A better use of taxpayer dollars
Much of the money spent on economic development incentives would be better invested in public schools.
Presidential candidates spent most of this year promising to create more jobs, and they’re not the only ones feeling the pressure. Governors, mayors and county supervisors are all desperate to land the next big manufacturing plant or corporate headquarters, allowing business executives to encourage bidding wars and juice up economic development packages.
December 6, 2012 - 8:01 AM
I am rather stunned to see that no one has really been tracking this and verifying that the incentives, money, abatement, additional infrastructure etc from taxpayers was money well spent. It seems beyond bad stewardship. Everyone concentrates on what happens at the national level (and that is an eyeful) but since we so often keep sending the same people (or party) to the Capitol to do our business, we need to pay attention at every level and start holding people accountable. Everyone talks about it, but they only want the folks they disagree with to be held accountable in the end.
I truly believe this is malfeasance.
Sandi
“incentives”
The word you are looking for is “bribe”.
In case you missed it, New York Times reporter Louise Story was a guest on Fresh Air yesterday. The conversation regarding incentives to Hollywood is particularly repulsive.
Thanks for the link, it is “repulsive” on several levels and the ones that take the goodies and run are the worst. I am not saying it is never worthwhile but when your governor spends time going all over the country recruiting businesses and wooing them with taxpayer money, we are doing an awful lot of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” and circulating money without real accomplishment. It has gotten out of hand.
In the San Francisco area all week on business, drove several times past the empty and For Sale building that used to house Solyndra, a reminder of bribes and political patronage at work, and the effect thereof.
Yes, everyone not living under a rock has heard of Solyndra. Would to God it was the one-off, never happened before.
So what’s your point?
My point is that what you are calling “bribes and political patronage at work, and the effect thereof“, as the commentary here and the investigation of the NYT Reporter have shown, is not the point, not the story and not even really fair.
“Critics have seized on the news of Solyndra’s bankruptcy to condemn the Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program, which provided a $535 million loan guarantee in 2009. The National Review’s Greg Pollowitz writes that Solyndra’s failure shows “why the government should not play venture capitalist.” Yet the fact is that, when judged by its entire diverse portfolio of investments, the LGP has performed remarkably well. Indeed, with a capitalization of just $4 billion, DOE has committed or closed $37.8 billion in loan guarantees for 36 innovative clean energy projects. The Solyndra case represents less than 2% of total loan commitments made by DOE, and will be easily covered by a capitalization of eight to ten times larger than any ultimate losses expected following the bankruptcy proceedings.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2011/09/02/solyndras-failure-is-no-reason-to-abandon-federal-energy-innovation-policy/
It is the way innovation is nurtured and it is worth the investment, even if we hit a few stinkers along the way.
The boons talked about in the commentary and the NYT Reports are not for energy expansion/independence, innovations or real progress as often as they are “feel good” and “photo op” subsidies to established, profitable businesses. Moving jobs from state a to state b does not “create jobs”.
Do you really not see a difference?
So engaging in business ventures that are deemed risky by many observers, pushing questionable technology, reaping the political and photo-op benefits thereof (none of which is constitutional, by the way, even if successful) is okay a long a intentions are good. The$700B loss is acceptable then. I get it.
No, it is quite clear you do not “get it”. This is not about intentions. It is about the simple fact that few businesses will undertake “ventures that are deemed risky” or pursue technology, energy or innovation without some level of investment by others. The United States (we), have a very real stake in better, cleaner, more efficient energy sources and the track record is clear that when it does work, it is a win/win. But there will be failures. That is also the risk.
At least, although more for political gain than research, we have the federal grants, loan guarantees, incentives and abatement on the record and the results verified. The state and local largess has no such accountability, which is what this thread is actually about.
Do you EVER miss an opportunity to decry the federal government? Did you think the Rural Electrification Administration was a waste of taxpayer money?
#10 Sorry Mrs. Saunders but (IMO) you’ve been duped. Not only was the Solyndra “investment” (and others) strictly the capitalist cronyism you claim to detest….but it was literally a kick-back for political support & donations.
Also political patronism as to the “greenies”, photo-op, etc.
In addition the laws in place were circumvented to leave the tax-payer holding the bag.
IMO, you’re POV here is strictly partisan.
#11 – “IMO, you’re POV here is strictly partisan.”
Gee, ya think?
Sandi, I pass on MANY opportunities to decry the federal government (they make it so easy…).
You have no idea how much I restrain myself.
I can only imagine 89Hoo, but thanks for that knowledge.
While I appreciate what I am certain is your genuine concern Jim Lucas, it is not me that has been “duped” on Solyndra that I can tell. My “POV here is strictly” from research of several sources in addition to the one listed above from Forbes:
Quit the outrage over Solyndra
Massive Obama scandal? There’s no there there
“Bush aides had given so many assurances to Solyndra’s CEO that they apologized.
Solyndra was not some fly-by-night operation; it was once the toast of Silicon Valley. It had raised $1 billion from elite investors — not just George Kaiser, an Obama bundler, but the Waltons of Wal-Mart fame, Republican donors and the British mogul Richard Branson.”
IMO, it is not me that is too “strictly partisan” to see the truth or reality on this issue.
Pennies to Clean Energy, Billions to Big Oil — Mainstream Media Missing the Real Story on Solyndra
“It is no wonder then, that handed a loan that was pennies by comparison to what the fossil fuel industry receives in subsidies and tax breaks on an annual basis from the government, Solyndra was bound to fail. The Chinese government, for one, recently handed $20 billion to solar panel corporations.”
Solyndra’s collapse is a tale of too much dazzle
Investors were convinced that the solar company was the harbinger of an alternative-energy boom. But the market changed too swiftly.
“Solyndra appeared to be well-positioned to compete and succeed in the global marketplace,” said LaVera, whose agency ultimately turned Solyndra down for a second loan guarantee, worth $469 million.
He noted that revenue increased 40% from 2009, to $140 million last year, but acknowledged that the growth was far below prior company projections. “The reason they went bankrupt is the changes in the solar market.”
Despite what you consider my being “duped” over, Solyndra was a successful idea and many backers who believed in it, in two different administrations. You can believe it was only some sort of political favor as you like. It is well known that the “green companies” are going to be friends to Dems who support this American solution to an American problem. And I hope we continue to pursue the ideals of energy alternatives.
Yes, Sandi, investors – Uncle Sam and others – misread the solar energy market, a case of being bedazzled by false projections and promises. This happens all the time…
…of course, Uncle Sam guaranteeing half a billion dollars in loans (from your third link) added immensely to that irrational exuberance and increased the risk for everyone…
…of course, unlike private investors, Uncle plays with taxpayer dollars.
Which is the reason centrally managed economies inevitably fail. There is no way the national government can possibly know the value that individuals place on specific products or services. Even attempting to influence that with taxpayer money ultimately falls, and Solyndra is a prime example.
#14 Can play dueling webb trolling all day:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-administration-solyndra/story?id=13640783
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/17/solyndra-yes-it-was-possible-to-see-this-failure-coming/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-12/obama-team-backed-535-million-solyndra-aid-as-auditor-warned-on-finances.html
Many more.
As to; “Despite what you consider my being “duped” over, Solyndra was a successful idea and many backers who believed in it, in two different administrations.”
Great differences in degree. As to “successful idea” how do you define failure?
I do not define failure or success. of a program or a government based only on their mistakes.
Again from my link above: “ Matt Rogers, the Obama administration official who took over the loan program, says he never felt an iota of political pressure to approve Solyndra. Republicans later subpoenaed 300,000 pages of administration documents, and they never found any evidence of politics behind the decision to award the loan.
Solyndra built its factory on time and on budget, which helped reduce the cost of its panels. Its revenues soared, as it attracted customers like Frito-Lay.
But silicon got unexpectedly cheap, so Solyndra’s financials evoked the old joke about losing money on every sale and trying to make it up on volume. The company also made some strategic mistakes and ran out of cash before a new management team could turn things around. Eventually, the Energy Department withdrew its lifeline.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/quit-outrage-solyndra-article-1.1154467#ixzz2EVEnTnOF
“Solyndra has received a vast amount of media attention since the beginning of September, but very few outlets have conveyed the real story – that the fossil fuel industry receives billions of dollars in government subsidies on an annual basis, and leaves solar and other renewables manufacturers far and away in the dust.
According to a March 2011 story by the Christian Science Monitor, gas and oil interests receive a steep $41 billion per year in subsidies. Also, according to a July 2010 article in the New York Times, the fossil fuel industry at-large benefits from tens of billions of dollars in government subsidies on an annual basis.”
Desmogblog (http://s.tt/19Bkv)
Obama and government haters have blown this Solyndra mistake (and others) out of all proportion for bitter political reasons that have nothing to do with sound arguments and everything to do with hate and division. Even a simple mind should be able to see millions for new energy measured against billions for already profitable energy is the real problem. But it is so much easier to screech “Solyndra” while pointing a finger.
Do better trolling then Jim Lucas. Your first link is from May 2011 before the investigation of the deal was complete. As I linked to above. The investigation did not confirm all the right wing fear and paranoia.
Your second link is nit-picking but debatable. However the fact remains that “The loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio.” But far be it from me to question “a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, a writer here and there on this and that and strangely, one of the global experts on the metal scandium, one of the rare earths.“!
Your third link is also bemoaning all the bad to be found before the investigation was finished…and did not find that “bad”. “After over a year of investigations, many thousands of pages of documents, testimony from dozens of people, a half-dozen hearing, there’s … nothing.”
http://grist.org/politics/house-republican-accidentally-tells-truth-about-solyndra-investigation/
“What are the results of this expansive (and no doubt expensive) investigation?
Bupkis. Nothing.”
http://grist.org/politics/one-year-in-gop-solyndra-investigation-remains-a-gigantic-nothingburger/
“After spending the last year investigating the scandal-free DOE Loan Guarantee Program, House Republicans have thrown in the towel.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/30/455853/after-failed-solyndra-investigation-gop-leaders-want-an-even-more-absurd-investigation-of-clean-energy-grants/
Who’s “webb”?
#17 & 18 Nice try but no banana. Even though my point was one can find sites to support any position by trolling on the net, having picked the first three they all fall well within, toward the end of, a stone-walled investigation.
The investigation began mid-Feb 2011 & ended aprox a year later.
The sites I (more or less by chance) produced report on the ongoing investigation at (then) real time.
Like F&F the Obama admin stonewalled it’s way through to a non-conclusive official result.
If you cannot distinguish between the political inability to (what?) a sitting president & the fact that Solyndra was as I described in my #11, then like I said….IMO, duped or blind partisan.
I’ll take an inadvertant “webb” over a purposeful “successful”.
Please explain how Solyndra was “successful”. Maybe Santa can bring me an applicable spell-checker. What’s on your list?