BP’s blownout Deepwater Horizon well gushed up to 2.6 million gallons a day, the federal government now says, a total equivalent of 19 Exxon Valdezes. For months, BP insisted the figure of 5,000 barrels a day (less than one tenth the actual amount) was the “best estimate” — even as outside experts got it right. According to this new estimate, the oil giant liable for the Gulf of Mexico disaster will be responsible for a $17.6 billion fine — $4,300 for each barrel of oil, less the 800,000 barrels directly siphoned from the wellhead. The subscription-only Energy Guardian notes that this figure for the oil disaster “reveals how far off initial estimates turned out to be”:

At its height, BP’s leaking well gushed 62,000 barrels of oil a day, the federal government said Monday in a revision of its figures that reveals how far off initial estimates turned out to be. The government and BP initially offered estimates of the leak at 1,000 and 5,000 of barrels a day shortly after it began in late April, eventually reaching an estimate of between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels a day after several revisions. The new estimate Monday by federal scientists means 4.9 million barrels of oil likely were released by the well before it was temporarily capped last month. BP hopes to complete an operation this week that will permanently seal the ill-fated well.

Although BP is getting a tax refund on the billions of dollars spent to contain its toxic mess and burnish its image, the company will not be able to write off this fine against its profits. Meanwhile, Republicans are expected to filibuster legislation this week that would reform the oil industry to prevent another such disaster.

Yesterday, the Hill reported that the political momentum is growing for the revocation of the portion of the 14th amendment which automatically grants citizenship upon birth in the country. Until recently, the movement to repeal “birthright citizenship” was once limited to the extreme right-wing fringe of the Republican Party. However, that all changed last week when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) indicated that he was considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would deny citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. Today, former CNN anchor and immigration hawk Lou Dobbs went on Fox News to advocate for the “vigorous enforcement” of immigration laws — which he thinks should include upholding the 14th amendment in its entirety:

DOBBS: I part ways with the senators on that, because I believe that the 14th amendment — particularly in its due process and equal protection clause — is so important, it lays the entire foundation for the Bill of Rights being applied.

KELLY: Well you could repeal part of it and leave the other parts in place. They’re focused on the part that makes you an American citizen automatically upon being born here. [...] Do you support it? The controversy is — what are you gonna do? Criminalize a bunch of babies who are through no fault of their own born in this country to illegals?

DOBBS: I have absolutely maintained for years that the anchor baby issue is one of law. We have a law in which they become U.S. citizens for being born here. If you are going to insist on the rule of law and order — and I do — I have to insist that we recognize those anchor babies as citizens of this country.

Watch it:

After leaving CNN, Dobbs may have taken a softer tone on immigration when he started voicing support for a path to legalization, however, Dobbs once again sided with anti-immigrant zealots when Arizona’s controversial immigration law was passed. Dobbs has described SB-1070 as “entirely defensible” because it “literally mirrors federal” — which it doesn’t. Dobbs also accused the Obama administration of “consciously refusing to ignore immigration law,” despite the fact that deportations are at an all-time high.

Nonetheless, Dobbs draws the line there. When it comes “anchor babies,” a derogatory and “politically charged” term used to refer to the U.S. citizen children of undocumented parents, Dobbs avoids falling into the hypocritical pitfall that “rule of law” politicians like Graham and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) have recently embraced. Denying the American-born children of undocumented immigrants citizenship would involve either rejecting a monumental constitutional amendment or, as some politicians have suggested, reinterpreting it so that undocumented immigrants and their U.S.-born children are not considered under the jurisdiction of U.S. law. As the Center for American Progress points out, the consequences of either option would be disastrous and, as Dobbs suggests, a perversion of a document that conservatives claim to defend.

Cross-posted on the Wonk Room.

Today, the judge in Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act handed down a procedural ruling allowing the suit to move past the earliest stages of litigation. Because of this ruling, the meritless lawsuit will be resolved in the coming months, rather than waiting four years before it can be refiled.

While that frivolous challenge to the Affordable Care Act proceeds, the right is promoting yet another legal challenge to health reform which is no more likely to prevail. In a tactic better suited to late-night TV ads than to a “news” network, Fox News hosted attorney and Republican congressional candidate in Tennessee, Van Irion, last Friday night to discuss how you too can file a lawsuit against the Obama administration:

You’ve heard about states suing the federal government over health care, but what if you want to do it yourself? Turns out, you’re in luck. Our next guest is suing the feds and several top Democrats. … Tell us how can people join the lawsuit if they want to?

Watch It:

Of course, Irion’s challenge has virtually no chance of succeeding, as even ultraconservatives like Justice Antonin Scalia reject the constitutional arguments against health reform.  During the health care debate, Fox repeatedly touted Republican claims that eliminating frivolous health care litigation is the key to driving down costs nationwide.  Someone needs to tell Fox that tort reform starts at home.

Today on MSNBC’s Hardball, host Chris Matthews aired the clip of House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) admitting that extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich would “dig the hole deeper” in terms of the national deficit. With his admission, Cantor has put Republican supply-siders in the awkward position of confronting the fact that their faith-based tax cut ideology would blow an $830 billion hole in the budget. Matthews pressed Bilbray on this point, only to witness his guest stammer and sputter to avoid answering the question directly:

MATTHEWS: Well there he is, Congressman Bilbray, your leader, your whip is now admitting that if you cut taxes, you’re raising the deficit. … Why would he say something like that that runs against your orthodoxy?

BILBRAY: The fact is, look, Chris, you can’t get around the fact –

MATTHEWS: Well the fact is that he just said that. Why did he just say that cutting taxes at this point is going to yield a lower revenue and therefore a bigger deficit? What he just said what contradicts to what you just said.

BILBRAY: We’re not even talking about cutting about taxes. We’re talking about not allowing an increase –

MATTHEWS: — continuing the Bush tax cuts is what we’re talking about. And that’s what he was talking about.

BILBRAY: And that is maintaining the status quo –

MATTHEWS: — Are you in disagreement with Eric Cantor? Just tell me you disagree with him and we’ll be on the same page.

BILBRAY: I am disagreement with anybody that thinks we can get ourselves out of this mess by raising more taxes on the American people.

Watch it:

“I oppose adding even one more dollar to the national deficit – instead we need to be paying it down,” Bilbray says on his campaign website.

In April, two miners were killed at the Dotiki Mine in Western Kentucky after the mine’s roof collapsed. The non-union mine had been cited for 840 safety violations by federal inspectors since 2009, and the Kentucky Office of Mine Safety and Licensing issued 31 orders to close sections of the mine or to shut down equipment during the same period. But when asked about the incident, Kentucky’s Republican Senate candidate, Rand Paul, said “maybe sometimes accidents happen.” And as it turns out, Paul doesn’t believe that the federal government has any responsibility at all to set safety standards to protect mine workers:

“The bottom line is: I’m not an expert, so don’t give me the power in Washington to be making rules,” Paul said at a recent campaign stop in response to questions about April’s deadly mining explosion in West Virginia…“You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You’d try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don’t, I’m thinking that no one will apply for those jobs.”

As Amanda Terkel pointed out, a bunch of dirty coal groups lobbying for looser regulations have banded together to form a 527 to elect industry-friendly Republicans. One of the candidates they intend to back is, of course, Rand Paul. The Wonk Room takes a further look at how Paul’s positions favor law-breaking corporations over the safety of workers.