Liberal writers Jonathan Cohn and Mike Grunwald posit that there is no cronyism in the stimulus. Their proof? “[B]y the end of 2011, independent investigators had documented only $7.2 million in fraud, about 0.001%,” Grunwald writes in Time.
But “fraud” is not the same thing as cronyism. What if companies used political connections to increase their odds of winning a loan or a loan guarantee. For instance, watch this video of Congressman Jim Jordan questioning Jim Woolard, CEO of solar company BrightSource, whose former board member John Bryson became Obama’s Commerce Secretary. You’ll learn about emails communicating White House support to DOE officials.
Why was the Obama White House hurrying the Solyndra loan? Is it entirely coincidental that top Solyndra investor George Kaiser was an Obama fundraiser?
“Cronyism” need not be fraud, or bribery. I think the word fits any situation where political connections favor one group over another. That’s why basically all government intervention in the economy yields cronyism.
Veronique de Rugy assembled some good material on the topic here, in which she quotes Paul Ryan (who in the past supported the Wall Street bailout and the Export-Import Bank [he opposed its reauthorization this year, though]) being eloquent on the matter:
While many on the Left have an over-narrow definition of cronyism, many on the Right seem to use the word to mean either (a) any time a Democrat makes money, or (b) any time a subsidized business fails. I have a feeling this word is going to get pretty abused, in all directions, this election.
