Showing posts with label scandal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scandal. Show all posts

The Obama administration restructures loan to Solyndra even after financial problems became clear

This isn't the first time that this claim has become clear, but it is getting more attention. From the Associated Press:

The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama — moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show.

Administration officials defended the loan restructuring, saying that without an infusion of cash earlier this year, solar panel maker Solyndra Inc. would likely have faced immediate bankruptcy, putting more than 1,000 people out of work.

Even with the federal help, Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month and laid off its 1,100 employees. . . .




House Energy and Commerce Hearing on Solyndra, questions from Congressman Pompeo


When the congressman is asking about DOE recommending about restructuring the loan so that the firm was liquidated, I wish that I could have asked why DOE wanted this given that the company was not covering its costs and had no prospects of doing so in the foreseeable future.
Did Obama administration pressure General to testify in way that would help big Obama donor?

Did Obama administration pressure General to testify in way that would help big Obama donor?

More evidence that the Obama administration has been using the Stimulus to favor donors. The damage caused by this program is available here.

Gen. William Shelton, head of the Air Force Space Command, told House members in a classified briefing earlier this month that he was pressured to change prepared congressional testimony in a way that would favor a large company funded by Philip Falcone, a major Democratic donor, congressional sources told Fox News.
Republicans have raised questions about whether the project pursued by the company, LightSquared, is being unduly expedited by the Obama administration, which has pushed for national wireless network upgrades.
The Virginia-based satellite and broadband communications company has plans to build a nationwide, next-generation, 4G phone network that many, including Shelton, think would seriously hinder the effectiveness of high-precision GPS receiver systems, a product used most commonly by the United States military.
A source familiar with the technology told Fox News that the LightSquared spectrum would be 5 billion times stronger than the military's GPS system, rendering the military's system almost useless.
"Imagine trying to have a telephone conversation while your neighbors are hosting a rock concert," the source told Fox News. "That’s the situation the military is facing."
Shelton, in testimony Thursday before a House Armed Services subcommittee, refused to suggest that interference problems could be mitigated, as he allegedly was being pressured to say. . . .


UPDATE: Second witness now alleges that the Obama administration tried to get him to change his testimony.

LightSquared, a wireless network backed by billionaire Democratic donor Philip Falcone, could beam broadband Internet everywhere—but some military officials fear it could interfere with critical GPS signals. Now, as The Daily Beast's Eli Lake exclusively reports, two U.S. officials allege the White House tried to influence their testimony to rush key testing, to LightSquare's benefit.
A second government official has come forward saying the White House tried to influence his testimony concerning a wireless broadband project backed by a Democratic donor that military officials fear might impair sensitive satellite navigation systems.
Anthony Russo, director of the National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing, told The Daily Beast he rejected “guidance” from the White House’s Office of Budget and Management suggesting he tell Congress that the government’s concerns about the project by the firm LightSquared could be resolved in 90 days, a timetable favorable to the company’s plans.
“They gave that to me and presumably the other witnesses,” Russo said. “There is one sentence I disagreed with, which said that I thought the testing could be resolved in 90 days. So I took it out.”
Russo said he objected to that language because “I have low confidence that we can complete all of the testing in 90 days.” He estimated that such testing would take at least six months. Russo called the White House efforts to alter his testimony “guidance rather than pressure.”
Russo’s comments come just days after four-star Air Force Gen. William Shelton, who heads U.S. Space Command, told Congress in a classified briefing that he felt pressured by the White House to change his testimony about the same project to make it more favorable to the company. . . .
UPDATE on Solyndra, More evidence Obama administration knew of financial problems while giving company more money

UPDATE on Solyndra, More evidence Obama administration knew of financial problems while giving company more money

The Obama administration knew that "giving more taxpayer money to Solyndra was risky."

A White House official fretted privately that the Obama administration could suffer serious political damage if it gave additional taxpayer support to the beleaguered solar-panel company Solyndra, according to newly released e-mails.

The firm had burned through millions of dollars and in January still tottered near collapse. The official wanted the government’s top budget official to warn Obama’s energy secretary about the risk, according to the e-mails.

At the time, the Energy Department was trying to pump taxpayer money into the California company to save it from imminent failure. The firm had received a $535 million federal loan from the agency in 2009, but early this year confided to the Obama administration that without a rapid infusion of cash it was in danger of defaulting.

“The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad,” the Office of Management and Budget staff member wrote Jan. 31 in an e-mail to a co-worker. “If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will be arguably worse later than they would be today. . . . In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”

The e-mail suggests that, as the Energy Department pushed to release an additional $67 million in installments of the loan to Solyndra, the OMB was not participating in the decision about whether to help the company. OMB staff had been in charge of assessing the default risk of firms that received Energy Department loan guarantees. . . .


Solyndra had apparently lots of money to spend on lobbying the government

According to records filed with the Clerk of the House and a search of disclosure forms compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Solyndra spent nearly $1.9 million on lobbying activities over a period of 43 months from 2008 to 2011.

About $1 million of that was earned by the company's two in-house lobbyists, Joseph Pasetti and Victoria Sanville, over an 18-month period from 2010 until this year. But Solyndra has also had several big-name lobbying shops on its payroll, including established powerhouses Dutko Worldwide and Holland and Knight, which began representing the then-fledgling company in 2008.

While Holland and Knight helped the company with renewable energy tax credit issues, Dutko was brought aboard, according to its filings, to "identify decisionmakers and to assist with the client's loan application" through the Department of Energy.

It is that DOE loan that has touched off an outcry on Capitol Hill and has singed the Obama administration, just as President Obama campaigns across the country for his new jobs plan and Republicans look to scale back clean energy and environmental programs. . . .


Solyndra officials apparently very strongly pressed the Bush administration for a loan and they were angry that it was turned down.

On Jan. 12, 2009, Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet sent an Energy Department official an email marked "urgent" expressing outrage that Bush officials had decided a few days earlier that while the loan application had "merit" it needed further study before officials could move forward with a taxpayer-financed loan.
"I was appalled to learn on Friday that our application is being delayed yet again," Gronet wrote to Energy official Steve Isakowitz, writing there had been "countless communications" back and forth suggesting the application would be reviewed Jan. 15. . . .


Democrats' defense is: 1) that the half a billion dollars is just a "tiny fraction" of the $19 billion handed out so far and 2) the government gives loan guarantees to other businesses (nuclear power). Given that this money is in investments that no one would make without government subsidies, everything here is a loss. It isn't clear why the government should be in the loan business at all. I suppose that the argument for nuclear power loan guarantees is that it is too offset some bad regulatory costs, but the most direct thing is to eliminate the bad regulations.
Obama green-tech programs spends $5.4 million per job "created"

Obama green-tech programs spends $5.4 million per job "created"

Let us ignore that this money would have gone someplace else and would have created jobs there. $19 billion to "create" 3,545 jobs comes to about $5.4 million per job. The Washington Post writes:

A $38.6 billion loan guarantee program that the Obama administration promised would create or save 65,000 jobs has created just a few thousand jobs two years after it began, government records show.

The program — designed to jump-start the nation’s clean technology industry by giving energy companies access to low-cost, government-backed loans — has directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after giving out almost half the allocated amount, according to Energy Department tallies.

President Obama has made “green jobs” a showcase of his recovery plan, vowing to foster new jobs, new technologies and more competitive American industries. But the loan guarantee program came under scrutiny Wednesday from Republicans and Democrats at a House oversight committee hearing about the collapse of Solyndra, a solar-panel maker whose closure could leave taxpayers on the hook for as much as $527 million. . . .

President Obama has made “green jobs” a showcase of his recovery plan, vowing to foster new jobs, new technologies and more competitive American industries. But the loan guarantee program came under scrutiny Wednesday from Republicans and Democrats at a House oversight committee hearing about the collapse of Solyndra, a solar-panel maker whose closure could leave taxpayers on the hook for as much as $527 million. . . .
Despite Solyndra problems, Obama administration rushing through new loan guarantees

Despite Solyndra problems, Obama administration rushing through new loan guarantees

If solar energy products can be produced more cheaply in other countries, why does that justify even greater government subsidies here? Despite the Solyndra scandal, "Obama administration doubling down" on these government loans. From The Hill newspaper:

The Energy Department (DOE) is not backing down in its efforts to support clean energy companies, despite a Republican push to pummel the Obama administration for approving a $535 million loan guarantee to a now-bankrupt solar firm.

The department could approve as many as 15 renewable energy loan guarantees by the end of the month when a program launched under the stimulus law ends. . . .

To date, the DOE has finalized 17 loan guarantees for a range of solar, wind and geothermal projects. The department has issued 15 conditional commitments that must be finalized by Sept. 30.

The department, for example, finalized an $852 million loan guarantee for a NextEra Energy solar project in California last month. . . .

But the administration has pushed back on the allegations in recent days. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that the emails were a “scheduling matter” and were not intended to put additional pressure on officials to finalize the loan.

Meanwhile, the Energy Department is arguing that the Solyndra debacle shows that the United States must double down on its investments in clean energy to compete with countries like China, which has invested billions in solar energy. . . .


On the list of bad government investments, how could one not include GM and Chrysler? Solyndra was the first company to get a government loan guarantee, but there are also other alternative energy companies:

At least four other companies have received stimulus funding only to later file for bankruptcy, and two of those were working on alternative energy.
Evergreen Solar Inc., indirectly received $5.3 million through a state grant to open a $450 million facility in 2007 that employed roughly 800 people. The company, once a rock star in the solar industry, filed for bankruptcy protection last month, saying it couldn't compete with Chinese rivals without reorganizing. The company intends to focus on building up its manufacturing facility in China.
SpectraWatt, based in Hopewell Junction, N.Y., is also a solar cell company that was spun out of Intel in 2008. In June 2009, SpectraWatt received a $500,000 grant from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as part of the stimulus package. SpectraWatt was one of 13 companies to receive the money to help develop ways to improve solar cells without changing current manufacturing processes.
The company filed for bankruptcy last month, saying it could not compete with its Chinese competitors, which receive "considerable government and financial support." . . .
Another winner of stimulus who ultimately lost is Mountain Plaza Inc. Despite declaring bankruptcy in 2003, the company received $424,000 from the Tennessee Department of Transportation as part of a grant aimed at installing "truck stop electrification" systems that allow idling truckers to plug-in during extended stops and turn off their exhaust-belching, environment polluting diesel engines.
Mountain Plaza had filed for bankruptcy protection again in June 2010. TDOT, which received a $2 million stimulus grant from the Environmental Protection Agency for the project, said it didn't learn about the bankruptcy until October, but it is closely monitoring the project.
Elsewhere, Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills Acquisition Co. also failed despite Olsen's Mills receiving $10 million to increase employment, add equipment and machinery, refinance existing debts and work capital for operations and acquire land. The payout -- part of a $64 million package to nine rural businesses in Wisconsin for economic development loan assistance -- was delivered in January 2010, after Olsen's Mills filed for bankruptcy protection for defaulting on a $60 million bank loan.
Revisiting the Half billion dollar loan Al Gore's car company got to build cars in Finland

Revisiting the Half billion dollar loan Al Gore's car company got to build cars in Finland

Remember this from 2009? Loans rejected by private lenders? Why is the federal government think that it can do a better job of figuring out where the best investments are? Why subsidize cars for the wealth? Why subsidize production in Finland and Britain? Giving money that no private lender would lend to a well connected Democrat? Shades of Solyndra? These just makes it seem as if this stimulus was just a way of funneling money to Democrats. From the WSJ:

A tiny car company backed by former Vice President Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government loan to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000.

The award this week to California startup Fisker Automotive Inc. follows a $465 million government loan to Tesla Motors Inc., purveyors of a $109,000 British-built electric Roadster. Tesla is a California startup focusing on all-electric vehicles, with a number of celebrity endorsements that is backed by investors that have contributed to Democratic campaigns.

The awards to Fisker and Tesla have prompted concern from companies that have had their bids for loans rejected, and criticism from groups that question why vehicles aimed at the wealthiest customers are getting loans subsidized by taxpayers.

"This is not for average Americans," said Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, an anti-tax group in Washington. "This is for people to put something in their driveway that is a conversation piece. It's status symbol thing." . . .


So how has it worked out?

Jim Cramer has this new discussion:

Cramer is bearish on Tesla Motors (TSLA), and he suggests selling if you own it. The California-based Tesla has a P/E ratio of -11.2, and a forward P/E ratio of -13.2, as of the September 12 close. Five-year annualized EPS growth forecast is 20.0%. Tesla pays no dividend yield. . . .


"Avoid the Stock"

The above link shows that this investment just makes no sense.

Something from the beginning of the year:

Tesla Motors is attempting to rapidly expand into the mainstream electric car market but we have concerns with its dependence on lithium. Lithium is believed to have the second smallest accessible metal supply in the world, which stands right above the “rare earth metals” category. Should Tesla be highly successful and sell thousands of its new Model S in conjunction with other large scale electric car competitors there is a real probability that the price of lithium batteries could sky rocket. Given that this is the most expensive part of an electric car this could destroy a profit margin that Tesla doesn’t even have yet. . . .

It’s unbelievable how competition has come out of the woodwork for the electric car space with big names like Ford (F), Toyota (TM), Nissan (NSANY.PK), and more in the line up. . . . If Toyota or other major names find the space unprofitable they can leave it and survive but this isn’t the case for Tesla Motors. Further, big auto names can afford to hang out in this space longer and may even attempt to financially bleed out Tesla Motors. The only hope Tesla Motors has in surviving currently against competition is to start running circles around them in terms of sales numbers. Otherwise it may get squashed like a fly if it stops to take a breather. . . .


Fisker is a privately held company so I can find this type of details on that investment.
Obama: "Pass this bill," "Pass this bill right now"

Obama: "Pass this bill," "Pass this bill right now"



UPDATE for September 8, 2011. The president demands that the bill be passed when he doesn't even yet know what is in it. Valerie Jarrett: No Jobs Bill Yet; "The President Is Going To Draft The Legislation"

Back to post. No discussion about where the money comes from and what jobs are lost because of that. A copy of Obama's speech is available here. From Michael Barone:

He called for further cuts in the payroll tax (which if continued indefinitely would undermine the case of Social Security as something people have earned rather than a form of welfare) and for a further extension of unemployment insurance (perhaps justifiable on humanitarian grounds, but sure to at least marginally raise the unemployment rate over what it would otherwise be). He called for a tax credit for hiring the long-term unemployed (unfortunately, these things can be gamed). He gave a veiled plug for his pet project of high-speed rail (a real dud) and for infrastructure spending generally (but didn’t he learn that there aren’t really any shovel-ready projects?). He called for a school modernization program (will it result in more jobs than the Seattle weatherization program that cost $22 million and produced 14 jobs?) and for funding more teacher jobs (a political payoff to the teacher unions which together with other unions gave Democrats $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle). “We’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it would do for the country.” Yeah, sure. Like the screening process that produced that $535,000,000 loan guarantee to now-bankrupt Solyndra. And Congress should pass the free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. Except that Congress can’t, because Obama hasn’t sent them up there yet in his 961 days as president. . . .


If the administration was serious about paying for the debt, they wouldn't put off the budget cuts for so many years after Obama will no longer be in office. From Politico:

. . . “Is it at the cost of our deficit? Is this another stimulus?” Gene Sperling, one of Obama’s top advisers, was asked on Fox News Friday morning.

“As we said, this is going to be paid for, every single penny,” Sperling answered. “Those of us who work on the president’s economic team have worked at the same time and are working on the details right now on how exactly we will pay for this and still have the additional deficit reduction to hit the commitment of Congress, the congressional bipartisan agreement, and, most importantly, to get our debt stabilized.”

He also added that while Obama’s plan includes asking the rich to pay more, this is “not out of class warfare,” but rather “just to make sure we have a shared sacrifice.” . . .


Dems still pushing for increased taxes. A week from this coming Monday Obama will explain how he is going to raise taxes to pay for his programs.


Temporary tax cuts may cause people to temporarily work harder, but they don’t lead to much investment and the claim is that it doesn't do much for job creation. Government spending doesn't create new wealth. But even if you believe that this creates new spending and jobs, the long lead times involved, infrastructure spending is an odd way to combat a double dip that might be starting right now. Much of the job subsidies often go to companies that would have hired the people anyway. The plurality of the people hired under the last stimulus package already had jobs and, as I have predicted since February 2009, they were just switching from one to another.

Obama administration floods reporters' inboxes after Obama's jobs speech (available here).
"Solar power increasing lead poisoning"

"Solar power increasing lead poisoning"

Solar energy requires that you be able to store the energy for after the sun sets requires batteries. Massive battery production means more dealing with lead, and thus more lead pollution. See an extended discussion here:

Solar power plants stand as major culprits in lead emissions and lead poisoning in India and China, according to a study conducted by a University of Tennessee-Knoxville professor Chris Cherry. Solar plants make significant use of lead batteries. . . .


Link to the Solyndra scandal here.

Government Loan Guarantees are sometimes pretty costly to taxpayers

There is a reason why the private market won't give companies a loan sometimes. Obama gave them $535 million, or $483,363.00 per employee. Of course, we know what a waste of resources solar energy is. From The Hill newspaper.



“Regulatory and policy uncertainties in recent months created significant near-term excess supply and price erosion,” Solyndra's CEO said.



A California-based solar company that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will shut down.



The company, Solyndra Inc., said Wednesday it would suspend its manufacturing operations and lay off 1,100 employees effective immediately. The company said it intends to file a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.



“Regulatory and policy uncertainties in recent months created significant near-term excess supply and price erosion,” Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison said in a statement. “Raising incremental capital in this environment was not possible. This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate.” . . .




UPDATE: More stories on case. From ABC News:



ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity's iWatch News first reported on questions about the choice of Solyndra for the loan in May after the Department of Energy disclosed it was being forced to restructure its loan package for the company, which was showing early signs of financial distress. One of Solyndra's major investors was George Kaiser, an Oklahoma billionaire who raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama during the 2008 election. . . .That's when the Government Accountability Office issued an unusually blunt assessment of the Energy Department's loan program in general, concluding that the department had "treated applicants inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others." The government loan guarantee was supposed to spur 1,000 full-time jobs once Solyndra's solar plant was fully operational. Instead, as the company announced Chapter 11 bankruptcy today, reports surfaced that 1,100 would lose their jobs. . . .




From Fox News:



Solyndra LLC of Fremont, Calif., had become the poster child for government investment in green technology. The president visited the company in May 2010 and noted that Solyndra expected to hire 1,000 workers to manufacture solar panels. Other state and federal officials such as former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Energy Secretary Steven Chu also visited the company's facilities.But hard times have hit the nation's solar industry. Solyndra is the third solar company to seek bankruptcy protection this month. Officials said Wednesday that the global economy as well as unfavorable conditions in the solar industry combined to force the company to suspend its manufacturing operations.The price for solar panels has tanked in part because of heavy competition from Chinese companies, dropping by about 42 percent this year.Republicans have been looking into the Solyndra loan for months. The House Energy and Commerce Committee subpoenaed documents relating to the loan from the White House Office of Management and Budget. GOP Reps. Fred Upton of Michigan and Cliff Stearns of Florida issued a joint statement on Wednesday saying it was clear that Solyndra was a dubious investment."We smelled a rat from the onset," the two lawmakers said.Shortly after the company's announcement, it became clear that the bankruptcy would serve as further ammunition to criticize an economic stimulus bill that provided seed money for solar startups -- even though officials said interest in providing Solyndra with guaranteed government loans was first sought under the Bush administration. . . .




Clearly we must have better ways to spend this Stimulus money. From The Week:



If massive federal spending does actually succeed in permanently creating or saving large numbers of jobs (an assertion which is often long on rhetoric and short on evidence), it must rely on targeting companies based on their ability to compete rather than merely their participation in a political effort like “green energy.” If we are going to saddle our economy with huge new debts in the hope that we can stave off another recession, we really need to be more sure that the investments we make are cost-effective instead of merely politically convenient. The Obama Administration appears to have neglected that imperative the first time around.




Note that Solyndra couldn't get the same loan guarantee from private banks for a very good reason. Read post. This reminds me of how the government interfered with GM's business decisions.



Based on the evidence assembled so far, no Wall Street investment officer would have recommended the loan or, if he had, would have kept his job for five minutes. Pouring $535 million into an objectively lousy investment is not how Wall Street makes money.



But it all too often is how politicians get re-elected. “Green jobs” are a big plus for the “environmental movement,” which is a very important liberal special interest. That backing these particular jobs was also a favor for a very important Obama political fundraiser was another plus.



This is a textbook case of capital being allocated for political reasons (it will earn us votes) instead of economic reasons (it will make us rich). It is also further proof that politicians can’t make economic decisions even if they wanted to. And they can’t make them for the exact same reason pigs can’t fly: they aren’t designed to. . . .




UPDATE: CNBC blames competitive pressure from China. Apparently, even a giant government subsidy can’t change the realities of the global marketplace. As long as American workers are far more expensive and not far more productive than equally qualified workers elsewhere, subsidies and finger-pointing can’t produce increased employment. . . .



EDITORIAL, "Obama’s solar stimulus snafu," Washington Times, Wednesday, August 31, 2011



Founded in 2005, the company manufactured a rooftop solar panel designed chiefly for commercial applications. Solyndra was a poster child of the utopian future envisioned by the Obama administration when oodles of green jobs would relieve the nation's unemployment rate, generate clean energy and help the environment. Energy Secretary Steven Chu rushed through loan guarantees, and money began to flow to Solyndra from the Federal Financing Bank. The terms of the loans, just more than 1 percent interest in most cases, were well below the rates competitors had to pay.Competition in the solar marketplace is stiff, particularly from China, and Solyndra couldn't make a profit. In the spring of 2010, the company spent around $3.5 million promoting an initial public stock offering (IPO) to raise $300 million to retire some of the government debt, but the company couldn't escape an inconvenient truth: In the first three quarters of 2009, it grossed $59 million against production costs of $108 million. Solyndra argued that economies of scale would eventually drive down the red ink, but the investment community wasn't impressed, and the IPO was withdrawn.When government loan guarantees of more than half a billion dollars were secured, Solyndra bragged that its new plant expansion would create 3,000 construction jobs and 1,000 permanent manufacturing positions. On a plant-site visit, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. enthused, "These are jobs that won't be exported." Not so, Joe. After the failure of the IPO attempt, Solyndra sent half its manufacturing to China. . . . .




UPDATE: Another alternative energy scandal.



In June, House Republicans passed the 2012 Homeland Security appropriations bill, which included an amendment adding $1 billion to the Disaster Relief Fund of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In a sensible move for taxpayers, the amendment offsets this new disaster funding by cutting spending on the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. This may ring a bell with readers as the funding conduit for one of Washington's adventures in crony capitalism.



In 2009, the Department of Energy announced that it would loan more than half a billion dollars through this program to a California-based company, Fisker Automotive, to make luxury electric cars. About a month after the loan package was conditionally approved, CEO Henrik Fisker and Joseph Biden appeared in the Vice President's hometown of Wilmington, Delaware to announce that Fisker would now be making some of its cars at the city's old General Motors factory.



At the event, Mr. Biden described many "long talks" he'd had with Mr. Fisker. The Vice President's office later said that Mr. Biden didn't make any direct appeals to Energy before the loan was approved, but Delaware's chief of economic development told the Journal that Mr. Biden was the state's "secret weapon, except there is nothing secret about Joe Biden."



All of this is background to say that the GOP has found the federal program that is arguably the most deserving of a cut to free up funds for disaster victims. But Senate Democrats refuse to pass the House bill and Mr. Cantor has earned their ire this week by continuing to press for cuts in corporate welfare. . . .




UPDATE: More on potential corruption in giving the low interest rate loan to Solyndra.



ABC News discovered that the solar-tech firm Solyndra got unusually low interest rates on its federally-guaranteed loans before it collapsed last month, sending 1000 workers to the unemployment line in California. Other green-tech firms receiving loans paid as much as three and four times the interest rate Solyndra secured for its $535 million from Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill from the Treasury’s Federal Financing Bank. ABC notes that other green-tech firms didn’t have the connections that Solyndra had to Obama:



The $535 million loan to Solyndra Inc., issued by the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Federal Financing Bank, included a quarterly interest rate of 1.025 percent, the government bank reported in July. Of 18 Energy Department loans cited in the bank’s report, Solyndra’s rate was lowest. Eight other Energy Department projects, each also backed by the Federal Financing Bank, came with rates three or four times higher, the report shows.



That treatment is in keeping with the history of the loan to the California solar panel maker, an arrangement inked in September 2009 with great fanfare — and touted, not long after, during a factory visit from the president. Monthly government bank reports filed since then reveal Solyndra’s rate as the lowest for any energy-related project in nearly every report; in every case its rate was well below that of most energy projects, which ranged from cutting-edge electric car makers to wind and solar ventures. …



Solyndra’s most prolific financial backer is George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil billionaire who was a bundler of campaign donations for Obama’s 2008 race. Kaiser’s Argonaut Ventures and its affiliates have been the single largest shareholder of Solyndra, according to SEC filings and other records. The company holds 39 percent of Solyndra’s parent company, bankruptcy records filed Tuesday show.




And guess who gets paid out of the bankruptcy first?



Under terms of the bankruptcy filing, investors including Argonaut — which led a $75 million round of financing for Solyndra earlier this year — will stand in line before the federal government and other creditors.



When Solyndra announced that round of fundraising this February, it noted that the DOE had refinanced terms of the $535 million loan to extend the payment period. Under an “inter-creditor agreement” cited in the bankruptcy filing, the investors in the $75 million financing are considered first lien holders. That leaves Obama officials to confront the prospect of waiting behind private companies.




Don’t think that this happened by accident. Before Obama took office, Solyndra applied for the federally-subsidized green-tech loan, and only scored a B+ from appraisers, which ABC calls a “red flag.” . . .



The White House has to explain why it overruled the FFB’s auditors and ignored the warnings from appraisers while fast-tracking over half a billion dollars to a teetering company at loan rates far below what FFB charged other companies. . . .




UPDATE: Now the FBI has raided the Solyndra offices.



But at the end of 2010 they had privately confided to Energy Department officials that Solyndra was rapidly going broke and on the verge of shutting down, according to newly released records and interviews. Solyndra’s inability to repay its debt leaves taxpayers liable for repaying the loans.



In February, the Energy Department agreed to a refinancing for Solyndra that allowed investors who put in new money to get their funds repaid first — before taxpayers — if the company defaulted on the federal loan.
. . .



Federal agents conducted a day-long search at the California headquarters, removing boxes and copying computer files. They also searched the home of the company’s chief executive, Brian Harrison, according to Solyndra spokesman David Miller.



Miller said he believed the FBI was focusing on the loan guarantee, which also has been the subject of a House subcommittee investigation. . . .




UPDATE: Question: Suppose a business executive tried to have the types of excuses that the government offers here for a bad investment, what would the response be? Would his investors simply say "OK, you didn't anticipate the large government subsidies"? From Fox News:



The testimony came as Republican and Democratic lawmakers raised sharp questions about the decision that ultimately left taxpayers on the hook for millions, and as newly released emails show administration officials were raising doubts about the loan proposal to Solyndra months before it was finalized.



Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., said the program was "shrouded in secrecy and uncertainty," questioning whether the loan represented "one bad bet" or the "tip of the iceberg."

Jeffrey Zients, deputy director of the White House budget office, acknowledged that Solyndra's bankruptcy will "limit the government's recovery of funds." He called the outcome "very unfortunate."

But at a hearing Wednesday, he said administration officials provided a "thorough examination and analysis" of the loan proposal and said a "challenging global solar market" has made business harder for companies like Solyndra. . . .



Silver said Solyndra's projects were considered "advanced" dating back to 2008. "In 2009, Solyndra appeared to be well-positioned to compete and succeed in the global marketplace," Silver said.

But emails released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee show that the relevant credit committee decided "not to engage in further discussions with Solyndra" in the final days of the Bush administration. After the change in administration, officials restarted the loan review process for Solyndra.

"A half a billion dollars that was not supported in January under the Bush administration was ... conditionally recommended in March," Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, pointed out. . . .




From Mary Kissel at the WSJ's Political Diary:



To the annals of extraordinary government spin, add Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman, who just published a short defense of the Obama administration's backing of Treasury's 2009 $535 million loan guarantee to now-failed solar company Solyndra. "Winning will require substantial investments," Mr. Poneman wrote. "Last year, for example, the China Development Bank offered more than $300 billion in financing to Chinese solar manufacturers."



Set aside that if Beijing wants to use its own taxpayer cash to back solar investments, that's an effective subsidy to U.S. consumers of solar panels, which is no bad thing. Mr. Poneman's defense of the Solyndra investment also had the misfortune to land on the same day that the Washington Post revealed more evidence that the White House exerted political pressure on the Office of Management and Budget to approve the loan. In one email, a staffer complained about "rushed approvals" and a lack of sufficient time "to do our due diligence reviews," in direct opposition to Mr. Poneman's claims that the Solyndra deal was prudently vetted.



The administration is trying to play down the Solyndra scandal, with a White House spokesman telling the Post that the loan guarantee was "merit-based." . . .




From Politico:



ABC News reports on newly released emails from the administration from two years ago:



"This deal is NOT ready for prime time," one White House budget analyst wrote in a March 10, 2009 email, nine days before the administration formally announced the loan.



"If you guys think this is a bad idea, I need to unwind the W[est] W[ing] QUICKLY," wrote Ronald A. Klain, who was chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, in another email sent March 7, 2009.




And The Washington Post reports that the administration tried to “rush federal reviews” on the loan so that Biden could make the announcement in September 2009 at a groundbreaking for Solyndra’s new factory:



One e-mail from an OMB official referred to “the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra.” Another complained, “There isn’t time to negotiate.”



“We have ended up with a situation of having to do rushed approvals on a couple of occasions (and we are worried about Solyndra at the end of the week),” one official wrote. That Aug. 31, 2009, message, written by a senior OMB staffer and sent to Terrell P. McSweeny, Biden’s domestic policy adviser, concluded, “We would prefer to have sufficient time to do our due diligence reviews.”




From USA Today:



In March 2010, the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers issued a standard but stern warning about Solyndra, a California solar panel manufacturer: The company wasn't making money and never had, which raised "substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern." Yet when President Obama visited Solyndra's plant in Fremont two months later, he gave a rousing pep talk and declared that "the future is here." . . .

Even if Solyndra's collapse is nothing more than good intentions gone awry — a big if — it is a cautionary tale about why government should be extremely wary about betting tax dollars on specific companies. If there's one thing the marketplace virtually always does better than government, it's picking individual successes in an uncertain and highly competitive business. In fact, government involvement can unfairly tilt the playing field toward one company and away from competitors. . . .




Solyndra employee claims: "Everyone knew that the plant wouldn’t work. But they still did it. They still built it."



Some real economic damage caused by Obama's FCC

Some real economic damage caused by Obama's FCC

This may be a story about how the Obama "Stimulus" program will do many tens of billions of dollars of damage. From the Economist:

The “NextGen” air-traffic control system, which uses GPS satellites to pin-point every plane’s precise position in the sky once a second, plus onboard radios that let each aircraft continually see (and be seen by) all others nearby, is to be rolled out in 2012 and fully implemented by 2022. . . .
. . . due to regulatory haste and shortsightedness, GPS coverage of America could soon go dark in places and become patchy elsewhere. Not only airlines would suffer. There are over 500m GPS receivers in use throughout the United States. Motorists, mobile-phone users, boat-owners, television broadcasters, the police, the armed forces, the emergency services and even farmers would be adversely affected. . . .
The ultimate source of the trouble is a decision made in 2003 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to grant special dispensation to a broadband satellite operator called SkyTerra, allowing it to fill gaps in its coverage by means of ground-based transmitters. SkyTerra’s chunk of spectrum (1,525-1,559 megahertz) abutted a crucial frequency (1,575 megahertz) used by GPS satellites. However, SkyTerra’s signals being mere whispers from space and its few proposed ground stations designed to operate at low power, any threat to GPS was dismissed as highly unlikely.
Everything changed when Harbinger Capital Partners, a New York-based investment firm founded by subprime-mortgage billionaire Philip Falcone, bought SkyTerra in 2010 and renamed it LightSquared. . . .
Mr Falcone quickly persuaded the FCC to rewrite the former SkyTerra licence. Instead of being conditional on offering an internet service primarily by satellite, with ground stations filling in only where satellite coverage was inadequate, the revised licence accepts that the network will rely almost exclusively on terrestrial transmitters.
And not just low-powered ones for serving inner cities. . . .
How this came about is a sorry tale of greed, haste and incompetence. Though politically savvy, the FCC is not noted for having the sharpest technical knives in the drawer. According to Aviation International News, last year it accidentally sold the total block of frequencies reserved for the B-2 stealth bomber. In the case of LightSquared, the FCC has no excuse for allowing a national network of high-powered transmitters to operate so close to GPS’s frequency. . . .
But in the rush to reallocate underused parts of the spectrum—to fulfill the White House’s promise to deliver high-speed internet connections to everyone in the country—the FCC has been guilty of riding rough-shod over objectors. . . .