Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed




  • RightMichigan.com

    Twitter Feed

    Liberal media bias on Democrats new $8 billion hidden tax... right on cue


    By Nick, Section News
    Posted on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:17:50 AM EST
    Tags: (all tags)

    Right on cue, here comes the mainstream media with their typical liberal spin.  Spin might actually be a generous term because that implies that they're reporting on something and then allowing, intentionally or unintentionally, their own personal lefty bias to affect the way they discuss it.  What we have in today's Ivory Tower is a case of a columnist appearing oblivious to some details and intentionally leaving others out entirely.

    Tom Walsh, God bless him, takes a stab playing co-captain of the Democrat alternative energy package cheerleading squad and does the Governor proud.  He dutifully mentions each of her talking points and, if the reader had zero background on the issue, paints a really rosy picture.  

    So rosy one might be left wondering... why wasn't this legislation passed years ago?  Why isn't it being approved today?  It's obviously the sort of package that does so much good with so few objections that to deny the people of Michigan immediate action is nothing less than a hard slap across the mouth.

    Well, faithful reader, what Mr. Walsh doesn't tell you is that there's a big bull in that there china shop.  

    The House Democrat legislation might do the things that Walsh claims it will do.  (There are no guarantees and no penalties for failure anywhere in the legislation.)  What it will also do is impose a hidden tax on Michigan consumers to the tune of EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS!  

    And that cash will go directly into the pockets of two super-sized utility companies.  Two super-sized utility companies that will suddenly be granted a legal monopoly of the energy market in Michigan.  Because fair trade and the free market have been so bad for mankind these past couple hundred years.

    Won't read any of that in Walsh's column though.  

    Read on...

    Just peaches and cream:

    Michigan's state officeholders have a chance to redeem themselves.

    Maybe they can't make us entirely forget last fall's budget debacle in Lansing, but they stand on the brink of doing something that's smart, bipartisan, forward-looking and job-creating. They can pass a complex package of energy bills...

    He goes on to detail the things the bill "would" do.  Again, no guarantees.  But he thinks it'll create jobs.  So would any facilitation of broader competition but that's that pesky free market common sense stuff and it wouldn't fit his theme.  

    He thinks it'll set Michigan up as a national leader in alternative energy policy.  Of course we just heard this week from the Governor that Michigan is way behind other states and woe is me and the sky is falling and we really need to catch up.  How being the last ones to the party and with a policy that sets it's targets well into the year 2028 stands to make Michigan a leader of anything Walsh doesn't explain.  

    He thinks it'll "take care of" Michigan's energy needs for a generation or more.  Because apparently without this ultra-leftist tax hike all of the energy suppliers in the State of Michigan are going to shutter their doors and windows and leave Michigan powerless.  Or something.

    But he is right about one thing.  He implies that a new energy package might make us sort of forget that they shafted consumers with a $2.4 billion tax hike last fall.  I'll give him that.  If you pass a new $8 BILLION hidden tax hike it would certainly make that old, tiny, miniscule, record breaking, biggest ever $2.4 billion Democrat tax hike one serious after thought.  

    Of course that's about the best you'll get in the honesty and sincerity department on this particular FREEP column.  The thing reads like it was drafted by Liz Boyd or posted on one of the lefty blogs.  Take this little doozy, for example:

    A bill that would repeal or revise Public Act 141, the 2000 law that deregulated electric power, would please DTE and CMS Energy, by allowing them to better assess future demand and finance new plants. Those plants would also create lots of jobs -- about 3,000 construction jobs and 600 or 700 high-paying permanent jobs, in DTE's case, for the nuclear plant it wants to build.

    Oh, well, by all means, revise PA 141.  If it's going to allow companies to better assess future demand and finance new plants that's a good thing, right?  Why hasn't it been done already?

    Because by "revise" Tom Walsh means "kill" and by "deregulated" he means "trust-busted."  PA 141 effectively ended utility monopolies in Michigan allowing competition as opposed to complete market domination by unchecked Big Energy.  Monopoly is a fun board game but in business it's not such a good thing.  Without competition there's nothing to stop a company from raising prices when and by how much they see fit.  Consumers (that's you and me and our parents and kids and friends and neighbors) lose.  Every time.  And in this particular case they're not even trying to lie about it.  Your WILL pay more.  It's in the legislation.  $8 billion just to start!

    Oh but hey, they'll create "lots of jobs."  Because we couldn't "create" jobs by encouraging greater competition and further leveling the playing field with these industrial giants.  

    No mention of any of that in Walsh's column.  Clearly he's OK paying an extra eight billion dollars.  Something tells me the rest of the State... not so much.  And he knows it too.  If he didn't think it was a big deal he wouldn't have stricken it from his propaganda piece.

    < Thursday in the Sphere, February 28 | Why the Great Lakes Water Compact will destroy Michigan >


    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


    Display: Sort:
    Dereg (none / 0) (#1)
    by mcdirt on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:06:20 AM EST

    Honestly, I'm agnostic on the dereg/rereg question. But deregulation, and the resultant magic of the free market doesn't seem to have brought any sunshine to my utility bills or much prosperity...unless you count the billions we send to other states to import our coal and other fuels. What say you to Integraed Resource Planning....? Essentially leveling the energy playing field and letting all energy solutions compete on a cost basis (incorporating externalities like the pollution and health-care and carbon costs associated with coal)?

    Isn't this the bill (none / 0) (#2)
    by apackof2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:15:32 AM EST
    That mandates that Michigan consumers must use 10% of our energy needs from green sources?

    Comsumers Energry has a volutary "green generation" plan now and its more exepensive. http://www.consumersenergy.com/welcome.htm

    Initial 12-month term required. Your participation costs are in addition to your normal monthly electric charges.

    *Participation Level : (Choose one) - Need Help

    GreenTeam: 100% ($0.01667 per kilowatt-hour)  
             Your monthly participation costs will fluctuate as your electricity use changes.

    GreenBlocks:     x $2.50 each =  
            Enter your desired # of blocks per month to calculate your monthly participation costs.

    GreenBusiness:     x $2.00 each =  
            Enter your desired # of blocks per month to calculate your monthly participation costs.

           You qualify for the discounted price shown above if you purchase 100 blocks or more.

    How much more will this cost taxpayers once we have no choice but to use green?

    That's part of it (none / 0) (#3)
    by mcdirt on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:05:07 PM EST
    Renewable energy is part of the energy package being considered. The voluntary Green Energy program suffers from low participation, and the spreading of the cost of Green Energy among the 0.5 percent of ratepayers who partake of it. Spread across the rate base, and benefiting from economy of scale, it would be much less and quite likely lower than an equivalent amount of new generation from coal.

    Also, if we're going to compare new "renewable energy" costs, it's only fair to compare it to the cost of generating an equivalent amount of power from "new" coal. That is to say, if new renewable power costs 10 cents per KwH (and I'm making this up, I don't know the real numbers), we need to compare it to the cost of a new coal plant....which would likely be much more. The utilities like to compare the 10-cents to the 8-cent cost of existing coal....ignoring the huge capital costs of new coal plants and the likely additional cost of future carbon constraints.

    "How much will it cost?" to use green power is a valid question. "How much will it cost to embark on another generation of coal plants?" is equally valid and the answer is probably that it will be incredibly expensive -- more so than the renewables.

    Even more lucrative than renewable power is the huge potential for energy efficiency. The cost of a KwH "saved" through efficiency meausres is about 3 cents....one half to one-third of what it would cost to generate that KwH from existing coal plants ....not even to mention future coal.

    This, of course, would require some sort of fee or surcharge on electricity customers, which I figure our friend Nick will decry as a "tax"...but the truth is that that charge will be returned several times over to business and residential customers in the form of rebates, incentives and loans to do things like buy high-efficiency boilers and lighting systems, and get rebates on Energy Star appliances.

    The experience in other states bears this out, and many of Michigan's leading businesses support an efficiency program (we haven't had one since Gov. Engler dismantled it)

    Lastly, whatever coal power we are able to displace with renewables or efficiency will save Michigan residents and businesses health care costs. Fewer people will be hospitalized for cardiovascular disease, fewer kids will have asthma, and less mercury will be available to contaminate sport fish....and while the cost savings in this area are hard to quantify, they are real.

    All of this before we even bring environmental issues into the mix. And, frankly, we don't need to because it works as an economic argument alone.

    I'm a tree hugger and vote more liberal than conservative. But I post this at length because I'm convinced that renewable and efficiency, properly crafted, can be winning arguments under both philosophies.

    -- Hugh

    That Lefty Tom Walsh! (none / 0) (#5)
    by mcdirt on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:13:20 PM EST

    Hope he reads RM! It may be the first time he's been accused of lefty bias!

    But it will be a boon to job growth... (none / 0) (#6)
    by goppartyreptile on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:06:07 PM EST
    If RPS's are such a job killer (none / 0) (#7)
    by NoviDemocrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:10:54 PM EST
    then why do 24 states have them including hot beds of environmentalist like Texas and North Carolina?

    http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm#map

    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Join the RightMichigan.com Facebook Group HERE!
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!

    Related Links

    + Ivory Tower
    + Also by Nick
    create account | faq | search