Google and others want a taxpayer bail out for their desert bird roaster.
That looks like a nice bill for the new Congress to make Obama have to sign.
More at (appropriately) Powerline:
The sheer temerity of the request is almost outweighed by the unintended humor of their explanation for the failure of their project: the Sun isn’t shining as much as they thought it would. But I think they’re barking up the wrong tree: rather than ask for your money so they don’t have to use their money, they should ask the guy who said he would make the oceans recede, to order the Sun to stop slacking — rudely continuing to shine as it has for five billion years — and brighten up for Google, NRG, and Obama’s legacy.
What fools these mortals who support this insanity be.
You do not blame children for what adults allow them to do.
This is our fault and always has been. Accountability sometimes requires real accountants.
We need a less crazy Ross Perot type to explain to America the steps needed to remove corruption from our government; candidly showing how both parties are involved up to their eyeballs. Cut a check to every American for every billion saved.
Get taxpayer money out of politics with harsh penalties. It’s not that hard to follow the money.
Do you propose to take the money out of politics through “campaign finance reform?” If so, that’s the opposite of what we need (I ask because that is the default position of most people).
We do need to take money out of politics, but it needs to be done by taking away the ability of politicians to funnel taxpayer money to favored constituents. Do away with subsidies altogether, no mater what their purpose. That would be a small, but necessary first step to taking the money out of politics.
If you reduced the Federal Government to only those things listed in the Constitution, then all the graft, payola, kickbacks, and other coorrosive corruption would be gone.
There would still be a bit regarding who gets one military contract but we can live with that and it’s much easier to detect and eliminate.
“Get taxpayer money out of politics with harsh penalties.”
It is impossible. Politicians choose how to spend taxpayer money so there will always be the human element there. There is a limited amount of money to be spent and many interests all competing for priority on largely subjective terms. There will always be companies lobbying their positions, as there should, because politicians also regulate everything and companies have the right to speak out about regulations that effect them.
Corruption is perhaps the most serious problem facing our country in the long term. The lack of corruption in comparison to systems that came before ours or in relation to our global peers has been one of the things that sets us apart and makes us successful as a society. Do we want a society that lasts as long as the great powers of history? If so, then we need to keep corruption in check. But how to do it without trampling on people’s rights? I am not sure and human nature dictates that people always try to work around limits placed on them.
Part of the problem is that our society relies in large part on people acting in good faith. We need our populace to act in an ethical manner and in today’s world, that is near impossible. Ethics are no longer a virtue. The more power and money involved, the less likely that people will be acting with integrity.
This is a huge part of the reason that the “success rate” for these DoE loan guarantees didn’t have much meaning. The participants were probably banking on being able to acquire grants in the future to make up for revenue short falls. Either that or making their real money on construction. Google not was a sponsor of the Ivanpah project, but also one of the investors in Brightsource, the contractor building the project.
NGR has roughly $3.8 billion in total loan guarantees from this program. If they’re begging for one of their loans, that probably means all of them are similarly stressed.
This is a typical government funding shenanigan. The liabilities and costs were front loaded while the benefits were just promises. And I don’t see this helping renewable power in the long term. A bunch of failed projects that can’t come close to turning a profit aren’t going to magically result in a bunch of profitable projects.
Karl,
They (and their enablers in Congress and the Executive Branch) may also have been counting on carbon credits driving fossil fuel-generated energy costs way up. Obama promised during the campaign to do immigration reform in his first term, but instead of that, Harry Reid got a carbon tax bill through the Senate in the summer of 2009, IIRC. Died in the House, fortunately. They likely also failed to predict the effect of fracking on natural gas prices.
BlueMoon
Google’s motto, “Don’t be evil*”
*Be evil.
There’s a chart here that pretty much says it all:
Natural gas is 50-200x as power/area dense as central solar.
Coal: 25-100x.
PV solar: 1-0.9x.
Wind: 0.125-0.15x.
Biomass: 0.125-0.06x.
It’s surprisingly hard to find an area power density for nuclear, but the this NYT piece had it at about 1000 W/m^2 (which sounds low to me), or at least 100 times the best you can do for central solar power.
I know we’re a practically innumerate society, but these numbers are pretty obvious. Can we stop talking about wind and solar as if they’re viable alternatives?
The best campaign finance reform would be to limit contributions only to those candidates for whom you can vote. Eliminates contributions from corporations and non profits, eliminates contributions from individuals to non-federal candidates outside of their locality.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That might go against the First Amendment. Corporations and non-profits are heavily impacted by government actions. It seems unreasonable to say they can’t have a say in influencing the policies and politicians that impact them. Ideally, if we could somehow roll back the federal government to the enumerated powers, most of the problems would resolve themselves. Unfortunately, we live in a far from ideal world.
Removing the direct elections of senators would be a good, first step. We would at least have one half of the legislative branch accountable to their respective states rather than special interest groups.
They wouldn’t be accountable to their “states”, they’d be accountable to the people who picked them, their state’s legislators, who are in turn heavily influenced by special interest groups. And if you gave those legislators back the power to pick senators, the level of special interest group influence would only rise. In my little state this just-concluded senate race brought in about $40 million from outside interests. That’s roughly $100,000 per state legislator (tiny state, huge legislature). Doesn’t that sound like a recipe for corruption?
You’re very astute. You realize that politicians on all levels can be paid for by special interest groups (except for those that voted for Obamacare. They are, somehow, objective.)
But you know my point is that senators are beholden to the states that elected them, and there was a lot less centralization before the 17th Amendment.
Why is being beholden to state legislators better than being beholden to the voters of the state?
“Why is being beholden to state legislators better than being beholden to the voters of the state?”
1) Do you have even the *slightest* understanding of why the Founders arranged it so?
2) Who elected the state legislators?
Google and others want a taxpayer bail out for their desert bird roaster.
If you put solar panels on your roof, you get 30% of the cost back. Google et al are applying for the same sort of subsidy. Why is this considered newsworthy?
Maybe there shouldn’t be a subsidy in the first place? Ever thought of that? Maybe the news is that stupid subsidies are, well, stupid.
How about just giving people tax breaks?
We do give people tax breaks. But tax breaks are only useful if you have a big enough tax bill, so back in 2009 Congress created the grant program that the Ivanpah owners are applying for, as an alternative to the 30% tax credit.
No, I mean tax breaks in everything, not only in programs that the politically elite deem worthy.
This isn’t a tax break. This is a bailout.
Where is their tax return claiming half a billion in taxes due? There isn’t one. Their balance sheet shows half a billion in debt, which they want the taxpayer to eat.
You’re right, it isn’t a tax break, it’s a grant. And it’s been on the books since 2009, before the Ivanpah plant was approved.
And it’s been on the books since 2009, before the Ivanpah plant was approved.
On whose books, Jim? The fact that they’re asking for it rather than spending it indicates to me that the grant doesn’t exist.
On whose books?
The federal register. The Treasure Department website has more information about the program here: 1603 Program: Payments for Specified Energy Property in Lieu of Tax Credits.
The federal register.
Nope. Money is not a mention in the federal register which may or may not actually apply to the Ivanpah plant.
Money is not a mention in the federal register which may or may not actually apply to the Ivanpah plant.
I’m having trouble parsing this sentence. My point was: the 1603 grant program, which the Ivanpah owners have applied to, was “on the books” — i.e. current law, recorded in the federal register — as of 2009, which is before the project was begun in 2010. This story — Ivanpah owners apply for federal grant — is being treated as news, but the fact that the the grant program exists, and that projects like Ivanpah are eligible for it once they’re completed, is not new: those things have been true since 2009.
“If you put solar panels on your roof, you get 30% of the cost back. Google et al are applying for the same sort of subsidy. Why is this considered newsworthy?”
Because they are totally and completely different things:
If I put up solar cells on my house at my expense, I presently would get a subsidy from the government. Set aside, for the moment, tht the subsidy is evil.
But Google is asking for a bail out to pay the federal government what it owes the federal government.
I mean, geez Jim is is asking too much for you to read the article?:
“After already receiving a controversial $1.6 billion construction loan from U.S. taxpayers, the wealthy investors of a California solar power plant now want a $539 million federal grant to pay off their federal loan.”
I guess it is.
And just in case you are too obtuse to see the difference in your example:
I didn’t get a loan from the government to put the solar cells up on my house and then ask the taxpayers to make my loan payments.
But Google is asking for a bail out to pay the federal government what it owes the federal government.
They’re asking for the 30% subsidy that they’re entitled to under the law. They were no doubt counting on the 30% subsidy all along, but under the law they can’t apply for it until the project is completed. You too can go take out a loan, pay someone to install solar panels, and then — once the panels are up — apply for 30% from the government and use that money to pay off part of your loan. People do it every day.
I didn’t get a loan from the government to put the solar cells up on my house and then ask the taxpayers to make my loan payments.
They’re asking for the standard 30% subsidy that is provided for by law. What difference does it make what they’re spending it on? You could put up solar panels and use the 30% to take a vacation.
“What difference does it make what they’re spending it on?”
So you see no problem with the taxpayers giving money to pay back the money owed to the taxpayers?
I guess you’ve selected “obtuse” Quelle Surprise.
” You could put up solar panels and use the 30% to take a vacation.”
Again, as impenetrable as you remain, you need to grapple with the idea that the two situations aren’t the same.
Besides which, you just go try that:
1) Borrow money from a bank to put up solar cells.
2) Stop paying the bank because you have no money
3) Ask the same bank for a loan to pay the money you own in arrears to that bank.
See how far you get. And if the bank is dumb enough to give it to you:
4) Then go take a vacation with it.
Jim supports the Federal Tax Code as Ponzi scheme, and I’m not the least surprised.
Lol, not the same at all Jim.
Google took out a federal loan and are now looking for a federal bailout to pay off the loan. The federal government does not and never would do this for a private citizen. This isn’t a subsidy or a tax credit, it is a bailout of failed business and technological models. How does the government recoup it losses in this situation? It doesn’t.
There is no reason why Google, the most powerful and wealthy company in the world, should get let off the hook for repaying the loan the taxpayers made them.
For your analogy to be correct, it would be like this, a wealthy business takes out a loan from the local bank. The business runs into rough times because the assumptions in their business plan were way off. Rather than dip into their own deep pockets to pay off the loan or restructure their business to be profitable, the business asks the bank for free money to pay off their loan. There isn’t a bank out there that would forgive debt and especially not half a billion dollars.
The federal government does not and never would do this for a private citizen.
They do it every day. You get 30% of the cost of qualifying solar projects back, regardless of whether you’re super-rich or an average homeowner, and regardless of whether the panels have been producing more or less power than expected. The government doesn’t ask you what you’re going to spend it on, so you’re free to use it to pay off debts, including loans you might have taken out to pay for the solar panels in the first place.
Rather than dip into their own deep pockets to pay off the loan or restructure their business to be profitable, the business asks the bank for free money to pay off their loan.
No, it isn’t like that at all. The Ivanpah owners were counting on the 30% subsidy all along — I doubt they would have built the project unless they knew they’d be getting that money once it was finished, $500m makes a big difference in the plants ROI. They would be applying for that money today no matter how well or poorly the plant was doing financially. What sane businessman wouldn’t?
So, according to you, this is just asking for an advance on the tax credit? Do you see somewhere that they aren’t going to ask, or be eligible, for the tax credit when it’s done, as well?
And, why were their projections faulty? Did you read the part about ” Ivanpah only produces a quarter of the power it was supposed to”? Are taxpayers supposed to subsidize stupidity?
No, it’s asking for a 1603 Treasury grant, which is available instead of the 30% tax credit. By law they can only receive one or the other.
Ah… no. From your link:
“A 1603 payment is made after the energy property is placed in service; a 1603 payment is not made prior to or during construction of the energy property.”
“A 1603 payment is made after the energy property is placed in service; a 1603 payment is not made prior to or during construction of the energy property.”
Right. And now that the plant is in service, they’re applying for the grant. I mentioned in a few different comments that these incentives aren’t available until the project is completed. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
My mistake. I was under the impression it was not open for business yet.
Doesn’t change the fact that it is a boondoggle that isn’t producing nearly the output promised, and roasting birds and displacing tortoises while doing it.
But, I let you guide me into an argument for which I was unprepared, and you were able to gain the upper hand. Well played. Too bad it isn’t just a game, and we, and the birds and the tortoises, will be worse off for it.
FTA:
So, they want $600M now, and $660M later. Nice narrative, Jim. Now, back to reality.
They can’t get both. The 1603 grant is available in lieu of the tax credit.
” You get 30% of the cost of qualifying solar projects back, regardless of whether you’re super-rich or an average homeowner, and regardless of whether the panels have been producing more or less power than expected. The government doesn’t ask you what you’re going to spend it on, so you’re free to use it to pay off debts, including loans you might have taken out to pay for the solar panels in the first place.”
Once again you fail to see the crucial difference (no big surprise there):
In your example, I PAID for the solar cells out of my pocket either directly or through a bank loan (NOT a loan from the taxpayers). Your example would be more fitting IF I:
1) Borrowed the money from the bank
2) Stopped making payments to the bank because I ran out of money and
3) Asked the bank to give me money to make the payments I owe the bank
THAT is what’s happening here. Your example is completely different.
You can keep repeating your stupid example as many times as you like but it doesn’t make it any more relevant.
In your example, I PAID for the solar cells out of my pocket either directly or through a bank loan (NOT a loan from the taxpayers).
Technically Google et al didn’t borrow the money from the government either, the government just guaranteed the loan, in the same way that Fannie/Freddie guarantee many home mortgages. And you might get your money to buy solar panels the very same way, e.g. with a PowerSaver loan: “Backed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), these new FHA PowerSaver loans offer homeowners up to $25,000 to make energy-efficient improvements of their choice, including the installation of insulation, duct sealing, doors and windows, HVAC systems, water heaters, solar panels, and geothermal systems.”
3) Asked the bank to give me money
The Ivanpah owners are asking for money that is available, by law, to anyone in their situation. They aren’t asking for a favor, or a bailout, any more than I’m asking for a favor or a bailout when I apply for my tax refund.
” They aren’t asking for a favor, or a bailout, any more than I’m asking for a favor or a bailout when I apply for my tax refund.”
Oh so NOW the bailout that they want (and it is a bailout) is just like getting a refund of the taxes you overpaid?
Oh man.
Shark. Jumped.
Oh so NOW the bailout that they want (and it is a bailout) is just like getting a refund of the taxes you overpaid?
Yes, it is. The law says that if you pay more in estimated or withheld taxes than you owe, the Treasury will refund the difference. The law says that if you build a solar project that meets certain criteria and apply for a 1603 grant, the Treasury will send you 30% of the construction cost. In both cases you’re asking for what the law says you’re owed, no more and no less.
“They do it every day.”
The feds give people loans and then grants to pay off the loans? Nope.
“I doubt they would have built the project unless they knew they’d be getting that money once it was finished, $500m makes a big difference in the plants ROI.”
It doesn’t point to a successful business plan if they were planning on a $500m bailout in order to stay in business.
I don’t get your knee jerk defense of this. In order for solar and wind to be successful, shenanigans like this can’t take place. This is bad for everyone and especially for the cause.
I don’t get your knee jerk defense of this. In order for solar and wind to be successful, shenanigans like this can’t take place.
What shenanigan? It’s totally legal and expected. If you were the CEO of the company, wouldn’t you apply for the grant? If you didn’t, how would you explain that to your shareholders? “You mean the government will give us $500m, because they want to encourage projects like ours, but you don’t want to send in the paperwork?” They’d have cause to sue you for breaching your fiduciary responsibilities.
Back in the late ’70’s and ’80’s in the aftermath of the Oil Crisis, there was an initiative to build Solar Houses, that is, retrofit houses with solar collector for heat along with storage systems for night and other times the sun wasn’t shining.
These were expensive, complicated, breakdown-vulnerable “active solar” systems. In parallel with this effort, others were working on earth-sheltered houses and superinsulated houses. The idea is that if you really beefed up the insulation, you could keep the house warm with simply the bodies and electric appliances within the house. This “passive solar” worked 24-7, had no water or glycol pipes from roof to basement to freeze or leak, and had less reliance on “backup” sources of heat because the overall heating need was so much less.
Since that time, not many people went “the whole hog” for superinsulated houses, although maybe there is a resurgence of green bragging rights of various people with money to burn building LEED houses. But people have added attic insulation, sealed their doors and windows, in many cases adding insulation to walls and even basement walls when remodeling. Superinsulated houses may be rare in new home construction, but the standards for doors, windows, the amount of attic insulation, the near universality of wall insulation, the insulation of basement walls have all increased.
The reduction in heating demand in residential housing is a success story. Is anyone marketing active solar space heating in any serious way anymore? Instead of an expensive and maintenance intensive add-on, home owners are building houses with just plain old more insulation or adding insulation to existing houses.
The idea of roof-top solar panels is another gimmick, just as the active solar space heating systems were 30 years ago. The Florida Solar Energy Research Center (FSERC) has white papers on how you can get the same savings in electricity (in Florida) by (in order of expense) sealing and insulating your ducts (which typically in Florida houses are routing A/C through your hot attic), use systems such as passive ridge roof vents to cool your attic (I had this done here in Wisconsin, and it has a dramatic effect on making the upstairs cooler and less stuffy, even when operating the A/C), installing the newer ultra-high efficiency A/C units (expensive, yes, but much cheaper than a solar panel), and applying heat-reflective coatings, shingles, or tiles to the roof.
I suppose if we want to move to that Carbon Free 22nd Century, we need both these efficiency and conservation measures and then consider generation measures such as active solar systems, whether active solar thermal or solar PV. But gobs of subsidy money is offered to do the PV roof first, and I personally know of folks doing the PV thang (in hurricane country where a Big Wind is going to scour the roof of that expensive panel) because there was that subsidy money along with PV bragging rights and have done none of the more-cost effective but less glamorous measures.
Yeah, yeah, early adopter and first mover and solar PV is the future and the gummint has to jump start this to “move down the cost curve” just like “Moore’s Law” (which is a falacy here, because you are not shrinking the size of the solar panel or getting 2-fold increase in the watts/sq ft every 18 months). But the 30 percent or whatever subsidy of homeowner PV rooftops is as big a scandal as the Bird Blaster, when things that are much more cost effective are not being done because people or going, “oow wow, solar panel!”
The Right Blogosphere is not anti-environment or anti-saving energy, but we believe in markets where people respond to price signals and take the more cost effective measures first instead of pursuing government promotited gimmicks, whether it is the personal PV rooftop of the Corporate Bird Fryer.
Notwithstanding Jim’s persistent leaden obtuseness, this whole situation is one of the farces you get into when government starts to branch out and do that which it never is supposed to do.
Government should not try to:
Pick winners
Encourage behavior
Steer technologies
Steer the market into choosing anything.
Anything besides defending the nation, enforcing contracts and supporting/upholding/defending the liberty and freedom of it’s citizens gets you into silly situations like this one.
I would ask Google to pay their taxes first before getting any more loans. Regardless of that I can understand that some of the bets Obama made did not pay off. Like some people here said fracking took off in a big way which was sort of unexpected. I mean I remember reading IEA reports that claimed it would take off, so called unconventional oil, but a lot of reports including the Hirsch Report funded by thad doubts it could be ramped up in capacity quick enough. Thankfully it is ramping up fast in North America and I hope it will eventually do so elsewhere as well. Obama also put forward money towards constructing new nuclear power plants so it is not like he only went for what the enviro-wackos want.
Of course some of the things they funded are not going to work. Still the technology is interesting IMO. It is not all about energy density here since we are talking about stationary applications. What matters is the cost/kWhr which is still too expensive for solar.
I think for Google this whole exercise was just another way of doing tax evasion.
” Like some people here said fracking took off in a big way which was sort of unexpected.”
Yes Godzilla, and that’s the *crucial* point. No one can predict what will happen – the system is far too complex. 1000 knuckleheads in DC simply cannot accurately predict what tech will thrive and what will not. As you say, there were papers saying frackign can’t work and what happened? Individuals found a way to make it work. No human or set of humans are omniscient. They cannot predict teh fiture. This is why, when governments try to do this, it’s a major fail.
DC should not be making bets at all. It’s a total waste of money and gums up the system:
What is seen; what is not seen.
Why is being beholden to state legislators better than being beholden to the voters of the state?
Um, accountability? Local control? Easier to follow the corruption of a local, state official than the shenanigans of a senator 3000 miles away?
Not to mention that a state official, despite the money coming from Naral, Koch, etc, still has to be accountable to their local constituents. Their job isn’t to loot the federal treasury for their donors. (Their job is to loot the state coffers for their districts.)
You are arguing that a senator X is more accountable to constituent Y if we put a state legislator, Z, between them. But adding that layer gives the voter less influence over the senator. If the voter doesn’t like the senator he can’t just vote against him, he has to vote against his state legislator, and he might like other things that the state legislator does. If the state legislator loses his seat nobody will know whether it’s because of his vote to fill the senate seat, or some unrelated act. If you want more accountability, you want the relationship between the voter and the senator to be as direct as possible.
Easier to follow the corruption of a local, state official than the shenanigans of a senator 3000 miles away?
People say this all the time, but in practice there is more corruption at the state and local levels than there is in D.C. Federal officeholders are under much more scrutiny than state legislators.
Never mind. Just be obtuse.
You’re a damned Progressive. You’ve probably never, ever changed your mind about anything. As long as you get goodies, you don’t care about the fate of the country. Enjoy your free health care. Pleasantly put aside that you’re putting the nation at risk and be blissfully ignorant that millions of people that aren’t even born yet will pay for your indulgences.
You’ve probably never, ever changed your mind about anything.
Ha! I used to be a conservative Republican. I was an avid National Review reader, and voted for Reagan. I wrote for a conservative political magazine in college (another former editor, Tom Cotton, just got elected to the Senate). I’m more than willing to change my mind when I hear new facts or a better argument.
you don’t care about the fate of the country
You are making a mistake here. You think that because you’re sure that my views are bad for the country, that I must not care about the fate of the country. But I do care. I argue for the policies I support precisely because I care about our country, and want the best for it.
It clearly bothers you that I support ideas and policies you find repugnant. But it’s a cop-out to write off my arguments as expressions of bad faith, just as it would be a cop-out for me to make that judgement about you. The uncomfortable truth is that reasonable people of good faith can come to drastically different conclusions about the choices our country should make. That’s why it’s important to have debate, grounded in facts and logic and argument. Name-calling (“You’re a damned Progressive”) doesn’t get anyone anywhere.
Except that you are convinced that you are correct. I have never seen you change your mind about anything even though the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.
And that is because it is hard to argue with someone who is gaming the system. No amount of rationale will ever convince you that you are wrong because your belly and your pocketbook rely on self deception. You are like the welfare mother who votes for Obama to keep the dollars rolling in. No matter what else they argue, they cannot be believed.
If you really cared about the fate of the country you’d be terrified of our national debt and our entitlement programs. But you blithely ignore any arguments about those factors that people have thrown your way. Sure, we can argue about defense, about education, about other things, but we should all agree that the debt and entitlement spending is a problem. You don’t. A crack addict cannot say they care about the future until they get off of crack.
So, no. You don’t care about our future.
And yes, calling you a damned Progressive does get us somewhere. Look at what the progressives have pushed for the past 100 years and there is Jim.
You can call me a damned Libertarian and that is fine. I’m not ashamed of the moniker.
I have never seen you change your mind
And I don’t recall you changing yours. But you could, and I could.
You are like the welfare mother who votes for Obama to keep the dollars rolling in. No matter what else they argue, they cannot be believed.
I think you’re mistaken about my motivations; I support tax policies that would cost me money. But that aside, your argument that we should ignore anyone with any personal interest in a policy proves way too much. Should homeowners be ignored when we debate the mortgage interest deduction? Should parents and grandparents be ignored when education spending is the topic? Businessmen when regulation is on the agenda? A system of government that excluded the views of all interested parties would be no system at all.
Secondly, I think your comment shows a regrettable disdain for your fellow citizens who receive public assistance. A mother on welfare is every bit as much an American as you are, and her views are just as valid and legitimate as yours. An approach that starts by deciding which of your fellow Americans you will write off as unworthy of consideration is a very noxious one.
If you really cared about the fate of the country you’d be terrified of our national debt and our entitlement programs.
I believe this is an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy. The fact is, there is no contradiction between caring about the fate of our country and not being terrified of our national debt and entitlement programs. Once upon a time, in the 80s, I shared your worry about our debt and entitlement spending. But the long-forecast debt apocalypse kept failing to materialize, and the more I read on the subject the more convinced I became that my fears had been exaggerated. Instead, it seems to me that debt serves as a placeholder for other economic fears. When the economy is terrible, as in 2010, the debt is a convenient scapegoat for everything that is going wrong. The debt has faded from political rhetoric since 2010, even as the debt itself has grown, because the economy in general is doing better. The irony is that the recovery would have come quicker, and been stronger, if we had been less concerned about the debt, so by worrying about the wrong thing we made the actual problem worse (IMO).
we should all agree that the debt and entitlement spending is a problem
No, we should believe it’s a problem if we think there’s good evidence for believing that. We aren’t members of the “debt and entitlement spending is a problem” church, in which everyone has to swear to upload the anti-debt creed. Insisting that everyone who doesn’t agree with one of your cherished beliefs doesn’t care about the country is just a way to avoid having to defend those beliefs.
calling you a damned Progressive does get us somewhere
Your thought process seems to be: Progressive ideas are bad, and I agree with Progressive ideas, therefore I am bad. But in reality I only agree with some Progressive ideas, and not all Progressive ideas are bad (I’m guessing even you agree with some of them, e.g. female suffrage). So what have you accomplished by inaccurately calling me a Progressive?
There is more scrutiny at the national level because that’s where the major influence is. Silly person.