socialized or privatized cleanup?

[devilsadvocate]

BP is (purportedly) wholly financially liable for the environmental aspect; I heard today their domestic liability (lost private income; think shrimp-boats, fishing, tourism, etc.) stops at 170 million.

I don't think that'll go very far.

I believe there has been a bill introduced to change that to 10 billion +/- and hopefully be retroactive

Edit; http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100503/...pill_liability

A law passed in response to the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska makes BP responsible for cleanup costs. But the law sets a $75 million limit on other kinds of damages.
Economic losses to the Gulf Coast are likely to exceed that. In response, several Democratic senators introduced legislation Monday to raise the liability limit to $10 billion, though it was not clear that it could be made to apply retroactively.

It appears this has been blocked by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

[clocker]

Since it's now apparent that the spill is much, much worse than originally thought, expect to see BP bring more pressure to bear on it's political watercarriers to keep it protected from serious financial harm.
Murkowski is only the first to show her colors, others will follow.

[clocker]

Murkowski is only the first to show her colors, others will follow.

Gee, it took less than 24 hours...

Fresh off news of the cataclysmic oil spill in the gulf of Mexico, [GOP Connecticut Senate contender Linda] McMahon recently distributed a mailer where she promised to put 'Connecticut back to work' by calling on the government to "increase offshore drilling and production."

[...]

McMahon says it's time to loosen the "burdensome regulations" that can "inhibit growth."

Drilling for oil near sensitive coastline ecosystems is a win-win, [says] McMahon in the mailer. "Offshore oil drilling will create jobs and increase energy supply without cost to the taxpayer," it reads.