The current administration has set a relative record for the absence of a scandal, until now, due primarily to the....Republicans! Usually the opposition party finds something to puff about, but the American people figure it, and it's irrelevance out (White water and Iran Contra come to mind).
This time, the opposition has focused laser like on the issue of our day, debt and the size and scope of government, and clearly drawn a distinction. We want reduced government, reduced government spending, self reliance, self responsibility, and low taxes.
They want, and their is no real controversy about our respective differences, government control, central planning, an ever enlarging safety net increased debt and higher taxes, mostly on the higher earners.
We want Capitalism, they want Socialism.
Which brings us to Solyndra, the $500,000,000 boondoggle. When we arrived at our economic peril, this administration, supported by a "progressive" Congress, decided to spend a vast amount of money to stimulate the economy. The opposition argued that the money would be better spent on broad based tax cuts, however this was dismissed because of the supposed "multiplier" effect of government spending.
The theory was that to resolve our economic mess, we needed a huge infusion of money (money we did and do not have) spent at the direction of our central government, which would be done so efficiently, it would (it is hard to write this without giggling) multiply its efficiency. "Studies" were cited showing its effectiveness. (funny, "studies" are used as a reason to propose reorganization of our life to prevent global warming...I mean climate change...(it never did warm, darn it).
Well how is that hope and change and multiplier effect working so far?
Our glorious leader decides to revive our country via...green energy jobs and taxes on the high earners. He/They are just so smart, they know what needs to be done, put money into bridges and clean energy jobs, except...there have been a minuscule number or green jobs created and....we still have "145" dangerous bridges which need to be fixed (according to our President) and if we love him we will pass his jobs bill.
However one might ask, um....Mr. President, why didn't we fix these bridges with the first stimulus bill? (and why do you so need to be loved?, but that is for another post.) Could it be, because central planning never works and it always leads to corruption? Wonder how many bridges we could have fixed for $500,000,000?
The bankruptcy of solar-panel maker Solyndra neatly encapsulates the economic, political and intellectual bankruptcy of Barack Obama’s Big Idea. It was the president’s intention back in 2009 to begin centrally reorganizing the U.S. economy around the supposed climate-change crisis.
To what end? Well, Obama claimed his election would mark “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” But that was just the cover story. At its core, Obamanomics is about the top-down redistribution of wealth and income. Government spending on various “green” subsidies and programs, along with a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions, would enrich key Democrat constituencies: lawyers, public sector unions, academia and non-profits.
No wonder many Democratic strategists predicted their party’s 2008 landslide win would usher in a generation of political dominance. Obamanomics, essentially, would divert taxpayer dollars to the Green Lobby – and then into the campaign coffers of the Democratic Party. This is what crony capitalism is really all about: politicians enriching favored businesses, who then return the favor. Or maybe it’s the other way around, Who cares, really. It’s an endless, profitable loop for both.
And Obama almost pulled it off. The Great Recession conveniently allowed the president to start the spendathon under the guise of economic stimulus. As it turns out, the $38.6 billion loan program for clean energy firms that Solyndra benefited from has created just 3,545 permanent new jobs after parceling out half its dough. That works out to around $5 million a job.
It’s very difficult to perceive a company with a model that says, well, I can build something for six dollars and sell it for three dollars. Those numbers don’t generally work. You don’t want to lose three dollars for every unit you make.
Unless, of course, American taxpayers make up the difference — though in the case of Solyndra, even government’s thumb on the scale wasn’t enough to save it. And it often isn’t enough when an investment’s goals are a fat political reward rather than a financial one.
“The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad,” the Office of Management and Budget staff member wrote Jan. 31 in an e-mail to a co-worker. “If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will be arguably worse later than they would be today. . . . In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”
That’s not how the private sector makes investment decision. But it’s routine for government where the stakeholders are politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and favored constituencies. The takers, not the makers. That’s whose side Obamanomics is on.