By TIM KILLEEN
Kentucky Republican Senate candidate, Rand Paul, claimed that President Obama's remarks against BP could cause the oil giant to go out of business. Funny, I would've thought it would be the spewing of thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, destroying economies and ecosystems and losing the nation's trust that would have done that. But, besides the obvious idiocy of the comment, there is an underlying premise to what Dr. Paul is saying.
He explained later that if BP were to go under, it would not be able to pay for the cleanup of the disaster it created. Either Paul is being as pro-business or as anti-business as any politician could be by making his statement. The likely scenario, judging from his small-government-is-best past, is that Dr. Paul really believes that the government is bullying BP and that a corporation can fix its mistakes best without an agency breathing down its neck. In that case, his "wouldn't be able to pay for the cleanup" clarifier would simply be a PR tactic to keep the media (who salivates for the chance to jump on him again) off his back.
However, if Paul really meant what he said as an explanation, he just may be the least business-friendly politician in the country. Essentially, he's saying that the only reason we need this company to continue to exist is so that we can squeeze out of it as much as possible, after which, it's of no use to us. With his quasi-defense (and subsequent backtrack) of southern restaurant owners who wanted to exclude black patrons, it can be assumed that Rand Paul is fairly pro-business. I doubt that he wants BP to stay around simply for its responsibility to the Gulf. In either event, the oil company has paid $3.12b so far on the cleanup- only a fraction of the $17b it made last year. I doubt BP will file for bankruptcy any time soon; but if it should, it would be disingenuous to lay it anyone's doorstep but its own.
Kentucky Republican Senate candidate, Rand Paul, claimed that President Obama's remarks against BP could cause the oil giant to go out of business. Funny, I would've thought it would be the spewing of thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, destroying economies and ecosystems and losing the nation's trust that would have done that. But, besides the obvious idiocy of the comment, there is an underlying premise to what Dr. Paul is saying.
He explained later that if BP were to go under, it would not be able to pay for the cleanup of the disaster it created. Either Paul is being as pro-business or as anti-business as any politician could be by making his statement. The likely scenario, judging from his small-government-is-best past, is that Dr. Paul really believes that the government is bullying BP and that a corporation can fix its mistakes best without an agency breathing down its neck. In that case, his "wouldn't be able to pay for the cleanup" clarifier would simply be a PR tactic to keep the media (who salivates for the chance to jump on him again) off his back.
However, if Paul really meant what he said as an explanation, he just may be the least business-friendly politician in the country. Essentially, he's saying that the only reason we need this company to continue to exist is so that we can squeeze out of it as much as possible, after which, it's of no use to us. With his quasi-defense (and subsequent backtrack) of southern restaurant owners who wanted to exclude black patrons, it can be assumed that Rand Paul is fairly pro-business. I doubt that he wants BP to stay around simply for its responsibility to the Gulf. In either event, the oil company has paid $3.12b so far on the cleanup- only a fraction of the $17b it made last year. I doubt BP will file for bankruptcy any time soon; but if it should, it would be disingenuous to lay it anyone's doorstep but its own.
No comments:
Post a Comment