Jump to content

US Politics - The Nuclear Option goes pfft


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

Solyndra loan deal: Warnings about legality came from within Obama administration

By Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig, Published: October 7

Energy Department officials were warned that their plan to help a failing solar company by restructuring its $535 million federal loan could violate the law and should be cleared with the Justice Department, according to newly obtained e-mails from within the Obama administration.

The e-mails show that Energy Department officials moved ahead anyway with a new deal that would repay company investors before taxpayers if the company defaulted. The e-mails, which were reviewed by The Washington Post, show for the first time concerns within the administration about the legality of the Energy Department’s extraordinary efforts to help Solyndra, the California solar company that went bankrupt Aug. 31.

The FBI raided Solyndra last month, shortly after it closed its doors.

The records provided Friday by a government source also show that an Energy Department stimulus adviser, Steve Spinner, pushed for Solyndra’s loan despite having recused himself because his wife’s law firm did work for the company. Spinner, who left the agency in September 2010, did not respond to requests for comment Friday.

The documents offer new evidence of wide disagreement between officials at the Energy Department and officials at the Treasury Department and Office of Management and Budget, where questions were raised about the carefulness of the loan vetting process used to select Solyndra and the special help it was given as its finances deteriorated. Energy Department officials continued to make loan payments to the company even after it had defaulted on the terms of its loan....

One participant in the Solyndra effort, according to the e-mails, was Spinner. He pressed for OMB officials to speed up review of the Solyndra loan, writing at one point: “Any word from OMB? I have the OVP [Office of the Vice President] and WH [White House] breathing down my neck on this.”

....Spinner is now a fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank.

http://www.washingto...qSTL_print.html

One generally reliable sign that there's a pretty stinky fish is when the government does a document dump on Friday afternoon, which is what just happened here.

I don't personally believe (yet, anyway) that the Solyndra mess was due to favoritism for an Obama donor. But it is looking at lot like a very questionable loan was pushed through as quickly as possible to support a political agenda of claiming support for green energy investments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the whole Mormons aren't really Christian thing has started heating up within the Republican race.

http://www.nytimes.c...ml?ref=politics

http://www.npr.org/2...summit?ft=1&f=2

DON GONYEA: He is Dr. Robert Jeffress. He's the senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, of course, from Texas. And as we walked in before Governor Perry's speech, there were people who were with the pastor who were handing out these blue press releases. And let me tell you what the headline says. It says: Southern Baptist Convention Leader to Endorse Perry at Values Voter Summit. The subhead is: Jeffress to Draw Sharp Contrast Between Perry and Romney. Romney, of course, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

They even gave to us a little bit of prepared text of the introduction to Governor Perry that Pastor Jeffress would give. He said, to get into this prepared text, I believe that in Rick Perry we have a candidate who is a proven leader, a true conservative and a committed follower of Christ. His actual words were stronger than that. Give a listen.

Dr. ROBERT JEFFRESS: Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person? Or do we want a candidate who is a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ?

(SOUNDBITE OF APPLAUSE)

JEFFRESS: Rick Perry is a proven leader. He is a true conservative, and he is a genuine follower of Jesus Christ. Would you join me in welcoming the governor of the great state of Texas, Rick Perry?

(SOUNDBITE OF CHEERING, APPLAUSE AND MUSIC)

GONYEA: Again, the key change there, the word genuine follower of Christ. Later, there was a scrum of reporters talking to Pastor Jeffress. He was asked if he was talking about Mormonism there and Romney. And he said yes, Mormonism is a cult.

While we're on the subject, it's funny watching (and then picking holes in) the statements of candidates who speak in general terms about the greater role of faith in public/politics while trying not to name a particular faith.

For example I just heard a soundbite from Romney calling for a greater role for religion in the public square and politics. So I presume that Romney would have no problem with Sharia law? Making it illegal (or at least highly discouraged) to eat hamburgers? The Torah would have a lot to say about the laws that people live by...

I mean, all of those are faith based, and thus should be welcome in government, right? Islam, Hinduism and Judaism are all faiths, and there are Americans of all of those faiths. After all, it's not like we can arbitrarily pick one and only one religion and say that particular one gets to set all the rules it likes, right?

Yay for more religion and faith based government! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wondered about the tax-exempt status of these churches when they do such an explicit job in political campaigning.

Terra there isn't an elected official in this country who would dare to try and get a religious groups tax exempt status revoked. It would be the political equivalent of seppuku.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terra there isn't an elected official in this country who would dare to try and get a religious groups tax exempt status revoked. It would be the political equivalent of seppuku.

Actually, the IRS did take on Christian Coalition in the mid 90s and got them to split off into a PAC for a more precise accounting. So it can be done. However, whether the IRS will have the human resource (in the face of cutting their agents, especially) to tackle a single congregation is questionable.

But yes, no politician will want to attach his/her face to this effort. That much I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TP,

I always wondered about the tax-exempt status of these churches when they do such an explicit job in political campaigning.

Has the IRS ever challenged the tax exempt status of Pastors of Churches who make such overt political statements? If they did it would make me smile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TP,

Has the IRS ever challenged the tax exempt status of Pastors of Churches who make such overt political statements? If they did it would make me smile.

The only recent case I know of is that of All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, and it certainly doesn't make me smile.

http://www.seattlepi...iry-1193066.php

http://articles.lati.../me-allsaints24

P.S. By the way, PASTORS do not have a "tax exempt" status. Clergy pay income taxes on their personal income like anyone else, though the IRS has an odd rule that all clergy are considered "self-employed" in regard to their filing status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitt Romney promises an "American Century." Yay American imperialism!

http://pajamasmedia....foreign-policy/

Just this speech is enough to make me dearly hope this pompous asshole never becomes president.

Wow, a whole bunch of fear mongering from a crazy ass republican candidate. That's new. The 'God Created America' commented kinda pisses me off. FSM forbid we give credit to all the hard work that Americans have done to make this country strong. Nope, just a wave of the great overseers hand and BAM America was made.

I'm sure that makes the rest of the God fearing world feel special.

I also like the 'inferior' navy comment. I've mentioned this before. America has 11 Carrier groups, China has 1.

As for the LDS not being a Christian faith. In the simplest definition it is not a traditional one. We've beat this topic to death, but the idea that God was a man that came from another planet to populate Earth with his spirit children doesn't really fit into the traditional Christian view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, they need to crack down on all those black churches.

I know you say that meaning that any restriction on political speech from churchs should be equally applied, but the historic record shows that laws are often unequally applied to black people and their institutions so saying that just sounds really bad, I had to reread the series of posts a couple times to convince myself it wasn't an overtly pro-racist statement. Sadly, the fact is that it is far more likely that Republicans will try and restrict the speech of black churches than it is that Democrats will try and restrict the speech of all churches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, they need to crack down on all those black churches.

As if all black churches are politically active in the same way as the one referenced in this discussion? But yes, those who are actively stumping for a candidate should be audited by the IRS to see if they are in violation of their tax-exemption status.

Black church, white church, yellow church - I don't care. If they are a tax-exempt entity, then they should tread carefully on political advocacy. I am okay if they advocate on issues, such as "think of the talking embryos that will never be able to hung you with their embryonic arms when they are aborted - vote pro-life!" but not when they are stumping for specific candidates.

That aside, let us also recognize the historical context of black churches serving as refuges for black civil rights movement organization. There isn't a comparable history for white churches because, well, there wasn't a white civil rights movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrific Ezra Klein article on the trajectory the administration response and economy have taken.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/could-this-time-have-been-different/2011/08/25/gIQAiJo0VL_blog.html#pagebreak

I too wonder how different the mood of the country would be if the oath of office were still administered in March. :-p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That aside, let us also recognize the historical context of black churches serving as refuges for black civil rights movement organization. There isn't a comparable history for white churches because, well, there wasn't a white civil rights movement.

You can recognize whatever you want. Doesn't make them any less political. In fact, it actually makes them even more political. You can't have one rule for political churches you like, and one rule for political churches you don't. LIkewise, blasting Republicans for bringing God into discussions seems awfully hypocrital when Democratic politicians do the same thing, and not a peep is heard.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/03/obama-to-deliver-major-speech-on-personal-faith-white-house-official-says/

Now personally, I don't think you can really take politics completely out of churches anyway, nor should you. As long as they don't actively solicit donations for particular candidates from the pulpit, or give money organizationally, I'd rather err on the side of not trying to control/regulate their speech. Because in most cases -- Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger aside -- I don't think they do much harm, and occasionally do a lot of good. Frankly, if not for the religious leadership of the civil rights era, it is unlikely that era would have been as peaceful as it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrific Ezra Klein article on the trajectory the administration response and economy have taken.

http://www.washingto....html#pagebreak

I too wonder how different the mood of the country would be if the oath of office were still administered in March. :-p

Krugman had a good, succint addendum/response to that.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/was-failure-inevitable/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a random thought: Why is Gingrich doing so poorly when the base seems so dissatisfied by their other candidates? I know the reasons they don't like Romney. I know the reasons why they don't like Perry (who I still think can make a comeback). What are Newt's sins with the base? Is it his personal life, or is it some kind of Pawlenty-like ability to just not inspire?

It's a couple of things. Part of it is his personal life, but part of it is the sort of weird stances he's taken on some things, like being buddy-buddy with Nancy Pelosi on global warming, and some of the other unpredictable stances he's taken.

Ultimately, I think his problem is that most Republicans simply don't trust him. He's always seemed so impressed by his own intelligence that he doesn't really listen to anyone else, and so while you think you know where he stands on things, you're just not quite sure that he won't come up with something that is exaclty the opposite of what you want.

I think he's a really smart guy, and if a Republican wins, I think there is a place for him. But as much as I like most of what he says in these debates, I'm in the group that doesn't trust him as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, I think his problem is that most Republicans simply don't trust him. He's always seemed so impressed by his own intelligence that he doesn't really listen to anyone else, and so while you think you know where he stands on things, you're just not quite sure that he won't come up with something that is exaclty the opposite of what you want.

I think he's a really smart guy, and if a Republican wins, I think there is a place for him. But as much as I like most of what he says in these debates, I'm in the group that doesn't trust him as well.

I'd argue that the perception that Gingrich is intelligent works against him with Republican primary voters. I think there's a strong strain of anti-intellectualism amongst Americans in general, and I think it is even more intense amongst conservative Americans. There is little interest there in a thinking candidate who consults the experts; instead, there seems to be a breathless fascination with a candidate who is possessed of homespun wisdom and makes decisions "from the heart." Perhaps I am just an elite liberal, but I am frankly distrustful of the utility of homespun wisdom in policy making, and eight years of GWB showed me the disastrous consequences heartfelt decisions can bring. I'll go with an educated, rational, candidate who makes fact-based decisions, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, that sounds about right.

It's still amazing to me how poor Pawlenty did. He just seemed the least flawed on paper by far. I seriously wonder if his weakness on that one debate question entirely sunk him. This is a GOP primary that wants some fire. If he'd ripped into Romney right there I think he'd be in the thick of things right now.

Pawlenty was boring. Politics is image and Pawlenty's image i

Sorry, what was I typing? I just fell asleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...