Administration Officials Come Under Fire During Solyndra Hearing

By Adrianna McGinley

Witnesses in the Solyndra investigation faced intense questioning by members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce during a hearing Wednesday.

Jonathan Silver, Executive Director of the Loans Programs Office for the Department of Energy, and Jeffrey Zients, Deputy Director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, testified before the Committee conducting the investigation into a $535 million loan awarded to Solyndra, Inc. under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Last week, the company suspended business and announced bankruptcy, launching the investigation. 

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) in her opening remarks stated that the questions to be answered were whether the Bush and Obama administrations conducted sufficient due diligence before approving the loan, whether the Department of Energy sufficiently monitored the financial status of Solyndra after the loan had been disbursed, whether Solyndra made accurate representations of its financial prospects both before and after loan disbursement, and whether the government made the right decision in restructuring the loan when Solyndra’s financial standing deteriorated.

The hearing quickly sparked finger pointing as both sides closely questioned the timeline of the loan approval, attempting to determine attribution to either the Bush or Obama administration. Questions of political favoritism came in to play, as did questions of whether the witnesses were career civil service employees or political appointees.

Answers from witnesses often seemed unclear, leading Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) to say to Silver, “I really want you to stop throwing everybody else under the bus, I hear you throwing all your staff under the bus. I want to know, you’re in charge, you’ve handled loans of this size and now you’re saying its everybody else’s fault except you, but you’re in charge.”

Executives from Solyndra were scheduled to be at Wednesday’s hearing, but will instead be testifying next week.

Obama's Budget creeps towards the Senate

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag testified before the Senate Committee on the Budget concerning President Obama’s FY2010 Budget. Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) praised the transparency and initiatives set forward in the budget, which included healthcare reform, a revamping of education, and a shift away from dependence on foreign oil.

Ranking Member Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) criticized the costs associated with the budget. Gregg pointed out that the debt to GDP ratio in 2013 will be 67% and questioned how sustainable such a costly plan could be. He said that it would double the publicly held national debt in 5 years.

Orszag stated that this budget accounts for $2.7 trillion in costs not accounted for in previous budgets, and although it would see some increases in mandatory spending, but this is partially due to baseline changes in this spending. He continued that healthcare reform would help, because one of the problems with entitlement spending is that a disproportionate amount of it is in Medicare and Medicaid.

Senate Budget Committee Critiques President's Budget Proposal

In a heated exchange, the Senate Budget Committee heard testimony from OMB director Jim Nussle regarding President Bush’s FY2009 Budget Proposal. Chariman Kent Conrad (D-ND) opened the hearing with a poster reading “the debt is the threat” and continued this theme, saying the “debt is going up like a scalded cat,” described the three D’s of President Bush’s legacy as “debt, deficit, and decline,” and called the budget “a debt bomb on the next president.” He made sure to emphasize the difference between the deficit, which is the year-to-year difference between spending and revenue, and the debt, which includes all money owed to Social Security and other lenders.

The consensus was apparent that this budget is unrealistic on a number of levels. A number of social programs would face spending cuts of up to 100%, the DOD would receive less than half of the $193 billion it spent this year in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While each side of the aisle presented different complaints, they were united in opposition to the projected economic outlook if this plan is put into action. The $9 trillion debt is expected to reach $10 trillion; if the stimulus package is enacted, the 2008 deficit is expected to reach $400 billion. Ranking member Judd Gregg (R-NH) criticized the Democrats regarding Pay-Go rules and SCHIP, but gave Nussle the same treatment, criticizing the long-run usefulness of this plan.

Chairman Conrad and Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) were some of the most vocal and aggressive when demanding justifications for unrealistically low war spending estimates ($70 billion for 2009) and severe cuts to social programs like LIHEAP which helps low-income families heat their homes. Nussle responded with a question, asking when Congress would pay the war bills for this year.

Medicare and Medicaid was also a topic of long discussion. Nussle claimed the budget aims to limit uncontrolled growth in spending in these areas. The Committee discussed the need for reform in these areas, rather than simple spending cuts.

Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) focused on the cuts that Amtrak would receive under the President’s plan, remarking on traffic problems across the country.

Senator Menedez (D-NJ) seemed to sum it all up when he declared the proposal “dead on arrival.”