Joe Barton: the Indispensable Man
by Bruce Webb
Mostly lost in the furor over whether BP Apologist Joe Barton should remain as Ranking Member of the House Energy Committee and so potentially the Chairman should the Republicans take over the House is the fact that under Republican caucus rules he is term-limited out. Something high-lighted in this Feb article focused on Barton and obviously prior to the blowout event itself.
Politico: Term limits rule rankles ranking GOP
Even if House Republicans regain the majority this year, they’ll have to live with an old rule from their 1994 revolution: term limits atop key committees.
Some longtime lawmakers were none too pleased with the Steering Committee’s decision, which was announced Wednesday by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee who would be term-limited out of a chairmanship, called the limits that apply to ranking members “counterproductive.”
“Don’t ask me to do a good job in the minority and make a rule that says you can’t continue to do a good job as chairman,” said Barton, who is a member of the steering committee that decided to keep the policy.
Are Republicans so beholden to Big Oil that they will actually override rules they reaffirmed four months ago explicitly to keep Joe as Ranking Member/Chairman in Waiting?
In say Baseball it is one thing to let your Manager stay on even if the team is having an off-year. But to actually renew the Contract?
Barton: “Why make British Petroleum pay when the poor are so easily to sacked.
Take the money from the SSTF”.
Labor is the source of wealth, what sense in allowing it to retain any?
Of all the things Republicans could be apologizing for… what about abandoning their own ideals?
I agree!
Uh-huh!
You do realize that the apology was not for making BP pay, it was for the illegal act of forcing the pay to be under the control of our government, which is illegal.
So in other words, it falls directly in line with Republican ideals.
Bruce – Just curious how the GDP outlook if affecting your Social Security models. Assuming GDP growth of 1% for the next 20 years (e.g. Japan) what payroll tax rate do we need to keep this program going?
Thanks,
Sarris
Sarris American demographics are nothing like those of Japan, GDP growth at the rates your question assumes equate to actual declines in GDP per capita.
As i have noted on a thousand occassions I am not an economist of any type, nor am I in the business of making long term economic projections. What I do is to take the assumptions made by the professionals at SSA or conversely CBO and ask why we should expect the economy to perform down to those levels.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/V_economic.html#188118
For example the Trustees Intermediate Cost alternative projects a relatively rapid and permanent decline in productivity to 1.6-1.7% and a decline in Real GDP to 2.1%-2.2%. When you examine the stated reasons for this it tends to come down to reduced labor participation due to an aging population. At which point you ask why this decline in worker-retiree ratio is accompanied by a permanent reduction in immigration in both relative and absolute terms.
Answers to these questions are not forthcoming.
Your question assumes that the U.S. will enter into a period of permanent economic decline. And further that the government would not respond to such a slowdown via policy measures. Given the odd inactivity that has grabbed DC this last month, this policy of playing the violin while the US burns may conceivably take hold. My expectation is that just as in 1932 the people will decide they are no longer ready to be raped and ‘liquidated’ by the likes of Mellon.
But who knows, maybe a strategy of buying guns, bullets, canned beans and gold will prove the winning strategy. Because no Social Security is not viable long term in an economy that is actually shrinking on a per capita basis, particularly if what gains remain are overwhelmingly claimed by capital and not labor.
Jimi got a court ruling showing that this was illegal? It sounds very like the Courts appointing a Special Master to oversee a series of settlements. Plus since the immediate effect was to stabilize BPs stock price at a higher point than before I don’t see what people are bitching about.
Jimi fun is fun and snark is snark but you do realize you just endorsed subsistence-based slavery?
Jimi–I advocate free enterprise. In my view, BP has an absolute right to agree with any one or any entity (including the US government) to do or not do any damn thing it wants to do. And, no one has a right to question that right, especially not individual citizens like you and me who have no standing to question anything BP and other similar organizations do under any conditions. Even when BP destroys an entire body of water. That’s all there is to it. Nancy O.
Your team is in power, and ensuring we end there anyway….so let’s get it over with…Let’s get it on in the streets!
Nancy,
Your comment is irrelevant!
The issues here is that BP offered it up because of the “shakedown” from the Excecutive Branch. I’m not sure what “We will apply a Boot to throat of BP,” means in your circles, but it clear that BP is attempting to show that they do not have a problem paying for what they owe, and there was major fear of bankrupting the company.
Our government wants conrtol of that money without having gone thrown the proper legal channels, and that is not appropriate, hence Barton’s comment.
Barton went on to say that he beleived that BP holds full responsiblity for all costs…so what is the beef?
Sarris,
Just to be clear, your question is a bit off topic even if important. This thread is about a moron possibly becoming the Chair of an important Congressional committee. I say a moron because Barton is apparently too stupid to hide is disproportionate fealty to the oil industry.
“Don’t ask me to do a good job in the minority and make a rule that says you can’t continue to do a good job as chairman,” said Barton
“..a good job..”? For who does Barton think he works? It’s obvious that the seniority system is beginning to assure a strong positive correlation between onset of dementia and chairmanship of a congressional committee. Recognize just how bold a position Barton’s initial comments take. The Gulf states’ shore line from Texas to Florida is basically f—d.
Is this not a clear cut phenomenon? BP cut a corner here and there. How much money they saved doing so is any one’s guess, but it certainly wasn’t in the tens of billions of dollars. That’s what the gusher they’ve created is going to end up costing everyone. And Barton and too many of his comrades seem to think that BP is being dumped on because of the dump it has caused. What does Barton think should be done? I’ve noticed no great alternative plans from any of the critics of the government’s response. Granted that the current administration doesn’t get an A+ for reaction to a crisis, but they did inherit a dysfunctional set of government oversight agencies. Thank you Ronnie, George and George and you too Slick Willie. What a rogues gallery.
The next time you hear soneone say that the governemnt is too big ask them, compared to what? The country spans the NA continent, spans half the Pacific Ocean, has well over three hundred million citizens and trys to play the role of world wide police dept. How big a government does that require? Try not to forget that Reagan may have been suffering Alzheimer’s in its early stages while still in office. So at least he had an excuse for his dismal performance and screwball ideas about government.
I thought it involved 33 wells only? Production of oil remains the same.
Ah, Jimi! Bruce is right. You are worse than irrelevant. You commit the unforgiveable sin of being boring. Nancy O.
I can live with that!
It’s hard to be relevant to someone who advocates their own demise, and can’t call a spade a spade.