Reihan Salam takes to the Daily Beast to prove that the new generation of Republicans are just like the last generation of Republicans:
The most despised multinational working in the United States agreed to pay $20 billion over four years into a fund defined to benefit Gulf residents impacted by the spill. Some have characterized this as a shrewd decision on the part of BP CEO Tony Hayward to contain the damage to BP’s reputation. Yet BP has received no assurances on future legal liability and it remains, quite appropriately, on the hook for environmental damages. The Justice Department has already threatened to prosecute BP, and a refusal to play ball on BP’s part would almost certainly have led to an even more aggressive campaign of public vilification, at the very least.
On closer inspection, this doesn’t look like much of a negotiation. Rather, it looks like what one would colloquially refer to as a “shakedown,” in which a stronger party, ignoring the conventions of a good-faith negotiation, all but forces a weaker party to bend to its will. But now that Rep. Joe Barton has, in fact, called the White House agreement a shakedown, he has, despite backtracking and apologizing, taken the political heat off of the president. Somewhere, Rahm Emanuel is smiling.
Oddly enough- Salam writes hundreds of words, but never once manages to explain how setting aside money so that you are capable of paying your future obligations is a shakedown. Because that is what is happening here, not a shakedown. And honestly, it provides BP with a way to stay alive, considering they may owe up to 60 billion for damages in the long run, a sum they would be unable to come up with at one time. Ask BP and her shareholders what they would rather do- set aside money in an escrow account or a forced bankruptcy?
This new generation of Republicans is as wingnutty as the last, and if Douthat and Salam are the next generation, we can expect a couple more decades of GOP policy by soundbite.
*** Update ***
Jeebus. I can’t believe I didn’t figure out the racist dogwhistle in all of this.
jeffreyw
yup
Arguingwithsignposts - ipod touchs
This is not my beautiful house!
El Cid
BP is a person and Obama is just like Al Capone using machine guns and liquor running to steal from BP, who will then be left hungry and homeless.
burnspbesq
The interesting legal scenario that could arise is this.
Suppose BP’s US subsidiary puts up the $20B and then declares bankruptcy within 90 days. Is the creation of the escrow fund a “preferential transfer” that can be “set aside” (unwound) on motion by a creditor? I’m not a BK lawyer … Anyone with experience in such things want to weigh in?
MikeBoyScout
When there needs to be a debate about the escrow fund for admitted and extremely large liabilities, it is hard to escape the conclusion this nation and its political process is in its death throws.
Sux to be us.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I saw that Haley Barbour, whom all Serious People are recognizing as a serious contender for 2012 now that he has displayed such leadership, is worried that after the Chicago-style shakedown, BP won’t have enough money to pay for the clean-up and create jobs and pay for lobbyists and underwrite fun things like campaign jets and
hookers and blowI mean soft-money party fundraisers.mikey
It just serves as a perfect example of how ridiculous our political discussion has become. EVERY SINGLE THING that Obama does MUST be characterized as evil, or at least a terrific blunder. All one needs to to is imagine if a REPUBLICAN president did exactly the same thing, exactly these same people (probably led by Barton) would be praising his ‘toughness’ and willingness to hold BP accountable in the name of the American People.
No longer can any action be honestly discussed on the merits. Every action is viewed exclusively through a partisan lens, and then interpreted in the way best expected to reflect harmfully on the other party. Facts and logic have been utterly abandoned, and somehow that just doesn’t seem to bother very many Americans.
If I was outside the US, looking in at the most powerful country in the world indulging in endless, ongoing self-delusion, outright fantasy and magical thinking, all while the extreme right wing denies scientific data and calls out for aggressive war and torture as policy, I’d be very afraid. When something happens to force Americans to return to at least shouting distance of reality, it’s liable to be an event that takes a great deal of lives – but not American lives. We just don’t roll that way…
mikey
russell
The thing is, it’s been worse. McKinley and Mark Hanna, the Lochner-era SCOTUS.
We are, however, well on our way back to those days.
Roger Moore
Simple. Once BP has set money aside to pay for its future obligations, it won’t be able to make up lame excuses about how badly it would be hurt by paying them. Since BP had been planning on weaseling out of paying its obligations, this amounts to a shakedown.
What I’m worried about is that Obama’s assurance that the $20 billion isn’t a cap will turn out to be wrong. It’s true that it may not be a legal cap, but it may serve very nicely as a PR cap. Once the bills start coming due and it looks as though BP will owe far more than $20 billion, they’ll act as though the money they’ve set aside is all there is, and their bought and paid for Congresscritters will back them up on the point.
Hunter Gathers
We must all feel bad for huge multi-national corporations who have to pay when they fuck up. Why doesn’t Salam just come out and say the BP deserves a bailout? That’s obviously what he’s trying to get at. BP shouldn’t have to pay it’s claims, since it might hurt profits next quarter. This whole idea of BP might go under if it pays what it owes is beyond stupid. BP’s revenue streams are huge, and last time I checked, my car runs on gasoline. Which is refined from the oil that BP sells. Along with everybody else on the damn planet. They could pay out 250 billion in claims, and BP will be fine. Sure, they may not be able to pay out dividends for the next year or so, and their market share might drop, but BP isn’t going anywhere. They are not Arbusto, for Christ’s sake.
schrodinger's cat
As far as the GOP base is concerned, is Reihan Salam considered a ” real American” ? I mean these are the people who believe that Obama is a secret muslim.
MikeBoyScout
@8. russell:
We’ve been stupid in the past, but our ability to f**k ourselves and the planet has never been as great. Our stupid scales better and faster than it ever has or could.
+ 4 +1 to Mikey @7.
debbie
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Barbour was on MTP this morning and surprisingly came across as very reasonable. Not one mention of a “shakedown” or any other Republican talking point. We’ll see how long that lasts.
Why doesn’t anyone explain to all these complainers that the $20 billion escrow account is necessitated by the fact that 20 years later, Exxon is still litigating its liability and all the “small” people — the fishermen and other Gulf residents — can’t hold on that long?
licensed to kill time
The Republicans are trying to have it both ways, as usual. If the shakedown meme doesn’t catch on, they’re ready with a new one:
__
linky from Benen’s place yesterday
b-psycho
Calling it a “shakedown” is a dog whistle. There were books on the wingnut circuit for years attaching that label to virtually anything Jesse Jackson’s organization did*. The gist of the whistle is “see, he’s just like that other ni…”.
(* – this is not to defend him. The merits of anything Jesse actually did are beside the point.)
Alex S.
So what would have happened if, for whatever reason, this catastrophe had not gotten so much attention? I mean, you can get sued for far less, and of course, you would have to pay for the damage you caused. But since this is BP, and since this thing is just so huge, and since it threatens BP’s existence, this has now become another hill for the GOP to die on. Seriously, the very reasons that legitimize these huge costs are now the reasons BP shouldn’t pay them. With the GOP it’s always exactly the opposite of what is the logical thing to do. I would go crazy if I was forced to think like that all the time. I’m almost getting crazy reading it.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
Oddly enough- Salam writes hundreds of words, but never once manages to explain how setting aside money so that you are capable of paying your future obligations is a shakedown
“Black black BLACKITTY BLACK BLACK!”
Alex S.
Off-topic but interesting, Canada’s role before the G20 summit:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100620/cn-canada-the-ottawa-way/
joeyess
This calls for another edition of “What Digby Said”.
Uloborus
@Alex S.:
Right now, they’re stuck. They got pissy enough to declare that they’re going to do the opposite of whatever Obama does, and their base loved it, and now they can’t do anything else. This becomes a problem when Obama does something as obvious as want BP to pay for fixing the Gulf. The loony fringe still goes ‘BP is being railroaded!’ because anything Obama does must be wrong, and the congressional leaders have to sign on or be primaried out. It’s a sentiment that is sure to endear them to moderate swing voters.
Brachiator
I like this opening bit in Salam’s screed:
It almost makes the escrow account sound like an overgenerous entitlement program designed to hand money over to unworthy people instead of compensation for a disaster. And “spill” sounds so … minimal, like “oops, just a little spill.”
And as usual, the GOP doesn’t offer an alternative, and continues its typical ABC (Always Be Criticizing) tactic.
And Salam picking up Barton’s “shakedown” nonsense continues the theme of Obama as illegitimate usurper (last week, stealth Kenyan Muslim whitey hater; today Chicago political machine gangster; next week, un-American soshulist dictator).
I wonder how this is playing in the South, heartland to tea bagger and GOP Real America(tm) strategy, but containing the areas most affected by the oil leak. Are there really any GOP governors and senators in the region boldly exclaiming how they will refuse to co-operate with the president or refuse to go after BP for damages?
Have libertarians written their pro forma columns about the acceptable risks of ocean oil drilling, and how declaring regions federal disaster areas interferes with the Bitch Slap of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market?
joeyess
All of the above was supposed to be in blockquotes, lest anyone thinks that I share Rotund One’s opinion.
just follow the link. This is why Digby and Cole are bloggers and I’m not. Sheesh.
El Cid
ACORN! Harold Washington! Jesse Jackson! Chicago — powerful — blaaaaaaaaaack!
Mike G
Funny, I’ve never heard them use that term when an individual consumer or employee, stripped of legal or regulatory protection thanks to Republican ideological looting ‘governance’, is up against a corporation with huge resources.
But then, under glibertarianism, corporations can’t oppress people, only governments can.
MikeBoyScout
FYI, I read it somewhere the other day, we (you & me) need to stop referring to this as a “spill”.
It is a blow out. If one wants to qualify it further I’d suggest catastrophic blow out.
Robertdsc-iphone
It boggles the mind how anyone not already on the conservative team can relate to the grotesque actions of the GOP.
MikeJ
@MikeBoyScout: I’ve been using “oil well explosion” but that also sounds time limited.
“Leak” expresses continuation, but sounds small.
Ana Gama
Since BP was granted personhood by SCOTUS in the Citizens United decision, what I want to know is who serves the prison sentence for the 11 counts of aggravated manslaughter when BP is found guilty of criminal negligence….the Swede or the Brit?
Judge Crater
I’m sure the right would like to work the word “reparations” into its semantic cheap shots. As in: BP and Tony Hayward are forced to pay reparations to Obama and his socialist cronies.
arguingwithsignposts
@joeyess:
Per The Fat Slob SOB psychopath:
I hate that sentence construction. If you believe that Obama’s past is prologue, then don’t use the speculative *if,* you propagandist jackass!
arguingwithsignposts
@Ana Gama:
Technically, corporations have had “personhood” long before the CU decision. CU expanded the “speech” rights of that personhood. IANAL, so some L can correct me on that if I’m wrong.
vtr
Salam’s argument, such as it is, is the desperate sort of thing that people come up with when there’s nothing else to say. Me in high school: “Holy ***! The term paper’s due tomorrow. What am I going to write about!?”
Nellcote
I don’t understand this. Wouldn’t “good faith negotiations” lead to a 20B restitution fund? Since it’s 5B a year it’s not excessively painful for BP and that it lasts for 4 years assures that unforseen expenses are covered. And it’s voluntary so if you’re not down with the concept you can just go ahead and sue (good luck with that, see Exxon Valdez victims). What does he mean by “conventions”?
russell
Tru dat.
In the context of oil and gas, specifically, we’re likely to see more and more stuff like this, because the very low hanging fruit has already been picked. There aren’t a lot of easy to access / easy to extract sources left that haven’t already been developed.
And I’m writing this on a computer in an air-conditioned room.
I don’t know how this (meaning, big picture dilemna of how to transition from a very large scale cheap-energy economy) is going to end up playing out. I think it will be messy.
fucen tarmal
i called talking point on barton as soon as he said it, and all through his apology pour les excuses.
@burnspbesq:
interesting thought, i did read in that, the 20b is over 4 years, so it could be, that the guarantee of money, in effect is to insure bp’s survival, meaning they now have to be kept alive, in order for that money to continue to fund claims. it would make sense, if they fear extinction, to put a number down, that gives the government a reason to make sure they aren’t enron’d out of existence.
i want them to pay every conceivable dime, and i don’t give a damn about brittish pensioners. i just don’t know if we know, how best to extract it.
Chris
Having seen the full quote from El Rushbo, one other thing struck me:
Only Rush would think of 20 billion dollars as a “miniature” amount of money! Just how greedy is he anyway?
Quiddity
Where is the “shakedown narrative”? You know, an account where Obama is quoted as saying he’d better get money or you-know-what.
The shakedown charge is lacking evidence. It’s sterile. One could just as easily spin out of thin air the notion that Obama was cowed by BP Tony. Right? No quotes, just assert scenario X.
Mike
On a hunch, I checked this, and I guessed right :
Joe Barton on Health Savings Accounts (HSAs):
One way to increase access to healthcare is by the use of HSAs. These savings accounts that provide a great way for people to pay for unreimbursed medical expenses. HSAs are beneficial because contributions are deductible (or excluded from income that is taxable if made by employers), withdrawals are not taxed if used for medical expenses, and account earnings are tax-exempt. Unused balances may also accumulate without limit. I strongly support the use of HSAs.
Think anyone will ever think to ask these guys what the difference is here? I mean other than with one you’re shaking, I mean taking taxpayer money and pouring into corporate coffers, and with the other, the money flows in the opposite, unamerican direction?
b-psycho
@Quiddity: Y’know what? Considering that “pay for this or else” is exactly what the average citizen of the affected areas would say if they were in a closed-door meeting with BP, I see nothing wrong with this even if that’s what Obama actually said.
For once, something approximating “representative democracy” actually happened. Savor it, you’ll never see another one in your lifetime.
Tom Hilton
So when BP ‘negotiates’ with, say, its branded dealers, is that also a ‘shakedown’? Is it a shakedown whenever parties to a negotiation don’t have equal leverage? Because I don’t think free-market ideology is cool with that standard.
Silver
@Tom Hilton:
It’s only a shakedown when a nigger does it.
Leah
@arguingwithsignposts:
Those were not meant to be read as Joeyess’s own thoughts or feelings. See explanation @comment 22
Alan
I think the “shakedown” reference is actually derived from Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.” Conservatives try their best to shoehorn everything into the evil government trying to extort from the creators–the people who actually make the country work. In their warped interpretation, oil and chemical dispersant soaked shrimp and oysters are like the formula to Rearden Metal. We’re witnessing epic tyranny. No, really.
Arguingwithsignposts - ipod touchs
@Leah:
I knew that. I was just replying to that comment fir the original context . I would never imply joyess was a fat sob psychopath!
:)
Bob
John, what did you, once upon a time, find appealing about Republicans?
I gotta go all the way back to the 1860’s to find good Republicans.
El Cid
@Judge Crater:
Ahhhh, that’s a great, great call. I didn’t think of that one at all.
What about ‘Jamaican mafia,’ or ‘Somali pirates’? They’re black, too.
[Oh, and of course, Rainbow Coalition. PUSH! Robert Mugabe. Baby Doc Duvalier.]
Uloborus
@Bob:
I believe they mostly just used to be better liars.
asiangrrlMN
I was gonna say, the color of the word ‘shakedown’ (black) was obvious to me right away. Gotta know the code, Cole, if you want to survive in a rightwingbatshitcrazy world.
Cacti
I, for one, really hope the GOP sticks with the “poor little old BP” narrative.
Delia
@Cacti:
Yeah, poor little BP. Here’s a new one. Poor little old BP is burning rare and endangered sea turtles alive.
Or maybe Ralm was supposed to save this for blackmail if the shakedown didn’t work.
Kyle
Shorter Reihan Salam:
The Obamunist is upsetting the natural order where the little people have to square off in court for years against a foot-dragging giant corporation and hope for any scraps they can get, vid. Exxon after the Valdez spill. Corporate bullies aren’t supposed to have to face off against the US government after paying so much for those corporatist congressmen, waaahhh
TenguPhule
Same Shit, New Generation.
TenguPhule
One bloody inch at a time with a rusted spork.
Xenos
@Kyle: We ought to recognize that a few hundred white shoe lawyers just lost a couple decades worth of work. This escrow fund amounts to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars stolen from the lawyers who had already banked on some serious earnings to come.
So expect the Federalist Society and other think-tanks to invest some serious effort into attacking this escrow account, as it attacks one of their main sources of funding.
debbie
@Xenos:
Can’t this be considered as the peoples’ version of tort reform?
slag
Actually, I’m finding this rightwing BP Empathy Tour fairly fascinating. And incredibly telling.
Poor people who can’t pay the mortgage on their homes? Irresponsible ne’er-do-wells who are responsible for all of our economic woes.
Multimillionaire yachtsmen oil executives who destroy our Gulf Coast? Poor, hapless victims of a big government shakedown.
None of this is surprising, of course. But these Republicans make their prejudices so blindingly obvious that it amazes me that anyone who is not a multimillionaire yachtsman oil executive still takes them seriously.
Belvoir
The Daily Beast, and Salam in particular, seem to go out of the way to get up my nose and annoy the hell out of me. I admire Tina Brown, she resurrected Vanity Fair to its cosmopolitan glory days. But have you read the comments at the Daily Beast? Often sounds like Tea party Central, in part due to articles – no, make that polemics- by the likes of Reihan Salam here.
I also read that BP’s profit in the last quarter was $26 billion. So the $20 bil escrow fund amounts to a little over two months’ profit for them. Such a sacrifice. I’m weirdly satisfied by such out of touch right wingers defending BP, calling it a shakedown. Yes, do go die on that hill then, you fucking assholes. Come right out and say it, you care more for this conglomerate than actual people and the incredible environmental devastation wrought by their actions. Come further out of the closet and show people the rotten wretches you really are, like Salam here.
xian
there is a clear pattern, too, of having it both ways, in the sense that when obama is conciliatory and balanced he is a weak apologizer and when he is forceful and exercises power he is a thug.
Kyle
I say we should let the libertards fly on a special airline they can form, exempt from FAA regulation and inspections, since government oversight is so evil. The same with their food, none of the tyranny of FDA inspections for them.
After a few months there won’t be enough of them left to worry about — all through the magic of the invisible hand and individual choice.
Triscula
You know, there’s no explaining or clarifying required in this situation. While I appreciate your intentions in pointing out how this situation isn’t a “shakedown”, that’s not the proper response to these talking points. The correct response is relentless mockery. Whenever this talking point is floated (and that’s exactly what is happening right now) it should be laughed at and mocked without mercy. Conservatives are attempting to diffuse that asshole’s idiotic comment by spreading it around a bit, and in the process they’re testing the waters to see if will actually gain some traction. The second Democrats and liberals start responding to it as though it had some merit (i.e. rebutting it with facts) it gains some measure of legitimacy. Let’s not elevate this ridiculous shit by arguing against it. Ridicule is all that the “shakedown” position should receive. Whenever it’s trotted out the speaker should be labeled as a BP apologist hack who would rather strap on kneepads and fellate big oil than look out for the welfare of ordinary people.
SiubhanDuinne
@xian #58:
Yep. Can’t win for losing.
slag
@Triscula:
The mocking goes without saying, but I actually do think this issue deserves more serious discussion. I’m with David Corn on this (via Greg Sargent):
This really is a clash of worldviews. And the more we can get those clashes brought out into the open and canvassed fully, the better off we’ll be.
Elie
@mikey:
I really think that we are in a huge transformational period and that truly, many Americans get it better than you think. Don’t get too discouraged by the posturing and head fakes of the opposition… what else can they do? The media is unable as well to make the transformation as quickly as would be necessary to be in synch with new realities — the changing perceptions about corporate power and role and updated view of the government…
It is totally understandable that those of us who advocate for certain change and values are nervous. But we should not let our fear dictate our optimism and energy for the change ahead. We will be ok. Americans are not as dense as we seem when observed through the distorted lense of our media and politics. We know our change towards political maturity is long overdue and does not come without a severe price. We are paying that price. That payment cannot be escaped. Let us respect that and just try to keep working hard and believing that we can do this and succeed in this vital and necessary effort…
JAHILL10
@Elie: This
Bob
“Shakedown” may have black connotations, I don’t see it, but for shear street crime terror the R’s should go with “mugged.”
Obama mugged BP.
Uloborus
@Elie:
I more or less agree. The Republicans had their chance, and in the end they screwed the pooch so bad it can hardly walk. Now their party is flailing and incoherent and hated by moderates. Perhaps more importantly, its demographics are looking even more grim for the future. And not only have their favorite talking points been widely discredited, they’re actually doubling down on them at a time when even the nonpolitical joe can tell it’s idiocy.
I have a lot of hope. The worst has passed – that was the Bush presidency. I just hope we can survive the reconstruction.
electricgrendel
Funny how when it’s corporations using their superior position to force concessions out of workers, or when it’s the government usings its forces to invalidate union contracts, the Republicans don’t have a problem with “shakedowns.”
debbie
What the Democrats ought to say: A real shakedown is what the Republicans have allowed corporations to wage on average Americans for decades.