Gulf spill: now Obama truly has something to answer for

H/T Erick Erickson

I’ve written on these pages and elsewhere that the mess in the Gulf is not Obama’s fault and that most of the damage his reputation has taken has been due to his stupidly taking responsibility for a situation which is out of his control.

A story in Tuesday’s Houston Chronicle, however, offers some damning evidence of Obama possibly having made an enormous mistake by refusing offers by the Dutch government, who have substantial undersea construction, oil cleanup, and barrier building experience, to come aid BP and the US government in Gulf cleanup efforts.

The story also describes another law of a particular type which harms the US: “The Jones Act, the maritime law that requires all goods be carried in U.S. waters by U.S.-flagged ships, has prevented Dutch ships with spill-fighting equipment from entering U.S. coastal areas.”

and

That proposal, like the offer for skimmers, was rebuffed but later accepted by the government. BP has begun paying about $360 million to cover the costs. Once again, though, the Jones Act may be getting in the way. American dredging companies, which lack the dike-building expertise of the Dutch, want to do the work themselves, (Dutch Consul General in Houston) Visser said.  “We don’t want to take over, but we have the equipment,” he said.

Much like the Jones Act, the better-known Davis-Bacon Act (from 1931) forces the federal government to pay inflated union wages for construction contracts, costing taxpayers billions of dollars and ensuring that government spending, including so-called “stimulus” spending, buys us much less than it should.

The Obama Administration is utterly beholden to unions and therefore reticent to try to override even temporarily these laws which harm Americans at times when we particularly need efficient, effective work done in a hurry.  President Bush briefly suspended the Davis-Bacon overpayment requirements for much of the Gulf area during the response to Hurricane Katrina, but soon thereafter caved in to allow them to come back into place. The act had been suspended a few times before including during the Nixon Administration when they believed it was adding to inflation.  Regardless of the truth of Nixon’s fear (he was, after all, a guy who didn’t understand economics very well or he wouldn’t have tried price controls), the fact that we have a law which presidents feel the need to suspend whenever we need work done quickly and cheaply – and that they then reinstate the law when there’s less urgency for the project – says that this law has to go.  It simply can’t be allowed to stand for the federal government to follow a law which they know costs taxpayers money and delays the completion of projects, something they obviously know given the reasons and timing of the law’s various suspensions.

If there is any president unlikely to suspend Davis-Bacon, it’s The One. He is owned by unions since they spent so many millions of dollars on his election and since he likes them anyway; perhaps he sees them as fellow “organizers", which is to say that perhaps in nature parasites have grudging respect for each other.

In the meantime, the fact that Obama turned away the Dutch offer for help is the first thing I’ve seen where the Administration made a serious error that now gives it some culpability in the extent of the Deepwater Horizon spill’s damage to the Gulf Coast.

For the record, while I want Obama to fail generally, I don’t want him to fail at the expense of the livelihood of many thousands of Gulf Coast residents nor at the expense of the beautiful and fragile ecosystems in the area.  I wish Obama were actually competent in this case, but sadly he isn’t.

  • Greg Staff
    Comment from: Greg Staff
    06/10/10 @ 08:01:42 am

    I am not particularly conversant in this area of government, but does the president have the power to “temporarily” simply suspend a law simply because it’s found to be inconvenient?

    I wish success to a Louisiana company that has filed for an injunction against the president’s six month moratorium on deepwater drilling. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/09/drilling-moratorium-challenged-offshore-company/

    Does the president have the right to simply unilaterally command that lawfully permitted activities must cease because he wants to appear to be doing something?

    If there’s a plane crash, do we stop flying passengers until we know what happened and what we can do to ensure that it “never” happens again?

    And now that he’s imposed the moratorium, he wants BP to pay for the oil workers’ lost wages due to his moratorium! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704575304575296263469609340.html)

    Don’t get me wrong, BP should pay to clean up the mess, and pay claims as provided in existing law. But the rule of law should apply, not knee-jerk reactionary mandates that are and will stay in place simply as a face-saving mechanism.

    For the first time in my life, I fully and completely loath our government.

  • Mark Smither
    Comment from: Mark Smither
    06/10/10 @ 03:45:09 pm

    From the article you cited:

    Many in the U.S., including the president, have expressed frustration with the handling of the cleanup. In the Netherlands, the response would have been different, Visser said.

    There, the government owns the cleanup equipment, including the skimmers now being deployed in the Gulf.

    “If there's a spill in the Netherlands, we give the oil companies 12 hours to react,” he said.

    If the response is inadequate or the companies are unprepared, the government takes over and sends the companies the bill."

    How's that last part fit in with your Anti-Big Government stance?

    How about some consistency in your beliefs? (Besides Blame Obama.)

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    06/10/10 @ 03:58:04 pm

    Mark,

    We're now talking about 50 days of this spill. I can understand the US saying "No, thanks" right at the beginning, but once it was clear what was happening, they should have gone back to the Dutch and accepted their offer for help, in my view.

    I'm not saying that the US should have the same policy as the Dutch. But this is NOT 12 hours later.

  • Sally
    Comment from: Sally
    06/20/10 @ 02:42:08 pm

    There are all sorts of problems with this analysis seeking to pin much of the blame on President Obama. As I understand it, once the gusher happened, by law it was BP's responsibility to deal with the problem. We now know they were putting forward false information. The conservative mantra is to trust corporations.

    Also, there would have been an huge outcry among conservatives about a big government takeover if President Obama had stepped in so early. The irony is huge when the very folks who have sought for the past 30 years to reduce government so small that it will fit into a bathtub (part of this strategy includes filling regulatory roles with industry insiders and having industry reps write those regulations) now complaining that the federal response is too small. The conservative philosophy is responsible for this recipe for failure.

    And that point about unions. That attempt to try to score political points utterly fails.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    06/20/10 @ 03:37:09 pm

    Sally,

    In short, your statements show an utter ignorance of conservatism, not that I consider myself a conservative.

    Clearly, you're going to support our incompetent president no matter what, as I assume you reflexively opposed George W. Bush.

    You are a person for whom progressivism and dislike for non-leftists is a religion,

    you are most likely therefore impervious to logic an evidence.

    But it's ok. We need people like you to point at to show how far this nation has departed from its founding principles and from reason itself.

  • Sally
    Comment from: Sally
    06/20/10 @ 05:13:54 pm

    I grant you a lot of conservatives rejected George W. Bush's profligate ways, but it's still a fact that the huge majority of GOP politicians who blindly followed his lead identify themselves as conservatives.

    And contrary to your trying to label me, I am not a huge Obama fan.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    06/20/10 @ 09:32:38 pm

    Sally, to be clear, I said I thought you were a progressive. I didn't say I thought you were a "huge Obama fan."

    But since you seem to want to delve into facts...

    I agree with you that the majority of Republicans in Congress worked with George W. Bush to destroy the Republican brand and do great damage to the reputation of "conservatism"...by saying they were conservative but not acting that way when it came to spending.

    Back to your original comment: Didn't you read the very first sentence? I said that I've written before that much of the oil problem wasn't Obama's fault (although that has certainly changed since I wrote those words.) For you then to say that I'm blaming it all on Obama seemed like solid evidence that you were biased beyond reason.

    As for shrinking government, I'm all for doing so "so it fits in a bathtub." But that's not what's happened. No president has added as many "economically significant" regulations as George W. Bush.

    Furthermore, there is no part of conservatism which says we must trust corporations. That's a red herring. Conservatives (and I) do say we must be very wary of government. But that's a far cry from saying we must trust corporations.

    Furthermore, I have written very strong words on these pages against the way so many large companies try to use government to squash competition and direct tax dollars to themselves.

    Your generalization about conservatives might have had very slight applicability to the Republican Congress of the prior decade but is absolutely wrong as a definition of what conservatives believe.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in now!

If you have no account yet, you can register now... (It only takes a few seconds!)