You’re reporting with both fear AND favor. As is obvious by your giddiness to use the word “scandal” where there clearly is none. I dont believe we should be, as you and other conservative writes always do on here, attacking clean energy companies when we claim to support small businesses, simply because we believe that if a small business owner works on solar panels he must wear tie-dyed shirts, follow the Grateful Dead and vote for Obama.

If the economy was as healthy as it was pre-9-11, I’d say all this experimentation with alternative energy would be logical and much needed.
In the dangerous, struggling economy we have today, we must use the primary energy sources WE HAVE, not dream about what we’d like.
Most of the Solar and Wind generators do a very, very poor job when compared to our present “dirty” sources.
The new regulations slapped around with wild abandon by the EPA are not helping the Country.

Mark..facts are peculiar things..they get in the way of qualitative, emotional reactions and cause a person like yourself to immediately indulge in whimpering name calling because of your inability to engage in factual conversation. Take out your calculator Mark, add up all the money sent to firms which were, knowingly, failing and then look at the background of those individuals involved wtih the management of the companies. Any of those individuals involved with Obama?..yeah..they were and are. No one cares about your tye dyed business friends, they care about the incalculable damage being done to our economy by an Administration which doesn’t understand Capitalism, it’s history, how it works, and how it can be used to guarantee the very best economic outcome to the largest number of American citizens. It is obvious they want to do away with it in favor of a failed political philosophy that, when implemented, has left millions in abject poverty. Let me recommend that you engage in some critical thinking as it relates to this President and his surrogates, look at the facts, who knows you might become “giddy” when you arrive at the true picture of this man. By the way, don’t forget this report was done by one of your own, CBS News, an organization that can comfortably be described as hard-Left. Why no criticism of their work? Your words are leveled at the “Messanger” who simply reports the CBS “facts”. Go sit in the corner and think about how you’re going to stop looking so foolish in the future..

Robert Johnson i am in total agreement with you opinion.
Mark you enjoying your cloud dancing?

[...] More and see video: http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/cbs-exposes-obamas-version-of-venture-capitalism/ Advertisement GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]

[...] CBS Exposes Obama’s Version of Venture Capitalism [...]

[...] The New York Times Struggles With The Truth [...]

Mark, it’s not the federal government’s job to distribute the people’s money to people and companies they particularly like! Rather, it’s their job to promote a climate wherein there will be benefit to the general welfare of the peoples of the United States.
Now, one could argue that “green” energy may be, sometime in the hazy future, of some benefit to all. But, to “invest” in a company that has all the hallmarks of potential near term failure is a gross misuse of funds. Worse still, those funds were directed to “friends” of the administration.
The federal government should not be “investing” in anything. I might consider tax breaks to fledgling industries, even those whose future benefit might be in question but, to actually throw money at or guarantee the loans of such businesses is just plain foolish if not criminal.
There are enough government funded research outfits, including universities, where technology can be proven and private enterprise can then buy the rights to such technology if they think it profitable and of some value. If a technology works, private enterprise will line up to purchase it! This is the way to move forward. The cost to us all is then vastly minimized and having faceless (and some, not so faceless) bureaucrats picking and choosing who the winners should or shouldn’t be will be taken out of the equation.

As an afterthought, I don’t want to hear any whining from the “tax break equals a subsidy or loss of revenues”. If a company can’t get a tax break it may not start up or operate at all. Thus, there are NO revenues from the company or it’s employees.
Which is better? A little less or nothing?
Of course, all tax breaks should be always be temporary. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case!