- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Obama Refuses to Waive Law to Allow Foreign Help With Oil Spill
By Hans Bader
Crucial offers to help clean up BP’s oil spill “have come from Belgian, Dutch, and Norwegian firms that . . . possess some of the world’s most advanced oil skimming ships.” But the Obama administration wouldn’t accept the help, because doing so would require it to do something past presidents have routinely done: waive rules imposed by the Jones Act, a law backed by unions.
“The BP clean-up effort in the Gulf of Mexico is hampered by the Jones Act. This is a piece of 1920s protectionist legislation, that requires all vessels working in U.S. waters to be American-built, and American-crewed. So . . . the U.S. Coast Guard . . . can’t accept, and therefore don’t ask for, the assistance of high-tech European vessels specifically designed for the task in hand.”
The law itself permits the president to waive these requirements, and such waivers were “granted, promptly, by the Bush administration,” in the aftermath of hurricanes and other emergencies. But Obama has refused to do so, notes David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen.
“After the Obama administration refused help from the Netherlands, Geert Visser, the consul general for the Netherlands in Houston, told Loren Steffy: ‘Let’s forget about politics; let’s get it done.’” But for Obama, politics always comes first: “The explanation of Obama’s reluctance to seek this remedy is his cozy relationship with labor unions. . . ‘The unions see it [not waiving the act] as … protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived.’”
Ironically, even the staunchest supporters of the Jones Act are now distancing themselves from refusals to accept foreign help, saying they have “not and will not stand in the way of the use of these well-established waiver procedures to address this crisis.” Obama is being more intransigently pro-union than the unions themselves. Never mind that “each day our European allies are prevented from helping us speed up the clean up is another day that Gulf fishing and tourism jobs die.”
In April 2009, the Obama administration granted BP, a big supporter of Obama, a waiver of environmental regulations. But after the oil spill, it blocked Louisiana from protecting its coastline against the oil spill by delaying rather than expediting regulatory approval of essential protective measures. It has also chosen not to use what has been described as “the most effective method” of fighting the spill, a method successfully used in other oil spills. Democratic strategist James Carville called Obama’s handling of the oil spill “lackadaisical” and “unbelievable” in its “stupidity.”
Obama is now using BP’s oil spill to push the global-warming legislation that BP had lobbied for. Obama’s global warming legislation expands ethanol subsidies, which cause famine, starvation, and food riots in poor countries by shrinking the food supply. Ethanol makes gasoline costlier and dirtier, increases ozone pollution, and increases the death toll from smog and air pollution. Ethanol production also results in deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution. Subsidies for biofuels like ethanol are a big source of corporate welfare: “BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels . . . that cannot break even without government support.”
The $800 billion stimulus package is also using taxpayer subsidies to replace U.S. jobs with foreign green jobs. And its regulations destroy jobs in America’s export sector.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
What fool wrote this article?
There are a huge number of vessels working in the Gulf in many different industries that are foreign built and foreign crewed. Heck, almost every oil tanker that delivers to the refineries in the area fits that description, the floating rigs drilling the two relief wells are Asian built (Singapore) and the collection ship Toisa Pisces currently being used, was built in Norway and is flagged from Liberia.
Corporate America & Government to the Rescue again
So - lets argue politics instead of getting the job done - typical. Lets swim in oil and die before we accept anybody's help. This makes good logical sense.
But here we have corporate America and government coming thru for us again!
This is just another excuse to maintain the status quo and not change from that rich Arab oil which has been the base industry of our country. OOH, scary. Oh, look at what a disaster happened. I guess we'll just have to accept those high gas prices in the future to clean up the mess an oil company or a financial company made. Thank you USA - oh we have such a wonderful country. God Bless Corporate America! Look at all the Free Non-regulated Enterprise we have! That's the answer you've been conditioned into. See how happy you are? Let's blame it on the president that Corporate America bought! I mean George Bush Jr and Sr and Bill Clinton would have done what? They were bought by corporate America, too.
I leave you with the infamous words of the Ronald Reagon administration "A deficit ? Oh, we'll always have a deficit. Don't worry about that. We WILL have to raise taxes to save the economy tho"
See how much better things are now?
Dunces, they are ALL a bunch of crooks! You think they care about you and us?
Strongly dissagree.
Wrong.
Supporters of the Shipping Act maintain that the legislation is of strategic economic and wartime interest to the United States. The act, they say, protects the nation's sealift capability and its ability to produce commercial ships. In addition, the act is seen as a vital factor in helping maintain a viable workforce of trained merchant mariners for commerce and national emergencies. Supporters say that it also protects seafarers from deplorable living and working conditions often found on foreign-flagged ships.
Some proponents make the case that allowing foreign-flagged ships to engage in commerce in American domestic sea lanes would be like letting a foreign automaker establish a plant in the U.S. which doesn't have to pay U.S. wages, taxes , or meet national safety or environmental standards.
"If someone were to propose that we let foreign workers compete with GM workers in the U.S., they would be laughed at." Arthur J. Volkle, associate general counsel, MARITRANS Inc.; a Philadelphia-based tug and barge operator.
The Shipping Act also has support from the domestic airline , trucking, and rail industries - as these industries appreciate not having to compete with a lower cost U.S. to U.S. sea transport that could be provided by foreign flagged vessels. [citation needed. And what is the real nature of this cited serious competition; as air, road, and even transnational rail and bulk oceanic (i.e. panamax box ships) are fundamentally diff. marketplaces.]
Funny how the Republicans (who mostly support this kind of legistation) are suddenly crying foul over the Presidents supposed refusal to waive the act? C'mon people, can't you see the politics in THAT? Don't have political blinders because it's not the party you like. This isn't sports , this is real-world politics. And it's also how the world works. Don't like, it, change it, but until then, don't whine about tactics endemic to the political system and act like only the President is privy to them.
Oil spill Is *Global* Issue which occurred locally
Tsukasa,
# 1
I believe the current president ran on the slogan "Change" ...
So why does he act like the lone cowboy [who does that remind you of???] and point the finger of blame right at BP from the start? Hmmmm ... just the same old game played by the other side! It is quite obvious BP did the drilling (duh!) but who hired them? Who gave them permission to go drilling about a mile down in our Gulf of Mexico? I thought he also said he was going to build bridges and work together with Republicans (oh yeah! right! we saw that happen with the healthcare legislation)
#2
Gee whiz! Who is competing for union jobs here? We are talking about SKILL at removing oil from the top of the Gulf of Mexico ... or engineering knowledge about plugging up the leak which seems to go on forever. Find out who the experts are and *start* talking with them. Someone should be losing a great deal of sleep over this -- not partying with Paul McCartney and giving him a medal! The Beatle can wait for his day of recognition. There is a problem to be solved! This is a G-D global catastrophe which will affect the Atlantic Ocean if it keeps going out with the tides and however water moves around the globe ... IT IS NOT JUST A PROBLEM FOR THE USA ...Although all the Gulf states are *hurt* the most and in every possible way: economics of fishing / food industry , reduced tourism, possibilty of dirty beaches NOT TO MENTION oil covered birds and fish which will die!
#3 ...
Yes indeed! "Don't like it change it" .... November elections - not so far away ...;-)
Super Strongly Dissagree.
Wrong.
Funny how the Republicans (who mostly support this kind of legistation) are suddenly crying foul over the Presidents supposed refusal to waive the act? C'mon people, can't you see the politics in THAT? Don't have political blinders because it's not the party you like. This isn't sports , this is real-world politics. And it's also how the world works. Don't like, it, change it, but until then, don't whine about tactics endemic to the political system and act like only the President is privy to them.
Change is coming, but nothing like you think in November. But go ahead, keep listening to the Dittohead echo chamber. I don't expect them to say nothing less. The fact remains that this spill is a logstical nightmare. It will get cleaned and the President has not done anything out to hamper the effort. People are using this only a political club to beat him over the head, but it isn't working. BP should and is, taking the brunt of the blame. We need a better energy policy, and we need stronger regulation over existing policies. :]
"better energy policy" (I heard *that* before) READ ON
No ... I don't blame President Obama for Gulf Oil Spill and *everyone* knows it is a logistical nightmare. I am not convinced by all the rhetoric [from the star] that EXPERT ADVICE was sought fast enough and ACTION begun soon enough. Fine! Give him a pass but I don't recall being told who was involved and who was consulted! From a lawyer, college professor, and President of the United States: I *expect* more! Water under the bridge - we are here now ...
*ALL* PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHERE WE ARE NOW ... FOR FAILURE TO ACT!
Read this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html .
[excerpts from]
Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.
The President's Proposed Energy Policy
The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge ...
The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue.
The third principle is that we must protect the environment .
The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes.
The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group.
The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation.
The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy.
The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead.
The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves.
The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.
These are the goals we set for 1985:
--Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.
--Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.
--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.
--Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.
--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.
--Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.
--Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.
We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.
I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.
This plan is essential to protect our jobs , our environment, our standard of living, and our future.
We have been proud of our leadership in the world. Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.
Jimmy Carter, "The President's Proposed Energy Policy." 18 April 1977. Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. XXXXIII, No. 14, May 1, 1977, pp. 418-420.
Typical
Is Obama ever wrong or when he is wrong do we have to say Bush is worse then forget what a disaster this guy is?
We are talking about a catastrophe that is not Obama's fault. What is his issue is that he has mismanaged it from the start and (obviously from this article) he continues to play politics and pro-union at any cost .
He seems to want to put BP out of business now...I guess so we can pick up the tab. The government will dole out BP's money ?...I'm sure it will end up in the right hands.
Tonight he will go on TV and read to us his new plan.
Same as the old one...NONE.
Keep BP alive and siphon off the money to take care of THEIR problem that WE pay the price for.
That congressman was right...He did Lie!
This is not the leader we voted for!
Cant say I disagree
I do not see why we cant take care of our own problems. We created it so we must fix it. I do not understand why there is the incessant need to keep pulling everyone under the sun into this problem. The more people involved the harder it is and the longer it will take. Sure, consult with people that are experienced in this sort of thing, but there is no need to go running around the planet for someone else to fix our problem.
They have equipment - we don't
The other countries have had experience doing this ... that is why. We obviously have not solved the problem and it has been nearly 2 months.
First
Yes the Belgian and Dutch might have our backs but what about other countries that so NOT have our backs, under Jones it would be hard to discriminate.
As far as Bush allowing for foreign help during/after Katrina ..... really? Someone here is seriously misinformed! 3 days after the hurricane hit New Orleans, Cuba was ready to send in some of their best medical teams to assist. Bush said "no thanks". When did the medical teams from Cuba arrive? They didn't. Bush told them "thanks but no thanks". I bet if the people of New Orleans got to vote on that they would have gladly welcomed help from Cuba.
An article that starts off about the oil spill ends with a blast against green jobs ... So many see this as a pr announcement for oil companies, they really are good folks and all-American. They want all the good folks in America (taxpayers) to pick up the tab for there mess because we really need their services, that green energy stuff is non-sense.
Katrina & Gulf Different
Katrina occurred in Louisiana and prevailing law was the Executive officer of the state, Governor, was one who could approve or disapprove the "Cuba help" not the president of the U.S.
Gulf is not under state jurisdiction but is under Federal jurisdiction so the Chief Executive responsible for cleaning and accepting/declining help is the Pres. of U.S.
Bush did offer the Gov. of La. and Mayor help from Fed. Govt PRIOR to Katrina landing but it was refused at that time.
Cuban Aide during Katrina NOT Comparable
Oh give me a break! Does the world go flying to Cuba for healthcare ??? NO! World leaders [& those with money ]come to the USA! (Even a Canadian Prime Minister from New Foundland came to the USA for heart surgery recently! {past 3 months}). Since when are the Cubans setting the highest world standards for healthcare? Besides which why would one *trust* them, given how they treat their citizens? (Remember the word "communist" and what it stands for) ... Talk to some Cuban immigrants about healthcare in Cuba before you go recommending it!
Does the Netherlands, Belgian, & even Saudi Arabia have *EXPERIENCE* with oil spills ... YES! The USA needs to swallow its pride and take *experienced* help from nations who have "good intentions". Forget POLITICS. Save the fish/shrimp & livlihood of those depending on it, save the birds & wildlife sure to die from being bathed in oil, and save the beautiful white sandy beaches of the Gulf Coast - their economy depends on it. We need help NOW ! Look at all the money lost from all the oil spilled in the Gulf ... What a waste in so many ways on so many levels!
@politicalair
I wouldn't have accepted help from Cuba either! Most other nations, yes, but not from a country still controlled by a Communist dictator! That would have led to even worse things down the road.
I DO agree with you in that the Belgian and Dutch have our backs, and I think Obama should have accepted their help. However, a nation like Cuba, North Korea, China or any other nation that follows Marxist ideas, does NOT have the back of a nation which openly supports Free Enterprise. Communists may offer to "help" a vapitalist nation, but they would only offer that "help" if they thought it would help spread Communism farther.
Sorry for ranting like that. I don't think It would be so hard to pick and choose which nations we accepted help from. The Jones Act doesn't have to be waived for all nations. I think this situation is a little more than we can handle on our own--at least, at this time. The right tools can make a job much easier, so let's let them lend a hand . ~RASP
I appreciate
I appreciate your view in regard to Communists nations. However, when Cuba offered to send doctors and we had people literally dying because of a lack of medical care, it is NOT the time to play politics ! Cuba has an excellent medical system and they are our neighbor, accepting medical assistance is in no way condoning their political views.
I do think that Jones would be very hard because it is a political issue ..... it is not really a humanitarian effort.
Rant on ..... you do it intelligently and with respect!
The doctors in Cuba
For those with $$ the medical system in Cuba is awesome. For those without, for example the Cuban refugee families in Ecuador it wasn't good at all.
I also don't think it would be hard to restrict which nations helped clean up. We have a coast guard and a Navy for that.
I do like however that Bush was immediately jumped on as being the bad guy here. Do I think he should have accepted Cuban aid? Probably not. Do I think that he could have responded better to Katrina overall? A resounding yes. However that doesn't excuse the messiah Obama in any way shape or form. Billions... that's Billions with a giant fricken B, of dollars are going to be lost, more Americans will be out of work , more houses will go under, less people will be able to afford health care and unless they find a better way to clean up oil spills faster the fishing industry will be crippled.
Looks like he needs to kick his own ass.
How can you take advantage of a crisis if it's fixed quickly and turns out not to be much of one?
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.