Skip to comments.Government Should Stop Picking Winners And Losers In the Energy Industry
Posted on 11/21/2011 2:37:01 PM PST by 92nina
Stephen Chu, Secretary of Energy (a world renowned physicist and former Nobel peace prize winner) recently testified before members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, arguing that Solyndra although it failed was still a good choice on the governments part. He refuses to acknowledge that such a move may have been a waste of taxpayer dollars.
It seems like all government does now is waste, waste and waste more: with Beacon Power Corporations having recently failed, too, taxpayers should feel more skeptical then ever when it comes to subsidizing energy. Although Vice President Joe Biden initiated the original DOE loan, Chu nonetheless presided over the entire process. Publically Solyndra maintained the façade of success. And while Obama may have hailed the renewable industrys efforts, those working closely with the president were anxious. In other words, the decision to capitalize on Solyndra would turn out to be regrettable. Leading the investigation was Rep. Cliff Sterns (R-FL), who balked at how carelessly the administration handled reports of the companys finances leading up to its official demise. Clearly Mr. Chu has yet to finally admit that the steps taken by the DOE and current Administration where not in the best interest of the taxpayer.
If well ever get those answers is unknown. What we can count on is if Obama retains his presidency, wasting taxpayer dollars will simply be an everyday part of the job.
Read more: http://www.atr.org/government-stop-picking-winners-losers-energy-a6601#ixzz1eNi2zdoh
In ANY industry.
This isn’t a matter of picking winners and losers in the energy industry. It’s about graft and corruption - pure and simple. It is about bigtime political donors picking the winner of the Presidential election and being given unlimited access to the Treasury checkbook in the process.
But, that would require them to give up some of their hard-earned “author-it-tay”!
My apologies to Cartmann.
That’s why I’ve always said the original Chrysler bailout in the 1970s was a bad idea. It set the precedent that government would decide who wins and loses in the marketplace...government should not protect companies from the consequences of that company’s bad decisions.
The Department of Energy
and defund it accordingly.
THE ISSUE HERE IS THERE ARE NO WINNERS AND THEY PLANNED IT THIS WAY. ANOTHER WAY TO LOOT AMERICA. IN THE FRONT DOOR OUT THE BACK
Thats why Ive always said the original Chrysler bailout in the 1970s was a bad idea. It set the precedent that government would decide who wins and loses in the marketplace...government should not protect companies from the consequences of that companys bad decisions.
But I agree, unless it is a loan, pure and simple, not an investment, we all know the word for govt that invests in and controls industry.
Given their track record, it seems to me that the only thing to government's any good at is picking "losers," not winners.
I just think the cure was worse than the disease in the long run.
I have yet to hear of even one “success” story. So far all losers and BILLIONs of dollars pounded down a rat hole
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.