WH Rejects Solyndra Subpoena

[blackangst1]

I heard about this yesterday afternoon, surprised it took this long!

Anyway, this is BS, you can't deny a subpeona.... it's a standing integral part of our justice system..

If one can order the kill of an American, no matter how bad he/she may be, one can certainly ignore a subpeona.

 

[fskimospy]

If one can order the kill of an American, no matter how bad he/she may be, one can certainly ignore a subpeona.

Not only that, but you can definitely ignore a subpoena, it happens all the time. You can't ignore LEGAL subpoenas but the argument from the administration will be that it is invalid because it violates executive privilege or something like that, therefore they don't have to comply. If (when?) the courts find that the subpoena is valid, the administration will absolutely turn over the documents that are requested.

 

[blackangst1]

Not only that, but you can definitely ignore a subpoena, it happens all the time. You can't ignore LEGAL subpoenas but the argument from the administration will be that it is invalid because it violates executive privilege or something like that, therefore they don't have to comply. If (when?) the courts find that the subpoena is valid, the administration will absolutely turn over the documents that are requested.

A legal subpeona vs...an illegal one?

 

[fskimospy]

A legal subpeona vs...an illegal one?

Right. Did you not think there could be illegal subpoenas?

 

[blackangst1]

Right. Did you not think there could be illegal subpoenas?

Silly me.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

No, of course not. Do you think that companies litigating an issue where they think they are probably wrong is some sort of declaration that they are above the law?

I hold the President of the United States to a higher standard.

 

[fskimospy]

I hold the President of the United States to a higher standard.

You think that a higher standard means not standing up for your legal rights? That's absurd. Everyone can, and should do that.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

You think that a higher standard means not standing up for your legal rights? That's absurd. Everyone can, and should do that.

Yes, in this case I do believe that.

 

[Rainsford]

If corruption is discovered, it must be punished, but I have a feeling that this is about to explode into an industry-wide witch hunt....

About to? I feel like the main (perhaps only) reason this is a story is because it involves green technology and a Democratic administration, which is like a twofer for the Republicans.

I agree that if there is corruption and/or incompetence here, it's better that it's found and dealt with. But I'm not sure that's the goal here, to be honest.

 

[Craig234]

I expected the Republicans to be doing a lot more 'investigating' - political attacks - than they have been.

That's based on history - the Clinton years - and the Republicans themselves said they would if they got the House in 2010.

So, I'm surprised that while they've been horribly partisan on pretty much everything else, the 'investigation' seems to have been not that much.

 

[Rainsford]

Yes, in this case I do believe that.

Why? We live in a society with rules and expectations, and while I think everyone should have to follow them, I think it's silly to expect our elected officials (or anyone else) to follow an imaginary, undefined set of standards above and beyond when dealing with actual legal matters. Not only does it seem impractical (especially when nobody else is going to be following those standards), but it seems impossible since you and I no doubt have different ideas of what that "higher standard" should be.

 

[Rainsford]

I expected the Republicans to be doing a lot more 'investigating' - political attacks - than they have been.

That's based on history - the Clinton years - and the Republicans themselves said they would if they got the House in 2010.

So, I'm surprised that while they've been horribly partisan on pretty much everything else, the 'investigation' seems to have been not that much.

During the Clinton years there was a fair amount of facts to work with. Exaggerated and beaten half to death maybe, but still there was something there. Is the problem here perhaps that wishing for a scandal doesn't make one actually happen, and it's hard to spin nothing very effectively?

 

[Craig234]

During the Clinton years there was a fair amount of facts to work with. Exaggerated and beaten half to death maybe, but still there was something there. Is the problem here perhaps that wishing for a scandal doesn't make one actually happen, and it's hard to spin nothing very effectively?

I don't think that's really it. Richard Mellon Scaife put $50 million into a 'get Clinton' 'investigative' fund to try to find any dirt he could use to feed attacks; Congressional Republicans put tens of millions of dollars into special investigators who found nothing, before the Monica evidence, which was largely uncovered because of efforts by a group of right-wing lawyers who got Linda Tripp to collect info.

Republicans have long shown that they don't need actual scandals to make noise.

Clinton's murder of Vince Foster, after his involvement in cocaine dealing, let's not forget Filegate and Travelgate and selling our military secrets to China and renting the Lincoln bedroom and his expensive haircut and his wife's remarkable investment returns and secret lesbian activities and vandalizing the White House and stealing the China when they left and the whole Whitewater issue and more, all 'scandals' made up or hyped as far as the Republicans can prove.

It's a bit of a mystery why Republicans have abandoned the 'scandal' hysteria with Obama, but 'because there aren't real scandals' seems unlikely to be why.

 

[Craig234]

Republicans haven't totally avoided the investigation pursuit. Darrell Issa is the head of the oversight committee and promised to investigate. Some samples:

Arguing Obama had so much money to spend it just must have cause corruption:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZnpxo_ZvJk

In an interview with the [Washington] Times, Issa said the Democratic National Committee may have violated campaign laws by filming a fundraising video starring President Barack Obama at the White House. Issa called on the Justice Department to investigate and said committee hearings would be forthcoming.
“It’ll be good theater,” Issa told the Times.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...t-Obama-because-itll-be-good%C2%A0theater

Obama Has “One Of The Most Corrupt Administrations”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-darrell-issa-obama-has-one-of-the-most-corrupt-administrations”/

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has launched an investigation into whether the Obama administration violated administrative law by holding closed-door meetings with the auto industry in the months before a recent announcement of new limits mandating increased fuel efficiency for American cars and trucks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/01/darrell-issa-investigation-fuel-economy-obama_n_915475.html

Issa To Launch Congressional Investigation Into Obama Using White House For DNC Meeting With Big Money Donors…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58755.html

More investigations that had been expected
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...a_the_first_four_potential_investigations.php

Backtracking on calling the appointment of Joe Sestak an impeachable offense:
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/201...-watergate-nah-darrell-issa-was-only-kidding/

 

[Double Trouble]

It seems to me the republicans are on a fishing expedition with this one, what they were asking for was obviously overly broad. The WH offer to work with them seems pretty reasonable..... but in the polarized partisan environment we live in, 'reasonable' is no good.

Executive privilege is massively abused in current times, we shouldn't love it at all.

I couldn't agree more. I'm not a political scholar by any means, but I really think GWB upped the ante during his administration, pushing the boundaries of executive privilege. Once those boundaries are pushed, subsequent administrations are rarely going to give up executive power or push it back to congress. Bad for all of us, regardless of political ideology.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper/A%20Section/2011-11-16/A/1/32.1.3002094550_epaper.html

"The Obama administration, which gave the solar company Solyndra a half-billion-dollar loan to help create jobs, asked the company to delay announcing it would lay off workers until after the hotly contested November 2010 midterm elections that imperiled Democratic control of Congress, newly released e-mails show.”

It's no small wonder the Obama administration doesn't want to cooperate.
​

 

[Fern]

If you read the letter, the subpoena demands every document that includes the word "Solyndra" in it be delivered within 1 week, and comes after rejecting (without explanation) an offer from the WH to cooperate in satisfying a more focused request.

Maybe the WH does have something to hide, I'm cynical enough that that wouldn't surprise me, but this does look like a partisan fishing expedition.

If they are 'only' asking for documents that have the word "Solyndra" I hardly think it a fishing expedition. They are 'fishing' for Solyndra, the are focusing on it.

How else do you phrase it if you want to see all documents regarding Solyndra? What documents concerning Solyndra should reasonably be excluded?

Fern

 

[Fern]

About to? I feel like the main (perhaps only) reason this is a story is because it involves green technology and a Democratic administration, which is like a twofer for the Republicans.
-snip-

Personally, I think the half a billion $ loss makes it a story.

Then there's the whole subordinate the taxpayers behind other investors thingy.

Then there's the tie to bundler/fundraiser for Obama thing.

I could go on.

Fern

 

[hal2kilo]

I expected the Republicans to be doing a lot more 'investigating' - political attacks - than they have been.

That's based on history - the Clinton years - and the Republicans themselves said they would if they got the House in 2010.

So, I'm surprised that while they've been horribly partisan on pretty much everything else, the 'investigation' seems to have been not that much.

I thought House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa was going to have Obama's administration in constant investigations but what do you expect from and ex-con car thief.

 

[Fern]

Go here and look at the PV solar cell manufacturers in the USA (list done by state) and tell me why the US govt should pick one or two new companies to drop hundreds of millions of $'s into?

http://energy.sourceguides.com/businesses/byGeo/US/byP/solar/pvCmat/byB/mfg/byS/byS.shtml

Why do we subsidize some companies to compete with existing US companies? How is that fair or smart?

If you're just dying to blow federal funds on solar PV companies why not spread it around to all US companies in that industry? Why favor a couple? Why not support those who've already shown they can compete & operate successfully in that industry?

It doesn't add up, IMO.

Fern

 

[Darwin333]

Go here and look at the PV solar cell manufacturers in the USA (list done by state) and tell me why the US govt should pick one or two new companies to drop hundreds of millions of $'s into?

http://energy.sourceguides.com/businesses/byGeo/US/byP/solar/pvCmat/byB/mfg/byS/byS.shtml

Why do we subsidize some companies to compete with existing US companies? How is that fair or smart?

If you're just dying to blow federal funds on solar PV companies why not spread it around to all US companies in that industry? Why favor a couple? Why not support those who've already shown they can compete & operate successfully in that industry?

It doesn't add up, IMO.

Fern

In all fairness this was a new "niche" product that could be called "cutting edge" but I sort of agree with you. I would have preferred the money be given to someone like First Solar for pure R&D to increase efficiency of their existing (and already profitable) line of PV.

Hell, they probably could have increased the residential Federal tax credit from 30% to 50% with that kind of cake which would drastically increase the demand/adoption while providing more jobs AND helping the economy more by giving people who use the credits more money to spend every month.

 

[Fern]

In all fairness this was a new "niche" product that could be called "cutting edge" but I sort of agree with you. I would have preferred the money be given to someone like First Solar for pure R&D to increase efficiency of their existing (and already profitable) line of PV.

Since we already have an existing and established PV solar cell manufacturing industry I strongly believe the best thing is to let the market decide on different new technologies. Otherwise all we're doing is supporting one US company over other US companies. I.e., Solyndra could just be expected to take market share from other US companies which is a net zero for us.

Likewise with First Solar.

I have other disagreements with Solyndra (in specific) and the whole program to invest taxpayer money into single companies. I won't go into detail here, but Solyndra was an awkward, expensive and risky commodities play (bet on commodity prices rising or falling) and Steven Chu, a science professor with no investment or business experience, has no absolutely business making billion $ investment decisions. He utterly and completely lacks any experience or knowledge in investing in start-up companies. Hey, what could possibly go wrong giving someone like that authority to invest billions?

Hell, they probably could have increased the residential Federal tax credit from 30% to 50% with that kind of cake which would drastically increase the demand/adoption while providing more jobs AND helping the economy more by giving people who use the credits more money to spend every month.

I've been thinking about this is conjunction with the outcry over GE's massive "Green tax credits' wiping out their (US) tax liability.

I think the US moved to grant the tax credits at the (US) corporate level to stop the subsidy for purchase of foreign made (Chinese) products and help make US manufacturers more competitive.

I.e., more/bigger credits to homeowners for PV panels may just boost Chinese sales. Might be better to give at least some of tax credit to US manufacturers (as they did with green appliances thus benefiting GE) so they can be more competitive.

Fern

 

[soundforbjt]

Wasn't this Solyndra deal started under Bush?

 

[Siddhartha]

I have read a few articles that say that the Solyndra Scandal actually covers two administrations as Bush tried to push through loans before leaving office. Just Google "Solyndra timeline"

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/15/solyndra-advanced-by-bush-for-2-years-solyndra-timeline

The timeline definitely deflates the partisan argument that Obama pushed hard for companies that were doomed to fail. If anything it is more a combination of a failing economy and the Chinese undercutting market prices.

Timeline:
December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.
Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.
October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the “company’s second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location.”
November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra’s very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.
January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment.
March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.
June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.
September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years – not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be “scored.” OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.
January – June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra’s ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors.
November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month — on time and on budget — employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.
February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company – which was a going concern – for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.
March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI): “despite the Administration’s urgency and haste to pass the bill [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] … billions of dollars have yet to be spent.”
And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL): “The whole point of the Democrat’s stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars … most of the money still hasn’t been spent.”
June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50%, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV.
August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.
September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE’s loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.
Meanwhile, after complaining about stimulus funds moving too slowly, Congressmen Fred Upton and Cliff Stearns are now claiming that the Administration was pushing funds out the door too quickly: “In the rush to get stimulus cash out the door, despite repeated claims by the Administration to the contrary, some bets were bad from the beginning.”

This post deserves a bounce.

 

[Attic]

Wasn't this Solyndra deal started under Bush?

That point is argued by the left, but the truth is that the Bush administration didn't finalize a single loan guarantee. The loan guarantee program (Read: Not Solyndra Loan) started under Bush, the program grew under Obama.

The loan guarantee program for green energy is not the problem, the problem is why was solyndra selected to receive half a billion dollars. Arguing that because the Bush admin supported the loan guarantee program that they approved the Solyndra deal is incorrect.

Obama's Solyndra Problem.

Solyndra and the Stimulus

The Republican-controlled House has been investigating whether the administration ignored red flags about Solyndra’s financial condition when it offered a $535 million loan guarantee to the start-up company. The California company announced in August it would file for bankruptcy protection — about two and a half years after receiving the loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.​

Asked whether the Solyndra controversy gave him “pause about any of the decision-making going on in your administration,” Obama first talked about the loan guarantee program.​

Obama, Oct. 6: Solyndra — this is a loan guarantee program that predates me that historically has had support from Democrats and Republicans as well. And the idea is pretty straightforward: If we are going to be able to compete in the 21st century, then we’ve got to dominate cutting-edge technologies, we’ve got to dominate cutting-edge manufacturing.​

The loan guarantee program that provided financing for Solyndra, however, does not predate Obama.​

There are two loan guarantee programs for renewable energy companies. The first was created under section 1703 of Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It was designed to help support U.S. companies developing “a new or significantly improved technology that is NOT a commercial technology,” according to the Energy Department’s description of the program. It was a self-pay credit subsidy program, meaning the companies receiving the loan would have to pay the government a fee “equal to the present value of estimated payments the government would make in the event of a default.”​

The second program was created with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, more commonly known as the stimulus law. The recovery act amended the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to create section 1705 for “commercially available technologies,” as the Energy Department explains on page 12 of a 2009 report on stimulus funding. The stimulus provided more funding for the loan guarantee programs. The loans under the new program also came with no credit subsidy fees, making them more attractive and less expensive than those under the program signed into law by President Bush. It was under this program that Solyndra was able to get financing, although the company initially applied under the section 1703 program.​

In a March 2009 press release announcing a $535 million loan guarantee for Solyndra, the Energy Department said: “This loan guarantee will be supported through the President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provides tens of billions of dollars in loan guarantee authority to build a new green energy economy.” Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, confirmed that Solyndra’s funding came solely from section 1705.​

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/obamas-solyndra-problem/