That great sucking sound
Attempting once again to pick “winners,” President Obama's latest green initiative — $2 billion to fund research into electric cars and biofuels — is destined to be a loser.
So few presidents can chalk up so many policy failures premised on nothing more than their own failed policies.
The innovator in chief proposes using federal oil- and gas-lease revenue to underwrite $200 million a year in research. Weaning America off gasoline is “the only way to break this cycle of spiking gas prices,” Mr. Obama says.
We suppose domestic development of what's right under his feet is out of the question. Which brings into question where the government is going to come up with the scratch to pay for this research, given an administration that's absurdly slow to permit and drill.
And never mind Team Obama's previous adventures in crony capitalism, for which the future hasn't been “green.” It's been black.
Based on figures compiled by The Heritage Foundation, about $80 billion of the 2009 “stimulus” went to mostly politically preferred energy projects. By the end of last year, about 30 recipients of the government's green were in trouble. Waste, fraud and abuse have led to 1,900 criminal investigations — and about 600 convictions.
Sucking more capital out of the economy won't advance research or technology. It will only expand the intolerable list of government-funded energy fiascoes.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.