Obamanomics: Exposed again
Solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing last week left taxpayers on the hook for more than half-a-billion dollars in federal loan guarantees and put 1,100 out of work. And it's the latest case study in the predictable failure of Obamanomics -- a "green" beneficiary of crony capitalism, unviable even when subsidized by a government trying to pick winners.
Touted and visited by the president, Solyndra received those loan guarantees in 2009 from an Obama administration that ignored such red flags as Solyndra's own accountants warning it was in dire financial straits.
The Department of Energy ignored taxpayer-protecting guidelines to grant the loan guarantees. And among Solyndra investors who benefited was Oklahoma billionaire and major Obama-Biden campaign "bundler" George Kaiser.
"We smelled a rat from the onset," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., in a joint statement reacting to Solyndra's bankruptcy.
Investigating the loan guarantees, last winter they subpoenaed related White House Office of Management and Budget documents. The White House has been stonewalling for seven months. There can be little wonder why.
The essence of Obamanomics long has been its manifest unsustainability. (Think of the abysmal August jobs report.) But this case raises the specter of criminality being part and parcel to it as well.
Show commenting policy
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 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.