Two other facts you might find interest: (1) the company is in an industry that struggles to break even and (2) the company’s auditors cannot honestly say the company will be in business next year.  Investors have put in $1 billion, and the company is now desperate for cash.  Would you be willing to loan the company $535 million–more than half of its equity investment?

To put that in perspective, assume someone you know put up $100,000 for a Subway franchise.  He has lost money for four years straight, sells sandwiches for $5 when they cost him $15 to make, his bank and his accountant say he has no chance of staying in business.  Would you loan him $53,500 to open another store across town?

If you think this is a “good bet,” please contact me for a great deal on a slightly used, but historic bridge in lower Manhattan. This company (in case you’re wondering, it is the infamous Solyndra, circa 2010) is a stinker. But even with the benefit of hindsight, President Obama has no regrets over Solyndra. Obama, even now, defends the $535 million loan guaranty as a “good bet.”

This is why central planning will always fail.  Not only are politicians not equipped to pick winners and losers, their hindsight is 20/2000–qualifying for legal blindness.

If you think this is an isolated incident, think again.  Dick Durbin was warned repeatedly that his amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill would lead to increased costs for consumers.  When those predictions become reality, he impotently tells consumers to bank elsewhere.  As if the country’s smaller banks are less susceptible to his cost shifting than Bank of America.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it’s also the Democratic Party’s economic platform.

Last Friday, FoxNews’s Special Report with Brett Baier asked viewers which scandal is more damaging to the Obama administration, Solyndra, LightSquared or Fast & Furious.  You no doubt recall that Solyndra involves the reckless waste of taxpayer money; LightSquared involves the coercing of Congressional witnesses for financial gain; and Fast & Furious is the Obama’s misguided attempt to argue for more gun control track gun runners by selling them guns and giving them get out of jail free cards.

So the question is, (to FoxNews viewers) which is more believable about Obama: wasteful spending; corruption or lax and incompetent criminal justice policies.  The results were:  71% said Solyndra; 23% said Fast & Furious and only 6% said LightSquared.  The take home point here, is that Fox viewers believe Obama can be wasteful and even incompetent, but corrupt doesn’t ring as true.

To me, this is surprising, given the Chicago political swamp in which Obama rose.  To be fair (to the Fox viewers), LightSquared only broke on Friday, and may not have resonated with them yet.  With the recent allegations of a misogynistic atmosphere in the White House, it would be fascinating to see which of these scandals resonate most with voters.  In any event, Allan Lichtman may need to revisit his Key to the White House prediction.

So why is this self-inflicted?  The key piece of evidence is what the Palestinian leader is asking for from Israel: a cessation of settlements in the Gaza strip and a return to the indefensible 1967 borders.  I wonder where he could have gotten the idea that that was ever on the table?

Obama’s gaffe in May, that the talks should start “with the 1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps” certainly emboldened Abbas to ask for what was never on the table.  Add to that, Obama’s confused and counterproductive statements on settlements.  It’s clear that Abbas is trying to leverage Obama’s gaffe-a-day administration into an unsustainable position for Israel.  So congratulations, Obama, your speeches have finally had a real-life impact.

Obama’s “jobs plan” will certainly be another ridiculously partisan and utterly unspecific demonstration of how to use a teleprompter.  But within the cliched rhetoric, Obama will, one would hope, ask for something.  Whatever it is, give it to him.

If Republicans truly believe that Obama’s plans are wrong headed (they are), let Obama have what he asks for: extending employment benefits (again); lowering social security withholding (again–this way most workers won’t even pay that pittance in taxes); more infrastructure spending (maybe this time, shovel-ready won’t be a hack punchline?); increase taxes on the fictional “trillionaires;” drop the “private jet” deduction (in other words, make private jet’s not deductible).

None of these will do a damn thing.  If Obama wants to claim that shooting spit balls at a runaway train will help, give him all the paper he wants.  The Republicans in the House can allow some of their less conservative (or alternatively, safer) members to go along with whatever Nancy and Harry and Obama can dream up.  Don’t fight, don’t cluck and strut, just let Obama have what he asks for and let him own the result.

Obama dallied while he had a pliable Congress and the economy stalled again, burdened by new regulations and uncertainty.  Now that he has had a year and a half of an unfriendly House, let him have his due, and ask the voters to judge him and the rest of Congress on the result.  At a minimum, Obama will cement his legacy as a one term president.  On the up side, there is potential for a Galtian, be-careful-what-you-ask-for moment, where we can finally put to bed the notion that you can create jobs by lynching businessman with the tax code.

If you think Obama will announce a serious plan or somehow move the ball on jobs next Thursday, you have not been paying attention these past two years.  Obama and his advisers seem to think that merely giving a speech is enough; that it somehow solves something.  It doesn’t.  Words are just words.  But even more ridiculous is that they seem to believe that Republicans daring to delay yet another speech is somehow obstructing progress.

Moreover, if there is some magical incantation that Obama could use to create jobs, why wait until next week?  The President can recall the Congress and get them back to work now.  Republicans have been asking him to do that for weeks.  When asked why Obama had to address Congress at all, his Press Secretary, Jay Carney, committed a textbook Washington gaffe (emphasis mine):

“He wants to speak before Congress because he recognizes that while there are things he can do without Congress, and he will do them, there are actions that need to be taken with Congress that require legislation to grow the economy and create jobs. And he wants to go to Congress, speak directly to members of Congress, and layout his proposals.“

Really?!? What is it that Obama can do without Congress to create jobs? Why hasn’t he done them yet? When will he do them? What possible reason could he have for waiting two and a half years? Doesn’t this mean that Obama is misleading the public when he tries to blame the bad economy and slow job growth on hurricanes, earth quakes, tsunamis, Arab uprisings, greedy bankers, greedy investors, greedy businesses, George W. Bush, Lord Voldemort, S. K. Pagoat and the one-armed man?

This whole episode is driven by Obama’s massive ego.  It takes substantial hubris to run on “Hope and Change,” and to say, without laughing, that your mere nomination for president “was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.“  It takes willful delusion to think that America cannot wait one day for your eighth attempt at a jobs proposal.