The federal government has lost another 72 million of your tax dollars. Here we go again.
The White House's half billion dollar loan to a now- bankrupt solar panel firm is just the first act in an emerging scandal of insider political influence over a deeply flawed, and possibly corrupt, clean energy program.
Beacon Power received $43 million in a shaky DOE deal. Like Solyndra before it, its lights appear out.
Mining in China has turned towns and hamlets into “cancer villages.” Rivers run murky white to shades of orange. Fish and ducks are dead. And villagers bury friends and neighbors who die of cancer in their 30s and 40s reports Intellasia.
The Mexico plant will produce solar panels to be shipped back to California for a proposed "solar ranch" in San Luis Obispo County that will have a grand total of 15 permanent presumably American jobs. That works out to $82.6 million per job created.
As more is learned, it becomes increasingly clear that the Administration used the Stimulus, and specifically the green energy loan program, as a campaign slush fund to distribute billions of dollars like party favors to supporters and to grandstand for reelection to a perceived constituency.
Solyndra may have gone belly up, but at least it goes out with style. Constructed by union workers at a total cost of $733 million (proceeding from the Energy Department's $535 million loan guarantee), the Solyndra facility featured robots that sang Disney tunes, 19 loading decks, and localized rail lines for moving products across its 300,000 square feet (approximately 5 football fields).
President Obama says he has no regrets over betting $535 million of taxpayer's money on the failed venture Solyndra.
If Obama really cared about your progressive causes he wouldn’t have used the DOE program for a slush fund; he would have solved illegal immigration when he had a majority; he would have passed a healthcare bill that brought costs down; he would have closed Gitmo; he would have arrested Al Awaki; he would have declared war in Libya.
All of these projects would be great if they were a better mouse trap; if they were cheaper, more reliable and better land use. But they are not. They are more expensive, less reliable and use more land (or water).
The Alberta Example: Spending Caps Are the Way to Prevent Unsustainable Fiscal Binges During Growth Years | Daniel J. Mitchell
Chicago's Fiscal Freefall: Moody's Cuts Chicago Credit Rating to Two Steps Above Junk | Mike Shedlock