I think the problem I have with the article is that it makes no effort to truly analyze the issue at hand. The important questions revolve around whether such p

I think the problem I have with the article is that it makes no effort to truly analyze the issue at hand. The important questions revolve around whether such programs are important as long term investment or whether investments in Tesla couldn't have been spent better elsewhere. Instead the author seems to make the issue too simple. 1) Spending tax payer money is bad. 2) Tesla is taking tax payer money. 3) Tesla is bad. Or to pull examples from the article. But such a success must still be measured against other taxpayer losses and misallocated capital. Yes, and where are the author's measurements? Why should middle-class taxpayers whose incomes are falling still pay to subsidize the purchase of cars that only the affluent can afford, and then partly as a gesture of their superior environmental virtue? When does the rest of America get its return on Tesla's profits? And why doesn't the author attempt to answer these questions? Of course, you could assume these are rhetorical, but again, I'm not sure why that's useful.