California advocates wanted to provide solar panels to 1 million low-income housing residents. After ten years, the state is more than 900,000 short of that goal.
Austen describes the Democratic Party playbook: fund dubious NGO’s, unions and special interests that will carry water for your agenda (and fund your campaign). Rinse and repeat. They grow their tent by dividing people (BLM), supporting fringe positions (trannie surgery for minors, men in women’s sports), opening the border and scapegoating (anti-Zionism). It’s an ecosystem where many grow rich and some settle for merely feeling virtuous. But as for the country overall, it’s disastrous policy. I’ve seen unaccountable cronyism firsthand in Africa and Latin America, and it’s the foundation for all the failed communist experiments. Never worked, never will.
True and unfortunately growing. The left gets bigger every year. The temporary effects of Trump are just that: temporary. DEI will be back as soon as they get control again.
I am not sure if it is possible, but every group that receives money on an initiative that does not directly spend money on the initiative should be sued for fraud and get the money back with damages. Aren't there any "ambulance chasing" attorneys that can use their skills to benefit taxpayers?
I'm not a lawyer but most lawyers would not want this case. It will be protracted with many appeals and require a lot of depositions and time spent investigating the situation. And time is money. And the payout may not be much because the judges side with these groups and will then also discriminate against you in other tort cases.
Let’s call out the actual game. Progressive funding to government agencies, who fund NGO’s, who funnel money back to the political apparatus , and aim to bring down our constitutional republic, and replace it with their French Revolution style insanity.
Near the beginning this article said the goal was 300 megawatts by 2030 and that it had reached 129 megawatts. This metric looks like they will be 50% toward the goal, if I understand it, which is way short but better than the California high speed rail fiasco or the Buttagieg/Biden EV station catastrophe.
I was wondering if there is a mistake and 129/300 though dismal is too good to be true in CA.
Maybe the loophole is that it says “installed or reserved” and it depends on when/if the “reserved” stuff is installed…(?)
Yes--the liberals choose their words carefully--very carefully to make it look like they are carrying out their promises. In reality they are feeding the endless cycle of siphoning the "grants" back to friends and supporting liberal politicians who will give them more grants.
Thanks Chris. I have refused solar panels here in SoCal because #1. They are ugly. I have a beautiful red tile roof. #2. I can pay for my energy easily. #3. I don't want any Government to tell me what to do.
#4 they are unreliable #5 in about 20 years the used up panels will be in a landfill--then what? liberals #6 the manufacture of the solar panels uses large amounts of fossil fuel that is not offset by using the panels #7 the panels require a huge amount of space--covering a roof almost fully #8 they are expensive to install. Initial investment is not recovered for years, if ever #9 Tax breaks and rebates create a false reutation of benefits
I can’t even bring myself to read the details. All of this is too enraging. Solar panels, ‘free diapers’, ‘fixing homelessness… it’s all the same playbook: Let’s take millions and millions of taxpayers’ money, come up with something that sounds like a worthy cause, funnel the money to friendly entities, whether that’s NGOs headed by friends or a whole cottage industry (homeless ‘support’ system in CA), and then reject the zero results as misinformation or somebody else’s fault. Get elected again by the same people whose money I just wasted. Rinse and repeat.
When I decided to install solar, I started shopping around, and Sunrun was a well know comapny. When I analyzed their proposals, all I saw was masterful advertising and spin, with no technical competence, burying high costs with silly cost projections. I considered their approach almost fraudulent, as it took advantage of people's economic ignorance. I knew solar costs were decreasing, but with net metering, it was a wash, so I went with solar. Should have put that money in Apple stock, but hindsight is 20:20, and foresight is cloudy.
Austen describes the Democratic Party playbook: fund dubious NGO’s, unions and special interests that will carry water for your agenda (and fund your campaign). Rinse and repeat. They grow their tent by dividing people (BLM), supporting fringe positions (trannie surgery for minors, men in women’s sports), opening the border and scapegoating (anti-Zionism). It’s an ecosystem where many grow rich and some settle for merely feeling virtuous. But as for the country overall, it’s disastrous policy. I’ve seen unaccountable cronyism firsthand in Africa and Latin America, and it’s the foundation for all the failed communist experiments. Never worked, never will.
True and unfortunately growing. The left gets bigger every year. The temporary effects of Trump are just that: temporary. DEI will be back as soon as they get control again.
I’m afraid you’re probably right.
Great comment, Sea Sentry!
Thanks LO!
I am not sure if it is possible, but every group that receives money on an initiative that does not directly spend money on the initiative should be sued for fraud and get the money back with damages. Aren't there any "ambulance chasing" attorneys that can use their skills to benefit taxpayers?
I'm not a lawyer but most lawyers would not want this case. It will be protracted with many appeals and require a lot of depositions and time spent investigating the situation. And time is money. And the payout may not be much because the judges side with these groups and will then also discriminate against you in other tort cases.
CHRIS, If I can impart two pieces of wisdom to your audience:
1) If your boss says do you have a minute, it’s never good
2) Beware of those you come to help.
There is nothing more dangerous than the sanctimonious do-gooder.
Somehow, their programs do little good but GENERATE a lot of cash for the insiders and their friends.
HL Mencken said that politicians rarely leave office without “their jeans stuffed full of money.”
Nowhere is that more evident than in California. In fact, they don’t even try to hide their corruption…. It’s a badge of honor.
Sounds suspiciously like the Biden/Buttigieg EV charging station plan…
Just curious, how much money has Tom Steyer made off these solar initiatives?
Let’s call out the actual game. Progressive funding to government agencies, who fund NGO’s, who funnel money back to the political apparatus , and aim to bring down our constitutional republic, and replace it with their French Revolution style insanity.
The left: a social disease.
Near the beginning this article said the goal was 300 megawatts by 2030 and that it had reached 129 megawatts. This metric looks like they will be 50% toward the goal, if I understand it, which is way short but better than the California high speed rail fiasco or the Buttagieg/Biden EV station catastrophe.
I was wondering if there is a mistake and 129/300 though dismal is too good to be true in CA.
Maybe the loophole is that it says “installed or reserved” and it depends on when/if the “reserved” stuff is installed…(?)
Yes--the liberals choose their words carefully--very carefully to make it look like they are carrying out their promises. In reality they are feeding the endless cycle of siphoning the "grants" back to friends and supporting liberal politicians who will give them more grants.
Keep it up Chris!! Over time, persistence works.
Thanks Chris. I have refused solar panels here in SoCal because #1. They are ugly. I have a beautiful red tile roof. #2. I can pay for my energy easily. #3. I don't want any Government to tell me what to do.
#4 they are unreliable #5 in about 20 years the used up panels will be in a landfill--then what? liberals #6 the manufacture of the solar panels uses large amounts of fossil fuel that is not offset by using the panels #7 the panels require a huge amount of space--covering a roof almost fully #8 they are expensive to install. Initial investment is not recovered for years, if ever #9 Tax breaks and rebates create a false reutation of benefits
I can’t even bring myself to read the details. All of this is too enraging. Solar panels, ‘free diapers’, ‘fixing homelessness… it’s all the same playbook: Let’s take millions and millions of taxpayers’ money, come up with something that sounds like a worthy cause, funnel the money to friendly entities, whether that’s NGOs headed by friends or a whole cottage industry (homeless ‘support’ system in CA), and then reject the zero results as misinformation or somebody else’s fault. Get elected again by the same people whose money I just wasted. Rinse and repeat.
Well stated information packet ...
Where is USAID? Do we have to wait for JD Vance in 2028 to implement it again.
???
When I decided to install solar, I started shopping around, and Sunrun was a well know comapny. When I analyzed their proposals, all I saw was masterful advertising and spin, with no technical competence, burying high costs with silly cost projections. I considered their approach almost fraudulent, as it took advantage of people's economic ignorance. I knew solar costs were decreasing, but with net metering, it was a wash, so I went with solar. Should have put that money in Apple stock, but hindsight is 20:20, and foresight is cloudy.
More fraud and corruption in a blue state. The Democratic Party has become the party of crime, corruption and fraud.
I fail to see where the Bureau of Land Management fits into this.