A few of my thoughts regarding an article:
– The Washington Times – Monday, April 27, 2015
Government spending for anything the government doesn’t directly need, first hand, is a bad idea. Government funded research for space has paid dividends, but we’d likely be ahead had the government stayed out of it. Still, look at other research. The government is spending hundreds of millions per year on cancer research. The government has spent hundreds of billions on cancer research over the last five decades, and what do we have? Where are we now? Well, one recent article quoted one of the foremost saying, essentially, that know we pretty much know what cancer is, and that we have to treat nearly every case as unique. In other words, he was saying we seem to have finally gotten to square one. Let the medical industry research. Let’s keep up the charity work, but let’s get government out spending for things it doesn’t need. The government cannot spend for us.
Regarding the losses in the “investment” related to greenish energy. (Green has more to do with wasting dollars and making certain folks filthy rich than it does with trees or the environment.)
The article implies the loans to Tesla were successful. Did the government loans to Tesla Motors help the environment or just give fancy toys to rich boys wanting to spruce up their green cred?
The Energy Department considers the billions in losses as success.
GAO accounts per law, not standard accounting practice, and always gets its estimates wrong in whichever direction makes the spending look better for the government (for the elected when campaigning for reelection).
“Across the entire loan program there have been five defaulted loans: two solar panel manufacturers, Solyndra Inc. and Abound Manufacturing Solar LLC; two green vehicle programs, Fisker Automotive Inc. and the Vehicle Production Group LLC; and one energy storage project, Beacon Power.”
“The GAO said the companies were more likely to accept a federal loan guarantee if the Obama administration underestimated the actual risk of a project, leaving taxpayers on the hook.”
The article ends by pointing out the underestimated administration costs of running the program, but they say they keep raising fees, so it is starting to run in the black in that regard. Big whoop. So they finally figured out how much to soak the poor sods they are pretending to help.