I might be able to help you on those. The Energy Department's loan guarantee program that Solyndra participated in was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by President Bush. The vast majority of the companies that have participated in the program are profitable. The Solyndra application was on its way to being approved when Bush left office. The last-minute delay wasn't related to technology or manufacturing, but rather marketing.
Originally Posted by beer guru
The company was doing very well when the loan guarantee was awarded. ("[S]ales jumped from $6 million in 2008 to $100 million in 2009.") But the Chinese government decided to invest heavily in photovoltaic systems, and this seriously undermined Solyndra's competitiveness.
By the first half of 2009, some 50 Chinese companies were planning or constructing polycrystalline silicon production lines with an investment of more than $14 billion, according to a research report published in China. It predicted China's total production capability would eventually exceed two times annual demand in the world. … The price of polysilicon fell from $475 per kilogram in February 2008 to $73 per kilogram in May 2009, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
At the same time, the company's sales were hurt by the effects that the worldwide economic slowdown had on European countries, its biggest customers. These factors combined to put it out of business.
On the other "scandal," the office in the IRS that handles applications for tax-exempt status appears to have acted improperly in its review of requests by conservative groups. One point that doesn't matter much to me is that no direct link to the WH has been established. It's Obama's administration, so he's responsible. But do you really think these groups are "educational" and not "political"? The law as written says they can't be political at all. The agency decided back in the 1950s that they needed to be "primarily" educational. If Congress had any sense, they'd tell the IRS to forget that stupid revision and just enforce the law.
Obviously, I understand that everyone wants to be, and is legally entitled to be, treated equally. And it does seem likely that there was partisanship involved in the way conservative groups were treated. But consider a couple of things: these applications were for 501(c)(4) status. Donations to those organizations "generally are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes." (IRS) So failing to gain status would not have made it easier for them to raise money from people looking to deduct the donation on their taxes. These groups just didn't want be required to disclose the names of donors and the amounts they donated. Guess why. They also wanted to avoid federal income tax liability. And why is that? Here's a clue:
That's the scandal I'd be concerned with if I'd made a donation to that group. They spend all the money on administrative overhead and pass nothing along to candidates. They know people will contribute, and it's just a way for them to collect big salaries and hire their friends as consultants, office workers, field organizers, etc. It's an industry, and they benefit if people think that commie, criminal Obama and his gang of crooks are interfering with democracy.
>>A lot of questions still remain about Benghazi.
Yeah, like why has the GOP allowed Issa the Incompetent Clown to tie up an important congressional committee with fundraising efforts?