Posted on 06/16/2010 10:54:35 AM PDT by jazusamo
Bachmann, who was speaking to a gathering of bloggers held at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., criticized the administration’s response to the massive oil spill in the Gulf.
The conservative from Minnesota said she was particularly bothered by the call President Obama made Monday--later reiterated in his Oval Office address Tuesday night--for BP to set aside money for reimbursements to victims of the Gulf oil spill that would be administered independently, taking control of the money away from the company.
“The president just called for creating a fund that would be administered by outsiders which would be more of a redistribution-of-wealth fund, and now it appears we’re going to be looking at yet one more gateway for more government control, more money to government,” she said. “If there’s a disaster, why is it that government is the one who always seems to benefit after a disaster?”
The proposed fund that the administration wants BP to create would go to reimburse individuals and businesses along the Gulf Coast that make claims as a result of the oil spill. But the money, which belongs to BP stockholders, would be taken out BP's control and the administration has not clearly stated what due process of law would be observed in distributing the money.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified specifically to prevent the government from taking or redistributing private property without due process of law. The amendment says: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Bachmann said the press has not reported enough on the federal goverment's expanded control of the economy over the past two years, which she described as a “stunner story.”
“The jurisdictional issue has been, I think, one of the most underreported issues that has gone on in the last 18 months, because this is a shocking story, what’s happened in the last 18 months,” she said.
Bachmann acknowledged the problem began under President George W. Bush with the creation of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).
“Now just because we don’t own an industry doesn’t mean that we don’t effectively control it, because we are in a lot of ways,” she said.
Bachmann said Obama’s “non-stop” castigation of BP, the administration’s consideration of the escrow fund, and Democrats’ use of the crisis to push cap-and-trade legislation are all distractions from the task at hand.
“When are we ever going to talk about actually capping this hole?” she asked quizzically.
“For over 50 days, that should be the only story that we write about and that we talk about: What is the next engineering genius that we could bring on board to actually cap the hole? That’s it. You know, we can talk about restitution, we can talk about all the rest, but right now, it is capping the hole.”
“What strikes me is that it seems that every response that’s come out of the White House--and it’s in excess of 50 days--has been about the White House. It’s been about them. It doesn’t seem like it’s really been about stopping the hole and dealing with the devastation that’s going on down there in the Gulf.”
-------------------------------
The following is a transcript of Rep. Bachmann’s exchange with CNSNews.com:
CNSNews.com: You mentioned the president castigating BP over possibly creating a fund. We saw sort of the same thing with Secretary Sebelius and Wellpoint insurer. They hiked their rates and she demanded an explanation. What’s your reaction to this pattern of holding private companies accountable to the executive branch?
Rep. Michelle Bachmanm (R-Minn.): Well, private companies need to be held accountable but not necessarily to the executive branch. It seems to me there’s a misreading of the constitution and a misunderstanding of jurisdictional limits from this White House on what the extent of executive power is. They don’t seem to understand that and it—now it seems that it’s all about extortion and that – that what they want to do is create a pot of money for themselves that they can control and that’s not what the Executive is supposed to do.
There’s a real misreading of jurisdictional limits and they continue to stretch those limits beyond all bounds. And, really, I also fault the Democrat leadership in the Congress for not doing more to hold the White House accountable to the extent of those jurisdictional limits, because that really is then for the Congress to get upset about that and say, ‘Wait a minute, you know we’re the ones that have oversight and we have the power of the purse, not you.’
It’s a good question though. The jurisdictional issue has been, I think, one of the most underreported issues that has gone on in the last 18 months, because this is a shocking story what’s happened in the last 18 months, because an economist from Arizona State University has calculated that in 18 months time, beginning unfortunately under a Republican president with the generation of the TARP fund, the federal government effectively--we have gone from 100 percent ownership of the private economy in private hands to 51 percent ownership of the private economy directly owned or controlled by the federal government. That is the stunner story that has been very underreported. Now just because we don’t own an industry doesn’t mean that we don’t effectively control it, because we are in a lot of ways -- and just with what you’re seeing happening with financial services and now cap-and-trade, that could boost that closer up into the 70 percentile. I don’t see any effort from this administration to unwind and back off of the government control or ownership of any of these private industries.
And there’s just a story that came out on AIG on how much this--the federal government takeover efforts and ownership of AIG has done to hurt the economy because it sent signals to the business community of the federal government’s willingness to cross jurisdictional lines and to--to trample in areas that are not reserved to the executive.
Anything they say will be used against them.
Contrary to Obama’s wording in last night’s speech, he didn’t “order them” to create the escrow fund. He just pressured them into it, and they agreed (acquiesced).
Of course, I’m guessing Obama and BP can both agree the U.S. Congress is capable of inflicting worse outcomes upon BP if they do nothing to quell the cost-of-cleanup concerns.
I hear you and BP should have been the ones to do it now.
Absolutely! Michelle Bachmann is not afraid to stand up to anyone, we definitely need more like her.
Very well said. Obama has no clue about that nor will he ever.
” Yep, Obama and his thugs will control the money no matter that he says they’ll be an independent administrator. “
LMFAO!!!!
I can see a point to going this route, but I wonder what BP got in return. Perhaps a promise not to be debarred from contracts? A promise of no criminal prosecution or multi-thousand dollar per barrel fee? A cap on damages?
As to the point I see, the damages are clearly going to be over $20 billion, so this is a contribution towards it that can be delivered speedily (if inefficiently and to political favorites). I say “political favorites” because Obama has appointed the escrow fund’s head. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to go right to a court, with an agreement in hand, and requested a special master agreed to by both parties? That wouldn’t have taken much more time, either.
Yes. Plug the hole in the Gulf; pull the plug on the Democrats in November.
BP should have Bachmann as a lawyer, not Jamie Gorelick
That would be why Jackson said what he said, lo these many moons ago. You remember...?
Also why Dear Reader was musically compared to a mythical dinosaur with a boy for a friend.
Obama would like to nationalize oil companies, but feels the country isn’t ready for that yet, so he does the next best thing - he seizes their assets and threatens to put them in jail.
That can't be said enough and should be reiterated often, like hourly.
I agree with Michelle Bachman. I got to see her speak last Friday at the 2010 TX GOP Convention. She’s awesome.
“And why didn’t BP have a lawyer with its execs today to say “this isn’t constitutional” to Obummer?”
OMG- they had JAMIE GORELICK there as their “counsel”.
If she plays BP the way she played FNMA, her main concern was how much of a cut she got for brokering the deal...who needs a steenkin’ Constitution?
No company could be so inept as to hire a dirty politician/bureaucrat like Gorelick to deal with a punk like obama- unbless they are ALLLLL in the tank
This smacks of a dictatorship, where 0bamao decrees and everyone must obey.
When this type of thing is done in NY or NJ its refered to as protection money and falls under the RICCO statutes.
the “independent administrator” is obama’s named “pay czar”
go figure
BP CEO better learn to live on $250K a year
(and dont hold you breath waiting for the politicians like obama who got money from BP to turn it over to the victim fund....oh no, that’s all for the shareholders to cough up....rofl)
I believe you’re right that it should have been handled in the courts, there’s already laws on the books.
Ask them why you shareholders are taking it on the chin and all the politicians BP paid off, like lord obama, get to keep their cash
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.