Don't get carried away by Solyndra mess

Sure, it's embarrassing for the administration and for executives of the now-defunct solar company. But as NYT columnist Joe Nocera correctly points out, much of what wrong was beyond the company's control:

The company's innovative solar panels, high-priced to begin with, became increasingly uncompetitive in the marketplace. Solyndra didn't have enough big commercial customers to create the necessary economies of scale. And although [company executives Brian Harrison and W. G. Stover] remained optimistic up to the bitter end -- insisting six weeks before the late-August bankruptcy filing that the company was going to be fine -- they ultimately failed to raise additional capital that would have allowed Solyndra to stay in business. The Republicans are trying to make that optimism appear sinister, but if we've learned anything from the financial crisis, it is that wishful thinking in the face of a collapsing market is not a crime. Otherwise, Richard Fuld, the former chief executive of Lehman Brothers, would be wearing prison garb.

[CUT]

If we could just stop playing gotcha for a second, we might realize that federal loan programs -- especially loans for innovative energy technologies -- virtually require the government to take risks the private sector won't take. Indeed, risk-taking is what these programs are all about. Sometimes, the risks pay off. Other times, they don't. It's not a taxpayer ripoff if you don't bat 1.000; on the contrary, a zero failure rate likely means that the program is too risk-averse. Thus, the real question the Solyndra case poses is this: Are the potential successes significant enough to negate the inevitable failures? I have a hard time answering "no."

Obviously, the Republicans are largely responsible for playing up the story, but so too are a number of reporters who act as if this is the biggest scandal since Teapot Dome. It ain't.