Joe Barton and the Big Big Debate
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
epresentative Joe Barton's apology to Tony Hayward for what he termed a "shakedown" of BP by the White House in order to get BP's agreement to a $20 billion escrow fund, was the best thing to happen to BP since April 20, and the best boost for the White House in months. What possessed Barton, the ranking Republican on Energy and Commerce?
Adding to the mystery is the fact that just four years ago, Barton, as the committee's chair, excoriated BP's top brass (who were then appearing before the Committee to explain the firm's negligence in allowing 270,000 gallons of oil to spill on Alaska's North Slope, the worst spill ever recorded in that fragile territory) for a "corporate culture of seeming indifference to safety and environmental issues ... And this comes from a company that prides itself in their ads on protecting the environment. Shame, shame, shame."
How did Barton go from BP as shameful villain to BP as shakedown victim? And how did he fail to sense the dimensions of the public's outrage at BP this time around?
Is it because Barton is virtually owned by Texas oil money? This can't explain Barton's turnaround because he was owned by oil four years ago, too.
Is it old-fashioned partisan politics? Four years ago Republicans were in charge of Congress and the White House, and now Democrats are. But this can't be the reason either because Barton's bizarre apology to BP yesterday so embarrassed congressional Republicans they pushed him into retracting it hours later.
Stupidity? Barton was smart enough four years ago to deliver one of the most scathing criticisms of BP by any member of Congress. His "shame, shame, shame" line was repeated on the evening news and in the following day's headlines.
I think something else is going on. Barton's view that the White House overreached in forcing BP to put aside $20 billion has been voiced elsewhere in the netherworld of the Republican right, on Fox News, and among Tea Partiers.
Unlike four years ago, this country is now having the sharpest and most emotional debate it's had in more than a century over a deceptively simple question: Which do you trust less - Big Business (including Wall Street) or Big Government?
The crash of Wall Street and subsequent Great Recession has impassioned both sides. The Street can't be trusted because its recklessness almost wrecked the economy; big business can't be trusted because it's laid off millions of Americans with scant regard for their welfare.
On the other hand, government is on the loose because of the giant stimulus package; the yawning budget deficit and hair-raising national debt; the "takeovers" of General Motors, Chrysler, and AIG, along with the firings of several executives; and the huge health-care bill.
Until six months ago, the latter narrative, emanating from the Republican right, seemed to be winning the hearts and minds of an ever more angry electorate. Democrats (including the incumbent of the Oval Office) were reluctant to criticize Wall Street and Big Business with nearly the force and consistency of the Republican offensive against Big Government.
But then came the tidal wave of revelations about the rapacity of business. Investigators linked the near-meltdown of the Street to questionable accounting practices at several of the big banks. Goldman Sachs was shown to have been double-dealing with investors for its own profits.
Heath insurers, most notably WellPoint, yanked up their rates - thereby showing themselves to be less interested in the health care of Americans than their own bottom lines. A terrible mine explosion revealed the recklessness and indifference of one of America's biggest mining companies, Massey Energy.
And now the worst environmental disaster in American history, courtesy of BP.
In light of all this, the "I trust Big Business (and Wall Street) more than I trust Big Government" story line seems bizarre to most Americans - as did Joe Barton's apology to BP yesterday.
The political question of the moment is whether the Barton moment finally convinces the President and Democratic leaders it's safe to fully embrace the other story line. The problem for many of them, of course, is that a large percent of their campaign money is coming from big business and Wall Street.
But fundamentally, the debate is absurd.
It's not the purpose of the private sector to protect the public. Companies like Goldman Sachs, Massey Energy, WellPoint, and BP will do everything they can to make money. They owe allegiance to their shareholders. Hopefully along the way they also make great products and provide terrific services. If the market is competitive, both consumers and investors gain.
The purpose of government is to protect and enhance the well-being of Americans. Its job is to protect the public from corporate excesses - enacting laws that bar certain actions that may hurt or endanger the public, and fully enforcing those laws.
We get into trouble when the two sets of responsibilities are confused - when big business and Wall Street spend vast amounts of money trying to influence government, and when government officials (including the officials of regulatory agencies) pull their punches because they're aiming for lucrative jobs in the private sector.
The real challenge of our time has nothing to do with whether one trusts Big Business and Wall Street more or less than Big Government. The challenge is to keep the two apart, each focused on what they're supposed to be doing. (That's why, for example, I still think it unwise to have BP run the operation to plug the hole in the bottom of the Gulf.)
Open Article On Originating Site
Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," and his most recent book, "Supercapitalism." His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |










Comments
If Dems would grow some real cajones and make impassioned pleas for the "real Americans who work everyday (or want to, but can't find a j-o-b), and started calling their movement the "real deal for average Americans" and saying slogans like "we're treading on corporate treachery" the non-tea-baggers (of which there are plenty) would get excited and the Republicans would be left in the dust to argue about who can slobber more all over BP and how they can kill Social Security.
Average Americans (like me) KNOW we're being screwed and half-measures to stop it won't make us feel like the Dems really care (it's like being kissed by your ex - the action is there but the passion is gone). We need "Real Deal Dems."
This way, there is either a small loss (one sacrificial lamb) or a BIG gain (a new weapon to bludgeon the opposition).
The Sotomayor 'campaign of reverse discrimination rhetoric' has given the GOP legitimacy in their color-blind racist attacks on the legitimacy of Obama. The manufactured astroturf 'movement' of Tea Party'ers has given the GOP legitimacy in their claims that people do not want government to protect us from Wall Street, Big Oil, and all the greedy Insurance and Investment corporations out there.
Sadly, the Obama administration needs to wake up to the fact that these media campaigns are effective in influencing the uneducated.
"How many more of these insulting debacles with the public's very hard earned money will it take to get people out on the streets again?"
Just enough that when all realize the they are what you say they are and they do what you say they do, it will be too late.
And therein lies the rub.We have no voice loud enough to push back against the propaganda of stupidity. There are simply too many undereducated people in our society who buy into the argument by Conservatives to Vote against their Self interest. Poor people voting to protect giant Corporations, like that makes any sense! This Gulf oil spill will put at least a couple of nails in the GOP coffin, if the public are affected directly. Seems foolish that you have to punish most of us to make a change which is very clear, Build a Government that you can Trust!
Let's face it, guys, these two guys didn't have the cojones to govern a nation of half mad racist bigoted people.
What Obama did as president was to bring out the hidden bigotry, racism and the extremist right wing fascist out of America's cesspools which had been lingering there for generations. Bad timing for the nation's welfare.
It seems as if Robert Reich might have.
Our government was designed to have checks and balances. We cannot have them when political campaigns are bought by donors and the Supreme Court is populated by a majority of idiots who believe coportations to be people.
I wholeheartedly agree - the/we real deal Democrats need to have some leadership and a real deal goal and agenda to get behind - I'm leaning away from my chosen party toward a much more Independent stand - if my party of choice is not willing to stand up when we need it most [NOW!] I'll leave it and find a party that will.
1) The belief that each race has certain qualities or abilities, giving rise to the idea that some races are better than others.
2) Discrimination against or hostility towards other races.
STOP misusing the term. The right wing only knows that racism is thought, by others but not necessarily themselves, to be wrong. So they now use it as an attack against any progressive using any key word. Purple People Eater is a racist term by their definition.
And if the politicians don't like it, perhaps another million to the top three leaders' campaign war chests.... Its still certainly more cost effective than actually cleaning anything up or trying to invent some new plug device.
I will work like crazy to elect anyone who has the guts to push through public-only financing of campaigns.
An alternative, is to ban TV to all national candidates. Less complicated, and equally effective.
If/when you hear it, respond. It is the return of Democracy calling.
But what got huge coverage and is now being promulgated as the template of 'how badly Tony Hayward has been treated?' THE OURAGEOUS COMMENTS BY REP. BARTON OF TEXAS !!
On BBC 'This Week' Michael Portillo and Andrew Neil laughed their heads off about the spill. Thank God for James Rubin, who came on as a guest; he was at his wits' end and nearly in tears trying IN VAIN to explain to Portillo and Neil the scope of the disaster and the effect it is having on the local economy. Portillo said Obama has lost his marbles. Rubin could NOT, no matter how hard he tried, convince these two Brits that the 'little spill' is more than just another American scare-mongering ploy.
Meanwhile Jeremy Clarkson in the Sun newspaper wrote a long discourse about how awful America has always been and that Brits must not buy iPads but MUST buy BP oil products.
What's missing is the effect that both consumers and investors support of Big Business has on the environment. To date, those effects have been mostly negative. Some of it's excusable, at least up until the mid 1950's when the effects of Big Business's business began showing it's effect on the environment via scientific studies.
At this point though it seems no one is winning and neither Big B nor Big G is willing and/or capable of making the changes necessary to give the great grand children of the world a chance to live a life comparable to ours.
Perhaps their fear is accurate, though. What is that fear? Well, who ultimately supports Big G and Big B? And what would those supporters do if they couldn't participate in the "free" market offered to them by Big B & Big G?
How could we possibly be taken seriously when the elections were obviously 'rigged' and the whole world knew he wasn't even elected fairly? He was an arrogant, ignorant laughing stock that made a perfect dupe for "The Evil Ones" Cheney and Rove. I am afraid however that the collateral damage done while they were in power will be very far-reaching for many years to come. As heartbreaking as it is, I can't say I didn't see all of this coming. The men you spoke of were right about 1 thing though, every time they wanted attention diverted from themselves, suddenly we were under a terrorist warning. Their motto was "DIVERT BABY, DIVERT" Their whole tactic was 'keep 'em scared'.They got away with it...sigh
RSS feed for comments to this post.