If you want to see a rank example of the unhealthy symbiosis between Big Government and Big Business, consider this morning’s announcement by BP that “it will set up a $100 million charitable fund to support unemployed oil rig workers experiencing economic hardship due to the deepwater drilling moratorium imposed by the Obama administration.”
At first glance, you might say, this is a good thing: a penitent corporation doing charity to help people harmed, at least indirectly, by its actions. But let’s count the things wrong with this picture.
First, there is little doubt that BP is doing this, at least to some extent, due to explicit or implicit pressure from, or desire to buy off trouble from, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats. It’s the invisible foot of a government with a known propensity to monkey in the marketplace – companies learn to act defensively to cater to political favor rather than focusing on being profitable businesses by serving their customers.
Second, if BP was solely bowing to political pressure by assisting people it’s harmed, that would be one thing. But what it’s doing here is assisting people the Democrats have harmed, by a moratorium on offshore drilling by companies other than BP. In other words, the Democrats have used the leverage of fear of government to get BP to pay to cover up the damage caused by their own policies.
Third, consider this dynamic in the context of the vastness of BP (the company’s size is the only reason it hasn’t been run out of business by the spill). Other oil companies are big, too, but not everyone in the industry is on the same scale as BP, and equally able to buy off an angry government or weather the storm of the moratorium. This entire process of shaking down companies for political favor is designed with large corporations in mind – if you’re a smaller business, you’re not worth shaking down (or can’t afford the extra burdens of unionized workforces and heavy regulatory obligations on top of paying off politicians) and can be left to whither on the vine as collateral damage of insane economic policy.
Fourth, OK, BP has helped the oil workers. What about other innocent parties? What about the retirees across Britain whose pensions are heavily funded by BP stock? What about consumers who are denied access to the oil? And even as to the workers – is it really a fair substitute to give working men charity instead of the opportunity and dignity of earning a living with their own hands?
Fifth, are we 100% certain that BP has adequate resources to pay everyone directly injured by the spill? Maybe we are, but one of the reasons to be skeptical of greenlighting a run-on-the-bank attitude towards wrongdoing corporations is that sometimes, in the stampede, there ends up not being enough money left for the people with the most legitimate claims (the long, sad story of asbestos litigation at times illustrated this).
We have seen this, over and over and over again under this Administration, in industry after industry: a combination of coercion and collusion that amounts to a protection racket run by Democratic politicians to grant favor on large, pliable corporations and their executives in exchange for money going where the Democrats want it – to Big Labor and other favored constituencies, to support for Democratic legislative priorities, to campaign cash and personal enrichment. It’s fundamentally corrupt, and it needs to end.
Aaron Gardner
Steve Maley
KnightsofMalta
Shameless vote buying, purs and simple - thx for this 'crank - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Friday, July 30th at 2:01PM EST (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
I would not be too surprised to see some sort of
romeg Friday, July 30th at 2:33PM EST (link)special legislation introduced and added as an amendment to a continuing resolution that gives BP some special consideration, not by name, of course, but drawn so narrowly that only BP qualifies for it and then passed in the dead of night away from the prying eyes of CSPAN and any others that might raise the alarm. This would be what the late Grand Kleagle of the West Virginia KKK, Robert Byrd might call a win-win situation. The Democrats get to look tough on BP while the actual costs get shifted to the taxpayers.
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C. S. Lewis
Obama lift the ban on oil drilling
tara2009 Tuesday, August 3rd at 3:04PM EST (link)Did anyone notice that just a week or so before the oil spill Obama oked
drilling in the gulf in deep waters. It was a surprise. It was such a turn around
from what he had said earlier. Then when the oil spill happened, he jumped in and put a moratorium on oil drilling. Even after a court said that it was not a good idea he just kept it in place. You know it had been years since we have had an oil spill and now we have had 2 this year. It couldn’t,no it couldn’t be
something fishy here. There is just so many things that don’t quite jive here.
I for one demand a thorough investigation by the experts not associated with
BP. Why does everyone think just because you get BP to put a lot of money in
the pot everything is going to be OK. I wonder what the wildlife and wet lands
would say to this. All the money in the world will not restore their habitat. Obama
can take blame for this if he had accepted help that was offered the spill would have not lasted so long. Another time among many he has failed to protect these United States . Obama lift the ban on oil drilling and this time hire inspectors that inspect and not accept gifts from the very ones they have to inspect.mehpensacola,fl
Expected Result
edintexas Monday, August 2nd at 7:38AM EST (link)They got away with the first ($20 Billion) shakedown, why would we not expect yet another? As Eric points out, if this wasn’t an explicit shakedown from the Administration, then it was a defensive move by BP either trying to head off another Billion dollar shakedown, or gain some “points” (quite possibly both at the same time).