Obama’s Enviro-Fat Cat Welfare Program

Pages: 1 2

Other players identified in the Post story include:

• David Sandalow, a former Clinton administration official and Brookings Institution fellow. Sandalow had been paid $239,000 for consulting work for a venture capital firm, Good Energies, in 2008 before joining the Energy Department as assistant secretary for policy and international affairs. SolarReserve, a company backed by Good Energies, was the recipient of a $737 million government loan.

• David Danielson, another venture capitalist who joined the Energy Department. Three companies backed by his former firm, General Catalyst, were awarded a total of $105 million in government funding.

• Steven J. Spinner was a loan advisor who worked in the Energy Department. His wife worked for the law firm Wilson Sonsini in California. Wilson Sonsini’s “clean-tech” clients were awarded a total of $2.75 billion in Department of Energy grants. According to the Post, Spinner helped raise half a million for Obama in the 2008 cycle and has pledged to do the same this year.

• Steve Westly, founder of the Westly Group, is another venture capitalist and an Obama fundraiser. Westly served on Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s advisory board. Companies backed by Westly’s firm received $600 million in government funding.

• David Prend of Rockport Capital Partners held a 7.5% stake in Solyndra. Prend was appointed to an advisory position to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory during the Bush administration. He stayed on during the Obama regime, and also chaired a panel that helps advise the department on solar energy. In addition to his investment in Solyndra, Prend is also tied to Ener1, the electric car battery company that received over $100 million in government funding that has since filed for bankruptcy.

The administration denies any impropriety of course. It seems that these cozy relationships are meaningless and didn’t influence any of the favorable funding decisions at all. It’s all just a series of happy coincidences apparently.

So the story goes. On the other hand, there is the undeniable fact that the Obama administration has been using its power to drastically change American energy policy. By forcing droves of coal-fired power plants to shut down, the president is both raising the cost of electricity and creating an artificial need for new sources of energy. But that’s not enough, for green energy isn’t competitive enough to make sense even in such a skewed market. And thus the impetus for the kind of crony capitalism that has so tainted this administration. It’s a great deal if you happen to be one of the president’s buddies, but it’s about as unsustainable an economic plan as one could design.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • koran kid

    The next pyramid ponzi. Place your bets on when it will unravel. As soon as the wind turns against green energy, fortunes to be made shorting the companies that can't arrive without the reality of a subsidy to get them into trouble or survive without the possibility of a subsidy to get them out of trouble!

  • UCSPanther

    Obama is one of the last 1990s-era politicians and he exemplifies all the negative qualities of that era, most notably corruption, arrogance and incompetence.

  • Rifleman

    What burns dirtier than coal and gasoline? Windmills and chevy volts.

  • Fearless

    So what happens when the oil runs out in 100 years?

    • kongMing

      It's doubtful it will run out, as more efficient drilling methods resurrect once thought dry wells and the 3 trillion barrels of shale oil reserves become recoverable. Also oil prices depend on a number of factors, including demand driven by consumption and refining efficiency. A lot of existing oil is left out because its just not profitable to refine using current methods. With better refining and less demand through smarter design and processes its likely it will never happen.

      We also should question if the Federal government borrowing to subsidize weak start-ups who in turn lower their own borrowing is a good idea. Are other alternatives more favorable, like tax advantages?

      Will we one day wake-up and find less speculation due to a trend in lower consumption driven by more efficient manufacturing and design, leading to commodities bursting, leading to the $200 trillion worth of shale oil in the US becoming worthless?

      It's a much better idea to sell those commodities before the bubble bursts and get the money before its worthless.