A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
One of the more inspired moments of Mitt Romney's still-developing presidential campaign was last week's decision to have the candidate deliver remarks slamming the Obama Administration's energy policies in front of the vacated campus of Solyndra, the Northern California solar firm that went bankrupt at the cost of about 1,000 jobs and $535 million in federal loan guarantees.
This line of attack gets to a couple of Obama's core weaknesses: the failure of alternative fuels to make any significant dent in the energy economy and the crony capitalism that is inherent in industrial policy. Yet the returns on this strategy haven't been universally positive.
Romney is now facing heightened scrutiny over a bankrupt solar firm that received government assistance during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts (though the details of the story -- the loan was approved before Romney was sworn in, the authorizing agency couldn't be controlled by the governor's office, and Romney later tried to defund the program -- pretty thoroughly acquit him). And the nominee's potential running mates are now coming under the microscope on similar issues.
That's bad news for Rob Portman, the junior senator from Ohio who's widely considered to be a short-lister for the number two spot on the Republican ticket. A recent story in The New Republic reports that Portman has his own government-subsidized energy fetish. And it's a doozy:
The project [Portman's] now backing for a loan guarantee is far from compelling. The American Centrifuge Project (ACP) is a uranium-enrichment facility in Piketon, Ohio seeking a $2 billion loan guarantee to commercialize its dicey technology. The Project has been more or less dormant for 25 years, but recently, the Maryland-based United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) has been trying to resuscitate it. Portman, at public hearings, and through letters and private meetings with Steven Chu, has vigorously pressed its case. In December, he introduced a bill to keep ACP afloat with an extra $150 million, telling reporters he would do “everything in his power” to find the funding.
But the risks associated with ACP make Solyndra look like a great bet. For one, ACP’s technology is in no better shape than it was when DOE shut it down in 1985. In April, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission dinged the project for five violations, after a routine procedure went awry. And even when they work properly, the plant's uranium centrifuges don’t really work. They are, in fact “horribly inefficient and use large amounts of energy,” according to Matthew Bunn, an expert on the nuclear industry at Harvard’s Kennedy School. It doesn’t help matters that the company’s balance sheet is a mess. On May 15, Standard and Poor’s downgraded its credit rating to junk status, and its shares are trading at 72 cents, down from a high of $23.91 in 2007. This is why USEC so badly needs a loan guarantee: No one will invest in them without an assurance they will be paid back if the company goes bust. USEC now maintains that if it doesn’t receive its $150 million lifeline by June 15, it may have to shut down its troubled Ohio centrifuges for good.
I'll leave aside the technological issues, as I'm not qualified to pass judgment on them. But $2 billion in loan guarantees for a company that's struggling to keep its doors open? This seems like precisely the kind of project Romney would be ridiculing on the stump to reemphasize his management bona fides.
Of course, it should be noted that Portman (who I've always found to be a sharp and talented public servant) has a perfectly intelligible reason for casting his lot with USEC: these are Ohio jobs. But wasn't the rebuke of this whole "we'll suspend our principles within our constituencies" rationale one of the animating purposes of the Tea Party? Or is this kind of patronage such an inherent part of the system (Ron Paul chases earmarks, after all) that it shouldn't be held as a serious demerit against Portman?
I'll let the Ricocheteers decide. Are you less likely to be enthusiastic at the prospect of Portman on the ticket given this news?
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
Patronage is a fact of life, but I don't like it.
Yes, I happily prefer the idealogue who does not use taxpayer dollars to try to pick winners and losers in the market.
Feb '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
It's disqualifying.
Aside from that, every time the subject of a sitting Senator as VP comes up, we have to ask who chooses his replacement in the Senate, is there an interim election, etc. No VP candidate is worth endangering a Senate seat.
Edited on June 5, 2012 at 8:21pmSep '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
Pursuit of the loan guarantee should disqualify Sen. Portman. No one who supports such government "investments" is seriously conservative. As Troy notes, industrial policy that permits the government to spend taxpayer money is inherently corrupt and fundamentally immoral. The government should not be allowed to take money by force from anyone to "invest" in commercial enterprises.
Dec '10
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
When I glanced over the headline, I thought you meant Natalie Portman. Much to my dismay when I realized the truth..
Tell me that a Romney, Portman 2012 ticket wouldn't be a game changer!
Mar '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
I agree that this probably disqualifies Portman, and rightly so.
But as a general proposition, if pandering for and/or receiving patronage precludes a politician from becoming the VP candidate, who's left?
May '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
These sorts of loans are very depressing. My own congressman, the usually conservative Tim Scott voted to extend the Export-Import bank which is a huge boondoggle of government cronyism that rewards Boeing by bankrupting American airline companies. Go figure.
Apr '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
Israel Pickholtz: It's disqualifying.
Aside from that, every time the subject of a sitting Senator as VP comes up, we have to ask who chooses his replacement in the Senate, is there an interim election, etc. No VP candidate is worth endangering a Senate seat. · 33 minutes ago
Edited 33 minutes ago
No endangerment is involved. Under Ohio law, Gov. Kasich appoints his successor until the 2016 election. Unless you think Kasich unsound, this is not a concern with Portman.
May '10
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
Quite frankly, Portman does nothing to help Ohio lean to the GOP. He's about as under the radar as a statewide elected politician can get. His predecessor was Republican mayor of a Democratic town and fairly popular Governor. He wasn't a great Senator but George Voinovich was the last great political force in Ohio.
Edited on June 5, 2012 at 9:41pmApr '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
I'm not sure we know enough about the plant to judge the claim. The argument that we need to have some control over our supply of enriched uranium and need to maintain our nuclear weapon arsenal seems stronger to me than the argument that we need to innovate in solar technology.
I'm not familiar enough with the market to know why America went from having (according to USEC) 90% of its energy related enriched uranium being domestically sourced in 1993 to 15% in 2008, but that sounds like a genuine problem.
The current operation is funded by $3b of government money and $2b of private. It's certainly possible that the loan guarantees would be commercially sensible for the government to approve, even absent the security concerns. I do know that the New Republic article is untrustworthy (the "dicey technology" refers to the new machine, the "horribly inefficient" to the old).
If you think that governmental involvement in the nuclear weapon making process is anathema, then this should be an easy call. If you're comfortable with Congress' powers to fund America's security, you might want to find out a little more, first.
Apr '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
A few months back, PPP polls suggested he made a 2% difference. Other Ohio polls suggest that a 2% difference could easily be decisive. It's not the best reason for selecting Portman, but it's not nothing, either.
Jun '12
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
Personally, Portman was never one of my favorites for the Veep spot, so this doesn't do much to change that.
Aug '10
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
Just another factor in favor of picking Paul Ryan for VP
Feb '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea why Portman would even be considered for VP.
Did he attend to Harvard with Romney, or something like that?
Sep '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
I've worked in Piketon, OH--nothing to do with that project, or that company, but Pike County, Ohio is an economically depressed area. When you think of Appalachia you tend to think of West Virginia and Kentucky. Southeastern Ohio, including Pike County, is the other side of the Ohio River.
The last time I was there the locals were thrilled that they'd been featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. The article was about how economic development types were trying to implement micro-lending strategies developed in Bangladesh to poverty-stricken rural areas in the U.S.--and how Pike County was the sort of place where some Bangladeshi economic development would be an improvement.
Mar '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
If Mr Portman were investing in Thorium I'd be more inclined to support him for VP - Uranium centrifuges are so last-century everywhere except Iran.
Feb '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
I'd like to second this.
Paul Ryan is a political figure of national importance. He matters.
Rob Portman is guy who managed to win an election in a blowout year for his party. A ham sandwich had a decent shot at winning that race in 2010. Portman could quite literally be the next Paula Hawkins.
If you're thinking who the heck is Paula Hawkins- that's my point. Most of the public has no idea who the heck Rob Portman is, and would likely have no idea why Romney would pick him as VP.
That sort of thing matters. Just ask Dan Quayle.
Apr '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
Xennady: I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea why Portman would even be considered for VP.
Did he attend to Harvard with Romney, or something like that? ·
Some of the first things to occur:
He's widely recognized as the finest debater in the party.
He was Director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs (Bush 41), which is close to perfect training for the legislative role of a VP.
He has a great wife, and is a clean living all American man (hunter, married young, hard working, polite, all that stuff).
He was a successful, popular, conservative Representative with 6 landslides to his name.
He's deeply unflappable.
He was perhaps Bush's finest USTR, negotiating a number of Free Trade Agreements, and other trade treaties, bringing the first successful WTO action against China. It's likely that he'd be an asset in getting Romney's proposed trade agreements passed, managing the efforts to get China to respect the property rights of American companies, and in bolstering the foreign policy credentials of the ticket, Romney's big weak point.
He was OMB director for Bush's only year of spending below GDP growth.
Feb '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
James of E,
I'm familiar with Portman's resume, as I figure just about everyone likely to read this is also. That first post was intended to be a joke, but apparently it was a bad one.
But- again- I have no idea why Portman would be considered as VP, unless the Romney campaign wishes to spend millions of dollars telling the vast swarms of people who have never heard of him all about his deep unflappability.
He just won his senate seat, after all. Prior to that he was a rather obscure bureaucrat and before that one of the scores of GOP house members. Plus I don't see why Romney would want to pick a guy associated with the disastrous trade policies this country labors under- or rather doesn't labor under, thanks to the inability of the folks running the US government to notice reality. Saying he was the finest USTR is like saying he was the finest trumpet playing on the Titanic.
Congrats to him, but the ship still sank. That's what Romney needs to avert. He has better options for VP.
Apr '11
Re: A Threat to Portman's VP Prospects?
Xennady: James of E,
I'm familiar with Portman's resume, as I figure just about everyone likely to read this is also. That first post was intended to be a joke....
But- again- I have no idea why Portman would be considered as VP, unless the Romney campaign wishes to spend millions of dollars telling the vast swarms of people who have never heard of him all about his deep unflappability.
The point of the unflappability isn't that it'll feature in campaign ads. It's that Portman will never be a liability, never have a meltdown or a terrible interview.
He's defensively great, keeping the focus on Obama/Biden. The offense parts are his skill as a debater, electoral talents, foreign policy experience, and popularity in Ohio (2% of the vote there is about as good as any VP could offer). The rest of it is substance. He'd be a great VP, and a great President.
Of course his having negotiated trade agreements is a problem for trade opponents such as yourself (although I'd have thought that you'd approve of successful enforcement actions). On balance, though, it remains a plus.