Biden in Tulsa Today

[Gaspar]

If only your pithy quotes were accurate. I seem to recall being educated on the Constitution, how it came to be (including how it was conceived largely to deal with the problems of the Articles of Confederation) and what the individual delegates thought of its various provisions. In public school, no less. In Arkansas, which was around #48 in education at the time.

The problem with folks like Williams is that they speak of the Constitution as if it is some religious text that sprang forth from the hand of God Himself, when in fact it was a messy compromise between various factions within American society at that time. Flowery prose aside, it's actually a terrible document. It's far too vague to have any teeth. On the other hand, that vagueness is probably why it still stands today, unlike the vast majority of its contemporaries.

In 3 paragraphs you have accurately framed your position on our constitution.  Thank you.
TBH, I see the Constitution fetish that many right wingers (and moronic survivalists) have as yet another weapon in their mental arsenal to convince themselves that godless commie liberals are ruining their country. If the only argument you have for your position is an appeal to authority, it's not a very good argument, and is probably a poor position. Jefferson, at least, is probably spinning in his grave at such lacking debate.

[Conan71]

Actually plenty of folks made it through the Bush years nothing more than some localized PR damage (KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.)  Enron went down for reasons far removed from whether or not they were attached to a Republican President. Fraud, embezzlement, manipulating markets -- all kinds of legit criminal stuff. 

Nothing at Solyndra far raises to the level of criminality, but of course that could (will?) change as the details emerge.  Is it unsavory? Yep, but living through the Bush Administration did teach me one thing:  this is currently the manner in which our government and our economy interface.  Also, there is very little on either end of the equation -- from business or from government -- to encourage this system to change.  So as it is, we have to live with stinkiness that might encourage a desirable industry to flourish. 

(PS. I'm not saying live with blatant criminal acts, but I am saying that things that stink are everpresent and the only methods we have to correct it are the justice system's long, slow, and imperfect selective prosecutions.)

If Solyndra cooked the books to show they were solvent enough to warrant further federal funding, then there was a blatant fraud against the government.  If the government loaned money to this venture using different criteria (i.e. much more lax profit or investor capitalization requirements) than they would have another venture, or the DOJ refuses to dig deep into this, that smacks of blatant corruption.  Obviously, not enough is known at this point to really make an educated judgement.

As far as big collapses, I'm still surprised nothing has ever come of Tom Kivisto and SEM Group.  His trading schemes, and those of other speculators had far-reaching negative economic impact on millions, if not billions of people around the world.  Perhaps they've not found any SEC violations.  Or perhaps, he's made enough contributions here and there to stanch any criminal investigations.  At the very least, we should have seen some sort of reforms in commodity trading to keep speculators from controlling the prices in the market-place.  I can still see no good reason for oil to be as high as it is right now, and that continues to sap money from other parts of the economy as consumers have to make choices between having transportation or buying durable and consumable goods.

/ramble

[we vs us]

If Solyndra cooked the books to show they were solvent enough to warrant further federal funding, then there was a blatant fraud against the government.  If the government loaned money to this venture using different criteria (i.e. much more lax profit or investor capitalization requirements) than they would have another venture, or the DOJ refuses to dig deep into this, that smacks of blatant corruption.  Obviously, not enough is known at this point to really make an educated judgement.

Geez, keep your powder dry on this one, willya?  The scandal (such as it currently is) just came out in the last week, and the DOJ is obviously doing some serious digging (FBI raids tends to indicate the level of their intent).  So far I'd argue that the government is performing in a sterling manner regarding at least the initial stages.   

Just don't fall into the Gaspar trap of searching for the grand conspiracy in every piece of minutiae. It's not evident yet . . .

[Conan71]

Geez, keep your powder dry on this one, willya?  The scandal (such as it currently is) just came out in the last week, and the DOJ is obviously doing some serious digging (FBI raids tends to indicate the level of their intent).  So far I'd argue that the government is performing in a sterling manner regarding at least the initial stages.   

Just don't fall into the Gaspar trap of searching for the grand conspiracy in every piece of minutiae. It's not evident yet . . .

You don't read my writing very well, apparently.  I simply mentioned the two most obvious hypotheticals and concluded by saying: "Obviously, not enough is known at this point to really make an educated judgement"

Spring-loaded this morning?

[Gaspar]

It is now a criminal investigation.  There will be a hearing today.

Apparently there were emails showing that the administration was made aware that Solyndra was not a good investment.  According to the Post, they have emails from worried analysts to the White House complaining about "rushed approvals" and one warning that "this deal is not ready for prime-time" as well as emails from auditors voicing substantial doubt about Solyndra's solvency before the loan.

There are only two viable reasons that the administration would approve the loan:
1. to satisfy the request of a donor.
2. to satisfy a Public Relations opportunity.

[we vs us]

Spring-loaded this morning?

Overcaffeinated, and annoyed by conspiracy theorists.

[Conan71]

I'll take PR opportunity for $500, Gaspar!

Yes, I'm aware it's Faux, but after reading multiple articles, it summarizes it best:

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.
Asked whether political influence played a role in the loan being approved, Silver said, "I don't believe so."
The emails at least show budget analysts felt rushed by the White House to review the loan guarantee in time for an announcement by Vice President Biden in September 2009.
The concerns flared in August 2009, when staff with the Energy Department wrote of a "major outstanding issue," relating to the project's solvency. They noted an estimate said the project would run out of cash in September 2011.
But other administration officials presumed the parent company, as well as private investors, would cushion the project and ensure its completion.
The company filed for bankruptcy this month. The FBI raided the company on Sept. 8.
The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing Wednesday is part of a seven-month investigation.
One Republican aide said the emails released as part of that probe show the White House was more concerned with press events surrounding the loan than the soundness of Solyndra. The aide said "corners were cut."
According to the House committee, the average review time for White House budget officials screening Energy Department loan guarantees is 28 calendar days. The committee said that for Solyndra, the first such loan guarantee made by the department, the review took just nine days.
Officials expressed concern about the review process in the run-up to the Biden announcement.
One White House budget official asked that the announcement "be postponed." Another email complained about "rushed approvals," and said "we are worried" about Solyndra. However, the announcement went forward as planned
The emails show White House officials repeatedly checking with the Office of Management and Budget on the progress of its review of the loan ahead of the high-profile groundbreaking for the company's new factory.
One email from a budget official referred to "the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra."
One exchange showed a budget analyst in March 2009 warning the deal was "not ready for prime time."
But the White House denied that it was trying to influence the result of the financial reviews, and it has defended the federal loan.
"This loan guarantee was pursued by both the Bush and Obama administrations," White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. "The Department of Energy's overall portfolio of investments -- which includes dozens of other companies, continues to perform well and is on pace to create thousands of jobs."
He said private-sector investors, "who put more than $1 billion of their own money on the line," also saw potential in the firm.
Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of energy, wrote in a USA Today column that "expanding production has coincided with short-term softening demand," suggesting Solyndra was the victim of economic circumstance.
Democratic lawmakers, while raising questions about this particular loan, said it's important to keep funding clean energy projects.
"We are in danger of losing this industry to our competitors, especially China," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/14/officials-raised-concerns-solar-firms-solvency-ahead-bankruptcy-emails-show/#ixzz1XwTpZC49

At least as far as removing the U.S. from becoming a dumping ground for cheap Chinese solar panels, tariffs would help.  Unfortunately, they would not make U.S. companies more competitive anywhere else around the globe.  I'd be interested to know what sort of market share the U.S. represents for Chinese solar panels.

Actual email text 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."

[Gaspar]

I'll take PR opportunity for $500, Gaspar!

Yes, I'm aware it's Faux, but after reading multiple articles, it summarizes it best:

At least as far as removing the U.S. from becoming a dumping ground for cheap Chinese solar panels, tariffs would help.  Unfortunately, they would not make U.S. companies more competitive anywhere else around the globe.  I'd be interested to know what sort of market share the U.S. represents for Chinese solar panels.

Actual email text from Politico:

I'm reporting you to AttackWatch.com

[Gaspar]

See. . .That didn't take long.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/solyndra-blame-bush-obama-officials/story?id=14513389

Solyndra: Blame It On Bush, Say Obama Officials

[DTowner]

See. . .That didn't take long.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/solyndra-blame-bush-obama-officials/story?id=14513389

Solyndra: Blame It On Bush, Say Obama Officials

How long before this White House starts seeing giant rabbits?

Of note, the Bush OMB refused the loan gauaranty because its analysis indicated Solyndra would be insolvent by Sept. 2011.  Oops.

[Conan71]

I'm reporting you to AttackWatch.com

Too late.  I took your lead and preemptively turned myself in.  I said some really choice things when I did it too!

[nathanm]

Of note, the Bush OMB refused the loan gauaranty because its analysis indicated Solyndra would be insolvent by Sept. 2011.  Oops.

I wish the rest of the Bush Administration could have been so prescient.

[Conan71]

I wish the rest of the Bush Administration could have been so prescient.

You mean the ones who convinced Bush that Iraq and Afghanistan would be 12 month milk runs?

[nathanm]

You mean the ones who convinced Bush that Iraq and Afghanistan would be 12 month milk runs?

You got it. Stupidly enough, I didn't make the connection at the time, but drawing us into a war in Afghanistan was most likely al Qaeda's goal with the September 11th attacks. They knew from previous experience with the Soviets that they could win such a war in a long, slow grind, sapping our power in the process.

By 2004, I still thought the war in Afghanistan was a good idea even as I opposed going into Iraq. Stupid me.

[Conan71]

You got it. Stupidly enough, I didn't make the connection at the time, but drawing us into a war in Afghanistan was most likely al Qaeda's goal with the September 11th attacks. They knew from previous experience with the Soviets that they could win such a war in a long, slow grind, sapping our power in the process.

By 2004, I still thought the war in Afghanistan was a good idea even as I opposed going into Iraq. Stupid me.

Something had to be done about the Taliban and intel that OBL was hiding in the mountains there.  If Bush hadn't gone in, we may well have faced more terrorist attacks around the world.  I suspect anyone who was president at the time would have wound up in Afghanistan as the American people were expecting some sort of response and retaliation.  And you are correct, we learned nothing from the Soviet's involvement there.

OBL is dead now, so what exactly is it we are doing there at this point?  No amount of time spent there is going to produce a more stable government.