Moreover, as this scandal is unfolded, GE can also be placed into two more categories: "Five Obama Job Council Members" as wells as those "Stimulus Authors" that have cashed in on the president's "green" agenda, including the $800 billion stimulus package where over ten percent –– $80 billion taxpayer dollars –– was earmarked for renewable energy, which was meant to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
However, it is only stimulating the pockets of President Obama and high-ranking Democrat cronies. Oh, as for "those jobs"...that's another story. Still, those invited to this "green" table are the ultra-rich willing to "pay to play," even catapulting them into more wealth, while we the taxpayers are only allowed to pay the tab. That should anger all Americans.
Article comments
1 - Doug Hunter
Denier! You want to pollute the air and water and probably want baby seals and cuddly little polar bears to die too!
This is the best scam going as it has built in moral cover. Perhaps a few of the dollars that slip through the cracks in the billionaire's bank accounts will stumble upon some improvements in alternative energy but I don't see this as anywhere near the most effective use of resources. The trillions of dollars in the energy market provide plenty of incentives to corporations without government welfare. Those resources should be going to higher education, research grants, program expansions, etc. I think you'd have much better odds of coming across a real green energy breakthrough that way, and the ineffective money would at least be in the education system rather than in jets and yachts (sorry clav).
2 - Dr Dreadful
Well, this is at least a more cogent analysis than the piece on green energy subsidies by Warren "No, Not That Warren" Beatty, who seems to think that the green energy industry is automatically incompetent solely because it's not his ideological cup of tea.
In among all of this cherry-picking and innuendo, I have to wonder whether a little source-checking would lead back in many instances to the multinational energy corporations, who all have sophisticated plans to move into alternatives and renewables once oil and gas become intolerably depleted and unprofitable, and doubtless would rather not share the playing field with a bunch of uppity startups.
3 - Doug Hunter
"multinational energy corporations, who all have sophisticated plans to move into alternatives and renewables once oil and gas become intolerably depleted and unprofitable"
It looks like they're working on cap and trade as the next step. Since they (big multinational energy) are the biggest emitters now they will get the most credits for lowering emissions once it becomes unprofitable. Those little startups will then have to come begging for some of their carbon credits at whatever price the big guys set for them. Setting prices for your potential competitors... now that's what a true 'capitalist' calls a level playing field!!!
I'm sure they're taking a look at the straight carbon tax as well, seeing how that plays out in Oz. I'm but a simpleton with no special access, I can assure you they've had well connected genius Ivy league grads and politicians (current and former) working on it for years, they're plans are much more sophisticated and profitable than the simple version I laid out.
4 - Dr Dreadful
Take 'em down or buy 'em out, Doug: the capitalist's credo when it comes to dealing with competition.
5 - Market Analytics
I appreciate the report out on who won what grants and loans. Is there any view on who lost out? The alternative energy universe is actually quite small and then when you segment it by country it gets smaller.
I would expect GE to be a large winner as which other US companies are sophisticated enough to 1)track the government opportunities 2)have a track record strong enough to give confidence they can successfully complete their goal?
If I look at the VC industry KPC is a top brand, they attract top talent and they also have a portfolio of energy start-ups that is riskier than most other well established VCs.
While I am not for Cronyism I would like to see the data on who was shut out. Unfortunately because we under produce engineers in our country the US base that can take advantage of such "Green give-a-ways" is sadly small.
Curious to know your thoughts.
6 - Igor
This article points out the willingness of business to suborn government agencies and people regardless of political affiliation.
7 - Cindy
Hey Igor, what do you think of a reality TV show called "Let's Visit the 1% in Jail!". As a rule I deplore reality shows, but I think that is one I would watch religiously.
8 - Arch Conservative
Jail? I think you meant prison Cindy. Do you the difference?
Anyway if the 1% were locked up in prison who would pay all the taxes that the deadbeat Obama supporters don't pay?
9 - christine
Throw Them All Out of office, and the 1% in jail.
10 - zingzing
archie, being archie: "Anyway if the 1% were locked up in prison who would pay all the taxes that the deadbeat Obama supporters don't pay?"
ah, simplicity and ignorance... you think they'd no longer pay taxes (even after their accountants got done with every loophole they could)? besides, if all was right and fair and legal with the world, many of the 1% would have their accounts combed and we could see all the nasty tricks and strewn financial bodies they used to get there. it would probably be a federal budget bonanza. we could solve world hunger and still wage wars!
somehow, i paid a whopping 32% on my taxable income this past year... dunno how i did it, and i'm pretty sure i made a mistake, but like hell am i alerting the irs. just doesn't seem like a good idea.
"Do you the difference?"
there's this verb which i don't think you have any ability, nor any reason, to write.
11 - Igor
It's a good idea to prosecute fraudsters, even if they are just low level, because then they'll roll over on guys up the chain of command.
Frauds come about because of an atmosphere of 'collective irresponsibility', the idea that if everyone is at fault then no one is at fault. Bosses depend on that to get people to commit frauds they might have misgivings about otherwise.
The same idea persisted in the 80s in the Savings And Loan scandals, but since they (largely because of Bill Black) sent 1000 bankers to prison congress was able (and willing!) to pass stronger regulations. So, the new scams that bankers have invented should be treated the same way: send fraudsters to prison and get them to roll on their crooked bosses.
You may lament that it is an ongoing process and you are right. Give people a chance to cheat and someone will. We know what's required for resolution: eternal vigilance.
But the alternative is to surrender everything to bullies and thugs.
12 - Clavos
...the multinational energy corporations, who all have sophisticated plans to move into alternatives and renewables once oil and gas become intolerably depleted and unprofitable, and doubtless would rather not share the playing field with a bunch of uppity startups.
Bingo, Doc! I have long thought that to be the case (and have mentioned it on BC threads), if only because if I were running such a company, I damn sure would want to keep my preeminence as an energy supplier, and would be positioning to take over the "new" energy as soon as the carbon ran out.
Exxon (e.g.) is not about to rollover and die after they pump that last drop of dead dinosaur, no way!
13 - Dr Dreadful
Of course, Clav. Self-perpetuation is a well-documented sociological phenomenon. Often seen with charities which diversify once the original problem they set out to combat has been solved, e.g. March of Dimes.
No reason why corporations should behave any differently and in fact they have a stronger motivation for staying in existence, i.e. their shareholders. And they do: the world is full of examples of companies that now do very different things than they did when they first started out. A good example would be Wells Fargo, which began as a courier company and is now a bank.