And by “unprofitable”, The Week writer Ryan Cooper means to government, because the loans sure seemed profitable to the recipients of the loans, 80% of whom were Democrat donors
Last week, we were treated to another instance of completely confused debate over a government financing program, this time the Department of Energy’s green loans initiative. The department released afinancial reporton the program, which has been quite successful.A report atBusinessWeekclaimed the program was on track to make a $5 billion profit.
The problem is that the $5 billion figure doesn’t take into account the costs of financing or the rate of default. Correcting for that, the program is narrowly unprofitable. Thus, thebean counters over at the Tax Policy Centerattacked, wagging their fingers at reporters for not reading the report closely, and accusing the Department of Energy of selling its program in a misleading way.
The report itself has an interesting graphic
That equates to $535,714 per job created. Anyhow
But this whole discussion is beside the point. As with the TARP bailout — when the government invested tens of millions of dollars in big banks — discussions of “profitability” are completely pointless. The federal government has the world’s reserve currency and the legal ability to make arbitrary quantities of dollars. Profitability is an important question for businesses, and state governments to a lesser extent, because they don’t have the dollar creation machine. But for the feds, it’s simply not an important benchmark. The question is whether the policy is good or not.
The problem is that so many of the loans were made for political payback, and many were not paid back. Many were made despite the DOE knowing that the loans were bad risks (Solyndra, anyone?) This is just another talking point to make it seem like government pissing away taxpayer money on “climate change” is a good thing.