Let Free Markets Reign!
As Larry Kudlow tells us nightly, “Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity!” Free markets rock! Get regulations and restrictions out of the way and let good ole free market competition determine the winners and losers. Regulations and government intervention are for (socialist) losers. It’s in our DNA.
Imagine my surprise, then, when I saw a section of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Sec. 1004) that places limits on liability for polluters! How un-free-market-like, to limit BP’s liability in the Gulf of Mexico debacle to a mere rounding error of $75 million! What true free-marketeer would ever stand for such nonsense?
Sec. 1004:
SEC. 1004. LIMITS ON LIABILITY
(a) GENERAL RULE.—Except as otherwise provided in this section,
the total of the liability of a responsible party under section
1002 and any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible
party, with respect to each incident shall not exceed—
(3) for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total
of all removal costs plus $75,000,000;
Balderdash! How dare the government limit BP’s liability. Let the free markets determine BP’s fate. Why should it be otherwise? Should they face multiple lawsuits and get sued out of existence, that’s nothing more than the Darwinism of capitalism.
I’m just guessing here, but I assume when Senator Lisa Murkowski (R – Big Oil’s Pocket, AK) blocked a proposed bill that would have raised BP’s liability from $75 million to $10 billion it was because, as a Republican and free-marketeer, she preferred no cap at all on their liability and wants to see the free markets work as God intended them to (i.e. sans caps). I base that assumption, in part, on Senator Murkowski’s free-market opposition to a windfall profits tax on the oil industry (“…a windfall profits tax is simply no answer at all. In fact, it is counterproductive.”).
So here’s the deal: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you’re a free-marketeer and believe that BP’s liability for the gulf disaster should be capped by statute — at whatever amount — you’re either not a free-marketeer or a hypocrite.
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
May 17th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Alaska is not a state. It’s a glorified Indian reservation with oil under it. It’s a state of hypocricy. No federal subsidies, no Alaska.
I’ve never understood how that state gets away with handing out $1,000 per year (or more) dividend checks to its residents with money gained from taxes on oil drilling. Of course, it’s really a tax on the rest of the country since we pay for it at the pumps. Last I checked, Alaska was bought from Russia with federal money. We own it. That oil money is OUR dividend. Also, last I checked–maybe secessionists like Todd Palin can correct me–the average Alaskan expected federal troops to liberate the Aluetian islands from the Japanese. Or, maybe they can raise their own army to fend of the Russians or Chinese in the future. What a sick joke that state is. Up-by-your-bootstraps frontiersmen, my @ss!
May 17th, 2010 at 10:24 am
@BR: We all know by now that most so-called “free marketeers” are a fraud as well. They like supposed “free markets” when it works for them, but the minute it no longer works, they want Uncle Stupid (us, collectively) to bail their asses out.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mark-ames/28354/confessions-of-a-wall-st-nihilist-forget-about-goldman-sachs-our-entire-economy-is-built-on-fraud
May 17th, 2010 at 10:37 am
BR, what you’re pointing out is simply the difference between what a politician professes to believe and what he does. In other words, the hypocrisy of it all. Which is not remarkable. Politicians of both sides are hypocrites, or would be if anyone really believed what they say. Which is why the power of politicians should be drastically limited, which gets us back to the free market. Get the damn politicians to let it alone, save providing the infrastructure for breaches of valid contracts and for tortious behavior. I steadfastly believe that markets, left to their own devices, will work things out. This law will be retroactively discarded, as it should be, and BP will pay all the costs of cleanup, as it should. You broke it, it’s yours–w/out any government involvment necessary, except for a court system backed up by the force necessary to enforce its judgments.
It’s a bit disingenuous, though, to use the latent hypocrycy of politicians to make a case against free markets. It’s really easy to show how politicians say one thing and do another. Guatanamo Bay? The Hipocrite in Chief said it would be closed by now, among a lot of other things he said that he didn’t, or hasn’t yet done. So what. What matters is what they do. Always listen to what they do, and not what they say.
May 17th, 2010 at 10:43 am
@Manny, @Curmudgeon
It’s my post, not BR’s, and I take full responsibility for it.
Funny thing is, the Murkowski bit was really an afterthought to the piece. I hadn’t intended that as anything more than anecdotal evidence. It was more the right-wing punditocracy in general — the countless bobbleheads — that I had in mind. Murkowski just happened to be making news by blocking the increase in the liability cap.
May 17th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Since the odds of a catastrophic oil spill are infinitesimally small (according to BP’s rigorous and disinterested analysis), private-sector companies like AIG would probably be only too glad to insure the drillers against losses accruing from an accident that turns the entire Gulf of Mexico into a toxic swamp, for a nominal fee.
May 17th, 2010 at 10:53 am
chart
US Domestic Monthly Oil Production
Onshore – Offshore
1981-2010
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/2980009.bin?size=620×400
article:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/spill+upset+crude+price+balance/2979949/story.html
May 17th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Barry,
I think you may have missed two important point(s).
1. The law you cite makes BP responsible for all removal costs. That’s open ended. This law is sufficient in and of itself to cover all damages.
2. A new law – no, no, and hell no. This would open up a snake pit of regulatory controls that would effectively prevent all offshore drilling and access to critically needed oil.
We need a national energy policy. In lieu of that, we must survive with the resources we have, not cripple the economy with another entangling bureaucracy, and vague laws. (c.f., the Clean Air Act).
BP was drilling for light oil entrained with a large amount of natural gas. This is a dangerous formation and they went too fast. In fact everything they have tried has failed because of poor execution and “haste-makes-waste” execution. If that formation had been drilled in a slower, more careful way, this problem would not exist.
Don’t sacrifice our economy to the bad practices of totally incompetent oil drillers, and MBA managers at BP. This resource needs open industrial standards and procedures (e.g., ASTM) with governmental monitoring.
Not another EPA.
May 17th, 2010 at 10:54 am
interestingly, marginalrevolution has a pretty good counterpoint, explaining why that law doesnt stop BP’s liability from still running in the billions.
agreed on the point about murkowski being in the pockets of the oil company though.
May 17th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Keep reading … the same section appears to say the cap doesn’t count for …
“Subsection (a) does not apply if the incident was proximately caused by— (A) gross negligence or willful misconduct of, or (B) the violation of an applicable Federal safety, construction, or operating regulation by, …”
Proving the above will be entertaining.
May 17th, 2010 at 11:01 am
“Balderdash! How dare the government limit BP’s liability. ‘
wow- don’t sugar coat it for us Invictus- those are some mighty mean words there
May 17th, 2010 at 11:01 am
The closest we come to free marketeers in this country are are the Bloods, Crips and the MS 13, who operate an unregulated drug trade. Government regulations, and the enforcement of those regulations, or lack there off, are bought and paid for by corporatists. Corporatism is the antithesis of free market capitalism.
With very few exceptions, one can click on opensecrets.com and view which corporate financiers and organized unions own which politicians. It is the money behind our elected officials that decides who and what should, or should not, be regulated. For four years running, Goldman Sachs was Obama’s largest campaign contributor. Merrill Lynch was John McCain’s. When McCain lost, so did Merrill Lynch. Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, will suffer just as much Governmental damage as SEC COO and its chief “enforcer”, Adam Storch, will allow. Storch, an Obama appointee, was working as an exec for the Gold Men just seven months ago. Two months after they were tipped off about their CDO problem.
May 17th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Wrong and another poltical hack attempt.
Murkowski is not opposed to a limit, she simply stated she thinks $10B is too high. So yes, technically, she does not support the bill to increase the limit to $10B but this does not mean she is not in favor of increasing the limit. Interestingly, this is EXACTLY THE SAME stance as the Administration which has stated it, too, wants to increase the cap but hasn’t specified the “number” (this is akin to voting “present”…) So, Murkowski and Obama both want an increase; Murkowski thinks $10B is too high; Obama doesn’t offer up a “number”.
As for the limit, well, if it’s too high than a lot of firms won’t drill. That could be good, or bad. Or, if they’ll the cost along to the consumers. That could be good, or bad.
It makes for a great headline at HuffPo but it’s the usual partisan nonsense.
May 17th, 2010 at 11:10 am
it is surprising that events like these generate so many surprises and discussions: it’s all about money and power! some 20 years ago someone asked me if I knew the difference between mafia and big business and as I didn’t know the answer he said: “mafia is a well organised crime; big business is a very well organised crime”. sounds familiar these days?
May 17th, 2010 at 11:20 am
What you are ranting about is not evidence against the imperfections of a free market. It is an example of crony capitalism, where companies that are politically important use the power of the government (i.e., regulation) to shield themselves from liability and competition.
You are ignoring the role that litigation plays in a true free market (not that we operate in one). If a company has unlimited exposure for an oil leak, faulty construction, etc. then the company is forced, out of fear of being sued out of business, to take every precaution necessary to ensure that an accident does not occur. If one does occur, then the company at fault will soon cease to exist.
You are also ignoring the incompetence of our regulators. The SEC’s mishaps are well known (porn anyone?), so I won’t get into them. However, the SEC isn’t the only incompetent agency collecting a check from the taxpayer, it turns out that the Feral Minerals Management Services has a poor track record as well. Exhibit A: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_inspections
Please explain how our regulated economy is in any way a representation of a true free market. We have millions of pages of regulations covering virtually every aspect of our lives. Highlighting the failures of our politicians is not an indictment of a free market; it is an indictment of our politicians.
May 17th, 2010 at 11:20 am
@Kort
A truly “free market” would have no limits whatsoever — just as there is no limit on profitability, there should be no limit on liability. Isn’t that what a truly free market would dictate? Put another way, could you articulate why there should be asymmetry between profits and liabilities?
Unmentioned by you is the notion that the prospect of unlimited liability might induce corporations to fulfill their mandates — whatever they may be — using all necessary care and precaution instead of cutting corners and doing whatever it takes to make a quarterly number.
May 17th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Barry, I love ya. Consistent intelligence. But tell me, why are so many people in finance in thrall to simple minded pap and flexible self serving stances about free markets? And how did they manage to buy the Senate without anyone complaining?
May 17th, 2010 at 11:36 am
My bad, Invictus. This didn’t really sound like Barry, so I should have checked.
But really, you are as guilty as those of whom you complain if you see some nefarious political ideology behind every regulation or lack thereof.
May 17th, 2010 at 11:38 am
@Invictus: I’m with you. Any entity (be they offshore drillers, I-banks, or other) that does something so destructive needs to bear the full, unmitigated consequences for their actions – no matter what. If those consequences are fatal, it will be an instructive cautionary tale for those that follow.
May 17th, 2010 at 11:48 am
@Curmudgeon
Truth be told, I’m sick and tired of the hypocrisy on both sides. Personally, I happen to think it’s more rampant and “worse,” if you will, on the right than on the left, but I’m biased in that regard — and make no bones about saying so.
Again, this was no so much about Murkowski as it was about the whole “free markets” nonsense in general. As Manny put it above, it’s all about free markets when they work, and bailouts when they don’t. And that’s what I find particularly objectionable.
May 17th, 2010 at 11:54 am
@Peter North
If those consequences are fatal, it will be an instructive cautionary tale for those that follow.
Exactly right.
May 17th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
I can not see “free market nonsense” in this post
I can see that :
1) Larry Kudlow supports free market idea
2) Senator Murkowski is not a free -marketeer or if she claims so she is a hypocrite
Why to blame free markets idea while talking about goverment limit on liability?
May 17th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Thank you Invictus! The cap is just another form of a bailout, and I find any bailouts in a free market to be obscene. The only question I have is what is messier as a result—the US economy or the Gulf of Mexico.
May 17th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Human beings will NEVER truly allow a true unfettered, pure “free market”. It simply will NOT happen, for human beings like it when it works for them, but do everything to stifle it when it does not. It’s the stuff of idealistic fantasy-land. Maybe some enterprising chap can invent a “Fantasy Free Market” game whereby those who think we’ll ever see this environment in our day can actually get their rocks off on seeing what it would be like in the idealistic world that resides in their mind. It could be like a “Dungeons & Dragons” club or something…….
May 17th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
@Invictus
Corporations fulfilling their mandates—-it’s not 1850 anymore. In the good old days, you built a factory alongside a river, hired 1,000 locals and you made something useful. You also polluted the river so you better keep it clean or else!
Globalization has brought us a self-destructing planet where “those people” will make a longer straw and drink our milkshake. They, drink, our, milkshake. Their long straw could be, child labor in factories, massively polluting factories (beyond what our EPA would ever allow), or some foreign agency building, literally, a very long straw and drinking our milkshake in the Gulf.
Or, in other words, put all of the “mandates” you want on companies and “those people” will make dirtier factories, bigger oil spills, etc while are holier-than-thou (and out of business) companies wither, die.
May 17th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Invictus,
this: “…could you articulate why there should be asymmetry between profits and liabilities?”, gets to the nub of it, and, to interject, No, there’s no flippin’ way he could..
here: “Any entity (be they offshore drillers, I-banks, or other) that does something so destructive needs to bear the full, unmitigated consequences for their actions – no matter what. If those consequences are fatal, it will be an instructive cautionary tale for those that follow.”–peter north, above
is the ol’ Pepper~
need not be any more complicated than that.
though, We may be aware that We’ve been heavily Propagandized in the matter of “horrific Free Markets”.
May 17th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Great post. Thanks Invictus. I agree with your sentiment 100%.
There’s no such thing as a free market and this country does not have the philosophical or constitutional underpinnings to make it so. The country would have to be based much more (or rather completely) on libertarian principles. We are in-between, leaning toward litigation instead of regulation, whereas Europe tends to favor regulation over litigation.
In the absence of regulation, if you can’t litigate, or it’s capped, it ain’t gonna work.
Additional problems with litigation is that it favors the wealthy. And it’s not necessarily preventative; prevention favors regulation.
Of course, what we have ended up with is bullshit, which is probably how most systems would end up; some sooner than later.
May 17th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Yves Smith had a related topic over the weekend that’s also worth a look:
What is the Proper Libertarian Response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill?
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/05/what-is-the-proper-libertarian-response-to-the-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill.html (up to 361 comments!)
May 17th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Oh, and to add… don’t we normally see tort liability caps for non-profits? This says a lot about public sector complicity in moving “Beyond Petroleum.”
And South Dakota revoked their usury law to lure Citibank’s credit card division to their state. Cheap oil, cheap credit. I’m off to go get a free lunch. Can I get anyone anything from the free lunch counter?
May 17th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
@Kort
I agree with much of what you write about globalization, long straws, and milkshakes. I’d say there’s much truth there.
My question, then, is if that is how you would justify the asymmetry between profits and liabilities — that globalization makes it so.
May 17th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
I have never watched Kudlow so I’, curious did he actually say this, “Get regulations and restrictions out of the way and let good ole free market competition determine the winners and losers. Regulations and government intervention are for (socialist) losers. It’s in our DNA.”, or is that your straw man interpretation for effect?
May 17th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
The cap on liability is just another subsidy.
All subsidies for all types of energy should be eliminated, let the different types of energy compete with each other on a level playing field.
That is free market thinking!
Just my humble opinion
DT
May 17th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Invictus,
I believe you are overlooking the social cost/harm balance reflected in this legislation. Laws, including limitations on liabilities make a market. If there was no statute of limitations for example, how can one have any certainty in a business sense to accumulate (invest) the capital necessary for large projects.
Likewise, while the cap on liability may not be to your liking – would BP have drilled in the absence of such an assurance? If a higher standard was set either by a higher limit, insurance requirements or deposit forfeiture – would BP have drilled? If drilling was or is a “social benefit”, for example through higher employment, tax revenues, technological offshoots, and yes even more domestic reserves then that should form at least a defensible justification of limitations on liabilities and consequent asymmetry of profits and liabilities. Oil exploration is a high risk game: BP could have – even with all of the modern science, drilled a “dry hole”. Would you want the U.S. taxpayer to reward them for that expense?
Hindsight is always 20/20 but then again – big oil has always had a degree of regulatory capture.
This thought model avoids issues of off-shore drilling as a minor contributor to U.S. domestic reserves, market distortions in taxation, yada yada yada but the point remains.
May 17th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
@Patrick Neid
The part between the quotation marks, the part that’s italicized — “Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity!” — that’s the part that Kudlow actually says. That’s why it’s in quotation marks and italicized. Perhaps I should have bolded and underlined it, too.
But to answer your question, no, he doesn’t say the other stuff. I thought I’d made that pretty clear. I guess not.
May 17th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
My oil solution is to add a tax to all gas products and index it to inflation. Gas at the pump should be $5. We spend way to much money on roads to accommodate all those SUVs and trucks and all those armies and wars to defend the American right to waste energy. I also think that is time for Americans to F^*^* walk instead of drive everywhere. It would lower the weight of the population at large which translate to probably better health and lower health costs.
May 17th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Invictus,
Sometimes you may find it helpful to post a ‘map’, as well.. like http://www.rit.edu/ntid/rate/sea/readingcomp/rc01intro.html
May 17th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
There must be NO CAP placed on BP’s financial responsibility to the people imperiled by BP’s gross negligence. The ‘Senators-to-the-Rescue’ with their inappropriately inadequate $10 billion cap, are clearly stepping in to rescue their corporate masters. People of New Orleans, be damned.
BP and government NON REGULATORS are responsible for this environmental catastrophe, which has no end in sight. BP must pay ALL damages, including the ongoing economic losses.
I suggest that the USELESS CORPORATE SHILLS aka CONGRESS, suspend their taxpayer funded salaries including all the LIFETIME benefits they enjoy at the expense of the American taxpayer, and instead, for starters, funnel that money to the 27,000 people in New Orleans, who have lost their source of income and whose future incomes have been destroyed by this irreparable ecological meltdown.
May 17th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Feudal attraction
Milton Friedman´s call for limited govt is still very much alive …
He wanted to abolish 10 of the 14 departments of the Federal govt… see this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl_qwo2VIlU
(Listen at the 25 minute point of the video, he lays out the fundamental functions of govt…)
Milton Friedman wanted only
* Department of defense to protect the country,
* Department of the treasury to collect taxes,
* Department of justice and the police to oversee and enforce laws,
* Department of state for foreign diplomacy
His ideal government is quite similar to the governments in feudalism…
Feudalism defined …
“Feudal governments provided a way to settle disputes. Aside from that and providing some military protection, they didn’t do much else. They didn’t provide schools, hospitals, fire protection, or other services that governments provide today.”
http://library.thinkquest.org/6105/knightsandchivalry.html
He was ultimately advocating a feudalistic economy… not because of his view of free markets, but because of how he viewed government´s role in society …
May 17th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
twilighthound,
good points, esp. here: “BP and government NON REGULATORS are responsible for this environmental catastrophe..”
peep seem to forget that BP had a Partner, in this Project, namely: http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=MMS+Department+of+the+Interior
MMS has been giving the American Taxpayer the Shaft, for Years..some of those ‘crats should stand, Personally, for their ‘deeds’..
May 17th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
@Mark E Hoffer:
If people only understood the concept of pay now or pay later, and cared to do the heavy lifting required to strike an intelligent balance…
May 17th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
It’s really an interesting point to make when you strip away all of the political biases and such – free markets exist to provide no preference to any party. Why should an oil company be limited in it’s liability by the federal government?
May 17th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Evoo,
if I understand you, correctly, it’s, a lot, like this .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq3wL8ZXjBU
May 17th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
The deification of “free markets” is simply propaganda to keep government from acting for a better, safer and more equal society. It’s just a way to justify special privileges and to intimidate government into acting as an agent of special interests. As promoted in the US it is not a serious idea.
May 17th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
@R Cain: You must be a hedger looking to pick little guys clean based on a huge corp’s fuck-up.
May 17th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Aren’t corporations all about limited liability? I thought that the corporate structure generally shields the owners except in rare cases of fictitious incorporation. Of course, it would be nice if the government charged something for this insurance service the way they used to. This isn’t fashionable, but it’s time to do a little rethinking.
May 17th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Marcus the law covers cleanup costs + 75 million. but if you have a fishing boat that is now useless because you can’t fish, or if you have a resort in Florida and the oil destroys your business and you have to close, thats only covered up 75 million. care to guess how many fisherman are now unemployed because they can’t fish any more? or how much of the billion dollar resort business in Florida may be gone because oil has trashed the beaches?
May 17th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
@kaleberg: Many years ago there used to be a simple concept “piercing the corporate veil”.
That allowed corporate misdeeds to be punished. Under the correct terms.
But given 20 years of Bushes and Clinton, and then Obama, and their court appointees, that concept’s pretty much dead.
Fiduciary is also an expired term.
Seems the only relevant term is “buyer beware”.
I. E., I had a “friend” in business that had his favorite term. I forget the Latin , but the English was “pick’em clean”. He, of course, was a big fan of AIG. He could shovel a ton of money to AIG, “commission free” (service fee), and then make out like a bandit by virtue of the side letters (commission).
IMHO, our society is pretty much Greecian at this point and beyond redemption.
May 17th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
and the old idea that lawsuits would keep corporations from doing wrong is turned on its head because the corporations also know that the odds of them getting sued is getting and lower (unless its by another corporation of course) because the vast majority of people can’t afford to sue. so they play the odds every time and the vast majority of times they will win. and there has been a push to implement tort reforms. that means that they have even less of a chance of being sued
May 17th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
“Marcus the law covers cleanup costs + 75 million.”
So the effect of the law will depend on what can be called clean-up costs.
And does the law supercede the private litigation laws in each state? If not then it doesn thave much of an impact anyway.
May 18th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
“Too often we… enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-John F. Kennedy
Invictus and willid3 I believe you are both wrong. The answer lies in reading the OPA secs. 1002 and 1004. The $75mm limit beyond cleanup costs excludes the total liability of the responsible party under sec. 1002 which INCLUDES damages to real or personal property, revenues, profits and earning capacity among other.
As Marcus correctly points out, the OPA states
Sec. 1004 (a) also states: GENERAL RULE.—Except as otherwise provided in this section, the total of the liability of a responsible party under section 1002 and any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible party, with respect to each incident shall not exceed.
Sec. 104(a)(3): for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total of all removal costs plus $75,000,000.
Sec. 1002 (a) states: IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, and subject to the provisions of this Act, each responsible party for a vessel or a facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of a discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone is liable for the removal costs and damages specified in subsection (b) that result from such incident.
Sec. 1002 (b)(2) continues: DAMAGES.—The damages referred to in subsection (a) are
the following:
(A) NATURAL RESOURCES.—Damages for injury to, destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of, natural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing the damage, which shall be recoverable by a United States trustee, a State trustee, an Indian tribe trustee, or a foreign trustee.
(B) REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY.—Damages for injury to, or economic losses resulting from destruction of, real or personal property, which shall be recoverable by a claimant
who owns or leases that property.
(C) SUBSISTENCE USE.—Damages for loss of subsistence use of natural resources, which shall be recoverable by any claimant who so uses natural resources which have been
injured, destroyed, or lost, without regard to the ownership
or management of the resources.
(D) REVENUES.—Damages equal to the net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, fees, or net profit shares due to the injury, destruction, or loss of real property, personal property, or natural resources, which shall be recoverable by the Government of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision
thereof.
(E) PROFITS AND EARNING CAPACITY.—Damages equal to the loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to the injury, destruction, or loss of real property, personal property, or natural resources, which shall be recoverable by any claimant.
(F) PUBLIC SERVICES.—Damages for net costs of providing increased or additional public services during or after removal activities, including protection from fire, safety, or health hazards, caused by a discharge of oil, which shall be recoverable by a State, or a political subdivision
of a State.
May 18th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
And what are the chances that Kudlow will call out Lisa Murkowski and, as of today Republican Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, for this utter hypocrisy? 1 in a billion? 1 in a trillion? when hell freezes over?
Show some guts, Kudlow. Show you’re a real free thinker instead of just a party hack, who just happens to have a television show, god only knows why?