Chavez Jr... and it's not Obama this time?

Now it's Robert Reich who's suggesting that BP be put under "temporary receivership" of the US Govt.

The typical socialistic response...  Besides when has anything the govt. done EVER been temporary?

It’s time for the federal government to put BP (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.

First, if you believe that the govt would only "own" BP until the gusher is stopped, apparently you aint' noticed hwo the govt works.

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 President is ultimately in charge.

LOL... that's what the media is for.  In case you hadn't noticed, Mr. Reich, it appears that President Obama doesn't know what's going on .  (Or did you miss that "press conference")?

If the government can take over giant global insurer AIG and the auto giant General Motors and replace their CEOs, in order to keep them financially solvent, it should be able to put BP’s north American operations into temporary receivership in order to stop one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.

So Robert Reich admits... We're going to take over, and make changes at the top and then "claim" to give it back to the company.   RRRIGHT...  And I've got some ocean front property in Nebraska to sell you too.

I really shouldn't have to point you back to the various bills that Congress and this Presidential administration pushed through to control all the salaries at those financial institutes and automotive companies.   They mandated the closing of a variety of car dealerships.  (You remember those, right?)

The Obama administration keeps saying BP is in charge because BP has the equipment and expertise necessary to do what’s necessary. But under temporary receivership, BP would continue to have the equipment and expertise. The only difference; Under temporary receivership, the firm would unambiguously be working in the public’s interest.

First and foremost, BP is already working in the public's interest.  Why is it that these socialists seem to think "profits' and "public interest" are two different things?  You do realize the more oil that is in the gulf is more oil not available to the public for consumer usage.     Let's get Mr. Reich's quote right in terms of what he means:

"Under temporary receivership, the firm will be under govt. control, and one less evil oil company in the world!"

As it is now, BP continues to be responsible primarily to its shareholders, not to the American public. As a result, the public continues to worry that a private for-profit corporation is responsible for stopping a public tragedy.

There are two key comments... Again, who does Mr. Reich think are the shareholders?   Duh.. that'd be you, me, and any general public person who owns stock in British Petroleum.  (I've really got to figure out how to read my 401k to see if i can figure out which exact stocks are in my mutual funds.)

As for #2... because it's a "for profit" company (again, which company in the world isn't?), they're not going to try to work on fixing the issue, and the administration is?  The same govt that "would never let a crisis go to waste"?

and then he gives his "reasons":

1. We are not getting the truth from BP. BP has continuously and dramatically understated size of gusher. In the last few days, BP chief Tony Hayward has tried to refute reports from scientists that vast amounts of oil from the spill are spreading underwater.

Hell, scientists can't agree on anything.  Because the BP hired scientists who say one thing and university scientists say something else, let's just say that one group is right, and one is wrong without confirming the data.

Government must be clearly in charge of getting all the facts, not waiting for what BP decides to disclose and when.

 Bwhaha... yeah, the most "transparent" administration in history... Stop! my sides are hurting from laughing so hard.

We have no way to be sure BP is devoting enough resources to stopping the gusher. BP is now saying it has no immediate way to stop up the well until August, when a new “relief” well will reach the gushing well bore, enabling its engineers to install cement plugs. August? If government were in direct control of BP’s north American assets, it would be able to devote whatever of those assets are necessary to stopping up the well right away.

"Right away".. this is the same govt that was fighting against the sand booms, the same one that can't get plastic booms over, the same one that had an impact study on their desk for _2_ weeks before they even looked at it?    That "right away"?  I swear this guy should be on the improv tour.

3. BP’s new strategy for stopping the gusher is highly risky. It wants to sever the leaking pipe cleanly from atop the failed blowout preventer, and then install a new cap so the escaping oil can be pumped up to a ship on the surface. But scientists say that could result in an even bigger volume of oil – as much as 20 percent more — gushing from the well. At least under government receivership, public officials would be directly accountable for weighing the advantages and disadvantages of such a strategy. As of now, company officials are doing the weighing. Which brings us to the fourth argument for temporary receivership.

Wait a minute?  I thought BP wasn't using all their resources?   That's what Robert said jusrt a minute ago... But no, he wants to have govt. committees first (see the Sand Boom issues.)... If you ever read the story "The Giver", there's a line in there about issues going under review.  It so fits with our govt .right now.

Right now, the U.S. government has no authority to force BP to adopt a different strategy. Saturday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and his team of scientists essentially halted BP’s attempt to cap the spewing well with a process known as “top kill,” which injected drilling mud and other materials to try to counter the upward pressure of the oil. Apparently the Administration team was worried that the technique would worsen the leak. But under what authority did the Administration act? It has none. Asked Sunday whether U.S. officials told BP to stop the top-kill attempt, Carol Browner, the White House environmental advisor, said, “We told them of our very, very grave concerns” about the danger. Expressing grave concerns is not enough. The President needs legal authority to order BP to protect the United States.

Let me see if i have this right... the govt made BP "stop" their recent attempt.. .but it wasn't permitted to?   In other words, they're doing right now what they want without having any receivership socialist ownership of BP.   But i thought BP was evil and didn't care to do what it took to resolve this issue?

And then finally:

5. The President is not legally in charge. As long as BP is not under the direct control of the government he has no direct line of authority, and responsibility is totally confused. For example, listen for the “we” and “they” pronouns were used by Carol Browner in response to a question on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday (emphasis added):  “We’re now going to move into a situation where they’re going to attempt to control the oil that’s coming out, move it to a vessel, take it onshore ….We always knew that the relief well was the permanent way to close this .… Now we move to the third option, which is to contain it. If [the new cap on the relief well is] a snug fit, then there could be very, very little oil. If they’re not able to get as snug a fit, then there could be more. We’re going to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.” When you get pronoun confusion like this, you can bet on confusion — both inside the Administration and among the public. There is no good reason why “they” are in charge of an operation of which “we” are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG... The President _is_Legally in charge of the situation.   Where do you think the outrage is coming from?  Because he's in charge and he's doing photo-ops and golf outings, and preparing to meet with Paul McCartney, and did a "2 hour" tour and photo-op in Grand Isle.  That's been his _entire_ contribution (besides not knowing who fired/retired his Mineral Management key staff)

How about President Obama actually you know, "Look" like he's in charge (since he already is... That's why the electoral college voted for him.)

Of course, my favorite line :

The President should temporarily take over BP’s Gulf operations. We have a national emergency on our hands. No president would allow a nuclear reactor owned by a private for-profit company to melt down in the United States while remaining under the direct control of that company. The meltdown in the Gulf is the environmental equivalent.

Like anyone in this administration would let us have a nuclear reactor in the first place...   But notice he never said we can't have nuclear power, we just can't have "privately owned" nuclear power.   In other words, socialist supplies only... 

Robert B. Reich = Chavez Jr....  (Have we ever seen them together at the same time? hm....)