Vitter Pushes for BP Bailout Bill in Senate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charliesc
  • Start date Start date
Personally, I could see a cap equal to a companies total posted profits of the previous quarter as a penalty for a MAJOR disaster like this.
 
Since the cap is $75m now, sounds like a good deal. BP made billions over the past four quarters.
 
I honestly don't care if all of the companies involved have to be liquidated and their assets sold at ten cents on the dollar in order to pay up the costs. (And I mean all the costs from the actual mop up to reimbursing hotels in Florida for lost revenues for shitting up the beaches.) Let this serve as a warning that responsibility is at least as important as profit. Besides, there will be plenty of other companies lined up to fill the vacuum soon enough.

Sen. Vitter: $15,000 for a multi billion dollar tax payer bail out otherwise. How cheap. How pathetic. That's why I hate the Republican Party.
 
we have no money. we are operating on credit, we cant bail anybody or anything else out.
 
I disagree.

Make them responsible for 100% of the cost of the clean up (which they are already) and up to a fine of their last quarters profits.

Much more beyond that, you may as well just force them out of business, raise the unemployment rate and seize their assets.
 
Free Market RITE?

Pay to play. Maybe they'll feel that it's important to spend more money on safety equipment I suppose.
 
I take you mean the "you may as well just force them out of business, raise the unemployment rate and seize their assets." part?

Well, if you do, you may as well start stocking up for Armageddon and learn to do everything for yourself, because people aren't going to be willing to risk even $25,000 to start up a TV/VCR repair shop knowing that their entire investment and their job can be taken away because of an accident.





Yup.
 
There is no bailiout—this is a horribly written, biased hit piece. Here's the real story:

WASHINGTON — Federal officials said Tuesday they support congressional proposals to eliminate the cap on what companies must pay to cover economic damages from oil spills.

"We don't think there should be an arbitrary cap on corporate responsibility," Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli told members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "Rethinking the liability is appropriate as we learn more and more about the risks."

President Barack Obama plans to visit Louisiana on Friday to assess damage from the Gulf spill, which began after a deepwater oil rig operated by BP exploded and sank last month.

Under current law, a company's liability for economic damages from an oil spill is limited to $75 million. That doesn't apply to cleanup costs, which aren't subject to a liability cap.

"We have a system in dire need of repair," said committee chairman Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, who visited the Gulf Coast Monday.

Lawmakers are debating measures that would increase the liability cap in response to the Gulf spill, which BP is still struggling to control.

A Democratic proposal would increase the cap to $10 billion. Some senators are weighing whether to eliminate the cap altogether.

"Whoever does the damage should be responsible," said Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, who introduced the Democratic bill. "A $75 million cap would not even touch the economic devastation that has already occurred."

Perrelli said the administration's support for lifting the liability cap focuses on future spills, not the Gulf spill, but he noted that Congress could make sure any legislation to raise the cap applies retroactively to the Gulf spill.

"Congress legislates retroactively all the time," he said.

Gulf Coast lawmakers wondered at Tuesday's hearing whether different liability caps should apply to drilling in deep water and shallow water.

Raising the cap too much could make it "impossible or very difficult" for independent and small oil companies to stay in business, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said.

A Republican plan introduced by Louisiana Sen. David Vitter would increase the cap to $150 million or an amount equal to a company's last four quarters of profits, whichever is greater.

Vitter introduced an amendment Tuesday that would eliminate the cap altogether for the current spill.

Vitter hopes "to expedite the claims process," said his spokesman, Joel DiGrado.

BP officials have said they will pay all "legitimate" claims for economic damages from the Gulf spill, but lawmakers have questioned what that might exclude.

Perrelli seemed willing to accept the company's commitment, which he said BP has put in writing, and told lawmakers raising the liability cap would be more relevant to future spills.

"Our mandate is to make sure that we recover every dime that the United States government spends for the removal of the oil and the damages caused by this catastrophe," Perrelli said.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, told Perrelli, "You may be the last person in America to trust or believe what BP says."

And Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., noted that after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, "Exxon said many of these things, and then they litigated all the way to the Supreme Court."

Perrelli said the administration's package to "lift the cap is focused on the future." Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., questioned justice officials about a provision in his bill Vitter/Sessions bill includes retroactive liability.

"Congress legislates retroactively all the time," said Perrelli, adding that it could be contested as a Constitutional issue or breach of contract. Nelson said lifting the cap "better be" retroactive.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20100526/NEWS18/5260340
_____________

Last year BP made US $16.58 billion in profits, so Vitter's plan would make BP responsible for $6.58 billion in more liability than the Democrats' plan, even if the other amendment lifting all caps on this particular disaster wasn't included!

Sigh.
 
company makes 1 billion in profits
government penalizes them 2 billion

company says fuckit, can't pay that and files bankruptcy to "reorganize"

company gets off from paying anything.



sucks but would you rather get cleanup done and the company pay as much as they can without going under and filing to avoid paying anything?
 
That's still a hunk of change ... for BP, that would be $13.96 billion (that the profit they made in all of 2009). Still seems overkill, considering the billions (most likely many times that) they are going to have to pay to clean it up.
 
Nothing new.

A teacher beats a kid in school, the parent sues the school and wins, the tax payers have to pay the fine.
 
Back
Top