Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Robert Reich proposes temporary receivership for BP-America! Says we should go beyond escrow

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 03:16 PM
Original message
Robert Reich proposes temporary receivership for BP-America! Says we should go beyond escrow
Edited on Sun Jun-13-10 03:16 PM by Better Believe It
'This Week' Transcript Excerpt
June 13, 2010
Jake Tapper 'This Week' Anchor and
Robert Reich


TAPPER: You're smiling. When he meets with BP executives, one of the things he'll be pushing for is a -- is an escrow account, a third-party escrow account for BP to put money in, and then a third party will give out this money to people whose lives have been impacted by the spill. Where do you see this headed?

REICH: Well, look, Jake, BP does not have unlimited resources. It has a lot. But inevitably, there is going to be a clash, because the costs of this clean-up, the costs of containing the oil spill damage, the costs of plugging that hole are going to be in the tens of billions of dollars. And the question is, how much of this is going to be borne by the American taxpayer and how much by BP?

But the present spectacle of the Coast Guard asking BP to speed up this clean-up is absurd. I mean, the federal government needs to be in charge. The president needs to be in charge of this. Use BP's expertise. Use BP's resources. But the president must be in charge of all of this. Otherwise, he looks like he's just standing on the sidelines.

REICH: Go beyond escrow. Go into temporary receivership.

TAPPER: You think that the Obama administration should take control of BP or BP America?

REICH: BP America, absolutely, Jake. Otherwise, not only is this a political disaster-in-waiting, because this is going to get larger and larger, and the president looks like he's waiting on the sidelines, but, secondly, we have no way of knowing as American people that BP is actually telling the truth, that all of its resources are being put to the appropriate use, and that it is appropriately balancing the health and safety of Americans against the cost of doing this clean-up.

This is a for-profit organization, BP, that is answerable to its shareholders, not to the American people.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-hoyer-bo...

You can watch the video of this episode at:

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-spillin...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Robert Reich's Blog: Five reasons Obama should put BP under receivership



Robert Reich's Blog
June 1, 2010

Five reasons Obama should put BP under receivership

Its time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BPs operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped. This is the only way the public can know whats going on, be confident enough resources are being put to stopping the gusher, ensure BPs strategy is correct, know the government has enough clout to force BP to use a different one if necessary, and be sure the President is ultimately in charge.

If the government can take over giant global insurer AIG and the auto giant General Motors and replace their CEOs, in order to keep them financially solvent, it should be able to put BPs north American operations into temporary receivership in order to stop one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.

The Obama administration keeps saying BP is in charge because BP has the equipment and expertise necessary to do whats necessary. But under temporary receivership, BP would continue to have the equipment and expertise. The only difference: the firm would unambiguously be working in the publics interest. As it is now, BP continues to be responsible primarily to its shareholders, not to the American public. As a result, the public continues to worry that a private for-profit corporation is responsible for stopping a public tragedy.

Five reasons for taking such action:

1. We are not getting the truth from BP.

2. We have no way to be sure BP is devoting enough resources to stopping the gusher.

3. BPs new strategy for stopping the gusher is highly risky.

4. Right now, the U.S. government has no authority to force BP to adopt a different strategy.

5. The President is not legally in charge.

The President should temporarily take over BPs Gulf operations. We have a national emergency on our hands. No president would allow a nuclear reactor owned by a private for-profit company to melt down in the United States while remaining under the direct control of that company. The meltdown in the Gulf is the environmental equivalent.

Please read the full article with the full details on the five reasons at:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2010...





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. # 2 poster is on my ignore list. Probably because of personal attacks directed against DU'ers

That's why I'm not responding to his/her post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. sounds about right. would be on mine, but i don't do ignore -- :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah, we know
unrec for dredging up this discussed to death topic - again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernlights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. not discussed to death....not discussed enough
and this time, instead of anonymous DUers saying it, it's a former insider who may actually be listened to.

Hereby recced to undo your unrec, Mr. Moran. Good choice of screen names, btw. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-10 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Why in the world do people insist on discussing things on a discussion board?

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC