You are welcome.  I am always happy to talk with individuals interested in the legislative process and what is happening in Lansing.

Let me be the first, or at least one of the first, to welcome you, with a healthy dose of sarcasm, back to Lansing.  What was that, a ten week paid vacation Andy Dillon and the Democrats gave themselves?

I can't speak for other representatives, but I would like to make it clear that I did not have a 10 week vacation.  In fact, I come to Lansing every week whether we are in session or not to catch up on correspondence, to work with my staff on constituent issues and to meet with other representatives who are here to discuss legislative priorities.

I also stay active in my district meeting with individuals, attending events and staying connected to our local political leaders discussing issues and ideas they have.  However, more to the point of your question, what didn't happen this summer was the opportunity for all of us, as legislators, to debate and work on issues like the remaining budget items that have yet to be voted on for this year.  I am concerned that we need to get work done in Lansing that has been put off for most of the summer.

I know the Minority Leader and the entire GOP caucus was clamoring for the Democrats to come back to town to address some of these issues we're facing as a state.  And now, finally, they've come back but the clock is really ticking on the legislative year.

What are the top issues facing the House right now?

As of the end of Sept. 17, we still have budgets that are not passed and it is my understanding that the sticking points are one or two projects.  I would hate to see the Department of Transportation, for example, shut down over a single issue.  Let's pass the budget without that issue in it and let's continue to debate it.  We can always do a supplemental later once it is resolved.

Can you explain this new energy package a little bit for our readers?  We always hear the buzz words "alternative energy" but the Democrats package really amounts to another massive tax hike, doesn't it?

It is tough to summarize a bill that has gone from nine pages to more than 90 pages, but let me try to give you the crux of the two bills currently in conference committee.  

The first bill develops a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for Michigan.  Opinions range on this issue from leaving it up to the private markets to determine what is the most cost effective source to provide energy, to being very aggressive and setting high required levels of energy source types.  As you mentioned in your question, this is where there would be added fees, often synonymous with taxes, to move us in this direction.

The second bill would place a limit on the choice of utility providers.  It is being argued by the two major utility providers in our state that this limit needs to be in place for them to be willing to expand their energy output by building new plants in the state.  The smaller utility providers argue that limiting choice makes it more difficult for their companies to compete and expand here in the state.

As I studied these bills for the cost to our citizens, the reality is that no matter what the final outcome of this debate is, that the average citizen's energy bill will increase.  What individuals like myself are weighing as we look at this package is which solution provides the most cost effective service to our citizens.  

What do you personally feel should be our state's energy policy?

Our energy policy for Michigan should be a very balanced approach.  We should harness the resources currently used for energy and embrace new technologies that create efficiencies, decrease negative environmental impact and move us both to renewable energy sources and a significantly higher level of independence from outside energy sources.

In the past, state government has moved too quickly to identify a specific source of renewable fuel.  I believe that it was a mistake to put all our eggs in an ethanol basket, which is proving not to be a long term solution.  Any government energy policy should be more generic in its language and more focused on outcomes such as energy output, emissions measurement and renewable resources, than on any specific technology.

Ed Kopko, the editor of Chief Executive magazine made some waves this week when he suggested that Michigan absolutely must become a Right-to-Work state.  Then we saw how difficult actually making that switch might be when the House Democrats allowed a vote on a RTW amendment and shot it down pretty firmly.

What has to happen for the RTW to become a reality in Michigan?  Or is it a genuine political impossibility?

First it is important to note that the RTW issue needs to be addressed by a ballot proposal and as you indicated, there clearly are not enough votes in the House of Representatives to get anywhere near the two-thirds majority necessary to do so.  The only way this issue will ever be put before the people would be a petition drive by a coalition of organizations viewing this as critical to our economy.

Right.  A lot of members, obviously, don't want to take that sort of vote out into their pro-union constituencies.  But speaking of taking things to the voters, how is your race shaping up these last few weeks?

One of the toughest parts of this job is that no matter what vote you take it is going to upset someone in your community.  I have worked hard during the four years I have been honored to be here to listen to both sides of every issue and I believe my voting record has been representative of my district.  As to my race, I think it would be wrong for anyone to take their reelection campaigns casually.  I have made serving my constituents a priority and I have been very active in my community.  So I believe anyone who has taken the time to look at my record and my efforts on their behalf will be excited to keep me on the job in Lansing for two more years.

And this month you received the endorsement of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce?  Think your stand against the Democratic tax hikes had anything to do with that?

Each term the Michigan Chamber of Commerce picks a series of votes that it uses as a litmus test for who it will endorse and who it won't.  Certainly my efforts to focus on the economic recovery we need in the state has put me in line with many of the Chamber's positions, including the two votes on taxes that impacted business in Michigan.  So, to answer your question, yes, I am sure the votes against those tax increases were a part of its determination.

Is there anything else you'd like to cover before I let you go?

Lost in the budget debates last year was any real discussion about how to rein in the cost of government.  On this issue I take a different track than many of my colleagues.  After talking with many individuals that work in our state departments, I am convinced that the greatest waste in spending is in having far too many levels of management.  When confronted with a budget cut it is a common practice in government for departments to routinely cut the frontline workers rather than look at senior management.  Often when you hear that positions were eliminated what has really taken place is that management workers have shifted to positions in other departments.  I believe there needs to be an in-depth audit of responsibilities for departmental management offices and an elimination of positions that duplicate services provided by other departments or the federal government.

Representative Pearce, thanks again for making the time!

Thank you.