The Constancy of Crony Capitalism
Corporations double dip at taxpayers' expense.
In his 1986 memoir The Triumph of Politics, former Reagan administration budget director David Stockman wrote: "I had long insisted, to any liberals who would listen, that the supply-side revolution would be different from the corrupted opportunism of the organized business groups; that it would go after weak [corporate welfare] claims like Boeing's, not just weak clients such as food stamp recipients. Giving the heave-ho to the well-heeled lobbyists of the big corporations who keep the whole scam alive would be dramatic proof that we meant business, not business-as-usual."
After four years as the Reagan administration's fiscal whiz kid, Stockman left, objecting to the president's inability or unwillingness to make good on his promises to cut government spending. Crony capitalism, having avoided a showdown with a principled adversary, has thrived ever since.
Cronyism is the practice by which government officials—Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives—give preferential treatment to particular firms or industries in exchange for votes, campaign contributions, or the pleasure of promoting pet projects. Favored companies reap financial rewards, reduce their exposure to risk, and gain an advantage over rivals who don't get the same government help.
Consider the alternative energy industry. Politicians and businessmen claim that innovative solar, wind, and nuclear companies have a hard time getting private funding for 21st-century energy schemes because they are too risky or require too much initial investment in the commercialization phase. That's where the Energy Department's Section 1705 loan program comes in.
Section 1705 guarantees loans to alternative energy companies so banks don't have to worry about defaults. The loan guarantee authority originated with Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 added Section 1705, which among other things subsidizes the fees that would otherwise be paid by borrowers.
Since the program's creation, the Energy Department has guaranteed $16 billion in loans for a total of 26 projects. Although Section 1705 is mainly known for funding such high-profile bankruptcies as Solyndra and Abound Solar, the companies it helps generally do well. That's because most of the loan guarantees have gone to projects backed by large and financially secure companies. For instance, the energy producer Cogentrix, recipient of a $90 million guarantee, is a subsidiary of the investment bank Goldman Sachs. There's every reason to believe Congentrix could have obtained a loan on its own.
But why bother? The terms offered by the feds are unbelievably good. Eric Lipton of The New York Times reported in November 2011 that green giant NRG Energy obtained a $1.2 billion guarantee to build its California Valley Solar Ranch "at the exceptionally low rate of about 3.5 percent compared with the 7 percent that executives said they would otherwise have had to pay." The lower rate saves the company $205 million over the life of the loan, Lipton explained. The company has also received two other packages of federally backed loans totaling $2.6 billion. And the deal gets even sweeter: Section 1705 guarantees 80 percent of a project's total cost, a much higher portion than private banks usually agree to finance.
State backing confers subtler advantages as well. In 2010 the Government Accountability Office concluded that federal subsidies signal to investors that a company is relatively safe, a perception that helps attract additional private capital. During a July 18 statement before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Craig Witsoe, former CEO of Abound Solar, one of the Section 1705 companies that recently went under, explained that his company managed to collect an additional $350 million from private investors after it had secured its government guarantee. Much of that funding could be the product of the security that the federal support implied.
Section 1705 loan guarantees are not the only subsidies available to alternative energy firms. NRG received more than three dozen grants under the 2009 stimulus. NRG is also eligible for money from the Treasury Department's Section 1603 grant program, which provides up to 30 percent of a project's cost in cash. Eric Lipton calculated that the company would be eligible for a $430 million cash payment on its $1.2 billion Section 1705 project once the construction of the California Valley Solar Ranch is completed. NRG also could receive additional cash under the Section 1603 for its other two 1705 projects.
These federal goodies are often duplicated at the state and local levels. Lipton noted that "under a state law passed to encourage the construction of more solar projects, NRG will not have to pay property taxes to San Luis Obispo County on its solar panels, saving it an estimated $14 million a year." California offers depreciation tax breaks for renewable energy plants, reducing NRG's corporate income taxes by $110 million.
NRG is hardly an exception. On top of the $500 million it got under the Section 1705 loan program, Solyndra benefited from a $10.3 million loan guarantee that the Export-Import Bank extended to a Belgian company to finance a sale of Solyndra products. (That's what the Ex-Im Bank does: give taxpayer money or taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to foreign firms that buy American goods and services). Now that Solyndra has collapsed, taxpayers will pick up that tab too.
The list goes on. First Solar received a $646 million Section 1705 loan in 2011 through its partner Exelon, then another $547.7 million in loan guarantees to subsidize the sale of solar panels to solar farms abroad. To add insult to injury, as The Washington Examiner's Tim Carney recently discovered, $192.9 million in Ex-Im Bank money went to a Canadian company named St. Clair Solar, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar. In other words, the company received a loan to buy solar panels from itself.
In 2010 the Obama administration gave First Solar a $16.3 million loan to expand its factory in Ohio. Shortly thereafter, then-Gov. Ted Strickland gave the company $1 million in job training grants, and the Ohio Department of Energy extended another $5 million in loans. The state's Air Quality Development Authority gave First Solar an additional $10 million. Yet all of that taxpayer money couldn't keep the company afloat: In April 2012, First Solar laid off 2,000 workers. It is currently teetering on the edge of failure.
Corporate double dipping isn't new. Bipartisan federal, state, and local support for the "weak claims" of corporations has been going on for far more than 30 years, and not just in new and exotic industries such as alternative energy. The target of David Stockman's ire, aerospace giant Boeing, continues to receive almost unfathomably huge direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government. Ninety percent of the value of the loan guarantees issued by the Export–Import Bank in 2011 went to subsidize Boeing. As a result, Carney reports, Boeing "accounted for 45.6 percent, or $40.7 billion, of Ex-Im's total exposure in fiscal 2011." With the help of federal guarantees, the company gained contracts from the likes of Air China and Air India.
Boeing shows its gratitude to taxpayers by overcharging them at every turn. The nonprofit Project on Government Oversight recently reported that "Boeing charged the U.S. Army $1,678.61 for a plastic roller assembly that could have been purchased for $7.71 internally from the Department of Defense's own supplies. In another transaction, a thin metal pin worth 4 cents that the Pentagon had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, ended up costing the Army $71.01—a markup of more than 177,000 percent." The watchdog group's investigation found that Boeing overcharged the Army nearly $13 million in dozens of transactions, jacking up the price on small, mundane parts and in some cases charging thousands of times more than they were worth. What Stockman called the "corrupted opportunism of the organized business groups" has become business as usual.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I think these sorts of things should be called just plain cronyism.
Leave the capitalism part off of it. It doesn't really have anything to do with capitalism per se and merely plays into the hands of liberal statists who constantly try to smear free market capitalism.
Cronyism can and does occur in any economic system. There was plenty of cronysim going on in the old Soviet Union. No capitalism was required.
"I think these sorts of things should be called just plain cronyism."
I think calling it, what it really is, would be even better- Bribery and corruption.
i dont thik for The Constancy of Crony Capitalism
i love for jasa seo murah di indonesia and jasa seo murah bergaransi halaman 1 google
No, no, only Republicans give subsidies to their fat-cat cronies to enrich them.
When Democrats give subsidies, they're always for the workers. And they never give them to garner votes or contributions but to promote social justice.
They told me so, so it must be true.
Indeed, and most head shakingly absurd is that you will actually find not one but many leftist hacks who believe this, and who blindly embrace this corrupted and warped religion of theirs.
('course loads of rightists will argue about how global competitiveness requires the corporate deductions, otherwise the economy will die faster than Al Gore's ozone layer. But they are another hopeless story.)
The standard Obama supporter will never, but never face the reality of the current state: one-party rule -- big government beholden to big commerce, via regulations -- that which squashes the little guy competitor. Call it Democrat or Republican, whatever.
You ignore the Democratic handouts to Wall Street and the Banksters. While TARP was initiated by Bush, Democrats, including Obama, backed it. The Dodd-Frank legislation was also a favor to them. You might remember Frank's (and the rest of the Democrats) blocking regulations for Fannie Mae, as Frank said, he saw no problem there.
And you ignore all the government handouts to non-profits for their benefit (and the salaries of those running it), such as ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and hundreds of others. And you can look up all the campaign contributions from the officers of such non-profits.
And you ignore all the earmarks for Democratic politician's districts, which often goes for pet business projects.
And you ignore the money that goes to the union bosses (not the workers).
And where exactly is the "social justice" and how is it "for the workers" when they are forced to join a union against their will (if they want to keep their job) and pay dues to the union bosses (who in turn contribute to Democrats)? What is see is injustice and taking from workers.
Maybe we can get the WTO to go after these cronies like it did to Airbus and the EU.
Just a thought.
They just need to pass a law to make this illegal. That will stop it. Yeah.
Unfortunately for Johnson, each party also thinks the other party can be too libertarian ? Republicans on economics, Democrats on social policy. He also faces the third-party Catch-22: He doesn't get much media coverage because he doesn't have much popular support ? which he cannot get without media coverage.cheap nfl jerseys Besides, many people do not want to vote for someone who cannot win. A vote for a third-party candidate, they think, is a wasted vote. Johnson disagrees. "A wasted vote," he says, "is a vote for someone you don't believe in." By that standard, millions of Republicans and Democrats will be throwing their votes away on Nov. 6. Johnson voters ? what few there are ? will not.
Since the program's creation, the Energy Department has guaranteed $16 billion in loans for a total of 26 projects. Although Section 1705 is mainly known for funding such high-profile bankruptcies as Solyndra and Abound Solar, the companies it helps generally do well. That's because most of the loan guarantees have gone to projects backed by large and financially secure companies. For instance, the energy producer Cogentrix, recipient of a $90 million guarantee, is a subsidiary of the investment bank Goldman Sachs. There's every reason to believe Congentrix could have obtained a loan on its own.cheap nfl jerseys State backing confers subtler advantages as well. In 2010 the Government Accountability Office concluded that federal subsidies signal to investors that a company is relatively safe, a perception that helps attract additional private capital. During a July 18 statement before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Craig Witsoe, former CEO of Abound Solar, one of the Section 1705 companies that recently went under, explained that his company managed to collect an additional $350 million from private investors after it had secured its government guarantee. Much of that funding could be the product of the security that the federal support implied.
thank you
I am not sure the things that I force have done without the type of creative concepts shown by you concerning my issue matter. recognition all over again.
http://austinghausbb.com
good thanks sohbet
cinsel sohbet
Leave the capitalism part off of it. It doesn't really have anything to do with capitalism per se and merely plays into the hands of liberal statists who constantly try to smear free market capitalism.
???? ????? ?????
???? ??? ???? ???????
Cronyism can and does occur in any economic system. There was plenty of cronysim going on in the old Soviet Union. No capitalism was required.
i think this is a real great article how can i find out more? just what i was searching for
liked your article post its very nice to read perfectly quality content
perfectly quality content absolutely written subject material i liked it
i'm dealing with many of these issues as well regards for helping out i have read fully article
good luck you are a very smart person keep this going please
iam happy linked to this place iam happy linked to this place enjoyed every bit of your post
like this blog this really answered my problem exactly what i was looking for
i have some ideas from this thanks here are a few of the cool web pages some great article
totally what i wanted to find excellent blog post continue the good work
They just need to pass a law to make this illegal. That will stop it. Yeah GOOD
Quality posts is the crucial to invite the visitors to visit the web page, that's what this web page is providing.
Great stuff you've compiled here. This is excellent writing from you. I really had a good time reading this fantastic article. Everything here is just top notch, mate. I hope you'll continue to give more stuff like this.
They just need to pass a law to make this illegal. That will stop it. Yeah.
nice blog thanks. sohbet odalar? & sohbet siteleri