Why Obama Should Put BP Under Temporary Receivership

It’s time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP’s operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped. This is the only way the public know what’s going on, be confident enough resources are being put to stopping the gusher, ensure BP’s strategy is correct, know the government has enough clout to force BP to use a different one if necessary, and be sure the ... Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Tags Help
Stats Help
# Tweets: 29 (as of 2010-06-01)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - Jun 1, 2010 - 7:24 AM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Jon Mitchell - Jun 1, 2010 - 8:07 AM PDT
Jon Mitchell
3.7
by Jon Mitchell - Jun. 1, 2010

It's a very liberal view of how to handle private enterprise in the event of environmental catastrophe, but Reich's succinct five-point argument is convincing. According to Reich, temporary receivership is the only way to guarantee that BP puts the interests of the public first. Since, as Reich says, there's no independent verification of BP's assessments as it is, and indeed it seems as though they've mislead the public repeatedly, public oversight is necessary to ensure that this crisis is dealt with equitably and completely.

See Full Review » (10 answers)
Derek Hawkins
3.6
by Derek Hawkins - Jun. 2, 2010

The layman's case for seizing BP's American assets. There are a number of complications Reich doesn't point out—what kind of precedent would this set for executive power, what recourse would BP have, etc.—but as for pushing the idea, this is concise, well reasoned and overall effective.

Still not sure where I stand on this issue. On its face, I like the idea and I think Reich's solution could work. But before I take a firm stance, I need to hear more about the legal details of nationalizing a company in the name of a crisis than Reich offers.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
3.8
by Kaizar Campwala - Jun. 1, 2010

Reich makes good arguments for why the US should temporarily take over BP, but fails to contextualize this proposal in the legal framework that governs government interference in private business. Presumably BP is not in the same financial position as AIG or GM, and a government takeover would be a hostile one.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Randy Morrow
3.8
by Randy Morrow - Jun. 1, 2010

Mr. Reich gives five reasons that the President should temporarily assume control of BP's American operations to deal with the disaster. One question I have that was not addressed here is that of liability, if the US gov. took control--from that point on would BP be able to say to all claimants and the world that that part wasn't our fault it was the US gov. If that is the case then that might be another reason the government has not stepped it.

See Full Review » (11 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.8

Good
from 6 reviews (62% confidence)
Quality
3.8
Information
3.8
Insight
4.2
Style
4.0
Context
3.2
Expertise
2.6
Originality
4.4
Relevance
4.2
Responsibility
3.8
Popularity
3.9
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
4.3
# Reviews
3.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

  • For all its blunders, BP didn't cut and run

    Despite... missteps, BP's handling of the gulf spill is looking far better than Exxon's handling of the Valdez, Massey Energy's handling of its deadly mine explosion or even ...
    Posted by Jon Mitchell
  • Obama’s Katrina? Maybe Worse

    The president’s credibility as a champion of reformed, competent government is held hostage by video from the gulf.
    Posted by Jon Mitchell