His office replied with an unsurprising lack of support for Senator Reid's S.3663 Oil Accountability Act.
Again, ideology seems to chokehold thinking aimed at less bias and deeper critical engagement. Still, his response betrays yet another GOP memeber comfortable waffling on the GOP's proposed spirit of deregulation and "Invisible Hand" economic policies. Senator Chambliss contends that removing the cap of $75 million for compensation from oil companies found negligent may jepoardize small businesses and jobs.
Does that not sound like a subsidy to you? Essentially, someone must pick up the bill for the envionmental and economic devastation of oil spills--who would that be? You the taxpayer. Chambliss unwittingly proposes we should clean up the spill, not the responsible party.
Would it not make sense in a free market that a business should suffer for its poor choices? Granted, jobs would be lost, but isn't that the kind of "economic adjustment" touted by our friends in the GOP. Well, should the Government stay out, or shouldn't they? I'm afraid only our Libertarian friends remain consistent in their platform.
Something rotten in Georgia?...not just the oil-polluted Savannah River?
Below, I've provided in brackets the Senator's response, and below that, my counter response. Please read on.
Saxby Chambliss to me
[Dear Mr. Perri:
Thank you for contacting me regarding oil spill and energy legislation. I appreciate hearing from you.
It is imperative that we increase the security and reliability of our nation's energy supply. On June 24, 2010, Senator Burr and I introduced S. 3535, the "Next Generation Energy Security Act of 2010." Our bill focuses on several matters, including: using natural gas for vehicles and expanding nuclear power generation, as well as addressing spent nuclear fuel recycling, promoting electric vehicles and continued support for renewable energy sources. S. 3535, if passed, would lead our nation down the path of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, decreasing emissions, and keeping energy prices low.
Furthermore, the recent disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has raised numerous concerns about the safety of oil and natural gas production that must be addressed. It is our responsibility to ensure that domestic resources are produced as safely as possible and that environmental damage is avoided at all costs. Nevertheless, the exploration and development of domestic resources continue to be a vital component of our nation's energy policy, and I remain supportive of domestic offshore oil and natural gas exploration conducted in an environmentally responsible manner.
On July 28, 2010, Senator Harry Reid introduced S. 3663, the "Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act of 2010," to address the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and to change our nation's energy policy. I have several concerns with various aspects of this bill.
First, S. 3663 proposes to completely eliminate the oil spill liability cap, which, under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-380), is currently limited to removal costs plus $75 million. However, if an oil spill is determined to be the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct, then the liability cap does not apply. While I agree that the responsible parties must be held accountable for the costs associated with the response and clean up efforts and that the liability cap should be increased, I am concerned about the effects that completely removing the liability limitations would have on smaller companies in the industry. Congress needs to increase safety and liability in a way that will not inhibit our ability to explore for these resources or kill jobs.
I am also concerned by any component of the "Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act of 2010" that would increase the per-barrel amount that oil companies are required to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The measure as currently written in S. 3663 amounts to a 500 percent tax increase, the cost of which would be directly passed on to consumers. Furthermore, this bill proposes to use this new $16 billion tax, the revenues of which are intended to pay for the cleanup and damages from an oil spill, to pay for totally unrelated measures, such as a Home Star Program and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Congress should be focused on ways to prevent future oil spills and effectively mitigate any damages that result, rather than using a disaster to justify new taxes to pay for completely unrelated projects.
I will continue to support efforts to improve the security and reliability of our energy supply and effectively address the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. However, I oppose measures under consideration that will greatly increase energy costs, add to the national deficit, and unnecessarily hamper exploration and production of domestic natural resources. Senator Reid has postponed consideration of S. 3663; however, should this or any other legislation regarding this issue come before the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind.]
Dear Senator:
Thank you for your prompt and valuable response. However, I would encourage you to clarify some important points that I am not entirely satisfied with.
First of all, if small oil companies should be found negligent and subsequently responsible for devastation on both the natural and economic environment that has far reaching costs into the unforseeable future, why would you be so entirely concerned with providing some sort of "SAFETY CAP" to essentially subsidize business negligence? Are you not of the party that praises the free adjustments of a free market? Yet, you would want the Government to step in and help mitigate the costs of a business that potentially "deserves" to (perhaps) fail if their actions should deem them unworthy of existing in the market.
It seems that Senator Reid's bill works as a hard disciplinary force that enforces businesses to take the utmost care in performing actions that can and do effect public goods and public resources---like the Gulf of Mexico, for example.
Also, given the fact that expert engineers and oil companies themselves admit that offshore drilling in those conditions at those depths are as difficult to navigate and control as space travel and walking on the moon, let's reflect and ask ourselves why we would take such risks in the first place for crude oil? Based on the incentives our markets provide, it seems we are in more and more desperate need to supply a demand that continues to increase with no end in sight. The problem here is that we are dealing with a finite resource and a potentially infinite demand---and I am sure you understand Senator, at some point that demand cannot be fulfilled.
So would you rather spend money and time piecing together very expensive bandages (like offshore drilling in very unfriendly ocean environments--a desperate act to gather crude oil) or help encourage (in a more than cursory manner) alternate technologies?
How can we be sure, Senator, that ideology does not intrude on our decision-making? As citizens of our beautiful nation we are continually attempting to self-reflect and make critical choices not based on allegiance to any specific ideology other than sound judgment that promotes freedom, a flourishing market, and a nation and planet worth living on. I think it would behoove us to reconsider your stance on Senator Reid's proposal, and ask yourself why exactly we should be afraid that removing a cap limitation on oil companies would be imprudent.
As you are a thoughtful and dedicated man, I would appreciate you addressing each of the points I have put forward with data, figures, and facts. I also would be more than willing to bring such things to the table and enjoy discoursing with you--if you feel compelled with me to engage in that age-old democratic virtue of discourse and conversation with the consituents who gave you the current job you enjoy.
All my best, and God Bless America--
Kevin Perri
P.S. So far I've only received an automated "out of the office" response to my counter.
Well done brother. But what do you expect from a man who compared a double-amputee Vietnam War vet to terrorists in order to win an election. Chambliss is nothing more than a rank in file lackey for the Republican Party. These people always hide behind protecting small business so that big business can reap the benefits of the laws they pass. And they still cling to the absurd notion that if you give the rich as much money and power as possible, they will be magnanimous send it down to us. It saddens me that anyone can see the devastation that BP inflicted on the Gulf and not sense the smallest bit of personal responsibility and/or humility in supporting these vultures. Maybe if an oil rig exploded onto Senator Chambliss' estate in Georgia, then he might finally see things a little differently. Luckily we have do have more intelligent minds in Congress (albeit not too many) that see this tragedy a little differently.
ReplyDeleteHopefully they will prevail.
Excellent post Mr. Perri. While I could quibble with a few details, I wholeheartedly agree with the thrust of your argument: liability caps are unwarranted government subsidies.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Thanks for pointing out that libertarians remain consistent on the issue. :-)