Solyndra: Bankrupt Solar Company A Republican Problem, Not Just Obama's
WASHINGTON -- Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee jumps on the Republican bandwagon accusing the White House of cronyism in backing a now-bankrupt solar firm Solyndra with stimulus dollars, it might consider the GOP origins of the deal.
Solyndra, which got $535 million in federally-backed stimulus act loans and was heavily touted by the Obama administration, abruptly declared bankruptcy late last month, then was raided by the FBI.
But the explanation is likely to include a history lesson that goes back to the GOP.
That's because Solyndra first came into the picture during the Bush administration, when it was one of just 16 firms found eligible for several billion dollars available in the Energy Policy Act of 2005's guaranteed loan program.
And more, the Energy Policy Act, which the Bush administration used to promote Solyndra, was passed by the same committee under the leadership of Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas).
One Democrat noted that while the GOP has been having a field day with the involvement of an Obama bundler, another major investor in a similar position is Madrone Capital Partners, run by Walmart's Walton family -- major GOP donors.
Further, the Bush administration nearly pushed a guaranteed loan through for Solyndra the day before Obama took office, ThinkProgress reported.
As long as we can all agree that picking companies to pump up regardless of demand or economic viabilty is a waste of taxpayer money...we may actually afgree on something.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
The money backing up the loan came from Obama's stimulus bill (as even stated in the article). No money came from the Bush administration and the article makes no claims about how much, if any would of come anyway.
The biased nature of your article is clear when it goes after a PRIVATE investement group that involved Sam Walton. What's that got to do with the main issue, other than thowing in Sam Walton's name which has nothing to do with the subject? The issue is should the federal government get involved in risky investments in the private sector. There is no issue at all with a private venture capital group making such investments since that happens all the time. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. But when our government loses over $500 million (a huge investment for a private group) and the president of the US himself visits the place to tout it just a year before it goes bankrupt, shouldn't that be noticed by us taxpayers? It's tough to blow $500 million in just a year...
pineinthegrass wrote: Nice try from a biased site but...
The money backing up the loan came from Obama's stimulus bill (as even stated in the article). No money came from the Bush administration and the article makes no claims about how much, if any would of come anyway.
The biased nature of your article is clear when it goes after a PRIVATE investement group that involved Sam Walton. What's that got to do with the main issue, other than thowing in Sam Walton's name which has nothing to do with the subject? The issue is should the federal government get involved in risky investments in the private sector. There is no issue at all with a private venture capital group making such investments since that happens all the time. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. But when our government loses over $500 million (a huge investment for a private group) and the president of the US himself visits the place to tout it just a year before it goes bankrupt, shouldn't that be noticed by us taxpayers? It's tough to blow $500 million in just a year..
The spinstress's determination to mitigate the negative light shining on the current administration are admirable. Deflection from the core issues are her specialty and she's good enough at it to warrant a job with the current Obama administration.
Our lesson is that government (D or R) ought to stay the hell out of private business. If business fails or does not make it, then it's on their back and a clear indication they are not competitive or have a sound operational or business plan. It's this kind of don't care attitude that makes businesses better.
Rockdoc Franz wrote: The spinstress's determination to mitigate the negative light shining on the current administration are admirable. Deflection from the core issues are her specialty and she's good enough at it to warrant a job with the current Obama administration.
Our lesson is that government (D or R) ought to stay the hell out of private business. If business fails or does not make it, then it's on their back and a clear indication they are not competitive or have a sound operational or business plan. It's this kind of don't care attitude that makes businesses better.
If today's administration promoted an economic environment that was friendly to the business community we would have new jobs, instead Barry is proposing to increase taxes on those who have the ability to create new jobs and making the economic environment worse. Telling big corporations and wealthy individuals that they will bear the brunt of the new jobs plan in the form of more taxes and additional regulations only drives potential employers to look overseas for cheaper labor.
Keep on taxing and spending Barry, the piggy bank is empty and no nation is going to keep loaning the USA money as long as the current administration continues to demonstrate that they are committed to spending every buck they can get their hands on no matter the logical outcome of our current administration's fiscal irresponsibility.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department's credit committee made a unanimous decision not to offer a loan commitment to Solyndra.
Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of "a major outstanding issue" -- namely, that Solyndra's numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011.
There was also concern about the high-risk nature of the project. Internally, the Office of Management and Budget wrote that "the risk rating for the project sponsor [Solyndra] … seems high." Outside analysts had warned for months that the company might not be a sound investment.
Peter Lynch, a New York-based solar energy analyst, told ABC News it took only a cursory glance through Solyndra's prospectus to see there was a problem with their numbers.
"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," Lynch said. "Those numbers don't generally work. You don't want to lose three dollars for every unit you make."
:thumbsup: 
