‘No More Loan Guarantee Act’

This morning the House is voting on the “No More Solyndra Act.” The act is by no means an attempt to end permanently the 1705 loan-guarantee program that gave us failures such as Solyndra or Abound Solar, but it is an attempt to inject more transparency and more accountability into the system. FreedomWorks describes the act as follow:

Under the ‘No More Solyndras Act’, all loan guarantees under DOE consideration must be reviewed by the Treasury Department before awarded. This draft bill also states that if the Department of Energy chooses to make a guarantee against the Treasury’s decision, they must submit a report to Congress detailing their decision. ‘No More Solyndras’ also mandates that the DOE consult with the Treasury Department if any loan guarantees require restructuring. The draft bill also calls for the prevention of “subordination” of the taxpayers to private investors. This last point is in reference to the fact that in past cases the Department of Energy put private investors ahead of taxpayers in terms of being repaid in the case of a bankruptcy. This Act also calls for an economic analysis to be run on each individual company to ensure their project is viable. Investigations by various organizations and agencies have found that many loan guarantees were pushed through even after the DOE suggested pulling the companies funding.

As others have noted, such legislation would improve the current system. That being said, while lawmakers may have their hearts in the right place with this bill, they aren’t going far enough. If the idea of the act is that we should only lend money to companies that are unlikely to default because they are on relatively sound financial footing, that would only continue current practices. The data show that most of the loans issuances under the 1705 section are back by large and well-established companies (Goldman Sachs and others). That probably means that these loans are fairly low in risk and won’t end up like Solyndra. Yet, it doesn’t make it right.

For one thing, giving a financial edge to companies who would have access to capital no matter what seems unfair, and just a bad idea. Loan-guarantee programs introduce significant distortions into the market and totally destroy any existing semblance of a level playing field. They also cost taxpayers money, either via the costs of the credit subsidy or the costs of a default.

That’s why I wished the “No More Solyndra Act” had meant that the House was actually voting to end the program this morning. Better yet, I wished they had introduced instead the “No More Loan Guarantee Act.” In my dreams, the NMLGA would pass, because Republicans and Democrats understand that it is not the role of the federal government to play venture capitalist. 

Veronique de Rugy — Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Most Popular


Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More