Nancy Pelosi attempted to make a case for taking risks with taxpayer dollars, namely in form of the billions of dollars lost in the failed Obama administration investments into green energy companies. President Obama's bizarre campaign strategy to attack Bain Capital and private equity, which has by far surpassed the President's record of public equity investments, was bound to put the president's allies on the defensive. Unfortunately for them, there is no defense.
Pelosi's incoherent and childish argument was that the Republicans are "the ones who say they're risk takers...now all of a sudden, they're saying, 'don't take risks.'" The distinction is that throwing money into initiatives that fail repeatedly is not a strategic "risk-taking" endeavor but a foolhardy and overwhelmingly irresponsible gamble with Americans' contribution to the government, which should be used for the good of her people and not on failed green initiatives. "With those kind of initiatives, some succeed and some do not," she said. "But without the president's initiatives, unemployment would be far higher than 9 percent." Really? Where is the data to support that silly claim?
Ms. Pelosi, Americans never asked the government to gamble with taxpayer money. In this time of looming economic doom, it is not only irresponsible, but criminal to throw money into businesses that cannot compete with China, or to bail out companies that come up with horrendous products, like the Chevy Volt, that nobody wants.
According to the article, "Pelosi bristled when asked whether it was fair for Romney to raise the issue of the Department of Energy's use of public funds to guarantee federal loans to Solyndra, where 1,100 employees were laid off." Her non-response was, "The fact is, they don't really have that much to talk about. ... They want to talk about this and that and the other thing - instead of what they want to do," she said. "Really important, as you watch all of this, is to remember - they do not believe in a public role in job creation." Additionally, Ms. Pelosi lamented that the evil Republicans do not believe in big government at all, which she declared is "not good for children and other living things."
This argument in defense of public equity (while still defending the attacks on private equity) is about as coherent as Jay Carney's recent stumbling, incoherent defense of the attacks on Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.
Watch Jay Carney's non-response here:
Huh?
What risks are they taking? Will President Obama lose his salary? Will Nancy Pelosi or anyone in the government have to answer for these failed investments? Hardly, as the Obama administration is sheltered and adored by the majority of the mainstream media.
Leave investing to the private sector, as they are strategic and knowledgeable in their investments and actually create jobs. Private equity firms have to actually answer to their shareholders, while public equity is investing in dollars entrusted to the government by the American people, who in turn squander that trust repeatedly, whether it is in the form of bailouts, pork projects or public equity failures.
Nancy Pelosi yearned for the establishment Republicans of bygone days, and urged them to return to an era of greater political civility and cooperation. "Take back your party," she said. "We need a strong, grand Republican Party. This is not the Grand Old Party that we know."
To the Republicans to whom Ms. Pelosi refers, good riddance!







Comments: 40
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205250016
http://assets.nationaljournal.com/pdf/120210_DOELGPreport.pdf
The highlights:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72733.html
Do you happen to have an explanation of the "failures" that isn't literally written by Karl Rove?
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981373676
Jared, the politico article (unbelievably) says, “by former Treasury official Herb Allison says DOE could lose as much as $3 billion from companies that default on their guarantees, but that’s much less than the $10 billion that Congress had put aside for losses to the program, according to the report released Friday.†So, this is success? Only a 3 billion dollar loss?
Here is an article from the Daily Beast, "Obama Campaign Backers and Bundlers Rewarded With Green Grants and Loans"
"Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers ... a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party."
I'm surprised 100% of those green energy companies weren't contributors to the Obama campaign. Democrats are pretty much the only ones campaigning on support for renewable energy for some reason. Why would green energy companies have donated to McCain who thought "drill, baby, drill" was an innovative energy policy?
Nevertheless, you do bring up a larger point of how there should be no corporate money involved in public elections. Corporations are not people, my friend.
Here are those articles talking about the successes of green energy companies and how those are all at risk if we don't start investing at the same rate China is:
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/29/141808249/after-scandal-solar-industry-looks-on-bright-side?ps=rs
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/03/141019154/solar-grantees-defend-loan-program
Allison's report implied that three billion wasn't a huge loss for such a high-risk program, and I'm inclined to believe him. Compared to other high-risk blunders, like say invading a Middle Eastern country that had no means of producing weapons of mass destruction (three trillion dollars and counting), this Solyndra debacle isn't going to make me lose any sleep.
As I told Marilyn, I'm surprised 100% of those green energy companies weren't contributors to the Obama campaign. Allison's report found no evidence of cronyism and this NPR article agrees with him:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=154163452
Before you try to find the bias in NPR, keep in mind that the most recent study from Fairleigh Dickinson again confirmed that NPR has the most informed audience about domestic and international affairs.
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf
I eagerly await correcting you on your other article when I get a chance.
These NPR stories are hailing the investment into solar, but the articles are both from 2011. They are also critical of Obama's investment in Solyndra. Who advocates throwing good money after bad? We cannot continue to lose money because we cannot compete and we will not be able to compete with China, as they have an abundance of cheap labor. Sad but true, Jared, we are only running ourselves into the ground and the lack of concern over these huge losses is troubling on several levels, "Allison's report implied that three billion wasn't a huge loss for such a high-risk program, and I'm inclined to believe him." I don't care if someone says that three billion is no big deal, it IS a big deal and that mentality is prevalent and is one of the reasons we are in this mess.
Your article says, "It's improper to view the entire industry through the lens of one failed company," How would they feel now, Jared? We have Raser Technologies, ECOtality, Nevada Geothermal Power, First Solar, Abound Solar, Inc. Beacon Power, SunPower, Brightsource, Solyndra, Ener1, Amonix, The Willard & Kelsey Solar Group, Mountain Plaza Inc., Babcock & Brown (an Australian company), A123 Systems, Eastern Energy, Fisker Automotive, The National Renewable Energy Lab, Evergreen Solar Inc., Olsen's Mills, and SpectraWatt also filed for bankruptcy or had layoffs.
As I told Marilyn, I'm surprised 100% of those green energy companies weren't contributors to the Obama campaign. Allison's report found no evidence of cronyism and this NPR article agrees with him: "But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, 'Throw Them All Out,' fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department's grants and loans went to 'individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama's National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.'"
Thanks Jared and I eagerly await your "corrections".
Indeed. 3 Million here, 3 Million there...the same irresponsible beliefs that have run Europe aground. We're soooo stupid...
No, thank you.
Pause, and think of the correlation between Profit and Excellence...
...then, go to ANY Government Office and try to find one efficient "employee" who gives a God Damn.
Unions run askance of Free Markets in every conceivable way. Innovation is stifled...as is the most important (and, I'd argue, the only) possession we have...the American Spirit.
The only "grey" I foresee with this kind of thinking is the ashen-faces so prevalent on the People in Marxist and Socialist Countries...
He-he...cute.
If she installs wind chimes where her brain used to be, she can listen to pretty music all day long.