Earlier today, the White House announced that President Obama was sending to Congress a legislative package, including a provision that would lift the $75 million liability cap protecting oil companies from economic damages caused by oil spills. How high should the new cap be? And should there even be one in the first place? The White House isn't saying. Spokesman Nick Shapiro:
MR. SHAPIRO: We’re going to work with Congress on that.
Q As far as, do you think the $10 billion that’s been proposed by Congress as a cap already is a ballpark that you guys are looking at?
MR. SHAPIRO: We’re going to work with Congress on it. Don’t have a ballpark for you.
Given the cryptic nature of the White House's response, there's no way to say what they are aiming for, but it's clear that any effort to lift the caps -- or even to just raise them, as Robert Menendez proposes -- will be met with stiff resistance from oil-friendly senators. You need look no further than Mary Landrieu who yesterday on The Ed Show raised the specter of the oil industry's collapse if Congress dares to raise liability caps:
SCHULTZ: Are you for unlimited caps and liability?
LANDRIEU: I am for BP paying every single penny that they owe, and if we can raise caps without crashing the entire industry then I'm for it, but I'm not for putting people out of work.
What about the fact that the actions of the oil company are putting people in other industries out of work? Doesn't Big Oil have some responsibility for that? And if Landrieu believes that being held responsible for economic damages would put oil companies out of business, why does she believe they should be in business in the first place?