The more I learn about the Progressive Party Platform and the damage that it has ultimately brought onto America, the more disgusted I become with the concept of "direct democracy" even while agreeing that certain elements (the recall in particular) have their uses, provided the proper safeguards are in place to prevent abuse.  The Founding Fathers adopted a representative republican model of government for good reasons, not the least being that every direct democracy in the history of humanity has ultimately destroyed itself.

And that's the problem I see here.  I'll concede that the value of a Renewable Portfolio Standard may be a matter of debate, as long as it's done statutorily.  At least a state statute can be later modified, or thrown out altogether, by the legislature if the need arises to do so.  Amending the constitution, on the other hand, is not subject to later legislative, executive, or judicial override if it turns out to be a bad idea.  Besides, Michigan currently has the 10-by-15 RPS enacted statutorily, and we're not going to know the effects of that until we start seeing our 2016 electricity service bills.  Shouldn't we see how that works before we decide whether a tougher standard is necessary . . . or even wise?

Evidently not, according to those running the Michigan Energy Michigan Jobs campaign.  It seems they're all kinds of eager to lock in a prohibitively expensive and legislatively untouchable RPS before we've even had a chance to gauge the effects of the existing standard.  It should make most reasonable people wonder what all the hurry is about, especially when they trot out a known RINO as evidence of "conservative support" for a bad idea.

Let be really clear about one point:  Saul Anuzis is a businessman.  In the context of running his business, he is free to make whatever lawful decision he chooses to in the advancement of his business goals.  If, as a business decision, he elects to advocate for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and the Michigan Renewable Energy Amendment, then that's entirely his call.  Let's just be clear that that's what he's doing.

However, mocking up republican letterhead in order to make it appear that the NPV has the support of the Republican National Committee (whether writing to the Alaska Legislature or the Michigan Legislature) is, I think, beyond disingenuous.  And even after having been called out on this, whether by Debbie Joslin or Tom McMillin, it's still apparently a tactic he'll resort to when he needs to polish a turd.  Back last Friday, the same day as the MEMJ press release, Anuzis mailed a letter to all 117 voting members of the MIGOP State Committee.  The text of the letter is identical to his blog post the following day, in which he does a marvelous job of quoting Barry Goldwater, Friedrich Hayek, and Ronald Reagan out of context in order to advance his point.

In this letter though, Saul takes the mocked-up letterhead to a whole new level.  At first glance, one might draw the conclusion that Anuzis is trying to make it appear as though the RNC is okay with him using their name to advance a key plank of UN Agenda 21.  I say this because nowhere in the three-page document is there a "paid for by" disclaimer, so a reasonable conclusion is that this letter is paid for by the RNC, and Michigan's lame-duck National Committeeman is speaking on their behalf.

I'm still curious as to whether the campaign finance filings for the MERA (or for MEMJ) will include any line items referencing Sterling Corporation, Coast-to-Coast Strategies, and/or Saul Anuzis.  I think that would provide some interesting transparency.

And having said that, let's pick apart a few of Saul's key points:

DTE and Consumers Energy are government granted monopolies with unprecedented political clout, PACs and influence.  As an example, they were able to get the legislature to pass a bill "limiting" competition to ONLY 10% of the market ... by law.

Okay, let's start here.  A mandate to have ten percent of one's electrical grid supplied by "renewable" sources (and why that doesn't explicitly include hydroelectric is beyond me) is not the same thing as opening the market to competition.  Opening the market to competition would be to do what Montana did a decade ago and transition to full consumer choice of electricity providers.  Now that would bring rates down a bit, I should think.

It's no surprise therefore, that Consumers Energy and DTE Energy are opposing the "25 in 25" ballot proposal in order to protect their market position - the status quo.

As I pointed out a couple of days back, Consumers and Detroit Edison are attempting to forestall a constitutionally-coerced twelve billion dollar investment in capacity and infrastructure construction (which will get passed on to their customers in the form of increased rates), with no legal or legislative recourse if this turns out to be a bad idea.  And that assumes that the standard can even be met in the first place.  Once the government subsidies for wind and solar are cut off, as Mitt Romney has said he intends to do, just how much do you think it's going to cost to provide electricity from green sources?

While many government and regulatory enforcement schemes have threatened marketplace competition in the past, it's worth remembering that antitrust laws were developed by Republicans -- and refined under the Rehnquist Court -- to protect free enterprise.

As I'm sure Jason will be all too happy to clarify, antitrust laws have this nasty trend of being structured specifically to protect existing monopolies . . . by throttling any attempt to compete on an even playing field.  Constitutionally imposing an unrealistic production mandate is not how to open the market to competition; it is, though, how to squeeze all but the big guys out of that market.

Today, the United Sates has the potential to be totally independent of foreign oil and foreign sources of energy within some 25 years.  That also means we could then base our foreign policy and more importantly, our commitment of our military men and women in harm's way based on something else than a gallon of gas.

And now we get the "no blood for oil" argument, which in one form or another has been around since Coolidge was in office.  Never mind that the reasons that we went into Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya had nothing to do with oil.  Yes, the United States has the capacity to become independent of any foreign source of energy, and if we "drill here, drill now" I'm pretty sure we can do it in much less than two and a half decades.  All we need to do is get the Department of Energy, the EPA, and the enviro-nazis out of the way.

Although I prefer this kind of proposal be done through the legislative or regulatory process, given the political realities of the political strength and power of these government granted monopolies, this is the only viable proposal on the table.

The reason that the legislative and regulatory process isn't going anywhere right now is because the existing 10-by-15 standard, legislatively approved in 2008, won't be realized for another three years yet . . . there's no actual reason for the legislature to act!  The 25-by-25 proposal is only "on the table" because some anti-free market commie globalists have realized that We The People are getting wise to them, and now want to hasten the transition to their end game takeover.

Dave Agema doesn't actually assume the office until the closing gavel of this year's Republican National Convention, which should be Thursday night, August 30th; so Saul Anuzis is still technically the National Committeeman for another seven days yet.  Given that Michigan is going to be a federal electoral battleground this year, you'd think the guy could find better things to do with his time.