On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 18:39:27 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill says...
Post by Bret Cahillhttp://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2016/0703/Coal-company-to-lay-off-80-percent-of-its-workers-blames-Obama
Yea, more welfare, more taxes to pay for all those out of work. Meanwhile,
green energy takes billions in taxes from those who DO happen to still
have jobs, and doesn't give anything back.
I thought you basement dwelling anarchists HATED corporate welfare? Oh,
just as long as it helps YOUR causes and agendas, corporate welfare is
just dandy, huh?
*****
GAO Challenges Energy Dept. on Green Loan Success Claims - Thu, 05/07/2015
- 07:09 [giggle]
Back in November the Department of Energy boasted that its loan program
for renewable energy technologies and "advanced" (mostly electric)
vehicles had achieved a positive balance, which many in the media lapped
up after so many failures such as Solyndra.
But now that the Government Accountability Office has revealed in a
detailed study that the true cost of the loan program to taxpayers is...
$2.2 BILLION
... - plus administrative expenses - journalists are
nowhere to be found. As for DOE, they still stick to their story.
The GAO explained that the staggering sum reflects the "credit subsidy
cost" of the loans and loan guarantees in the portfolios of Loan
Guarantee Program and the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
program, which now have been combined. The credit subsidy cost is
defined by GAO as "the net present value of the difference between
projected cash flows to and from the government over the life of the
loan." It takes into account the failures - which include Solyndra,
Abound Solar and Fisker Automotive - as well as "projected cash
flows for default risk and other factors."
Accuracy in government accounting was curiously missing in the
misleading November 2014 announcement from Loan Programs Office
executive director Peter Davidson (in photo).
"Today, actual and estimated loan losses to the portfolio are only
approximately $780 million, or only a little over 2 percent of the
program's loans, loan guarantees and commitments - and less than the
more than $810 million in interest payments the program has earned to
date," Davidson wrote on the DOE Web site.
In its report last week, GAO seemed to call out Davidson and DOE for the
inaccurate representation of the Loan Program. In a cover letter
addressed to several members of Congress, GAO said the $810 million
figure, and expected $5 billion in interest payments over the lives of
the loans, painted an incomplete picture.
"In part because this report did not include the interest that DOE
pays the government to finance its lending, the information on expected
interest earnings has been misinterpreted in several press accounts as
projecting $5 billion in profits for the DOE loan programs," the
report stated. "In light of the confusion around costs of the DOE loan
programs, this report focuses on the federal government's official
method of accounting for loan programs."
In addition - and not included in the $2.2 billion estimated costs -
are the government's expenses for administration of the loans and loan
guarantees, which include evaluation of applications, making credit
assessments, originating the loans, and whatever else the processing
entails. As NLPC has reported in the past, DOE hired high-powered law
firms under six- and seven-figure contracts to provide legal advice,
conduct due diligence, and review documents for applicants under the
Loan Program. Records show that many of the firms - which provided no
more than one or two employees for loan review services (which counted
as "green jobs" by DOE) - had contributed hundreds of thousands of
dollars to President Obama and fellow Democrats for their political
campaigns.
It's not as if DOE wasn't aware in November of the $2.2 billion
actual cost of the loans - GAO noted more than once in its report that
the figure came from DOE's own estimates. And in his formal response
to the study, Davidson assented to GAO's determinations about credit
subsidy costs, but anticipated that the $2.2 billion figure would shrink
as loans are paid off and projects begin operations. Nonetheless
Davidson issued the deceptive statement in November about interest
payments exceeding program losses anyway.
"As a whole, the portfolio is performing very well...," Davidson
wrote. "We expect the portfolio's financial performance to remain
very strong and continue to help move us toward our clean, low-carbon
energy future."
The federal "investment" isn't the only hit to taxpayers. Most of
the states in the country have significant subsidies and tax breaks for
renewables in place, as well as mandates that force electric utilities
to pay for their power. But as Heritage Foundation economist Nicolas
Loris explains, even that doesn't fully capture the economic damage
inflicted by "green" subsidies.
"Because capital is in limited supply, a dollar loaned to
government-backed projects will not be available for some other
(possibly more viable) project," Loris wrote for Heritage online
publication The Daily Signal. "This means that the companies that
drive innovation and bring new technologies into the market may not get
support, while companies with strong political connections or those that
produce something politicians find appealing, like carbon-free energy
technologies, will get support.
"Whether the programs ultimately end up with taxpayers on the red or
the black side of the ledger, the policy itself is a loser."
And unlike in November, that's the true outcome, which no one in the
media has shown any interest in.
Paul Chesser is an associate fellow for the National Legal and Policy
Center and publishes CarolinaPlottHound.com, an aggregator of North
Carolina news.
Abound Solar Department of Energy Fisker Government Accountability
Office Government Integrity Project Green jobs Heritage Foundation Peter
Davidson President Obama Recovery Act Solyndra stimulus
*****
GAO Says: DOE's Green Energy Loans Won't Make A Profit
The Energy Department's green energy loan program is expected to lose
money, despite media reports that such loans would net the government a
profit.
The Government Accountability Office says the DOE's oft-touted $28
billion loan program will cost taxpayers $2.21 billion over the LIFETIME
of the loans. Not only that, the costs to taxpayers for green loans has
risen about $500 million as "the result of loan guarantee defaults"
from companies like Solyndra and Abound Solar.
The "credit subsidy cost of the loans and loan guarantees in its
portfolio" is expected "to be $2.21 billion, including $807 million
for loans that have defaulted," GAO reports. "The fees DOE has
collected have not been sufficient to cover all of its administrative
expenses for the program" because the "fees on the current loan
guarantees were too low to cover ongoing monitoring costs."
This stands in sharp contrast to media reports from last year suggesting
the DOE's green loan program would net taxpayers $5 billion. Last
year, the Washington Post's Wonk-blog ran with the headline,
"Remember Solyndra? Those loans are making money." The liberal news
watchdog Media Matters exclaimed that "Solyndra Scandal-Mongering
Hasn't Stopped The Energy Dept's Loan Program From Turning A
Profit."
*****
Obama Clean Energy Loans Leave Taxpayers In $2.2 Billion Hole
Monday, April 27, 2015
Taxpayers are on the hook for more than $2.2 billion in expected costs
from the federal government's energy loan guarantee programs, according to
a new audit Monday that suggests the controversial projects may not pay
for themselves, as officials had promised.
Nearly $1 billion in loans have already defaulted under the Energy
Department program, which included the infamous Solyndra stimulus project
and dozens of other green technology programs the Obama administration has
approved, totaling nearly about $30 billion in taxpayer backing, the
Government Accountability Office reported in its audit.
*****
Fail: US Has Wasted $154 Billion on 'Renewable Energy'
*****
Green Power: Black Death
"According to the World Health Organization four million children under
the age of five die each year from respiratory diseases caused by indoor
smoke and many millions of women die early from cancer and lung disease
for the same reason."
How many more millions of African women and children have to die from
smoke inhalation, before you allow them the cheapest and most affordable
resource of power... coal and oil?
Those tree hugging freaks forget how racist they really are. Why deprive
undeveloped countries the power of fossil fuels, just to be able to say
that you're supplying the world with "green energy", when YOU'RE not?
Why do you hate Africans? Your "Climate Change plans" kill millions of
people in Africa, every year, because they aren't allowed to become
"modern", with fossil fuel use.
"One clear thing that emerges from the all environmental debate... the
point that there's somebody keen to kill the African dream." - Paul
Driessen, Author "Green Power, Black Death"
http://tinypic.com/r/8ygmtc/8
Green Power, Black Death