As if the guv had any credibility to begin with?

These dog-and-pony "town hall" shows should be called out for what they are: Informercials for her latest round of tax hikes.

And "Invitation only"?

Please.

What kind of town hall is that?

This is about as bad as stupak's camera-less town hall meetings.

The protestors are a new twist.

I didn't get a chance to check out too much online yet, but I can tell you that the local media on this side of the state (tv & radio) couldn't get their collective noses dislodged from the guv's rectal cavity.

A huge tax hike will likely lead to more government oversight and administrative jobs, but the overall workforce private workforce will shrink because of the financial drag created by higher expenses on businesses and individuals.

Yes, the renewable energy standard would increase electricity costs over what Michigan ratepayers pay now. But that's a false comparison.

New coal plants would also significantly increase electricity rates -- and Wall Street increasingly recognizes this as it is beginning to shy away from financing new coal projects as financially risky ventures.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/01/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_coal.fortune/index.htm

The correct comparison is New Renewable Power (primarily wind) versus New Coal. The numbers are running about even...but the trend is lower cost for renewables as economies of scale bring the price down; and higher cost for coal especially when future carbon costs are estimated.

Plus, a mix that includes renewables and efficiency is a far better creator of good, long-term jobs and economic development than another generation of coal dependency.

http://aceee.org/pubs/e07x.htm

I understand that idealogues will argue against mandates on principle. And, if you choose to make that argument, you give the economic advantage to the 25 other states with mandates, where new high-tech efficiency and renewable companies are locating.

Even so, I'd think it'd be hard to argue against the third leg of this stool, Integrated Resource Planning, which seeks to level the playing field by forcing power companies to compete against energy efficiency and renewable ventures on a level economic playing field, including externalities like the costs of health care and environmental damage caused by polluting power producers.

Efficiency pays back industry, commercial ventures and ratepayers at a 3:1 payback and forestalls the need for new power generation. It beats the tar out of all "new generation" but can't gain traction in an economy where businesses require a payback on their investments of a year, maybe two.  Bridging that gap is a win-win for the ratepayer and the public. (and, the environment)

Renewables are competitive with new coal, and beat new coal when externalities are added.

And, Nick's $18 billion "tax hike" is not a tax, but a worst-cost scenario spread over many years of ratepaying that ignores the fact that the alternative (a new generation of coal plants) will cost as much or more. (We've already beat this horse on a previous thread, though)

Reality: We're gonna pay more for electricity. Do we want to do it with a new generation of coal-fired power whose cost is going up, up up? Or shall we include a mix of EE and renewables, whose cost is going down?

Yes, wind isn't a cure-all, and it doesn't solve the problem of peak power demand during times when the wind isn't blowing. That needs coal backup, but more importantly a creative new mix of peak load management incentives that cut costs and reduce the need for capacity to deal with huge power spikes.

We can do this, really....cut future electricity rates, create more and better jobs, and pollute less. But it's gonna require some statesmanship from leaders whose skills in that area have grown rusty from lack of exercise.

Galt? Chetly? Any true believers out there willing to come to the defense of part of this strategy?