NYT: what's a few hundred million when it's taxpayer dollars?

  As usual, the New York Times is nakedly partisan in defending this administration. Today, or yesterday really, a columnist claims that the purpose of government is to take risks no one else would take in the private sector. 
  That taxpayer dollars should fund risky operations. 
  That the guys who ran Solynda were simply poor businessmen who never saw the Chinese prices on solar panels coming which caused a collapse in the solar panel market. 
  That their attempt to borrow more money was no big deal. Oh, and then there were those "embarrassing" emails:

Undoubtedly, the Solyndra “scandal” will draw a little blood: there are some embarrassing e-mails showing the White House pushing to get the deal done quickly so it could tout Solyndra’s green jobs as part of the stimulus package.
But 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?

  So $535 million lost in a year is nothing to investigate aggressively, regardless that previous hearings run by Democrats aggressively beat the testifiers verbally to gain "answers" in front of cameras. That was then. This is now.
  No, this scandal is "phony' the man claims. Phony.
  And even though the White House itself was worried in January that the optics would be bad and that even the left wing media acknowledges that the White House ignored that the company was in trouble, there's nothing to investigate. Nothing to question. It's all matter of fact.
  And it's not strange that there was a special arrangement that the taxpayers would be paid back LAST after the
  Like, who COULD make any business a success with $535 million taxpayer dollars? Who? And how many other dollars did these two "businessmen" borrow from private investors? Was that fair too?
  No, there's obviously nothing to be concerned about here.
  It's every day that businesses borrow a half billion dollars and default within the same year. The building itself cost $344 million. What's another $200 million? Not to mention private investors' money?
  Oh, and there's this:

A new factory built with public money boasted a gleaming conference room with glass walls that, with the flip of a switch, turned a smoky gray to conceal the room’s occupants. Hastily purchased state-of-the-art equipment ended up being sold for pennies on the dollar, still in its plastic wrap, employees said.

  And this, from the liberal press:

A key question for lawmakers is whether Solyndra executives misled Congress about the financial state of the company as late as July, when questions about the loan surfaced on Capitol Hill.  

  But there's nothing to investigate and certainly not aggressively.
  Naw.