Why doesn't the federal government bother tracking energy subsidies?

It is downright stunning that the federal government has no way of tracking energy subsidies so that it can compare and evaluate the costs and effectiveness of its many subsidies for "green"[i] energy.  The cynic realist in me suspects that this information is being obscured deliberately to cover up the waste (and fraud) that come when "free money" from the government is available to promoters and political donors.  Solyndra, anyone?

Martha Boneta, of Citizens for the Republic, a group founded by Ronald Reagan in 1977, is alerting us to a Department of Energy report that states:

There is no complete multi-year assessment available that describes and analyzes the Federal subsidies and support provided to different generation technologies over time. Continued examination of Federal subsidies and support, and provision of this information to the public, can better inform the decisions made by Federal, state, and local entities.

Gathering and publishing this information should be a priority of the Trump administration.

An ongoing theme of the administrative state that has been subverting our constitutional republic accountable to voters is the hiding of data that would allow rational choices by voters as to where their tax dollars should be spent.

For another example:

Nobody in the United States has any idea how much affirmative action and its associated expenses (mostly non-teaching administrators that have job titles like "diversity coordinator" and "multicultural liaison") cost the nation and its colleges and universities.  Quite clearly, "diversity" is a huge priority on campus.  David French writes in National Review:

To judge from marketing materials, campus investments, and the explosive growth of diversity bureaucracies, increasing minority representation on campus isn't just a priority on par with, say, a good math, English, or engineering department, it's deemed to be an indispensable part of a high-quality college education. That's the legal rationale that's used to justify racial discrimination in college admissions – that there is a "compelling state interest" in creating a truly diverse educational experience. 

And yet, even as these efforts appear to be failing, as documented in a "data rich" New York Times report on affirmative action, nobody bothers totaling the data, so that, for instance, students might know what percentage of their tuition bills are accounted for by "diversity" functionaries and programs and perhaps compare that to the costs of instruction.

Simply generating data on the costs of liberals' favorite programs has been avoided for far too long, for obvious reasons.  President Trump's Cabinet officials can readily order the production of this data.  And they should. 


[i] I use scare quotes because I cannot in good conscience label as "green" windmills that chop up birds (including bald eagles) like a Cuisinart machine, or solar power installations that set birds on fire.

It is downright stunning that the federal government has no way of tracking energy subsidies so that it can compare and evaluate the costs and effectiveness of its many subsidies for "green"[i] energy.  The cynic realist in me suspects that this information is being obscured deliberately to cover up the waste (and fraud) that come when "free money" from the government is available to promoters and political donors.  Solyndra, anyone?

Martha Boneta, of Citizens for the Republic, a group founded by Ronald Reagan in 1977, is alerting us to a Department of Energy report that states:

There is no complete multi-year assessment available that describes and analyzes the Federal subsidies and support provided to different generation technologies over time. Continued examination of Federal subsidies and support, and provision of this information to the public, can better inform the decisions made by Federal, state, and local entities.

Gathering and publishing this information should be a priority of the Trump administration.

An ongoing theme of the administrative state that has been subverting our constitutional republic accountable to voters is the hiding of data that would allow rational choices by voters as to where their tax dollars should be spent.

For another example:

Nobody in the United States has any idea how much affirmative action and its associated expenses (mostly non-teaching administrators that have job titles like "diversity coordinator" and "multicultural liaison") cost the nation and its colleges and universities.  Quite clearly, "diversity" is a huge priority on campus.  David French writes in National Review:

To judge from marketing materials, campus investments, and the explosive growth of diversity bureaucracies, increasing minority representation on campus isn't just a priority on par with, say, a good math, English, or engineering department, it's deemed to be an indispensable part of a high-quality college education. That's the legal rationale that's used to justify racial discrimination in college admissions – that there is a "compelling state interest" in creating a truly diverse educational experience. 

And yet, even as these efforts appear to be failing, as documented in a "data rich" New York Times report on affirmative action, nobody bothers totaling the data, so that, for instance, students might know what percentage of their tuition bills are accounted for by "diversity" functionaries and programs and perhaps compare that to the costs of instruction.

Simply generating data on the costs of liberals' favorite programs has been avoided for far too long, for obvious reasons.  President Trump's Cabinet officials can readily order the production of this data.  And they should. 


[i] I use scare quotes because I cannot in good conscience label as "green" windmills that chop up birds (including bald eagles) like a Cuisinart machine, or solar power installations that set birds on fire.

RECENT VIDEOS