Sen. Menendez On Efforts To Raise Oil Liability Cap

[TomCADem]

Source: NPR

And lastly, when BP made $5.6 billion in the first three months of this year in profits, I think those companies can sustain a larger liability cap. And it also is a way of disciplining companies to think about what they do, so that we dont have a spill in the first place.

SIEGEL: Senator Menendez, I'd just like you to respond to what the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said yesterday about this when he was asked about it on "Meet the Press." He said: The danger, of course - Im quoting now, "is if you raise the cap too high there will be no competition in the Gulf, and you will leave all the business to big guys, like BP."

Senator MENENDEZ: Well, you know, at some point there are a lot of smaller companies than BP, but they're not mom and pop companies as we would think of a mom and pop store on Main Street. Several of these independent operators are, you know, $40 billion in net worth. And lastly, the question begs the issue as a public policy, just because we want smaller operators to be able to operate, if they create the same risk would we simply say that the liability should now become that of the public and of all of the Gulf State residents, and of the federal government, because they're smaller?

I think you have to think about what is not just the upside, but you have to think of the downside. And you can't privatize profit but then collectivize risk.


Read more: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126890154

---

Great response by Senator Menendez to the so-called anti-bailout Republicans, particularly Mitch McConnell who has recently been opposing efforts to raise the cap on liability resulting from oil spills. Of course, the media has done nothing to point out this Republican hypocrisy.

[hay rick]

1. Just like the banks.

Republicans demonstrated that they are indifferent to private profits being backstopped by public risk in their opposition to meaningful financial reform. Different industry, same principles on display here. Republicans put profits before people. Their concern for taxpayers does not extend beyond the capital gains/inheritance tax/top-marginal-income-tax-rate set.

[bulloney]

2. A $75 million dollar cap on damages is chump change to these companies.

$75 million is a spit in the bucket for catastrophes of the magnitude of this incident in the Gulf. $75 million would probably not even begin to cover the lost property values along the Gulf in any single state if this thing reaches land. It doesn't even begin to cover environmental damages, lost jobs in the fishing and tourist industries and other things we haven't begun to consider.

During Cheney's energy summit, they might as well just said oil companies are not liable at all for the little that $75 million covers. And where was the accountability in all of this regarding Cheney's energy summit? You essentially had a VP making the rules with no accountability from Congress or anyone else. Meanwhile, under Obama, there's been this unwritten rule that we need at least 60 votes in the Senate to get anything through.

I'd like to see the TOTAL damages from this oil catastrophe (the word 'spill' makes the thing sound less serious than it is) and compare it to costs for HCR or other social programs that we've been hearing that are costing taxpayers too much. You know the taxpayers will end up paying the lion's share, if not all of the damages in this thing. That's been standard operating procedure in this country with corporations: Privatize the profits and socialize the liabilities.

[jtrockville]

3. There should be NO CAP. If an activity needs this much subsidy

then it should be NATIONALIZED. Why should tax payers assume all the risk but not reap the profit?

Well said, Menendez!