Tom Usher wrote or added | I haven't research this, and I don't remember reading about the details when it was past; but without even doing so, there's a quick thing that came to mind as I read it. Bill Clinton signed the bill, but who lobbied for it? If the oil companies had nothing to do with the passage of tax breaks for them to drill in deeper water, I for one would be absolutely amazed. Now, if the author's point is that the government should not have caved into any such lobbying and campaign contributions, etc., that are so common with Big Oil, then I take his point. However, I doubt that's his point because it would not be true to form for a Ludwig von Mises disciple that he seems to be.
Furthermore, I take huge exception to lionizing BP as being responsible for our ability to disseminate information on the Internet or elsewhere. Everything, absolutely everything, we can do now could be done without offshore drilling at all, no matter how shallow the water. In fact, if we were to have embarked on an intelligent plan decades ago when I wanted and likely from the looks of this author, possibly before he was even born, we'd be light years ahead of where we are now in terms of free, clean energy for all.
Ah, I started writing this while reading the article. I have come to the part where Matthew J. Novak states the following:
"...it is clear that the incentives put in place by the state — undoubtedly at the behest of lobbyists for oil companies — led to drilling in deep water, leading to increased risk. The incentives encouraged drilling in water that had been previously deemed economically unattractive by those same companies."
Well, if he thinks that way about it, why is he faulting anyone but BP who lobbies and lobbies hard? He's pardoning and excusing them while in that same article he's pointing out exactly why he shouldn't be doing that. He goes on from there excoriating BP apparently not realizing how much he had pardoned them. Ah, but he blame the government or state up front. Corporatism is bad, but government is so much worse according to Novak's philosophy or ideology. He couldn't have it more backwards.
The corporatists are the ones who have ruin the government, not the other way around. If there were vastly less government, those greedy corporatists would just drill wherever because there would be no government anyway to come after them for polluting. They wouldn't have added costs to meet regulatory requirements. It has been governmental regulation at the people's insistence afterall that has curbed what pollution has been curbed. Before the regulations, the business class was pooh-poohing all environmentalism, as if they hate the planet Earth and couldn't careless if it dies because they will have gotten their "gain" while the getting was "good" and be long dead.
Oh sure, I heard the lamebrain Milton Friedman spouting how a "free market" is self regulating and would get around to taking care of the environment because otherwise the markets would be bad. Hogwash that was and remains. Hong Kong was his shining-gem example, only it has had huge environmental problems that still haven't been corrected nearly enough. In some cases, it's only gotten worse.
Well, Milton is dead now, and we need to stop being so stupid about the environment and deregulation, etc. BP is not excused and has not been doing a "good" job of taking care at all. They wanted to drill in deep water; and now their in it, it's getting hotter too, and no amount of turning a blind eye by "libertarians" will change those facts.
The government did not twist BP's arm to fail to install a better shut-off value. It didn't twist BP's arms to opt for the cheaper and less safe platform housing. There are a number of others things one could say about BP in this vein, but suffice it to say that reportedly, BP has the worse track record of all the major oil companies going back quite a few years now. Explosions, deaths, spills, leaks, many citations, and some cover-ups have all been reported.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)