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 administrations 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 were going to be looking at yet one more gateway for more government control, more money to government, she said. If theres 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, whats 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 dont own an industry doesnt mean that we dont effectively control it, because we are in a lot of ways, she said.
Bachmann said Obamas non-stop castigation of BP, the administrations 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? Thats 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 thats come out of the White House--and its in excess of 50 days--has been about the White House. Its been about them. It doesnt seem like its really been about stopping the hole and dealing with the devastation thats going on down there in the Gulf.
-------------------------------
The following is a transcript of Rep. Bachmanns 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. Whats 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 theres a misreading of the constitution and a misunderstanding of jurisdictional limits from this White House on what the extent of executive power is. They dont seem to understand that and itnow it seems that its all about extortion and that that what they want to do is create a pot of money for themselves that they can control and thats not what the Executive is supposed to do.
Theres 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 were the ones that have oversight and we have the power of the purse, not you.
Its 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 whats 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 dont own an industry doesnt mean that we dont effectively control it, because we are in a lot of ways -- and just with what youre seeing happening with financial services and now cap-and-trade, that could boost that closer up into the 70 percentile. I dont see any effort from this administration to unwind and back off of the government control or ownership of any of these private industries.
And theres 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 governments willingness to cross jurisdictional lines and to--to trample in areas that are not reserved to the executive.
Nice Rosie jab. He’s not siezing their assets, they agreed to put it into an independent account.
So those fishermen and shrimpers shouldn’t have our government on their side? I know BP says they care about the “small” people but I’m not 100 percent sold on their competence.
and WHAT is that threat?
I’d like to know so that I may use it to get MY way someday.
Nothing makes SENSE anymore!
>> Isn’t this an issue for the COURTS?
Is thug-power a function of the Constitution and judicial system?
No.
The states are “victims”. They do not OWN the seabottom where that well is located. The US Federal Government owns that land.
Most American would find it abhorrent to live with a paternalistic dictator “looking after their interests”
why did BP “agree” to set up an escrow that is over 20 times more than their liability UNDER LAW? Is it a de facto “seizure” of assets due to threats from obama?
and that “independent account”? Is being administered by the radical liberal obama called his “pay czar”, the one who wants government to set pay and wages for US private citizens. A real independent, right.
Some are suggesting blackmail by obama’s Chicago thugs, but you are OK with this as long as the little guys get some of the loot
AGAIN- this discussion is not about WHO PAYS- it is about Constitutional limits on govt power over private individuals and businesses last fall they came for GM, last spring they came for your health insurance, today they came for BP, tomorrow they come for you
Just wait for cap’n tax my friend, those shrimpers and fishermen who think they work for themselves and have obama at their back will find out they have to buy carbon credits from that paternalistic dictator's globalist buddies for the right to fish
It turns out I have a bit more experience than the average person (and probably a lot more than your average lawyer, or even your Washington insider lawyer in this little chunk of things, but not much more).
Let's say you got cheated by the Post Office (you mailed 50 million advertising brochures and were charged 2 cents more per copy than you think you owed.
You appeal that through channels and everybody tells you "No, no, no, no. I'm not going to rehab" and you are just out of luck.
Eventually you appeal to me (way back when) and the boss is out that day and I write you a final answer that says "No, no, no" and also says "Final Agency Decision".
That means you get to go to court ~ administrative due process (in the federal agency called the USPS) would be completed at that point.
The "procedures" for providing administrative due process are different than those you will find in the court, so maybe you'll be lucky and find a judge who feels sorry for you. He won't understand the problem, but he'll empathize ~ compared to me!
So, lots of luck.
Everybody who feels they got ripped off by USPS thinks they should be able to go to court immediately, but the law provides that you need to exhaust all the procedures available in that agency, or any other, for addressing your concern FIRST. Congress has passed laws requiring every agency to establish reasonable appeals processes to address conflicts in the administration of regulations by that agency.
What you have here with the BP oil blowout is very simple. BP paid a lease fee for the right to drill for oil. They had hoped to be pumping oil by now and paying royalties for the oil, in addition to that lease fee.
They have a CONTRACT in the form of a LEASE and the dispute between the government and BP takes place within the framework established by the lease. If there is something wrong with the lease, that can be worked out by the courts at their leisure later on, but for now both parties are stuck with the lease.
Unfortunately the government failed to build walls around that leasehold so the spilled oil is spreading out over other folk's property. Viewed objectively the government is spreading oil on other properties it owns, lessees' property, private property with a right of peaceful passage (fishing boats, etc.), and now state owned land, and beach front property ~ some owned by states, some owned by the federales.
The desire of the property owners in the vicinity is that the government DO SOMETHING.
BP, acting as the government's agent in the context of the lease agreement is doing stuff, and spending money, and also agreeing to pay the damages of others injured as a consequence of the oil leaks.
For a variety of reasons the United States government is caught in the middle ~ well, heck fire folks, they are the landlord! It is as much the responsibility of the landlord to call the fire department as it is the guy who burned the beans up on the 10th floor!
The landlord has now eliminated the obligation of BP to do anything beyond 20 billion bucks. At the same time the landlord is doing nothing to prevent further oil damage to the more removed neighbors.
Your rage should be directed at the government, and then at BP.
I got to hear Sen. Bachman speak at the Republican Convention. Clear-minded, clear speaking, and she has more, ummm, backbone, than anyone else who spoke. She tells it like it is.
actually the 20 billion fund demanded of BP is NOT a cap, as per obama’s announcement today
and also the obamites milked another $100 million from BP for a “foundation” to suppport ALL the deepwater oil rig workers unemployed - by obama’s “6 month” shutdown. clever eh - payola for the unions
obama and the democrats will milk BP until it folds.
I think you're right.
I would say wrong!
Here's an idea; instead of the knee-week money-grabber FBI/CIA "wall-builder," BP would have been wise to chose and retained Dr. Orly Taitz!!
She might have staved off the usurper's intimidation and saved BP's coffer $20 billion and could have brought up Soetoro's NBC status, hmmmm!!!
It is a PR nightmare, that's why. Obummer knows this and used it for the extortion of BP Oil. The only legal route BP should have taken was through the court system, but we are no longer a nation of laws. BP Oil is acting this way and agreeing to these things as a matter of Public Relations and when the court orders do start coming in it will appear that BP was "acting in good faith." The fact that they agreed to turn over the actual funds to a non-legitimate and illegal arbitrator will be their downfall. When the funds don't get to where they need to go...it won't be BP's fault.
Agree, do you follow world history or do you watch Glenn Beck on FOX???
Please see here:
Is Obama’s BP Shakedown an Impeachable Offense?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/is_obamas_bp_shakedown_an_impe.html
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.