Skip to comments.Mitt Romney has a Solyndra-like failure in his past, too: report [Oops...]
Posted on 06/03/2012 5:15:23 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
Mitt Romney has made a bankrupt solar power company the symbol of President Obamas inability to jumpstart the economy - but he has a similar failure on his resume, according to a report.
Romney has repeatedly ripped the Obama administration for sending federal funds to Solyndra, a California alternative energy company that went belly-up.
Decrying the White Houses decision to give Solyndra a $535 million federal loan as crony capitalism, Romney even held a surprise campaign stunt at the Bay Area plant Thursday.
But a day later, a Massachusetts solar panel company that received a state grant while Romney was governor filed for bankruptcy, according to the Boston Herald.
Romney personally awarded a $1.5 million renewable energy subsidy to Konarka Technologies, based in Lowell, a short time after he took office in 2003, the paper reported.
That company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and laid off 85 workers.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
You mean alternative energy didn’t work in 2003?
Romney made mistakes, Obama didn’t learn from them.
Lets see. 1.5 million in 2003 vs nearly 500 million in 2010. Hmm, I don’t see he connection.
1.5 vs 550 million.... not accounting for inflation.
Yeah, that sounds like a winning arguement.
So it’s okay to waste taxpayer monies on “green jobs” boondoggles as long as the increments are small enough.
Yeah, maybe he did. But $1.5 million compared to $535 million is truly apples to oranges.
This is not about defending Mittens. This is about the idiotic logic of Axle and the media
Using NY Daily figures
20 million in Govt grants (1.5) from Mittens vs 535 from Abamo
11 year history vs 2 years
This is their best shot? This is embarrassing to watch
Romney authorized 1.5 million in 2003. They file for Bankruptcy in 2012. According to Wikipedia:
As of 2006, Konarka has received $60 million in funding from venture capital firms including 3i, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, New Enterprise Associates, Good Energies and Chevron Technology Ventures.  Konarka has also received nearly $10 million in combined grants from the Pentagon and European governments, and in 2007 was approved for further funding through the Solar America Initiative, a component of the White House’s Advanced Energy Initiative.  The company raised a further $45 million in private capital financing in October 2007 in a financing round led by Mackenzie Financial Corporation. 
Obama bet 1/2 a billion on Solyndra when he was being warned they were about to go under. The cases couldn’t be more different unless Konarka made pot-bellied stoves.
No. But you have to look at the time frame. The Mass. Company received that grant in 2003 and declared bankruptcy this year. It was an ongoing concern in the interim. Trying to tie that in with Solyndra, which was nothing more than a payoff to donors, is no more than gotcha politics. The two examples are or even related.
“Governour CEO” is gonna save us ping!
I ain’t gonna hold my breath. Progressive globalists are all the same.
Obama ruins the economy and when the consequences of his policies destroy business, he digs up a decades old grant and somehow tries to compare Romney oranges to Obama road apples. It's exactly the same.....but different.
Wow....Mittens pulled an Obama....before Obama pulled an Obama.../ s
These stories are related like the Orwell Brother first flight to the first lunar landing ..
Same template....but way different scenarios...
$500mill is just the tip of the iceberg....
If he did it "personally" it wasn't state money. If he did it as governor, it was because the state house of representatives and the state senate passed it. I'm no fan of Romney but this is a reach.
I'm sure that you see that for the Democrats this election is a battle for the minds of the weak!
Absolutely! You all saw where "they" are now accusing Scott Walker of having a "love child" from his college days
as you say it is a battle for the minds of the weak
See: the 10th Amendment. States are free to make stupid mistakes with their taxpayers' money. The federal government was never given that authority.
Any rational, sane person would be trashing this hypocritical MSM hatchet job instead of rolling in it like a dog on a fresh turd. One doesn't have to be pro-Romney or ABO to see just how lame this particular attempt at moral equivalence is.
So, the claim here is that because of zer0’s policies, these TWO flat-earth solar companies file for bankruptcy in 2012? Ok, two companies go belly-up on zer0’s watch.
I can picture a GOP ad depicting an investment in a company nine years ago with potential; 9 years of employment and perhaps even profit; then this year, under zer0, it also, like Solyndra, goes belly up. Just like millions of other biz’s under zer0, all going belly up, and losing a net 2+ million jobs in 3 years.
This is one argument barry the kenyan definitely doesnt want to have lol
So you are a Paultard troll? Your the troll who posted the Business Insider radical Left hit piece on Romney a few minutes earlier? How many other crap hit pieces do you plan to post today?
However, it appears that the company in question survived 11 years, was a going concern for quite a while. It lasted 8 years after the money given by the state of Massachusetts. That suggests that it was a real business run by folks to produce real products and real profits.
Solyndra, on the other hand, was already a basket case when the regime gave it loan guarantees in 2009, against the advice of other elements in the regime which described the loan as very risky and the company as probably a bad bet. Its technology was already out of date, and it had little chance for survival. Internal information in the regime determined the company would have cash flow problems by September, 2011. Indeed, those predictions were borne out when the company actually went bankrupt two years later - in September 2011.
Let's remember that this was a case of the actual day-to-day federal government doing their assigned tasks CORRECTLY: Folks in the bowels of the bureaucracy had rightly determined, “This deal is NOT ready for prime time.”
Yet, the loan was ultimately made because of pressure from the top levels of the regime, resulting from the political connections of the management of the company.
The second scandal here is when things started to go south, the company, with the permission of the government, brought in additional revenue by subordinating the government's position vis-a-vis its loan guarantees, so that, in the case of bankruptcy, taxpayer interests would be completely unprotected to favor the interests of later investors.
From wiki: “Assistant Treasury Secretary Mary Miller wrote emails at the time stating that this subordination might be illegal, and should be cleared with the Justice Department first, but Energy Department officials proceeded based on an internal legal opinion by the loan program's lawyers.”
Even relatively high-level officials of the regime knew that this was against the law. But these folks were really connected.
That's a far, far different tale from giving a million and a half to a company that eventually failed, eight years later.
But the moron supporters of the Kenyan anti-Christ will never get it, because, well, the explanation doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
Some people are not going to listen to you. They hate Romney more than they hate 0bama, so there is no point in trying.
The governor of Massachusetts approves Massachusetts taxpayer funding for a Massachusetts company. The president approves national taxpayer funding for a California company.
At least Romney kept it within the boundaries of his state.
There is no reason to “hate” anyone here. Just to point out that Romney had these tendencies as governor. The tendencies to use taxpayer money for policies to follow government controlled “industries for change, for a certain political agenda”. Government bureaucrats always make poor decisions out of their own “virtuous” intentions, of course.
Another ‘point out’ Romney could have vetoed this!
Konarka filed for Ch 7 bankruptcy in 2012.
Nine years later and five years after Romney left the governorship.
On the timeline alone, it's not even remotely comparable to Solyndra.
Pay attention! The subside happened in 2003, the bankruptcy in 2012.
C'mon, now... The Obama supporters on this forum are doing the best they can.
I am not saying that Romney is perfect. However, this article was put in the paper by the New York Daily News to help 0bama. I will critize Romeny when needed, however I refuse aid and abet the 0bama re-election campaign, like some of the Romney haters.
Gee, and a timeline search for this news shows this version originated with Think Progress..
D’oh, back at you.
But he SAVED the UTAH Olympics!
There are similarities and differences. Romney, like Obama, likes to give tax money to private business. That corporate “partnership” with business is the heart of social corporatism.
The amount of money makes no difference.
The difference in this case somewhat in support of Romney is that Solyndra was given tons of money even though it was known to be failing at the time
The great thing about conservatism is it’s unwillingness to engage in spin. It’s about honest facts and honest analysis. For example, Romney really did come out in support of gay couples and adoption just last month. .
"Did a dem get past the moderators? Maybe.
I will vote, but not for Romney. Conservatism will be set back by a Romney win more than by an Obama win.
Exactly. A vote for a Romney is a vote to admit that conservatives really don't care about conservatism, or principles, or any of that other lame garbage that only appeals to losers who actually care about the Constitution and this country.
It's time to tell the GOP-e that we're not going to go along with them anymore. It may even be time to kill their Party and create a new one that they don't have any say in.
39 posted on Wed 01 Feb 2012 11:21:22 PM CST by Yashcheritsiy"
This helps to show the depths of degradation to which Free Republic has fallen in such a short time.
Even six months ago, Freepers were rightly telling us that it was wrong on principle for government to use taxpayers' monies to pick and choose certain industries and businesses to subsidise, especially when the premises for why these businesses and industries were being subsidised was something spurious like concerns over "anthropogenic global warming."
Now, FReepers rush to assure us that it's okay for government to do this, so long as it's below a certain, apparently arbitrary, monetary amount and so long as the subsidised business doesn't fold within a certain, apparently arbitrary, number of years.
No offence, but that's pathetic.
It must feel so good but lonely to be an absolutist. The purity of thought and deed is admirable.
Do what? When did it become "absolutist" or "purist" for conservatives to oppose government subsidisation of preferred industries, especially when those subsidies are being given out ostensibly to help "combat" a non-existent "problem"?
I thought that was pretty much just baseline, mainstream, bargain basement conservatism. When did it suddenly become "absolutist" to simply be "conservative"?
When you propose that I have sunk to the depths of degradation, that’s when. If you want to have a civil discussion mind your manners.
No, it’s not OK to waste taxpayer’s money on green job boondoggles.
The article was drawing a comparison between Romney’s investment failure and Obama’s.
My point was there is really no comparison given Romney’s gamble on the taxpayers dime (albeit wrong move) loss was about 1/600th of Barry’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.