Solyndra spent about two million on lobbying for a half a billion in loan guarantees. And the money went to Democrats. Your money. Your involuntary campaign donation.
This is a perfect example of why the government shouldn’t be in the business of helping business. It’s an inherently corrupting process.
[Update a few minutes later]
Solyndra, the logical end point of Obamanomics:
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.
Note how Goldman Sachs is always involved, as well. I would hope that Obamanomics has been thoroughly discredited by now. But based on the continuing defense of some commenters here, probably not.
[Update a couple minutes later]
A doomed quest:
President Obama’s campaign tour for another half-trillion-dollar stimulus will not work for a number of reasons, and one of them is terrible timing. As he tries once again to assure the public that government agencies can take borrowed money and translate it into shovel-ready jobs, four facts drown out the effort. The Solyndra bankruptcy disaster is a sort of open-sore advertisement not to do these things. The special elections in New York and Nevada suggest that the voters are not receptive to the idea that more federal debt means more private sector jobs. The European meltdown daily shows the world the terrible wages of massive public debt. And the current Republican primary campaigning is reminding the public that nearly $5 trillion in borrowed money between 2009 and 2011 was an abject failure. Consequently, the vocabulary of that misguided effort — euphemisms like “stimulus,” “shovel-ready,” “investments,” and “infrastructure” — now provokes laughter rather than applause.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that it’s going to take many painful years to undo the damage that all of these big spenders, Republicans and Democrats alike, have done to the economy.
[Update early afternoon]
The myth of nonpartisan civil service:
…this career civil servant is concerned that a default coinciding “with the 2012 campaign season” could hurt the president’s reelection effort. That is his biggest worry, not what is in the best financial interests of the American people. As Lachlan Markay writes over at the Heritage Foundation, “The Administration was essentially letting the 2012 campaign dictate decisions on the federal government’s financial involvement with Solyndra. They were not responding to normal profit-and-loss signals.”
Which is why the government shouldn’t be making these decisions.
“. . . should be . . .” or shouldn’t be?
Lobbying and “campaign contributions” are a legal form of bribery. Companies do it because the return on investment is often very high.
Why Rand, do you think those construction companies that stand to earn millions in Obama’s job’s bill is passed would donate thousands to the Democrats? Maybe they already have?
Yes, just look at the money that Elon has gotten from supporting Democrats.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60259.html
Was that supposed to be a joke?
“People think Obama is my best friend. If he has been my best friend, he sure hasn’t been very good at helping me out…”
Most of the money that SpaceX has gotten came from the Bush administration, when COTS was awarded. And it was money in return for an actual service provided, not a loan guarantee. So far, NASA has gotten excellent value for the SpaceX dollar, compared to all the money that has gone to ATK, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc.
Musk’s Tesla car company has received a lot of money from the government. SpaceX, not so much.
When looking at the contributions of companies to politicians you will often see (at least from the smart ones) that they give money to both parties with maybe a little more to whatever party is currently in power.
This might explain the bi-partisan support for the SLS.
The green industry might be making a fatal error by mainly supporting Democrats.
IIRC, Goldman Sachs was one of the middle men used in QE2 to buyback bonds for the fed.
Clean house. The corruption is so deep it can never be rooted out, but we’ve got to do what we can.
Ken,
I agree. Firms who contribute money, or have senior executives contribute should be prohibited from receiving federal contracts or loans for five years.
Yes, and government employees should not be allowed to vote.
Firms who contribute money, or have senior executives contribute should be prohibited from receiving federal contracts or loans for five years.
The Roberts court would strike that down as a violation of free speech.
Yes, and government employees should not be allowed to vote.
An inverse-Starship Troopers law? 🙂 That’d be struck down too, if it ever passed.
I’m surprised; usually the concern about money in politics is concentrated on the left, and efforts to do anything about it are dismissed as do-gooder nonsense and/or the death of freedom (see: McCain-Feingold).
Which is why the government shouldn’t be making these decisions.
How exactly does the government of a superpower avoid making billion dollar spending decisions? There is always going to be lots of money to be made from government favoritism of one sort or another. Clean energy loans are small potatoes compared to defense and homeland security contracts.
I’m surprised; usually the concern about money in politics is concentrated on the left,
This isn’t concern about money in politics; it’s concern about the role of government.
How exactly does the government of a superpower avoid making billion dollar spending decisions?
By not making loan guarantees or giving handouts to politically favored companies.
“An inverse-Starship Troopers law? 🙂 That’d be struck down too, if it ever passed.”
Unless the SCOTUS realized it was sarcasm…
“Unless the SCOTUS realized it was sarcasm…”
That would be pretty awesome if the SCOTUS let the law stand on the basis of sarcasm.
“I’m surprised; usually the concern about money in politics is concentrated on the left”
From what I can tell, the left is only concerned about money that supports conservatives in politics. They have no problem with businesses and other organizations giving money to Democrats.
Jim,
It would be an interesting test case. But the restriction is not on the executives giving, but on their firms receiving government contracts. Given that the government already uses factors like race, gender, business size in awarding contracts one could make an argument this is simply another procurement regulation.
How exactly does the government of a superpower avoid making billion dollar spending decisions?
Wow. This statement provides a ton of insight.
You avoid making billion dollar spending decisions by not spending. This does not mean not making any decisions (just to short circuit that strawman.)
In other words, reduce the size and scope of govt. Amazing how blind you are of your own thoughts.