Spider]

and **** cap damages ,BP needs to pay every cent of the clean up cost ...........

[watermock]

Jesus.

If your going to make broth, keep it in 1 can.

[Spider]

Jesus.

If your going to make broth, keep it in 1 can.

eat a dck ............

[That One Guy]

wtf ? seriously do you think the president goes over every drilling plan ?
what changes should he have made ? ( ps Google wont help you much )

Obama has a staff to run the government as he sees best. He nor his staff apparently thought anything needed changed. To say Bush did it so it's his fault when Obama continued the same protocols for over a year is silly. Apparently Obama and his staff thought the policies in place were sufficient.

Or are you saying your president is asleep at the wheel and since he hasn't made any decisions, no decisions can be his fault? That's generally the feeling I seem to get from you party-liners.

[Spider]

Obama has a staff to run the government as he sees best. He nor his staff apparently thought anything needed changed. To say Bush did it so it's his fault when Obama continued the same protocols for over a year is silly. Apparently Obama and his staff thought the policies in place were sufficient.

Or are you saying your president is asleep at the wheel and since he hasn't made any decisions, no decisions can be his fault? That's generally the feeling I seem to get from you party-liners.

no what I am saying is your an idiot , You have no idea about whats going on , so you read some bedwetters blog and blamed obama ..........and what decisions are to be made ? You have no ****ing idea of what we are facing , what went wrong , and yet you have an opinion ........... dumb ass people ......at the very least ask questions , learn , then form an opinion .......is that so ****ing hard ?

[TonyR]

"I don't know what people expected the president to do exactly, if they want him to go out there and wash pelicans. He's the president. He's not someone who cleans beaches. It's important for us Louisianans to know that we have his support and I think he's communicated that," - Keith Jones, who lost his son in the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion.

[watermock]

Yes I do.

Rather, his being serenaded by Sir Paul.

[watermock]

He's not someone who cleans beaches.

Why not?

[Bronco Yoda]

So I guess Clinton is to blame for 9/11 and Al Qaeda - since he did nothing about the first WTC attack, 2 embassy attacks and USS Cole. Al Qaeda was allowed to inch closer, grow confidence, stature, and resources necessary to pull off 9/11.

Do you think the 'pre-regulations' would have prevented the methane bubble that caused the explosion?

I'm being sarcastic with a point - this kind of logic is pointless and has no beginning nor end.

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates. Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

oh, btw I liked Clinton.

[mhgaffney]

Hey Yoda,

The War on terrorism is a complete sham.

Bob Laden was a CIA asset right up until September 11. You still don't know?

9/11 was an inside job. A pretext -- a coup -- to ratchet up the war machine -- and go global with US imperialism.

It's so easy to scam people -- esp the American people. We are terminally stupid here i the US.

[DBruleU]

Hey Yoda,

The War on terrorism is a complete sham.

Bob Laden was a CIA asset right up until September 11. You still don't know?

9/11 was an inside job. A pretext -- a coup -- to ratchet up the war machine -- and go global with US imperialism.

It's so easy to scam people -- esp the American people. We are terminally stupid here i the US.

Apparently. Just look at the crap you believe.

[Fedaykin]

Apparently. Just look at the crap you believe.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

[Meck77]

Got to love America. Our politicians are making billions on side deals, trashing our environment, and the rest of us peons bicker on messageboards on who to blame....

When it's all said and done Obama will fade off into the sunset and probably buy a 100,000 acre ranch in South America next to George Bush *spit*.