Gulf Oil Disaster.

[Shryke]

Here's a great video of Biden explaining how Barton is an idiot and what the fund is about:

The fund is not a ceiling and it has NOTHING to do with clean-up. The fund's purpose is to help out people who will go bankrupt in the next like month or 2 because the oil spill has destroyed their livelihood. These people need money RIGHT NOW.

[sologdin]

if it's like the 9/11 claims fund and the holocaust settlements, then there will be maximum awards, which will only be granted in exchange for a waiver of the right to sue, if indeed there is no general derogation of the right to sue for any and all claimants, whereby the exclusive remedy against BP is through the claims fund. it's just bad news.

the more amazing thing is that the rightwing is carping about it from the constitutional angle, as if it has never happened before, separation of powers blah blah blah. what a load of disingenuous fucking shit.

after everything is finally resolved that BP will gladly step forward and pay everything.

dude, i live in new orleans; my position is not to wait ten years for the courts to decide, but rather that the state should expropriate BP's assets now. fuck 'em.

[Annelise]

I mean, how can you care about this Joe Barton stuff? It's so...U.S. Politics thread. Or CNN.

:lol: I was on the phone with my sis when I saw that and she asked me what I was the hell I was laughing at. While it may not appeal to everyone's funny bone (or anyone's besides mine), I think even terrible situations need a bit of comedic relief. :)

Like any tragedy thread, the terribleness and frustration of the oil spill is, I think, a given for everyone posting in here, until they specifically state otherwise. It reminds me of this bit from Lion in Winter:

"How often do you people have to hear it... every supper? Should we start the soup with

who we love and who we don't?"

[The Progressive]

if it's like the 9/11 claims fund and the holocaust settlements, then there will be maximum awards, which will only be granted in exchange for a waiver of the right to sue, if indeed there is no general derogation of the right to sue for any and all claimants, whereby the exclusive remedy against BP is through the claims fund. it's just bad news.

the more amazing thing is that the rightwing is carping about it from the constitutional angle, as if it has never happened before, separation of powers blah blah blah. what a load of disingenuous fucking shit.

after everything is finally resolved that BP will gladly step forward and pay everything.

dude, i live in new orleans; my position is not to wait ten years for the courts to decide, but rather that the state should expropriate BP's assets now. fuck 'em.

Actually, "Victims of the Gulf oil spill will be able to get quick, emergency payments from BP's $20 billion compensation fund without waiving their right to litigate future claims, Kenneth Feinberg, the government-appointed administrator of the fund, said."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704638504575318803855750226.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

You're correct though that the rightwing carping about congressional authorization is about disingenuous partisan bullshit as it could get.

[lokisnow]

just wait for the headlines when the republicans discover a scapegoat: an illegal immigrant latino fisherman getting money from the BP fund. "OBAMA ADMINSTRATION PAYING OFF JOB STEALING ILLEGALS WITH SHAKEDOWN MONEY!" "OBAMA DENIES REAL AMERICANS THEIR BP MONEY, INSTEAD GIVES BP MONEY TO ILLEGALS!" "LIMBAUGH CALLS OBAMA'S BP SLUSH FUND THE STIMULUS PLAN FOR ILLEGALS!"

[Datepalm]

I found this really interesting: Oil Spill Creating Cleanup Job Boom

In coastal Louisiana, it's reminiscent of the job boom that followed Hurricane Katrina as thousands were put to work cleaning up debris, gutting house and rebuilding public buildings and entire neighborhoods.

...Some analysts believe the economic resilience powered by tens of billions in federal rebuilding aid is unsustainable. Once the money is spent, they say, the tourism-based economy and lower-wage jobs that dominated before Katrina are likely to re-emerge.

BP has spent more than $750 million so far in oil spill response initiatives.

Awesome - economic growth powered by constant state of emergency. Maybe ecological collapse can replace war?

[Guest Raidne]

I can't find it raidne, do you have a linky?

It's from last week. I'm guessing you don't need to see the specific article, but rather just don't believe that the fund has been described as such anywhere? If so, I suggest the following Google search: "escrow fund cleanup costs claims."

Note also that beneficiaries are being asked to formally waive their right to sue once they collect from the fund, and also that funds will be distributed with "guidance" from state law. So, what law are they using exactly?

IMO, they've set up an agency without Congressional authorization. In other words, they're creating regulations to determine how to distribute the fund without an enabling statute from Congress. I can't say I really care about that, but to the extent that conservatives are arguing that, I think they're pretty much right.

I'm starting to wonder if we'll see this in front of SCOTUS somehow. It's a really nice case for Roberts and Alito to set the limits of their general support of exercises of executive power.

ETA: Also, if you'd like to clarify, I don't get what you're saying regarding the whole the idea that maybe the government should lead national disaster recovery efforts is totally whacked out and beyond reasonable expectations because it would lead to partisan bickering. I find that fundamentally beyond my capabilities of understanding.

[The Progressive]

It's from last week. I'm guessing you don't need to see the specific article, but rather just don't believe that the fund has been described as such anywhere? If so, I suggest the following Google search: "escrow fund cleanup costs claims."

The following is a White House fact sheet released Wednesday regarding the BP escrow funds to pay claims to workers and businesses impacted by the Gulf oil spill:

http://imarketnews.com/node/15096

You're correct that "the escrow account is to be used to pay claims adjudicated by the independent claims facility, as well as judgments and settlements, natural resource damage costs, and state and local response costs." However, "this account is neither a floor nor a ceiling on liability." Moreover, "the facility is designed for claims of individuals and businesses who have been harmed by the oil spill; local, state, tribal and federal government claims will continue to be handled directly by BP."

Note also that beneficiaries are being asked to formally waive their right to sue once they collect from the fund, and also that funds will be distributed with "guidance" from state law. So, what law are they using exactly?

Note that "dissatisfied claimants maintain all current rights under law, including the right to go to court or to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund." With regard to the use of state tort laws, Feinber explained it here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127941360

What do you do with a restaurant or a tourism claim or a restaurant in Omaha, Nebraska, that claims because it can't get shrimp? How do you decide some of these very thorny questions of causation?

BLOCK: Well, how do you decide those questions? That's your job now, right?

Mr. FEINBERG: Well, that's my job. Now, remember under the 9/11 fund what we did, when somebody said, you know, I broke my leg in Jersey City. When I saw the plane hit the World Trade Center, I fell down a flight of stairs. I mean, what we might do is say, well, how would the state law of Mississippi or the state tort law of Louisiana or the state tort law of Alabama or Florida, how would those courts decide a question like that?

I don't think it's necessarily my willy-nilly discretion that will decide this. I've got to ground my decisions in some principal legal basis.

IMO, they've set up an agency without Congressional authorization. In other words, they're creating regulations to determine how to distribute the fund without an enabling statute from Congress. I can't say I really care about that, but to the extent that conservatives are arguing that, I think they're pretty much right.

They don't need, because it's already authorized under the Oil Pollution Act that the responsible party should establish process for compensation claims, which BP voluntarily agreed to here (so really, the conservatives' argument is really disingenious horseshit):

http://mediamatters.org/research/201006180027

Section of OPA "does require BP to establish a process for 'the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages,' " which could include escrow account. In a June 15 post on the blog Legal Planet titled, "Can Obama Require BP to Form an Escrow Fund?" Dan Farber, director of Berkeley Law's environmental law program, wrote that "the answer isn't very clear" but that the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) "does require BP to establish a process for 'the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages' that might encompass an escrow and independent decision-makers." Indeed, Section 1005 of the Oil Pollution Act states:

SEC. 1005. INTEREST; PARTIAL PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.

(a) GENERAL RULE. -- The responsible party or the responsible party's guarantor is liable to a claimant for interest on the amount paid in satisfaction of a claim under this Act for the period described in subsection (B). The responsible party shall establish a procedure for the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages. Payment or settlement of a claim for interim, short-term damages representing less than the full amount of damages to which the claimant ultimately may be entitled shall not preclude recovery by the claimant for damages not reflected in the paid or settled partial claim.

ETA: Also, if you'd like to clarify, I don't get what you're saying regarding the whole the idea that maybe the government should lead national disaster recovery efforts is totally whacked out and beyond reasonable expectations because it would lead to partisan bickering. I find that fundamentally beyond my capabilities of understanding.

Your wording is a bit confusing here. My point is that the criticism about the delayed barges due to concern over inadaqute safety measures as exhibit by Jindal and repeated here by andy are such disingenious partisan horseshit given that the accident was caused by inadaquate safety measures.

[Guest Raidne]

You're correct that "the escrow account is to be used to pay claims adjudicated by the independent claims facility, as well as judgments and settlements, natural resource damage costs, and state and local response costs."

Yep, that's what I said.

However, "this account is neither a floor nor a ceiling on liability." Moreover, "the facility is designed for claims of individuals and businesses who have been harmed by the oil spill; local, state, tribal and federal government claims will continue to be handled directly by BP."

Yep, that will be presented as evidence of the intent of the fund when the issue is litigated, for sure. As for the latter, what the hell is that? Federal government claims will be handled by BP directly except for clean-up costs? Color me confused.

Note that "dissatisfied claimants maintain all current rights under law, including the right to go to court or to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund." With regard to the use of state tort laws, Feinber explained it here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127941360

I bolded the relevant part. That's also exactly what I said.

They don't need, because it's already authorized under the Oil Pollution Act that the responsible party should establish process for compensation claims, which BP voluntarily agreed to here (so really, the conservatives' argument is really disingenious horseshit):

Ha! But you distinguished from BP directly handling claims and claims made to the fund not two paragraphs back! So, it should be perfectly clear that while the OPA says it would be pretty nifty for companies to deal with claims, it doesn't enable the federal government to do anything. This is a core administrative law issue - you can't make it go away by vague analogy to the Oil Pollution Act and some clause where it recommends that some other actor do some other thing. You would get laughed out of the courtroom arguing that.

Your wording is a bit confusing here. My point is that the criticism about the delayed barges due to concern over inadaqute safety measures as exhibit by Jindal and repeated here by andy are such disingenious partisan horseshit given that the accident was caused by inadaquate safety measures.

You said conservatives would pitch a fit and say Obama was nationalizing the oil industry if the government took over spill containment. I'm asking why you'd think that, seeing as a government response to a national disaster is hardly anything new, and also, more importantly, why I or any other reasonable person with any integrity would find political consequences to be persausive in the face of an actual national disaster.

[Trebla]

[quote name='Raidne' date='22 June 2010 - 03:06 PM' timestamp='1277237174' post='2169993'

You said conservatives would pitch a fit and say Obama was nationalizing the oil industry if the government took over spill containment. I'm asking why you'd think that, seeing as a government response to a national disaster is hardly anything new, and also, more importantly, why I or any other reasonable person with any integrity would find political consequences to be persausive in the face of an actual national disaster.

[Guest Raidne]

Can you fix that? Thanks. :)

And also, I just don't see this. Regarding (1), so? How do you get from cleaning up an oil spill to nationalizing oil production and refining? And (2), great, that just goes to show you that they're going to say something no matter what you do.

And I'm still not seeing much regarding why I or anyone else should care.

[The Progressive]

As for the latter, what the hell is that? Federal government claims will be handled by BP directly except for clean-up costs? Color me confused.

I think it meant that local, state, and federal government cost for clean-up efforts will be billed directly to BP; while claims from business and individuals for economic losses due to the spill will be handled by this independent arbitration entity.

Ha! But you distinguished from BP directly handling claims and claims made to the fund not two paragraphs back! So, it should be perfectly clear that while the OPA says it would be pretty nifty for companies to deal with claims, it doesn't enable the federal government to do anything. This is a core administrative law issue - you can't make it go away by vague analogy to the Oil Pollution Act and some clause where it recommends that some other actor do some other thing. You would get laughed out of the courtroom arguing that.

I think that you're thinking too much as a lawyer here because I don't see how the relevant section of the OPA as cited is vague here. It specifically stated that the responsible party need to establish procedure in which claims for damages could be processed and paid for. BP voluntarily entered into an agreement with the Obama administration to do this, thus satisfying this requirement. The purpose for the agreement is to avoid lengthy court battles that would drag out for years while people went bankrupt waiting for decisions. I don't even know why or how Congress would enter the picture here?

You said conservatives would pitch a fit and say Obama was nationalizing the oil industry if the government took over spill containment. I'm asking why you'd think that, seeing as a government response to a national disaster is hardly anything new, and also, more importantly, why I or any other reasonable person with any integrity would find political consequences to be persausive in the face of an actual national disaster.

Isn't this self-evident? Because they're partisan hacks without any ounce of integrity who would manipulate disaster to smear the Obama administration. Just look at the bitching produced by Jindal el al when the Coast Guard tried to make sure that the barges being used are properly equipped with safety equipments.

[Guest Raidne]

I think it meant that local, state, and federal government cost for clean-up efforts will be billed directly to BP; while claims from business and individuals for economic losses due to the spill will be handled by this independent arbitration entity.

No, because that's inconsistent with the first paragraph you quoted that states that the fund will be used for government cleanup costs.

I think that you're thinking too much as a lawyer here because I don't see how the relevant section of the OPA as cited is vague here.

Yep. I'm sure I am wrong about any possible Constitutional issue because I am thinking too much like a lawyer. About the law.

I think the same thing whenever my Doctor tells me I need to quit smoking. Hey! Stop thinking like such a health care expert, you asshole.

Nobody is contesting the legality of BP setting up a fund. People are contesting the legality of the executive branch administering that fund. The statute is about the legality of BP setting up a fund. I'm happy to clarify whatever needs clarifying.

It was hard for me - as a liberal - to get with the idea that in the United States, the government cannot do anything it's not authorized to do by the Constitution. Setting aside the legality of the administrative state generally (which is also a valid contention), jurisprudence has established that it's okay for the executive to take on these sorts of functions - like monitoring clean water, or ensuring antidiscrimination compliance - in place of Congress as long as Congress has explicitly indicated its intent that the executive branch undertake that action. That is called an "enabling statute." EEOC was created by an enabling statute - otherwise it would have no authority to exist.

Setting aside the issue that this is really sort of a quasi-judicial body created outside of a formal settlement agreement, this executive body was created without the grant of any such authority from Congress.

So, for this to work, your argument really has to be that Congress, in passing the OPA, intended the executive branch to have the power to set up and administrate a quasi-judicial entity whose actions are binding on suits filed federal court. That's a stretch - you don't see it?

Isn't this self-evident? Because they're partisan hacks without any ounce of integrity who would manipulate disaster to smear the Obama administration. Just look at the bitching produced by Jindal el al when the Coast Guard tried to make sure that the barges being used are properly equipped with safety equipments.

Right. First - a caveat: the history of the Valdez spill shows that state/federal conflict on this issue is just natural, and not, IMHO, partisan. But generally, yes, the partisan's are going to try to make a case out of everything, which means it's not a reason to think twice about doing anything.

[Guest Raidne]

By the way, this provision in the OPA - section 1004(a)(3) - appears to limit liability beyond clean up costs to a mere $75 million.

Hadn't really heard about that before. Apparently it's lifted in cases of gross negligence or violation of federal government regulations.

ETA: And now that I read the statute, that argument about section 1005(B) is hilarious. It's under the heading "Interest; Partial Payment of Claims." The very idea that it could be used to authorize the creation of a federal agency - and one that stands directly in opposition to the clause's assertion that payment of interim or short-term claims does not limit other claims - is hysterical. I don't think that's even a colorable legal argument.

Not to think too much like a lawyer about it. Ha!

Apologies for the DP - I'm out the door for the day.

[The Progressive]

So your argument is that rather than entering into a voluntary agreement to set up an escrow fund administrated by an independent arbitrator to process claims by people who needs financial compensations right now, BP and the Obama administration should have just wait for the lawsuits to pile up over the years and then let the courts decide how much compensation those people should get?

With regard to the Oil Pollution Act, I agree that it needs to be amended.

[DanteGabriel]

So... a federal judge overturned the Obama administration's moratorium on deep drilling.

Turns out that judge has (or at least had, as of 2008) investments in oil drilling. And he's not alone among his colleagues.

Martin Feldman, a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, held energy stocks in Transocean and Halliburton, as well as two of BP's largest U.S. private shareholders -- BlackRock and JP Morgan Chase. The law Feldman overturned would have halted the approval of any new permits and suspended deepwater drilling at 33 existing exploratory wells in the Gulf, four of which are BP rigs.

"It's pretty damning," said Kate Gordon, Vice President for Energy Policy at American Progress. "Transocean is the world's largest offshore drilling company. It holds most of the offshore drilling rigs in the world. So this is... a clear conflict of interest. I think folks should have known because of the history this region has of having conflicts of interests with judges on this issue. The region has got to have a list of judges that have these conflicts because this comes up all the time."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/judge-who-lifted-moratori_n_621501.html

[Mad Monkey]

Can't the government just bring the ban back in a new form, tailoring it to appease the judge's objections?

[The Progressive]

Lol, Salazar just stated that he's gonna do just that:

Salazar to issue new moratorium order

[Mad Monkey]

I'm glad to see he's listening to me. If only he'd get contacts... ah, well, you can't win 'em all.

[Annelise]

Nice work, MM.