The Obama team seems determined to go unprepared and perform unimpressively on topics that obviously were going to come their way. Yesterday, to the delight of the Romney crew, there was Jay Carney attempt to explain why Bain is different from Solyndra:
That’s sad — not to mention entirely unintelligible.
Let’s see if we can help out Carney.
Bain used money from voluntary investors who were at risk for losses. Solyndra shifted the risk from the private sector to the taxpayers.
Bain had expertise in selecting winners and in investing wisely. Obama’s political appointees did not.
Bain didn’t give “friends and family” a better deal than strangers. Solyndra and the Energy Department sure did.
The Treasury Department’s inspector general found:
In the case of Solyndra, Treasury was not consulted on the terms and conditions of the loan transaction prior to or concurrent with DOE’s review process. Furthermore, the consultation that did occur was rushed . . . while Treasury officials told us that they had sufficient time to review the Solyndra documents, and all pertinent questions and concerns were adequately addressed, they maintained no documentation of DOE’s responses to the questions and concerns raised.
Had Bain ever conducted business in such slip-shod fashion and proceeded to lose $500 million of its investors’ money Romney would have faced a bevy of lawsuits. Both the profit motive and the civil justice system (which grants immunity to government employees) tends to heighten the level of care and raise the bar for performance in the private sector. The public sector is quite another matter.
You see how very different were the two endeavors. That the White House spokesman couldn’t come up with something positive, let alone comprehensible, to say on the topic, gives you an idea how unfamiliar this crew is with Economics 101.
No wonder they want to talk about Donald Trump, the “war on women,” government-addicted “Julia,” contraception and how “odd” Romney is. Members of the Obama White House are experienced and comfortable in campaigning, character attacks, media manipulation and appealing to liberal elites just like themselves. Energy policy and market economics? Not so much.