Goldwater Institute wants to end solar subsidies. All of them.
Posted by: Donna
Per Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute (GI):
It’s not every day that the New York Times makes a compelling case against government giveaways. But a recent page-one article underscored that the Solyndra scandal was only the tip of the solar-subsidy iceberg. Huge companies like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, General Electric, utilities including Exelon and NRG, and even Google are receiving government guarantees that ensure large profits with virtually no risk — except to the taxpayer.
Bolick cites a November 2011 NYT article, “A Gold Rush of Subsidies”, describing various federal, state, and local incentives and suggesting that caution is in order when handing out subsidies to wealthy companies where profit is all but insured and private risk is minimized. Fair enough, but Bolick sees a “compelling case” to eliminate all government incentives for solar where no such case was made in the article. Bolick ignores the pro-subsidy argument that writers Eric Lipton and Cifford Krauss included in their piece:
Industry executives and other supporters of the subsidies say that the public money was vital to the projects, in part because financing for renewable energy projects dried up during the recession. They also note that more traditional energy sectors, like oil and natural gas, get heavy subsidies of their own. For example, in the 2010 fiscal year, the oil and gas producers got federal tax breaks of $2.7 billion, according to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration.
“These programs just level the playing field for what oil and gas and nuclear industries have enjoyed for the last 50 years,” said Rhone Resch, president of Solar Energy Industries Association. “Do you have to provide more policy support and funding initially? Absolutely. But the result is more energy security, clean energy and domestic jobs.”
Michael E. Webber, associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas, Austin, said renewable energy subsidies were a worthy investment. “It is a form of corporate welfare that is consistent with other social goals like job creation, clean air and boosting a domestic source of energy,” he said.
Fossil fuels got more than three times as much in subsidies as renewable energy got from 2002 to 2008. But the Goldwater Institute has never decried “giveaways” to Big Carbon. That might have to do with their donors and affiliations. If the Koch Brothers et al got big into solar or wind I expect GI would suddenly grow very silent on subsidies to those industries. (CORRECTION: Clint Bolick responded to this post and linked to a Republic op-ed where he did, in fact, call for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Fair enough, Clint, but the ratio of GI statements opposing renewable subsidies to those opposing fossil fuel subsidies is very high.)
Not to mention that investments in clean energy are highly popular, whereas fossil fuel subsidies are definitely not. That’s an important consideration since energy consumers have far less leverage in that market than they do in consumer goods, such as shoes or computers. Unless you are very wealthy, you can’t just say, “I would prefer solar energy for my house, as opposed to coal or nuclear.” The only way most people can make their energy preferences known is through support for government investment. And they’ve spoken. They want the government to invest in renewable energy.
GI claims to oppose any favorable treatment to any industry via the tax code. It is true that they have gone after public pork for sports stadiums and the like, often at odds with Republican politicians and business leaders who are their usual allies. One of their favorite talking points is “government shouldn’t pick winners and losers”. Which sounds impressive except GI is wildly inconsistent about it. Hence their support for school vouchers and tuition tax credits, to the extent that they have joined lawsuits in favor of them. Those make winners out of private schools and parents sending their children to private schools using public dollars.
Which is interesting, because I’m not familiar with any poll showing widespread public support for diverting public education funds to private schools. A recent poll in Pennsylvania shows the opposite. Maybe GI could commission a poll in Arizona showing something different. I doubt they’ll succeed in that. Otherwise, I guess this all means the Goldwater Institute is consistent on one thing: They don’t care about what the people want. They care about what their donors want.
8 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
What,? Won’t even wait for you know who?
The Goldwater Institute of Corporate Talking Points, sponsored by the Wepay Yousay Foundation.
Thanks for acknowledging that we have opposed subsidies that Republicans favor. You overlooked my recent Republic op-ed in which I call for ending ALL energy subsidies, especially those for fossil fuels. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/11/20/20111120axing-energy-subsidies-myturn.html
We develop our ideas and funding follows, not vice-versa. Corporate funding makes up a tiny fraction of our support—unlike many of the liberal groups with which we lock horns. It must be tough to admit that an opponent is motivated by ideas, not dollars, but we freely admit it of many of our opponents and it is true of us, just as it was true of our namesake. We find it’s better to engage the arguments rather than speculate as to motives. But the latter too often is a feeble substitute for the former.
Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
Clint, everyone has motives. You and your Institute are not gods dispensing pure wisdom from atop your Olympian perch of objectivity. You claim to be champions of liberty but are silent on a host of important issues where people are being deprived of their liberty, so as not to offend your conservative Republican donors. I based my comment about GI silence on fossil fuel subsidies on a search of the GI website. But I will update my post to acknowledge your op-ed.
You’re right as usual. Wingers like to pick and choose, then muddy the waters when called on it.
Mr. Bolick has worked long and hard to destroy public schools in favor of charter scools. Which of course are subsidized by tax dollars
Remember your post on BASIS? Ol’ Clintys on the board of directors.
Annual Teacher FundTax Credit
Tax Credit Program
The Arizona Tax Credit Program allows Arizona taxpayers to contribute up to $200 for individuals and up to $400 for married couples (filing jointly) for the support of extracurricular activities at a public/charter school of their choice and receive a dollar for dollar tax credit on their Arizona state income tax.
What do I have to do to qualify for this credit?
Write a check or contribute online to an existing BASIS school by December 31. The school will mail you a receipt with the school’s tax code to verify your contribution. Then, when you file your state tax return you may deduct the amount you contributed.
Most of BASIS teachers are not certified by the state (truth), and when the state tried to, Clinty sued them and settled out of court. “Give us your money then shut up.”
It’s cute that you say we shouldn’t have any energy subsidies, now, decades after we’ve been pouring tax dollars directly into the building and operation of polluting energy sources, as well as all of the supporting infrastructure.
That leaves non-planet-killing energy producers with merely competing against an industry that has received billions of dollars in support over the last century or so. Does that sound fair to you? When will GI advocate that oil, petroleum and coal companies pay back all of the money up taxpayers have given to them?
Yeah, dude, there are also the considerable and unaccounted external costs for fossil fuel that tax payers bear, like massive military expenditures to protect US interests (largely about oil) overseas. Also health care costs in areas of the US where coal and oil are processed.
We develop our ideas and funding follows,….
Well that’s different, looks like it used to be develop ideas and follow funding.
Clint Bolick, a rigid opponent of affirmative action at the Landmark Center for Civil Rights, and William Mellor, former president of PRI, asked the Koch family for financial backing for a libertarian public-interest law firm to advocate for school vouchers, faith-based social service programs and property rights and to oppose affirmative action. The organization became the conservative Institute for Justice in 1991, and it continues to receive substantial funding from the Koch family foundations.
Looks like Clint just can’t get too far from that sweet sweet Koch money.
HERE
Nice find, TC!