Critique of the President's Speech

I know I said I was not going to watch the speech, but, the speech was broadcast on numerous television stations. Additionally, I was a little curious if he was going to talk cap and trade, or cap and tax as some people call the policy. I've decided to discuss his three main points (the cleanup, new regulations, and renewable energy) in tonight's blog.

First, I'll start with something I already discussed yesterday. The President finally said he was going to meet with BP's CEO, Tony Hayward. The meeting, though, is not going to be some beer summit at the White House. Instead, the President is going to order BP to put money into an escrow account that will be controlled by a "third party" (read "the all powerful US government I lead"). I reiterate this is a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. I will admit up front, I have not read the mineral right document signed by the Mine Management Service (MMS) and BP so this aspect might actually be covered under that agreement - for now, I am going to assume the mineral rights agreement does not address this specific point.

The Constitution states the government cannot take property without due process of law. Due process, as defined in an earlier blog entry, is a course of formal proceedings (as judicial proceedings) carried out regularly, fairly, and in accordance with established rules and principles. The President of the United States "ordering" a citizen of another country who is the head of a company based in another country to set aside money for the US government to do with as they (the government) sees fit is a violation of due process. The President does not have the right nor the legal precedent to do what he said he was going to do. To take another's property, even if they feel it is justified and for a good cause, without due process violates the very foundation upon which our country was founded. While I am angry with BP over the oil spill, I cannot stand by quietly while the Constitution is blatantly violated. If I was the BP CEO, I would give the President the bird and tell him where he can stick his "order." This reaction would obviously result in the bankruptcy of BP. Once BP is bankrupt, there won't be any funds left to pay for the spill cleanup, the hundreds of thousands of innocent families who were employed by BP would now be out of work causing a huge rise in the unemployment rate, and the numerous retirement funds which owned stock in BP would find their assets severely reduced in value. For every action, there is a reaction and subsequently, consequences. A violation of the Constitution has dire costs. Instead, the President can offer the assistance of the government in ensuring a fair payout of funds for the cost of the cleanup and for reimbursing those with monetary losses from the oil spill. Or the President can go to court and get his "ordering" action via legal channels.

When it comes to the President's cleanup plan, all I can say is, where was this plan a month ago? Earlier Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, had said the Obama Administration had been assisting the Louisana government with approving and building berms off the coast to help keep the oil from the coast. The Corps of Engineers would not allow the building of the berms at first because of the environmental impact the berms would have on local habitats. This is current legislation. So we don't build the berms because of the environmental impact? Which is worse, the environmental impact of the berms or the environmental impact of the oil? The President's plan is late in the game. Why did he not do this earlier? Of course, most of the blame game participants are saying what has been accomplished so far has been mis-managed by both BP and the federal government. What program isn't mis-managed by the feds? Astute leadership is needed in the Gulf of Mexico. Astute leadership at the top and astute leadership of the individual efforts. I'm not confident the President has put the right people in the right places.
(For the record, seeing the people in white suits picking up small tar balls on the beach is a poor plan. Those people need to be in boats where currents have congregated large pools of oil. These people then can mop up this oil. Leave the beaches to the tractors which dredge the beach to remove the tar balls. But who am I to say what needs to be done?)

As usual in any crisis, the first words from every politician is that we need more regulation. The flawed assumption is that this accident would not have happened if more regulations had been placed. Until the investigation is complete, we don't know the answer. What if the current regulation was adequate but the enforcement of the regulation was defective which led to the accident? Let's not jump to conclusions and knee-jerk more regulations into law. What if the accident was not caused by mis-management or any other defective part? What if the accident was a deliberate event? What would those who want more regulation say if the accident was actually sabotage by an angry individual or group? We must first investigate the actual cause and then evaluate current regulations with the intended outcome we desire. Of course, we should also clean house at the MMS. Sound regulations enforced by corrupt or inept regulators are just as bad poor regulations. Realize, more regulations cause more taxes and more liabilities. YOU, THE TAXPAYER, PAYS FOR REGULATIONS. (For those who desire to argue the oil is spilling because BP wasn't prepared for the accident, realize, 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. And realize, the flow preventer failed. The flow preventer is supposed to stop the oil in case of what happened happening. So we make it regulation that the relief wells need to be drilled before we mine oil. What happens when the relief wells don't do their job? Be careful of your what-ifs. At some point, your what-ifs will be cost prohibitive.)

The third leg of the President's speech was about clean energy. I mentioned earlier that I wanted to see if he mentioned cap and trade. He did not. For me, the jury is still out on this program as I have not researched it enough to make a judgment for or against the policy. What he did do was show his lack of science knowledge. He also showed a lack of economic or social knowledge. Our society depends on automobiles which run on gasoline. Our very communities depend on them. Think about where you live in relation to your job. Most people live in the suburbs and work somewhere else. Our lives revolve around the transportation we utilize to move about in our daily lives. Our daily lives are based on convenience. Is there a clean energy source which can replicate the advantages of gasoline? I hope so but I don't think so. It will take years, no decades, to replace gasoline after the "new" clean energy is discovered. I would also like to point out, with any energy, there is a risk involved with that energy. Would it really be clean if that energy led to an accident of unintended release? Are we trading an unclean energy source for an unsafe energy source? Those are the questions that must be answered.

I hope the President's goal of clean energy comes true, but, I don't want that goal at the expense of the United States. This goal cannot bankrupt our economy which is already heavily in debt. At what point will this government show some fiscal restraint?

In the end, the President made some good points; however, he's a politician with big ideas. Can this country survive his leadership and his big ideas? I hope so.

Mike