GOP Senator: Why should oil companies have to pay for cleanup?
Image by miss karen via Flickr
Remember when Republicans pretended to look out for the “average taxpayer?” It was only marginally true at the best of times, but Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska today kicked taxpayers squarely — and openly — in the teeth.
She prevented quick implementation on a bill that would force oil companies to pay something like the full cost for their eco-catastrophes (the one ongoing in the Gulf of Mexico comes to mind). Grist’s staff writer David Roberts explains:
On the Senate floor a few moments ago, Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J), and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) asked for unanimous consent to pass their Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act of 2010, which would raise the liability cap on offshore drilling accidents from $75 million to $10 billion. Unanimous consent simply means the bill passes without all the usual Senate procedural folderol.
Now, ask yourself: Who could object to this? Does anyone really think BP should only have to pay $75 million — a drop in the bucket relative to what’s necessary; an even smaller drop in the bucket of BP’s profits — to clean up the Gulf oil catastrophe? What possible justification could there be for objecting? Surely if anything deserves unanimous consent, it’s this, right?
You underestimate the Republican party. None other than Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski stood up to object. Yes, the senator from the state that got hammered by the Exxon Valdez spill objected to raising the liability cap.
Mike Lillis, writing in the Washington Independent, points out a possible reason for what seems like a contradiction.
[Murkowski] didn’t mention the $426,000 she’s accepted from the oil industry in her eight-year tenure on the Hill.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] this article: GOP Senator: Why should oil companies have to pay for cleanup … Share and [...]
why wouldn’t she think someone else should clean up the mess? over privileged bwitches like her don’t know how to clean up after themselves nor do their mothers…they hire someone (usually one of those undocumented domestics they detest) to do the work for them…they have no sense of personal (or corporate-person) responsibility or real self-reliance…these people don’t DO anything for themselves: no laundry, no dishes, no washing the car or the dog, heck, they don’t even raise their own kids…
One hesitates to call any woman a whore, but when a woman spreads her obligations, principles, and conscience to accomodate the thrusting greed of oil companies, what else is there?
Leave it to Lisa Murkowski to do her dirty duty for the oil companies. Why in the world would she not support something so fair? She’s a piece of work.
She should be publicly ridiculed. This should anger every tax payer. We should all get to throw oil balls at her.
I wonder how Alaskan’s feel about her now? Does she, or does she not intend to protect their state? Her actions say she does not.
I have no idea what her rationale for going against this was, but I have heard several people argue that if the cap is raised to $10 Billion smaller companies would be forced out of the market. Simply put, they would not be able to afford to drill with such a high cap. I am all for BP taking full and complete responsibility for the mess, they should clean and pay for ALL of it. That being said, if the cap is raised they would be one of the few companies able to continue drilling off shore.
To the first two comments, let’s try to be civil. I am going to go ahead and say that you have no idea about their family situations at all and when you stoop to name calling and outrageous assumptions you look like a fool.
In response to another comment. See in context »how much has BP “donated=bribed” the republican party in the last 10 years ?