Tweet
Tom Donohue, President of the US Chamber of Commerce, thinks BP is getting a bad rap and wants the government to lay off already.
“I was astounded yesterday that the president took full responsibility for this and said it was the federal government, and not BP, that was running the cleanup,” Donohue said at a breakfast for reporters. “Well, it was interesting to hear the admiral from the Coast Guard say, ‘We have no capacity to do this cleanup.’
“They’ve already broken up the regulatory body into more regulators. They’ve already got people retiring or being fired. This is the idea that we have to cover our political ass in our very, very difficult time. By the way, both parties do this kind of thing,” Donohue added.
There’s a “mentality in this Congress and this administration that the more regulation, the better,” Donohue said.
“I’m not too much of an advocate of doing the surgery before the diagnosis. Nor am I an advocate of grounding all the aircraft if there’s an aircraft accident, stopping all the trains if there’s a train accident,” Donohue said. “When you overregulate, you under-job.” [...]
Donohue said a better tack might be for the government to adopt a “calm resolve” to “A) stop the oil, B) clean it up and C) figure out what happened and [how we are] going to deal with it.”
Ah yes, that’s the ticket. The solution to a massive failure of government regulators to enforce existing regulations is to just wait, and then “figure out what happened.” But don’t do anything once you figure out what happened! Cause that’s regulation, and that’s bad.
It’s definitely clear that there were significant regulatory gaps that need to be filled to make sure oil companies can’t continue to skirt the law. But it’s also clear existing regulations need to be enforced – something Donohue conveniently ignores.
By the way – anyone have a guess for what “under-job” means?
25 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Work in Progress
The chamber of Commerce is like any other winger organization or individual. They want to shield big corporations from liability or costs for their malfeasance and force the taxpayers to pick up the tab. That way they can bitch about big government and how unfair it is to tax payers. It’s a win-win for them. Unfortunately, too many “Democrats” will fall for it as well or just be plain terrified of being called “liberal”
ding ding ding! right on, margaret.
One thing good about Tom Donohue…..you can always….but ALWAYS….count on him to be the perfect reincarnation of the west end of an eastboung horse.
Sort of like our alleged national government!….including B.O…(thanks, Lifebuoy).
Yeah, this is a good example of the freewheeling mouth of Donohue. Doesn’t know when to stop talking…
Chamber Of Commerce = Corporate Terrorists
under-job (n.) – What the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is getting beneath the conference table from the Captains of Industry, whilst sitting there saying whatever they’ve told him to.
He forgot, D) “Sit around with our thumbs up our asses.”
I know I shouldn’t be mystified (sickened, outraged, repelled) by the pronouncements made by idiots like Donohue, but I continue to be. Go figure.
The upside of the disaster, if there is such thing as an upside, is that it is exposing the frauds for what they are.
“It’s definitely clear that there were significant regulatory gaps that need to be filled to make sure oil companies can’t continue to skirt the law. But it’s also clear existing regulations need to be enforced – something Donohue conveniently ignores.”
________________
So what were the regulatory gaps that need to be filled and what’s the law? Exactly what regulations weren’t enforced? Do you know what you’re talking about or are you just jabbering?
new post up top…
Had this happened in Lake Michigan the response would be entirely, entirely different. So what if those rednecks in Louisiana suffer, they are a bunch of evil Christian conservatives.
Yup. She said it all.
Great post, Michael. The display of unmitigated gall by an organization whose basic purpose is to function as industry lobbyists to preach to the injured parties as to how this contamination of public and private properties should be handled is appalling! The injury to families who provide for their own by working in or near the water (such as fishermen and/or the tourist industries), and any other parties that were or will be damaged financially or emotionally in the future as a result of the disaster perpetrated on us by the very people this organization is defending due to their own negligence and lust for money. I saw some stats yesterday on TV comparing BP’s safety record with that of other competing companies like Exxon, et al and the numbers of the competitors of BP were in single or double digits, max, while BP’s record was in triple digits and closing in on the 4th digit. Personally, I don’t even live there, but I’m furious with BP and I do not beg the Chamber of Commerce’s pardon for that!
The Chamber of Commerce is a Capitalistic front organization … they’re all Cappies. Some claim they’re doin’ it for chrissake, but I think its all about selfish interest, compounded … quarterly, Margaret.
;~DW
Under-job = job extortion as communicated by corporations’ Fredo.
Looks like the Chamber and BP apologists want to adopt “Don’t ask, don’t tell” as the way forward on this catastrophe.
Isn’t it amazing how they always use the jobs bogeyman whenever they want something. I often wonder where the CoC has been the last 20 years while our good paying have gone the way of the dinosaurs (maybe we’ll someday power our transportation with the lost jobs of the 20th and 21st centuries).
Here’s a must read :
A Mystery: When Did Gov’t Exempt Gulf Drilling from Detailed …Jun 1, 2010 … the government’s chief oil drilling regulator let most drilling go forward in the Gulf of Mexico with very little environmental review. …
http://www.propublica.org/…/a-mystery-when-did-govt-exempt-gulf-drilling-from-detailed-enviro-reviews – 21 hours ago
NOTE: This finds it’s roots in Reagan era deregulation.
I would be hard pressed to find a MORE despicable excuse for humanity than Donohue….except maybe Cheney …or Bush…or BP’s Hayward…
Most Americans think the CofC is some loosely woven social network of businesses that hold cocktail mixers in their local community once a month. They do not realize that they are a well funded corporate group of big big big corporations spending millions to get their way at the expense of working people.
In this context, I believe that “under-job” refers to an over-reliance on explicit rules and an under-use of – for lack of a better word – common sense. If you write rules for almost every specific, the attitude among regulators is to look only at what is being done and compare it to the rules. What is also needed is to consider possible consequences of what’s being done, even when the actions do not run afoul of regulation. That’s how you avoid having people – almost monthly, it seems – doing the whole Condi Rice “no-one could have predicted” thing.
If I’m correct in this reading of “under-job,” then I agree with the guy. Now, he might have a different motive, such as “don’t write rules because then you can’t stop us,” but I agree that too many explicit rules can be counter-productive.
“Under-job” is just Orwellian doublespeak for “If you give us (too many, and one is too many) rules to follow, we won’t BE ABLE to do a good job” which REALLY MEANS “if you regulate us, YOU will be less safe.” (Which is kinda like saying “If you don’t let us torture, then we won’t protect you.”)
BUT what it really all means is “Whaaaaaa! We don’t want to have to follow rules! Whaaaaaa!”
The argument that fewer rules means the job is done better is sheer nonsense. What about “best practices?.” What about NOT re-inventing the wheel every time? They don’t want rules because they don’t want to be bothered following them becuase it’s more time and more money and less freedom to cut things and increase profits.
Well, what about “bad rules” you say? I say that’s another bogus argument. Or crazy bosses. And no rules is not the answer to dysfunctional workplaces and crazy bosses. Unless you are a crazy boss and Donohue is probably a crazy boss.
Please note that I did not say that fewer rules always mean the job will done better. I said that *too many* rules can make the job done less well. Again, the idea is that, once you have lots and lots (i.e., too many) rules, people no longer actually *think* about whether a certain action will have good or bad consequences; they only compare the action to a list of rules. And that is how you end up with “who could have predicted” moments.
How do you feel about mandatory sentencing, where the judges cannot take things not included in the rules into account? Is that a good trend?
Lesseee…the chamberpot of commerce, versus every coastal city on the Gulf of Mexico… who wins? :o)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/01/bp-oil-spill-close-to-flo_n_596988.html
Actually, I think “under-job” refers to job creation: “Too many rules will cost us money, so that we won’t have enough money to create as many jobs as we otherwise could have.”
I don’t agree with this argument; I just think that’s the argument he was making when he used the word “under-job.”