BP, Congress and accountability
So, Tony Hayward is on the way out at BP. It was inevitable, given the magnitude of the Gulf oil spill and the tin ear Hayward displayed along the way.
But, as The Wall Street Journal editorializes today (subscription required):
Contrast that with the political realm, where Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had their power increased by the panic that ended up electing more Democrats. Their punishment for protecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years was to be able to rewrite the rules for all of American finance. That’s some business model. At least Mr. Dodd has faced the rough justice of being run out of one more re-election campaign thanks to his sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Financial.
Regarding the Gulf oil spill, Mr. Obama’s Interior Secretary has removed one bureaucrat (whom he had earlier appointed) but that’s about it. Our point is that it is certainly fair for Mr. Hayward to take the fall, and the timing is right given that the leak now seems on its way to being contained. We only wish there was a similar culture of accountability in government, especially in Congress.
Of course, firing Hayward will not absolve BP of blame or responsibility in the spill. But at least the company, unlike our leaders in Washington, understand that it’s a necessary step.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
74 comments Add your comment
Grand Forks
July 26th, 2010
10:24 pm
“When are we going to stop blaming Hitler for WWII? You are truly an idiot.”
You ma’am, have the IQ of a carrot. Oh and speaking of Hitler, how’s your messiah Obama doing in the polls? OH that’s right, he’s in the low 40’s and dropping.
Oh well, at least you have Al Gore to cling to. Oh wait, he’s being investigated for rape.
Must suck to be you.
Grand Forks
July 26th, 2010
10:25 pm
“We then should have been able to impeach Bush and Cheney then ! ”
Go make a citizens arrest, nut job.
Grand Forks
July 26th, 2010
10:26 pm
“are you serious,,when are we going to stop blaming Bush for the recession! um..never, since he caused it.”
Ok, and I guess we’ll continue to blame Obama since he said his stimulus package would create 3 million jobs.
Yep, to monkey girls like you, 10% unemployment is great.
Grand Forks
July 26th, 2010
10:32 pm
Former Democrat presidential candidates who are now in big trouble:
John Edwards: Cheats on his cancer stricken wife.
Al Gore: Accused of raping 4 women.
John F Kerry: tax evader
Senator John Kerry found himself answering questions Monday about his new $7 million yacht and the controversy about where he’s docking it.
http://wbztv.com/local/john.kerry.yacht.2.1825558.html
Grand Forks
July 26th, 2010
10:35 pm
More Obama stupidity. He condemns the “wikileaks” yet he does NOTHING to stop it.
WH: No attempt to stop WikiLeaks news reports
WASHINGTON – The White House says it didn’t try to stop news organizations who had access to secret U.S. military documents from publishing reports about the leaks.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says he met with reporters from The New York Times, one of the outlets with the documents, last week. He says he sent a message through the reporters to the head of WikiLeaks asking that the online whistle-blower redact information in the documents that could harm U.S. military personnel.
Gibbs says the White House also received questions Friday from Der Spiegel, a German magazine that also had early access to the documents.
WikiLeaks posted 91,000 classified documents on Afghanistan Sunday. The organization’s founder says he still has thousands more Afghan files to post.
Philip
July 26th, 2010
11:02 pm
CJ, love how you and your fellow dems blame EVERYTHING bad on the other party. Its everything wrong with our country now is all due to the 8 years under Bush….economy, housing, BP, etc. However, 9/11 had nothing to do with the prior leadership and strategy of 8 years under Clinton (of course, it was all masterminded in 8 months according to Dem theory). All I would like to see from you and yours is a little consistency.
A.T.
July 26th, 2010
11:09 pm
Kyle, did it ever occur to your puny little brain that BP’s “firing” of Hayward is nothing more than a PR move? Because corporations never do such things right?!?
Peter
July 27th, 2010
7:26 am
Angy Republicans are funny ! Kyle you have a funny following ! Print some truth for a change !
Peter
July 27th, 2010
7:28 am
Hey Phillip not all bad happened under Bush……Regan sold drugs ( Cocaine) for weapons……. That was very bad as well.
jmh
July 27th, 2010
7:41 am
Speaking of the tax cuts; correct me if i’m wrong but didn’t they reduce every tax bracket? Getting tired of the “tax cuts for the rich” argument. When was the last time a poor person gave someone a job. What the hell is so bad about wanting to give less of my hard earned money to those idiots in washington to waste!
Fair & Imbalanced- Tell me exactly what Bush did to cause the problems we have today?
Grand Forks
July 27th, 2010
9:30 am
Oh goody, Obama’s defense department lost a lot of money.
Defense can’t account for $8.7 billion
The Defense Department is unable to account for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion in Development Fund for Iraq monies in received for reconstruction in Iraq. This according to a study published today by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?sid=2012362&nid=35
Grand Forks
July 27th, 2010
9:30 am
“Angy Republicans are funny !”
You’re not gonna be laughing come November, pete.
Grand Forks
July 27th, 2010
9:33 am
Mine and Sarah Palin’s home state leads in job creation. Obama’s, not so much.
N Dakota, Alaska lead US job creation, study says
North Dakota and Alaska have added the most jobs, while Nevada, California and Florida have lost the most, in the last five years, according to research released on Monday.
The study of U.S. employment trends found 40 states had fewer jobs in May 2010 than they did five years earlier, according to Portfolio.com, a business news site that published the research of private-sector employment conducted by American City Business Journals.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2622998620100726
Junior Samples
July 27th, 2010
9:42 am
Kyle’s comparing apples to oranges again.
Additionally: “The issue on which he will be judged is what he did about it — and right now I’d say he won’t be judged kindly.”
Wasn’t Reagan blaming Carter well into his 2nd term? The Gipper certainly knew how to spend.
Uncle Billy
July 27th, 2010
9:53 am
Kyle, TARP was passed under W. I have been voting since 1960. There was plenty of talk about deficits, taxes and spending then and in every election since then. Had you actually been in business, not just in the PR part of it, you could see that the Capitalist system is powerful, but it is not pretty. Tony Hayward is being forced out, but he gets a handsome retirement package. He will be comfortable for the rest of his life. Some kind of accountability. Barney will be up for election in November. You may soon have to seek new employment since the AJC is sinking fast.
left wing
July 27th, 2010
10:16 am
Kyle Wingfield yesterday @ 4:55PM – Just a few corrections for you:
The $1.4 trillion deficit for fiscal 2010 has come entirely since Bush left office. While that’s true, the 2010 budget was based on the 2009 budget (with a $1.3 Trillion deficit) which was entirely created by Bush. The President doesn’t take the oath of office on Jan 20 and immediately create a new budget for that year. The budget process takes months. And the difference between President Obama’s budgets and President Bush’s budgets is honesty. President Obama isn’t carrying things “off budget”.
3. Presidents don’t create jobs. You say this because, well, Republicans do such a poor job of it. It’s probably more fair to say that the President’s administration creates an atmosphere which is condusive to job creation. Unfortunately, that won’t fit on a bumper sticker, and Republicans soooo love those bumper sticker answers.
5. Whether you measure total jobs created or net jobs created (new jobs minus lost jobs), 3 million isn’t the right figure for Bush’s tenure — total jobs are higher, net jobs are lower. Either way, you’ve got the wrong number. I was on Politifact.com yesterday which was fact checking Vice President Biden, who claimed President Bush created 3 million jobs. The answer, according to Politifact.com was that he only created 1.1 million jobs.
On the other hand, your comment @ 9:01 We have a spending problem. It didn’t begin with Obama. And it sure isn’t going to end with Obama. I tend to agree with. I would rather you say “we have a budget problem” (revenue less spending). The revenue issue started with President Reagan. The spending issue began with President Bush (43). Where it will end . . . . . .? I have no idea. However, I do agree with people like Alan Greenspan, who said that the Bush tax cuts should end. That will help balance the budget. So will reinstatement of the estate tax.
Kyle Wingfield
July 27th, 2010
11:00 am
left wing: Some corrections for your corrections:
1. The budget — there’s nothing in the law that says you have to spend as much or more this year as you did last year. Like I said, our spending problem didn’t start with Obama…but he has continued the upward trajectory.
2. No, I say it because it’s true — outside of hiring czars, IRS agents (ObamaCare) and bureaucrats generally, presidents don’t “create” jobs. They contribute to an atmosphere which is either good or bad for job creation.
3. Like I said, *net* jobs created are lower than 3 million. If you measure from the bottom of one trough to the top of the next peak, the figure is closer to 8 million…but, obviously, a whole lot of jobs were lost after that peak.
4. No, we don’t have a revenue problem. Liberals always assume that a) revenues don’t increase after a tax cut, and b) if they do, then they would have increased even more if not for the tax cut. They’re usually wrong on both counts (I say “usually” because, as I’ve noted before, not all tax cuts are created equal; some are more effective than others).
We have a spending problem, and that problem belongs to R’s and D’s alike.
morons
July 27th, 2010
11:15 am
A little civics lesson. Who controls the money of the US government? The President? No. It is Congress. When did the democrats take back congress? 2006. Bush started the deficit slide with the $450 bil tarp proposal at the end of 2008. Congress had to approve it. Obama doubled down with his Tarp of $750 bil that Congress approved. Congress passed a massive $1 trillion healthcare scheme that the majority of Americans don’t want.
So a dem Congress started spending in 2006 way more that we could ever bring in to the treasury. The deficit and debt is primarily Reid, Pelosi, and way more Obama than Bush. Less than 20% of the spending was signed/proposed by Bush. That means that 80% of the fault lies with Reid, Pelosi, and Obama.
left wing
July 27th, 2010
11:34 am
Kyle Wingfield @ 11:00 – was wondering where all the “left field sucks” people went, then realized you have a new blog. The AJC front page still has this one listed. Oh well . . .
1. The budget. While it’s true that you can start completely over in budgeting, when you have a $3.7 Trillion dollar budget, generally speaking, they take the previous budget & modify from there. And before you can say ‘Government Beaurocracy’, I’d like to point out that the same holds true in corporations as well.
2. I think we generally agree.
3. I believe Politifact.com measures from the start of a Presidency to when that President leaves office. President Obama will get “stuck” with having lost something like 3 million jobs in his first 4 months in office, even though I hardly think any reasonable person could blame him for that. I say reasonable because I think blogs like this tend to attract . . . . some unreasonable people.
4. You are correct. I don’t believe that cutting people’s taxes generates enough revenue to offset the cut. And frankly I don’t understand why conservatives do believe that. I’ve seen enough historical evidence that says it doesn’t.
We have a $3.7 Trillion dollar budget, which is somewhat less than 25% of our GDP (I belive it’s around $15.5 Trillion). Where does that rank in historical terms? Probably a little higher, but not totally out of line. We have a revenue problem. And that problem belongs to R’s and D’s alike.
Peter
July 27th, 2010
11:45 am
Hey Grand Goofball…..the lost money was bilked under the BUSH administration…….
Why do you think we had a WAR in the first place….or was it so the Oil companies could get the oil ?
HAD zero to do with Obama……. you are another talking HEAD saying Nada !
Raymond Huffman
July 27th, 2010
11:57 am
Hey moron… (you named yourself that, not me) The Democrats were elected in 2006, they were not sworn in to their new positions until 2007. The economy was in free-fall well before that time.
It’s bad enough that a wave of either unproductive or unemployed people spend their day parroting Fox news and right winged radio on AJC’s blogs while decent people are working, but we also have an AJC writer who cuts and pastes from another publication (owned by the same people who own Fox) instead of articulating his own opinion.
1. I personally like our government better than BP, unlike you people. This applies even to those in our government whose opinions I disagree with.
2. The Fannie and Freddie thing, repeated over an over all day every day on Fox news and right winged radio is a lie. Here are the facts:
While some are attempting to scapegoat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, economist Dean Baker recently stated that while Fannie and Freddie “got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble,” they were “trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector” and actually lost market share to private subprime lenders in the years 2002-2007, when “the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded.” – In a 2006 Securities and Exchange Commission filing covering its activities in 2004, Fannie Mae stated: “We did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005.” In the report, Fannie Mae also noted the growth of subprime lending and reported, “These trends and our decision not to participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages contributed to a significant loss in our share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances to private-label issuers during this period.” – Additionally, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 6, 2008, that Fannie and Freddie’s failure played a minimal role in Lehman’s demise.
“Private lenders—not the government-backed Fannie and Freddie—issued the vast majority of subprime loans, and to low- and moderate-income borrowers in particular. Fannie and Freddie did not guarantee and securitize large quantities of subprime loans. – In fact, Fannie Mae actually lost market share because it chose not to “participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005” because it “determined that the pricing offered for these mortgages often was insufficient compensation for the additional credit risk associated with these mortgages.” As economist Dean Baker stated, “Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector….In short, while Fannie and Freddie were completely irresponsible in their lending practices, the claim that they were responsible for the financial disaster is absurd on its face—kind of like the claim that the earth is flat.” – In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld acknowledged that Fannie and Freddie’s role in Lehman’s demise was “de minimis,” or so small that it does not matter.”
Several media figures have accused progressives in Congress of opposing stronger oversight of two mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and his predecessor, Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) made efforts to enhance regulatory oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 and sponsoring the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007. Both of these bills called for a new agency to oversee and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
I expect all of you who call yourselves tea partiers, independents, and especially republicans to continue to favor a British corporation over your own government. You say over and over how incompetent government is while private corporations fall at every single hurdle and you gleefully bail them out, unless, of course, its a Democratic president who signs the bill. That makes you loyalists, not patriots.
Using your own logic, since the Republicans are going to sweep the upcoming elections, the current economic crisis is the fault of the Republicans.
left wing
July 27th, 2010
12:20 pm
There have been 2 separate occasions in the past 100 years where Republicans controlled the Presidency as well as both the House and Senate. Both times they enacted legislation to deregulate the banking industry. The 1st time this lead to wild speculation in the stock market; people buying on 10% margins. That lead to the market crash in 1929. The second lead to the market crash in 2008.
The Democrats swept the Republicans out of congress and, among other things, passed Glass-Stegal, which regulated banks and financial institutions. This protected consumers for the next 70 years (until the Republicans repealed it in 1999).
When will people learn?
left wing
July 27th, 2010
12:21 pm
BTW, apparently people liked the Democrats enough that they kept control of the House for the next 40 years as well as the Presidency (except for Eisenhour who was a war hero).
Peter
July 27th, 2010
10:38 pm
Hey Raymond Huffman and left wing…
Tt appears you both are saying when Republican’s get into office, they turn the blind eye to regulations………and it appears they have turned a blind eye to the Middle class as well !