The American Spectator : The Latest in Obama Jobs

Text Size

The Latest in Obama Jobs

By The Prowler on 6.23.10 @ 6:08AM

Hiring for sludge work. Also: Orszag, ahead of the posse.

SLUDGE WORK
In the Obama White House's ongoing quest to create the appearance that it is fixing the economy, the administration has asked the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Interior, Defense, Energy, and the Small Business Administration, to look for hiring opportunities related to the BP Gulf oil spill cleanup.

Each agency has some role in the oil spill response and cleanup process, though others, like the U.S. Coast Guard and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have not been asked to consider new permanent or temporary hiring. The Obama Administration is also said to be considering whether its volunteer programs can somehow be used to place recent college graduates in government-funded jobs in the Gulf region.

"We're not talking about taxpayer dollars creating these jobs," says a White House aide. "This is BP paying for the jobs; we're just sending them the bill. If DHS or Interior has to hire someone down there, it's BP that is going to pay. What happens down the road after the cleanup is complete is anyone's guess."

Homeland Security and Interior have identified potential work opportunities in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas, as well as work in Washington, D.C. and several other regional offices, where claims review and other management duties might be filled. Already, both agencies have been given lists of current U.S. Census temporary workers in those states, who will be given first crack at any cleanup jobs that become available.

AHEAD OF THE POSSE
White House budget director Peter Orszag isn't citing the need to "spend more time with his family" (it would be a bit crass given that he dumped his pregnant girlfriend to take up with a TV news reader whom he is now marrying). But White House insiders say another possible reason for his exit, which he more than likely will also not want to discuss, is the looming bill coming due for the Obama administration's health care reform initiative and a budget process that may be even uglier and more difficult than last year's, which put a freeze on non-security, discretionary spending.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (36) | Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.23.10 @ 6:48AM

Ironically, the BP disaster is a perfect example of the ultimate free market force, nature.

I see the talking heads on all the channels including Fox stating that the economy was going to fall off a cliff so TARP was necessary.

In fact we would have been better off without it in the long run. The pain would have been immediate and of short duration. Now the pain has been stretched out for a decade and we have a failed stimulus program to boot.

There are forces of creative destruction and change afoot every day and the government does not always need to intervene. In fact, the government should stay out and let nature run it's course.

There are times for the government to intervene because of their authority and capacity in terms of crime, fires and managing the after effects of natural disasters.

However, the ironic part of the BP oil situation is that BP did everything the government allowed. Was there corruption? Apparently.

But that's the problem with government. It's always inefficient and open to further inefficiency in the form of bribes or other forms of corruption.

Darrell| 6.23.10 @ 12:29PM

Government MUST be limited in what we let it get involved in. Everything it touches becomes political. So now your health is political, your personal finance is political, the car you drive is political, the food you eat is political, your child's education is political, ad infinitum.

Clinton nee Publius| 6.24.10 @ 5:50PM

The basic lessons of free-market capitalism are easy to understand, but very easy to forget - especially when there is the opportunity to introduce corruption as the key domestic economic policy component.

In this case, the government is increasing its size at the expense of a single private company and yet it is still a disaster. BP's escrowed funds are going to support more government and more union workers and union worker pension funds. In the end, these jobs will burn off when BP finishes with the clean-up and then the taxpayers will be stuck with paying the bill.

How big is the bill?

Here's a basic lesson in economics for you. There are approximately 130 million workers in the civilian labor force (and it is still contracting) and there are 23 million workers in government (local, state and federal units) and yet we do not have enough fiscal resources to pay for their costs as they stand today - the government has to come back to the people it taxed and ask them for a loan the government will never pay back (that's how we got to $13 trillion in national debt). My point here is that the ratio of civilian workers supporting government workers will never get better than 130:23 (or 5.65:1.00). This means every "new" government worker requires approximately 5.65 civilian workers in order to support the position. If those workers aren't added, then the burden becomes greater and the output of the economy (GDP) is impaired and the private-sector economy cannot create jobs. This should tell you how desperate these policies have become, but there is still more for you to learn.

The government last year spent 38% more than the Bush Administration's previous budget and yet we are mired in record level new jobless claims - over 450,000 per week. Your own common sense tells you that the increased spending should result in at least a third better job creation performance than could be had by the Bush Administration that was so stupid and inept that it could only create jobs for 52 straight months (a record, but one that is conveniently overlooked). The reality here is that the government took more than $1.6 trillion more from the private-sector economy last year and spent it and was able to eek out approximately $380 billion in new output - so there was a loss of $1.22 trillion to the economy.

That's where the jobs went. They were soaked up by government and the loss of economies-of-scale and efficiencies the private-sector economy would have otherwise provided for our benefit if the government had not taken the $1.6 trillion in additional spending was all lost. This is what is known as a "jobless recovery" - a recovery where the economy has to overcome the excessive spending in spite of the government's actions and this is why there are no new net jobs being added by the private-sector.

This is a harsh lesson for Mr. Obama as he has always believed in the socialist mantra and really believes that government can do a better job - despite the fact it cannot be made to work unless the laws of mathematics are somehow magically repealed and everyone but the socialist leaders/insiders would agree to forgo acting in their own self-interest in favor of supporting the new "Dear Leader". Ask the folks in North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, China and the old Soviet Union how that all worked out and you can see that having the right leader makes no difference. Theft is theft and you still have to recover in spite of the stealing. Calling it "redistribution", "class struggle", socialism or anything else doesn't change this fundamental economic fact.

Mr. Obama is like the child who just found out that Santa really is a mean old man who winters in Florida on Social Security and smells like reindeer poop.

Ret. Marine| 6.23.10 @ 7:01AM

I'm still waiting for that one laywer who will challange this pretender-n-theif's authority to "shake-down" BP.
And of course this is so typical of gubmint interference, "create the problem, demand change, and hope the sheeples are tooo stupid to see their involvement." Yeah there goes that "hope and change" thing again, how's that working out for yah, huh?

Shamus| 6.23.10 @ 7:49AM

BP agreed to this arrangement, leaving no one with any standing to challenge it. It may be expedient for BP, as claims made against this fund would serve to limit further law suits.

Perhaps the court ruling against the drilling moratorium is better news.

Curly Smith| 6.23.10 @ 8:45AM

I'm reasonably sure that there's basis for a shareholder lawsuit over the extralegal "arrangement". First, I'd be surprised if the BP Board had the authority to enter into a $20B deal without shareholder approval; second, the "deal" does absolutely nothing to mitigate financial exposure and, in fact, may increase the financial exposure. But you'd need to ask a Solicitor as the suit would be filed in Great Britain.

Shamus| 6.23.10 @ 9:27AM

This is more of a business decision than a deal, and boards aren't generally limited in their business decisions. The board must have had some reason to think this was a good idea, although it's not clear what the eventual impact will be on their financial exposure.

A shareholder suit could be expected, although the venue might be US courts rather than UK. The legal technicalities would need to be sorted out in the various jurisdictions.

Curly Smith| 6.23.10 @ 10:39AM

So you're saying that BP didn't enter into a binding agreement... that they merely agreed to investigate the possibility of establishing an "escrow fund"? Or, are you saying that BP's acquisition of ARCO for $27B rightly required shareholder approval because that expenditure was intended to generate a profit while the $20B "escrow fund" is a routine business decision over a trivial outflow of capital? Next up... would the BP acquisition of Amoco for $49B constitute a "deal" or a "business decision"?

Shamus| 6.23.10 @ 11:14AM

Mergers of public companies require shareholder approval because there is a basic change in the structure of the two companies. The merger is a change in the ownership arrangement.

Shareholders typically don't get any say in how a business is run. They don't get to vote on provisions of union contracts, introduction of new product lines, procurement of bank loans, or agreements with suppliers. The escrow fund is an unusual arrangement, but it's basically a business decision about how best to settle legal liability.

Curly Smith| 6.23.10 @ 12:57PM

I would agree with that analysis if the fund remained under BP's control. Setting aside a fund against future claims would have been a perfectly reasonable decision, and one that happens frequently. However, BP doesn't control the fund, thus they transferred a minimum of $20B in assets out of the company.

The decision would have also been perfectly permissible if it were to comply with a court order. There was no court order, the action was extralegal. BP's CEO/Board had no authority to conclude the deal.

Shamus| 6.23.10 @ 4:53PM

Your argument makes sense to me. It would be interesting to see how a court would rule if this were raised in a shareholder suit.

Ray| 6.23.10 @ 6:53PM

"Shareholders typically don't get any say in how a business is run."

Actually, they do. Shareholders can, and have, used their power of shares to force a business to act in the best interest of the shareholders themselves. They can FORCE a business to adopt policies, regulate spending, and other "routine" business practices. The shareholders can even pick who serves on the board and what that board does. Shareholders have a lot of power to control operations of a public business, one that is upheld every time a shareholder lawsuit is won by the shareholders themselves.

Ray| 6.23.10 @ 6:48PM

"This is more of a business decision than a deal, and boards aren't generally limited in their business decisions. "

This isn't any like a "business deal." Where's the possibility of profit here?

This "fund" is BP trying to protect itself from having to defend lawsuits and to save litigation costs. The shareholders have a huge stake in this, for they are they ones who will be paying for this, not the board members. The board may or may not have made the right decision here (only time will tell) but that board should have at least consulted with the shareholders before making a decision that's worth a SUBSTANTIAL percentage of their assets!

Bruce| 6.23.10 @ 8:09AM

Shamus;
Go back and read some of the reports and comments about the agreement. From what I have heard, the people/businesses accepting money from the "slush fund" are not required to sign documents limiting their actions against BP itself.

Shamus| 6.23.10 @ 9:17AM

That's why I said it would serve to limit further suits rather than preclude them. This could happen in several ways. The first is that some people might decide that a payment from the fund was enough and that they didn't want to engage in further legal wrangling. The second is that juries might award less money if they thought plaintiffs had already received reasonable compensation for their damages. Lawyer fees in an eventual class action suit could be smaller because they might not be imposed on the $20 billion fund, and lawyers typically get the lion's share from any class action settlement.

Louis Jenkins| 6.23.10 @ 8:15AM

Well, there they go again. Now the census workers will be allowed to apply for the jobs as sludge cleaners. What a way to keep those people occuppied! And at the expense of BP, who is footing the bill. What a plan!

CJN Guy| 6.23.10 @ 1:10PM

And since BP is paying for the job, I bet the Commerce Department will count it as a private sector job. That's why the Coast Guard and NOAA aren't being allowed to hire bodies - they count as government jobs, and we know that won't fit the agenda that the White House is trying to follow on the economy (that is, more private sector hiring).

blarset| 6.23.10 @ 9:00AM

I would be embarresed to admit my policys were so bad that I had to shakedown an oil company. To get jobs for people. These people are thugs from Chicago.. I see it now- Blagoiviech was the stuff they did business on and the typical order of the day. I want my DAMN VOTE BACK!

Publius| 6.23.10 @ 9:35AM

Blarset,
You actually voted for him?

blarset| 6.23.10 @ 10:48AM

YES and I believed the rhetoric. Anyway I am rightly conducting my reason now.I vote for America against the incumbents.

Ned| 6.23.10 @ 11:33AM

Good God... and you even ADMIT IT!! HERE!!!???

I think I've got some tape here, and a little sign that says "kick me"... if you would just turn around a moment...

Stephanie| 6.23.10 @ 12:51PM

Ahh, come on Ned, give him a break. He sounds contrite and seems to be repenting.
Let's just not kick him TOO hard :-)

John II| 6.23.10 @ 10:43PM

Do you realize that you're a national treasure? When this nightmare is over, we have to find a huge sampling of those who supported the Obamanation and ask them to fill out long questionnares. Why did you support him? What did you perceive that was so bad that you HAD to support him? WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING???

We must have answers to such questions! There's a DARK SIDE to the American experiment, and we need to know its parameters, so to speak.

Meanwhile, reread Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here." I mean, it was written by a novelist who would be conservative by today's standards--written 75 years ago!!!

grant1863| 6.23.10 @ 10:21AM

When the well is capped things will change especially when the Iranian nuke goes off and attention is focused elsewhere the BP lawyers will chip away at this settlement.

zenga| 6.23.10 @ 10:53AM

people seem to be missing the point of this article. the reason obama hasn't made any real effort to correct the gulf oil spill problem is that he is planning to use it as an excuse to put people to work, to make the unemployment numbers go down. but it won't work, and the ill effects he is ALLOWING to happen will simply lose him more votes. you simply can't allow one disaster to worsen in a vain attempt to lessen the effects of another disaster (both of which, the oil spill and the economy, are his fault, anyway). the demwit is too stupid and ignorant to know this, however. and he'll end up claiming victory (independent of any successes), or blame it all on Bush.

Oldefarte| 6.23.10 @ 11:37AM

I love it, these 'recent college graduates' finally seeing the 'HOPE' and 'CHANGE' that they overwhelmingly voted for [after their four years of being brainwashed by their liberal professors]. Those $50000 student loans can now be put to use by proclaiming 'YES WE CAN' as they are celaning up the beaches/marches of the Gulf Coast region!!!!!!!!!

Jenny| 6.23.10 @ 11:58AM

My son's on break from college and we are watching Glenn Beck together. Just doing my part to counter the liberal programming at a liberal arts college.

Scott| 6.23.10 @ 5:24PM

Jenny, Find a real conservative that isn't a whack job like Beck. Anybody who fake cries on TV mulitple times a week is an actor, not a serious policy person.

riette| 6.23.10 @ 8:15PM

Scott, Beck is not a whack job. Do your homework. You might actually learn something about American history. Check him out on Fridays for a start.

Scott| 6.24.10 @ 11:04AM

I've checked him out many times, both on TV and on his radio show. And yes, he most certainly is a nut job. I know plenty about American History, and I get it from reading books, not baby fed to me to by an entertainer.

Anthony| 6.23.10 @ 1:10PM

So this is what Obummer had in mind with his "shovel ready" jobs, a phrase the Orwellians don't use any more, have you noticed?
Oh wait, Obummer's goons say BP is paying and creating these jobs, oops sorry Obummer, no credit for you.
Hey Chris Matthews, wipe the spit off you face, control the leg shivers, and realize this IS AN ILLEGAL SLUSH FUND. Got it moron? No law allows for this to occur. You've heard of laws haven't you idiot? Didn't you learn anything from that even bigger thief and law breaker, Tip O'Neil?

Scott| 6.23.10 @ 5:27PM

No law allows for a company to willingly pay into a 3rd party escrow account? Seriously, take off the tin foil.

Its pretty simple, the WH asked BP to set up the escrow account, and for PR purposes BP agreeded. They could have legally said screw you Obama, and there's nothing Obama could have done. But there is nothing illegal about it.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.23.10 @ 7:45PM

DARNIT, GUYS!

I guess I'm going to have to get out my phone black-book and call my oil company CEO buddies.

I'm going to have to chide them.

'GO PRO-ACTIVE, GUYS! SHUT ALL THE OIL DOWN!
Let the damned communists, (pardon the shorthand), Walk to work.

Obama agenda| 6.24.10 @ 7:20AM

The Obama whitehouse works in lawlessness while punishing those who abide by the law. Obama is a renegade thoughtless arrogant non citizen born from a Jackyls ass who legitimizes criminal behavior and punishes and chastizes the innocent. The Obama agenda is dangerous and down right evil. We must save our children by covering their eyes and ears from this beastly antichrist from the bowels of Hell who speaks lies with a forked tongue like a serpent and his administration staff are his deciples and are of the synogogue of Satan and his Hellish plan.

Obama appoints a lesbian racists to the Supreme Court who has NEVER presided a case on the bench to destroy justice in order to turn this country into the full blown Banana Republic Commie Red State. Obots also think big brother should hand them everything at the cost of other peoples dime and expense. They think someone else should flip the bill for them and be giving it in taxes to Dictator Obama to give to them.

Obama is straight from the fires kilns of Hell and swore on the Quran on innauguration day.