Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Democrats Introduce Bill Increasing BP Liability Limit From $75 Million to $10 Billion!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:44 PM
Original message
Democrats Introduce Bill Increasing BP Liability Limit From $75 Million to $10 Billion!
I call it a good start.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/robert-menendez-pushes-bi_n_561011.html

A trio of Democratic Senators are introducing legislation on Monday that would dramatically raise the amount of money that oil companies like BP would have to pay in economic damages in an event of a spill.

Authored by New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, and co-signed by fellow Garden Stater
Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, the (craftily-titled) "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act" would raise the economic damages liability cap for offshore oil spills from $75 million to $10 billion.

The impetus for the legislation were reports that surfaced over the weekend that British Petroleum, the company responsible for the disastrous spill in the Gulf Coast, would face limited responsibility for covering costs beyond cleanup and containment.

The oil company, in addition to others, pays money into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund -- a kind of rainy day piggy bank for handling the immediate costs of dealing with disasters. Under the charter of the federal law that created the $1.6 billion fund, however, operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for non-cleanup and containment damages. And in a region like the Gulf Coast the cost to local industry of a massive oil spill can easily skyrocket well beyond that total.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. why the F was it set at 75 million?
was this limit set in 1970?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Don't know the full history of it, but I'm sure it was republicans, deregulation, tort reform, etc..
And of course, the imbecilic electorate that never stops falling for such things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onestepforward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. St. Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Very nice - thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Tony and Clarence will come to their rescue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greencharlie Donating Member (827 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. can't WAIT to see this come to a vote...
let's identify the corporatist scum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
33. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
35. Agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. Okay, then throw the BP execs in the slammer for life. nt
They have effed up and they have to pay, one way or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Hey, don't get draconian on us:
20 or 30 years in prison should suffice.

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. Now we're hearing that the spill will eventually travel up the coast and could damage
the Chesapeake Bay. If that's the case especially, the bill should be much higher. For many years, Maryland, VA, DE have tried to address the Bay, and now these assholes' negligence are destroying years of conservation efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
my2sense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. There should be NO LIMIT.....
This is infuriating.....these bastids ruin the gulf of Mexico for who knows how many years but there is a limit on how much damage they can be held accountable for? This is some BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. +1
exactly my thoughts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernlights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. they should be held liable for however much suffering they inflict
Edited on Mon May-03-10 02:41 PM by northernlights
I don't care if it totals a few trillion and they go down paying.
Nobody can "cap" the suffering they inflict. Therefore, nobody should "cap" the punitive damages. :grr:


edited to remove delinquent apostrophe that snuck in where it didn't belong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
34. Agreed. But I'll happily accept significant changes in the right direction, over nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. How do they get around ex post facto constitutional requirements?


But it isn't just the liability cap that's screwed up... it's that there appears to be no cap on cleanup costs, but there is a cap on damages. How does this not incent a business to NOT clean up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. I think ex post facto only applies to crimes, not damages
Somebody who knows more may correct me, but what I find is that ex post facto applies only to criminal statues -- to making something a crime that was not one at the time of the events, or to increasing penalties retroactively -- but not to regulatory matters such as taxes.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
40. They don't. But it sure makes cute press, doesn't it? Almost like they're doing something! (NT)
Edited on Tue May-04-10 05:11 PM by Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. Why is there a limit at all when there's no limit to the damage done.
We're talking about very real, quantifiable damage to our economy, to working families, etc.

Corporate America is almost literally shitting in our faces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onestepforward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. BP is "people" now...
...operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for non-cleanup and containment damages.

Are there any "limits" on what "people" pay for such an environmental disaster?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. Good, now get the bill passed.
But raise the limit well above $10 billion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
15. 10 billion clams, eh?
Well, it's a good start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanity Claws Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
16. Too late for this disaster
It would be an unconstitutional ex post facto law if applied to the current disaster. However, it could apply to all future events.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. I'm sure they've thought about that. Maybe it just applies to future *claims* or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. No it wouldn't -- see what I posted above
Ex post facto apparently applies only to criminal statues -- not to liability for damages.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanity Claws Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. I don't have time to research it
Several years ago, Title VII was amended to increase an employer's potential liability to include compensatory damages and possible punitive damages. Congress did not expressly provide when it would take effect. My recollection is that the Courts held that the liability change could apply prospectively only. You may want to look into that to see the actual arguments and how they might apply to this situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdlh8894 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
17. I'm still betting
my 5 cents, that less than a 1/4 of the ejaculation will make landfall>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
23. why a cap at all?
I don't get it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. I think we're seeing some Dems reveal the newest strategy for passive-aggressive corporatism
When compared to 75 million, 10 billion sounds like a lot, doesn't it?

What about comparing that 10 billion to the amount of damage this spill will do in real dollars to real Americans living in the Gulf Coast region?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
24. Complete waste of time; also, stupid
First, ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.

Second, the $75m cap does not apply in cases of gross negligence or safety violations. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/33/usc_sec_33_00002704----000-.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
26. Great move! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
29. Why the hell cap it at all?
It's not like there's a cap on the damage. It's not like you and I have a cap on our liability, should we be deemed at fault in causing injury to another.

Oh well $10B is certainly a nice step up from $75M, so it is welcome in any case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Because our government is run by corporations that are physically killing us.
Why wouldn't our government try to cap their liability.? American life is becoming a gruesome reality show that most of the US is numb to.

Sorry, residual Katrina frustration bubbling up. I'm with you 100%, I just can't express myself now without getting riled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gov for sale Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
31. and the alternative: tax payers obligated to portect oil profits in case of catastrophic spill?
...not even the future Senator from Mars would endorse that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. I'm no longer surprised at what republicans endorse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
36. You know where that $10 Billion is going to come from?
People who drive cars. You and me. Privatize wealth, socialize loss. It's the capitalist way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. It certainly WON'T come from CEO's bonuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. exactly. I'm not saying I'm proud do be driving a car right now...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arikara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
38. They should have to pay actual costs
and not be allowed to tie it up in courts for decades like exxon did.

I wouldn't grieve if companies were bankrupted when they caused disasters like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
39. kick for BlooInBloo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC