Rick Herrick Central - Hi there.

I've received quite a few e-mails from my conservative-leaning family members and friends identifying the culprit behind the oil spill in the Gulf. The issue, it seems, is that the Obama Administration is so in the pocket of organized labor that it's allowed the Jones Act, a law that places a number of restrictions on the nationality of ships that carry goods in U.S. waters:

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261) is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports.

Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.

Unsurprisingly, this isn't the case at all.  There are a couple of salient points here, but the primary issue is that oil clean-up doesn't meet the weakest definition of cabotage, "the transport of goods or passengers between two points in the same country," meaning that it's not covered by the Jones Act anyways.

Republicans have pointed out that Bush waived the Jones Act soon after Katrina hit.  The notable difference between Katrina and the Gulf oil spill is that the oil spill is taking place miles off-shore, whereas the damage from Katrina was all on-shore.  Thus transporting goods from one operating port into New Orleans or other ports in the effected areas would meet the legal definition of cabotage.

Now there are some further issues with this particular storm of indignation.  Any issues with the clean-up are subordinate to the actual explosion and lack of preparation for emergencies, BP's sacrifice of precautions in favor of time- and money-saving shortcuts, etc.  But this Jones Act thing is too good: it gives conservatives a chance to bash Obama and unions at the same time.  Good fun!

But I continuously refer back to Occam's Razor: even if it sounds great to get these accusations out there, does it really make sense?  Even looking at it from a strictly cynical, PR viewpoint, do you really think the Obama Administration would forgo solutions to one of the ugliest costliest disasters in American history to avoid pissing off one faction of one union, a union that, while it endorsed him, Obama's had no problems standing up to in the past?  That simply doesn't make any sense.