Its all rhetoric and political swashbuckling until real world problems become your own.
Today’s Washington Post has an excellent opinion piece written by Dana Millbank entitled, Through Oil-fouled Water, Big Government Looks Better and Better. The entire article has been posted below because every word needs to be taken to heart and read carefully. There was simply no part that could be considered for truncating purposes.
Through Oil-fouled Water, Big Government Looks Better and Better
Dana Millbank, Washington Post
There is something exquisite about the moment when a conservative decides he needs more government in his life.
About 10:30 Monday morning, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), an ardent foe of big government, posted a blog item on his campaign Web site about the huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “I strongly believe BP is spread too thin,” he wrote.
The poor dears. He thinks it would be a better arrangement if “federal and state officials” would do the dirty work of “protecting and cleaning up the coast” instead of BP.
About an hour later came word from the Pentagon that Alabama, Florida and Mississippi — all three governed by men who once considered themselves limited-government conservatives — want the federal government to mobilize (at taxpayer expense, of course) more National Guard troops to aid in the cleanup.
That followed an earlier request by the small-government governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal (R), who issued a statement saying he had called the Obama administration “to outline the state’s needs” and to ask “for additional resources.” Said Jindal: “These resources are critical.”
About the time that Alabama, Florida and Mississippi were asking for more federal help, three small-government Republican senators, Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama and George LeMieux of Florida, were flying over the gulf on a U.S. government aircraft with small-government Republican Rep. Jeff Miller (Fla.).
“We’re here to send the message that we’re going to do everything we can from a federal level to mitigate this,” Sessions said after the flight, “to protect the people and make sure when people are damaged that they’re made whole.”
Sessions, probably the Senate’s most ardent supporter of tort reform, found himself extolling the virtues of litigation — against BP. “They’re not limited in liability on damage, so if you’ve suffered a damage, they are the responsible party,” said Sessions, sounding very much like the trial lawyers he usually maligns.
All these limited-government guys expressed their belief that the British oil company would ultimately cover all the costs of the cleanup. “They’re not too big to fail,” Sessions said. “If they can’t pay and they’ve given it everything they’ve got, then they should cease to exist.” But if you believe that the federal government won’t be on the hook for a major part of the costs, perhaps you’d like to buy a leaky oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.
It may have taken an ecological disaster, but the gulf-state conservatives’ newfound respect for the powers and purse of the federal government is a timely reminder for them. As conservatives in Washington complain about excessive federal spending, the ones who would suffer the most from spending cuts are their own constituents.
An analysis of data from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation by Washington Post database specialist Dan Keating found that people in states that voted Republican were by far the biggest beneficiaries of federal spending. In states that voted strongly Republican, people received an average of $1.50 back from the federal government for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. In moderately Republican states, the amount was $1.19. In moderately Democratic states, people received on average of 99 cents in federal funds for each dollar they paid in taxes. In strongly Democratic states, people got back just 86 cents on the tax dollar.
If Sessions and Shelby succeed in shrinking government, their constituents in Alabama will be some of the biggest losers: They get $1.66 in federal benefits for every $1 they pay in taxes. If Louisiana’s Vitter succeeds in shrinking government, his constituents will lose some of the $1.78 in federal benefits they receive for every dollar in taxes they pay. In Mississippi, it’s $2.02.
That may explain why, as the oil slick hits the Gulf Coast, lawmakers from the region are willing to swallow their limited-government principles as they dangle federal aid before their constituents. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said he would “make sure the federal government is poised to assist in every way necessary.” His colleague Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) said he is making sure “the federal government is doing all it can” — even as he added his hope that “industry” would pay.
President Obama tried to remind the government-is-the-enemy crowd of this situation in a speech on Saturday. “Government is the police officers who are protecting our communities, and the servicemen and -women who are defending us abroad,” he said. “Government is the roads you drove in on and the speed limits that kept you safe. Government is what ensures that mines adhere to safety standards and that oil spills are cleaned up by the companies that caused them.”
For the moment, some of the conservatives have new appreciation for governmental powers. “We’re going to have the oil industry folks, the BP folks, in front of us on the Commerce Committee,” Florida’s LeMieux vowed in the news conference Monday. “We’re going to talk about these drilling issues.”
But not before the taxpayer sends some more big-government money down to the small-government politicians of the gulf.
At what point do we stop thinking that the other person’s needs are frivolous and our own important? Are the politicians in the gulf states who are banging the drum about smaller government opportunists? Hypocrites? Or could it be that all those elected officials just needed a reality check about what we do when disaster hits us?
Oil spill an inside job?
If Rush Limbaugh was on the far left, he’d be a 9/11 truther. As it is, he’s on the far right, and has decided to become an oil-spill truther:
I want to get back to the timing of the blowing up, the explosion out there in the Gulf of Mexico of this oil rig. … Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade, that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they’re sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they’re sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I’m just noting the timing here.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/oil_spill_an_inside_job.html
Tinfoil hats, anyone?
Big government is good when it aids us, but detrimental when it enslaves us. Conservatives reference to big government is all about the growth of government in those areas that are formed for purely administrative purposes. Look at the number of people employed just to collect our hard earned tax dollar. How much good can a tax dollar do when the cost of collection approaches the value of that collected? Protecting this nation is one area that conservatives have never complained about in terms of size. Yes, the protection of our lively hood, and assistance during national disasters are areas where it makes sense to have a large government role as it serves the citizens and doesn’t control them. It’s all about Freedom.
What a load of crap. Millbank dserves the derision he gets in the journalistic community. Only a die hard liberal Obama apologizer could confuse the need for the capabilities of the federal government in responding to an environmental disaster with concern for the growth and intrusion of that same governmment into peoples lives or worse its utter failure in so many other areas. Unbeleiveable!
The very same folks who were so upset with the federal response to Katrina/Rita are strangley quiet today. Could it be that they are opportunitsts.
The same folks who defended the federal response to Katrina/Rita are strangely loud today. Opportunists?
Surely everyone sees the difference in a hurricane that was out there, on the weather radar, for 5 days before it made landfall, and an oil rig explosion for which there is still no explanation?
I think it was the ‘Good job, Brownie!’ that might have just pushed things over the edge. While Brownie was being praised there were people still perched on rooftops. While I am not sure President Bush or his administration deserved nearly half the crap they receieved over a hurricane, perception is reality. FEMA was slow to respond.
The oil spill is not FEMA related and is the job of BP to clean up. Any attempt to compare the incidents is like comparing apples and oranges. The only thing the same is location.
“Big Government” in this case is doing exactly what it was designed for and expected to do. Let us just hope that the “police officer” analogy used by the President does not arrive some day at the point where the same “Big Government” is able to tell the Dana Millbanks of this world what they can and cannot write — or the Moonhowlers what they can and cannot post. Never happen here? Hah! Democracy comes with no absolute guarantees. Eternal vigilance to guard against another crossing of the Rubicon.
Apparently, that oil rig was given a pass last year on some inspections…….last year.
Who was in charge last year? Who has gotten the most BP money in the last 20 years?
Complaints about big government are valid. This government has gotten so big that it is spending money that we don’t have and now is less able to confront disasters or have the money to throw at them. We have a problem with big and intrusive government. If it can fix this more quickly than BP then they should do it. And then, bill BP.
We don’t necessarily need “bigger” government or “smaller” government … we need “non-partisan” government.
Complaints about big government doesn’t mean that as a taxpayer I won’t call 911 if my house is on fire, or 911 to report that I’ve shot an intruder and I need them to remove his body off my property.
The federales do exist to provide services (like defense) that are better provided by a pool rather than an individual state.
The above article might get a passing grade in a college journalism class but it fails the common sense sniff test.
Rick, I agree. And people need to be able to vote without being muscled by their peers.
Totally agree … or being bought out with sweetheart deals as we recently saw (“The Louisiana Purchase”).
This column is almost too stupid to even respond, but I have a couple of points. First of all, Obama is the top recipient of BP donations in the last 20 years.
Second of all, there is a fundamental difference between the government responses to Katrina and the oil spill. Hurricane response is primarily the responsibility of the states. The Feds do not get involved until requested by individual states. For an oil spill, the Feds are in charge of the response from Day 1. The federal government could have moved rapidly after the spill, but instead it essentially delegated the responsibility to BP.
kelly, how about verifying that Obama was the top recipient of BP donations in the last 20 years. I am not even sure what that means.
As for hurricane response, tell Daddy Bush that and ask him what he would have done differently after Andrew.
And what is it that you think the feds should have been out there doing? is this going to be one of those democRAT vs Elephant discussions?
Kelly, your #12 has an interesting point about which I have often wondered. As I recall, Bush called the then Governor of Louisiana and suggested an evacuation of threatened areas in New Orleans. The governor demurred. Short of declaring Federal martial law, are you saying there was no way that Bush could have overruled the governor and ordered an evacuation himself?
It wasn’t exactly an oil spill at first glimpse…it was an oil rig explosion where there was a rescue attempt going on. No one knew the magnitude of the leak/spill/erruption because they were trying to do a rescue.
Why must everything be a gotcha? I was most unhappy with the gotcha from Katrina. Hurricanes should’t be political. Oil rig explosions shouldn’t be political.
There are lots of things that perhaps deserve a gotcha, but I don’t think either of these cases need to go tit for tat.
Recent plans provide for federal assistance when state resources are overwhelmed, but it is not altogether clear whether the feds could intervene without a state’s specific request. Prior to 9/11, the state had to request assistance before the federal government would get involved.
This is discussed in more detail at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/whitehouse/katrina/katrina-lesns-chap2.pdf .
MH: I provided a link to your question in #13, but it appears not to have been accepted. Here it is again: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
Kelly, I think that for a brief period of time that Bush was allowed to intervene (PL109-364) allowing the President to unilaterally declare a state of emergeny, federalize the state National Guard and direct federal resources as he saw fit. It basically gutted Posse Comitatus and was seen by many as a step towards tyrannical govt. That portion of the Warner Act was thus repealed a year later – restoring Posse Comitatus.
The idea that a standing President could order troops onto a state/city is VERY frightening to me. The Governor of a state should not be pushed aside as s/he is the elected executive of the state under distress. It should be that Governor’s decision to ask for help or not.
The system SHOULD work much like how our fire departments work. A fire occurs and a local (fire) company takes care of it. If it’s too big they call in other companies. If it’s still to big they activate there mutual assistance pact and have neighboring juristictions come in and help. If it’s still too big the state is called in. And, when the stuff has hit the fan you call in the federales.
Now, about evacuations.. Do you think a police officer or sheriff’s deputy can ‘order’ you to evacuate your home? Further, can they force you (physically) to evacuate? That’s a big fat juicy question that can be debated for a looong time. 🙂
Thanks Kelly. You have to admit, that was a confusing statement.
I think what the article is saying, albeit somewhat awkwardly: BP has given to various presidential and congressional campaigns. In the past 20 years, the person who has received the biggest chunk of money is President Obama.
So. We can probably go through and check out Chevron, Exxon, Connoco Phillips, etc and look at amounts in war chests of just about any candidate. Go to vpap and check out how much the coal industry gave our governor. Health care related corporations did the same thing. Its hard to draw conclusions. I would like to see corporations far more limited in how they can financially influence an election. Apparently the Supreme Court doesn’t agree with me.
The lobbying money is even more disgusting than the campaign contributions to candidates. And then we wonder why? doh!!!!!
Thanks, Kelly. My reading of that link suggests that, at the time Bush made his suggestion to the then Governor of Louisiana, the situation had not yet reached that critical point where the local and state resources could be deemed to have been overwhelmed. It looks like the whole plan does need some reworking to get the coordination kinks out of it.