Admit it. Your front lawn is bland.
It needs something to “jazz it up” a little.
Lawn Gnomes won’t do the trick.
Neither will gazing spheres, solar powered lawn lights or tiny banners displaying the upcoming holiday.
Why not try this?
{Find out about the wonder item that everyone will be clamoring for below the fold}
(10)Nuh Uh.
(0)Ayotte (R-NH), Cochran (R-MS), Collins (R-ME), Flake (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC), Hatch (R-UT), Kirk (R-IL), McConnell (R-KY) Thanks, Rand. Actually, that doesn’t tell the whole story, because if you add the additional losers to who opened Pandora’s box: Alexander (R-TN), Burr (R-NC), Capito (R-WV), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Gardner (R-CO), Johnson (R-WI), Portman (R-OH), Roberts (R-KS), Thune (R-SD), Tillis (R-NC), then you get an accurate picture of what treacherous lying bastards Republicans are in the U.S. Senate when they come back to tell their constituents ‘they voted against {insert nominee’s name here}’.
Remember Sen. Ayotte, right? Yes, me too. Isn’t the empty suit of identity politics wonderful? Remember Sen. Portman, too? Yep, me too. More empty suits.
Ted Cruz 2016
FTW
(15)Nuh Uh.(0)Now, how do you suppose THAT got there?
One of my sources tipped me off to an interesting turn of events last night regarding Prop 1.
{More below the fold}
(12)Nuh Uh.(0)TRIP Boosts Their Lies 109% to Get Your Vote
The proponents of Proposal 1 never envisaged the losing position they now occupy two weeks before the vote, so their media shills have resurrected the titillating lies projections of a road builders’ organization called TRIP to bolster their case. Here are the most visceral quotes from Michigan’s two largest newspapers, demonstrating their well-honed propaganda skills:
“Michigan’s poor roads threaten to derail its economic recovery, according to a new report by a national transportation research group.”
“The report says that 38% of Michigan roads are now in poor condition, up from 23% in 2006. It also found that 45% were listed in fair condition and 17% were listed as good.”
“The report estimates that Michigan motorists pay an average of $686 in increased operating costs, including vehicle repairs, because of the state’s poor roads.”
“By 2025, the share of major roads in poor condition is projected to increase to 53 percent,” TRIP said in its report. “Keeping roads in good condition by performing minor maintenance is far more cost-effective than waiting until roads are in fair or poor condition when it becomes far more costly to make needed repairs.”
“According to TRIP, driving on rough roads costs Michigan motorists a total of $4.8 billion each year in the form of extra vehicle operating costs, representing an average cost of $686 annually per motorist.”
”That’s the conclusion of a report released Monday by TRIP, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that researches, evaluates and distributes information on surface transportation issues.
The Detroit Free Press only identified TRIP as “a national nonprofit transportation research group” in this pivotal story. They were a little more candid in a previous story, so they can’t claim not to know what TRIP is. The Detroit News identification of TRIP was every bit as dishonest. Only our ‘newer’ media is more truthful, if still not entirely accurate:
“The annual TRIP study, conducted by a national research group funded by transportation industry interests, pegs the yearly cost at $686 per Michigan motorist.”
“TRIP findings have long been cited by road funding advocates, including Gov. Rick Snyder.”
TRIP obligingly released a raft of new lies in a series of press releases on Michigan roads at the Detroit Regional Chamber (a kindred IRS 501(c)(6) organization, more on this below the fold) on Monday. These stories are an update to TRIP’s January 2014 lies which we covered in January. The comparable examples of TRIP’s 2014 lies (since removed from the web) are:
TRIP’s 2015 report on Michigan annual excessive vehicle costs is a $ 2.5 billion (or $ 329 per motorist) increase above their 2014 lies projections. A 109% increase above their 2014 lies. Far beyond any assessment of the 2014 to 2015 deterioration of road & bridge conditions in Michigan – even the totally bogus PASER ratings. Since the $ 2.3 billion (or $ 357 per motorist) 2014 TRIP number didn’t move you to vote for Proposal 1, the new and improved $ 4.8 billion (or $ 686 per motorist) lie is expected to change your mind on Proposal 1. They think you are that dumb.
So is TRIP a “nonprofit transportation research organization”? Sounds like an independent, credible source – right? Do the adjectives ‘nonprofit’ and ‘research’ give you a high level of confidence in their pronouncements? Does ‘organization’ or ‘group’ give you the impression that hundreds of researchers are assessing road conditions across the country? Perhaps you should dig a little deeper than our lazy, lying media scribes.
(17)Nuh Uh.(0)
Part IV – A Right Plan of Action
So how should average middle class Michiganders engage in this electricity debate? What should they demand in the 2015 legislation on electricity? Can they prevent the titans from looting their family budgets?
First and foremost, Michiganders should demand an end to hybrid deregulation. All electricity consumers should be under the same regulatory scheme, with equal options to escape. No favoritism. This aligns the interests of politically potent, large electricity consumers with those of the average Michigander. This creates an effective counterbalance to the political power of the utilities; political power purchased with your electricity payments. Even full regulation is preferable to our current hybrid deregulation scheme.
Michiganders should further demand full deregulation of our electricity market. As regulated entities, utilities have a ‘cost plus’ mindset which relentlessly drives prices higher. Regulatory bodies limit themselves to dampening this drive for higher prices, but do not drive efficiencies which would genuinely control energy costs. Competition-driven efficiencies are very important to Michigan’s economy, which still has a significant, energy-intensive industrial base. Also Michigan’s utilities have not demonstrated any special competence operating their electrical power stations, so competition in the supply of electricity will promote best practices there and lower costs as well. Ultimately, a deregulated grid properly managed is more tolerant of supply shocks because more actors will be supplying the electricity.
The RPS should not be renewed at any level. Renewables should not be forcibly subsidized by any ratepayers, overtly or covertly. The current PA 295 regulatory scheme has residential electricity consumers subsidizing renewables through skyrocketing rates, while large consumers escape this burden. As renewable energy sources become cost effective, they will be welcomed by all parties.
If environmental wackos want their own electricity to come from RPS renewables, let them pay the full cost including base load backup costs. Most renewable sources are intermittent and require expensive base load backup capacity for periods where they cannot generate electricity. The Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO) historical record shows that Michigan wind power, by far the most significant current RPS component (883 turbines, about 58% of RPS power), was only available 31.5% of the time (termed ‘capacity factor’) during 2011 and 2012. During two months, July and August of 2011, wind was available only available 16% of the time. Most evaluations of the cost effectiveness of wind and solar generation pointedly neglect the costs of base load backup capacity to keep the lights on. Essentially, wind power capacity has to be backed up by 100% of its rated capacity with fossil-fueled base load capacity to prevent blackouts during zero wind periods, so why bother install wind power (or solar, for that matter) in the first place? Ratepayers subjected to RPS get to pay the capital costs for twice the generating capacity they actually need.
(15)Nuh Uh.(1)
Part III – Clash of Titans, Viewed from Below
Fortunately, the greed political acumen of DTE and CMS Energy is coming to your rescue. Both utilities are seeking full reregulation of Michigan’s electricity market. They are issuing thinly veiled threats about brownouts ‘reliability’ of supply unless Michigan forces the fortunate 10% back into our utilities’ waiting arms. And with President Obama’s hobbling of coal-fired power stations ramping up, they actually have a point. So the fortunate 10% will have to seriously reengage in Michigan’s electricity rate debate or their electricity costs will skyrocket.
The environmental wackos haven’t been idle either. The new model, term limited, Governor Snyder has evidently made up with our ur-RINO and is now endorsing a 40% RPS by 2040. To keep Michigan’s serfs in line – and avoid impeachment – he is specifically not calling for this to be a mandate, rather calling it a ‘goal’. Coming from Michigan’s Governor, this is a distinction without a practical difference. Snyder appoints the three MPSC commissioners who oversee electricity policy and MPSC operates under the aegis of LARA. Think Governor Duggan, Snyder’s designated successor, will change this policy? Other Michigan politicians are splitting the difference, proposing RPS mandates intermediate between 10% and 40%.
(14)Nuh Uh.(0)Feds Step In, Things Get Much Worse
Part II
Things may have quieted down in Michigan after Proposal 3’s demise in 2012, but President Obama’s EPA were furiously developing their ‘War on Coal’ to dramatically increase the cost reduce pollution of electricity generation. The Mercury and Air Toxics (MATs, also known as MACT) rule requires scrubbers on all coal-fired power plants nationally, costing something north of $ 1 million per steam boiler. The Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) requires Michigan coal-fired power plants to reduce their thermal efficiency during peak summertime generating periods to reduce oxides of nitrogen at a yet to be determined cost.
In 2014, EPA’s ‘Cooling Water Intake Structures’ rule finally went into effect after a decade of legal wrangling, requiring that Michigan’s electrical utilities take some very expensive steps over 8 years to protect the Great Lakes’ beloved zebra mussel and round goby populations.
At the end of 2014, EPA imposed newly restrictive rules on the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs), commonly known as coal ash, from coal-fired power plants. Almost unique in the history of Federal regulation, EPA admitted in their final CCR rule that it had a negative cost-benefit ratio. Fly ash, the most abundant CCR, is actually a remedy for the alkali-silica reaction (ASR) which causes premature failure of many MDoT concrete structures. So EPA managed to simultaneously increase Michigan’s cost of electricity generation and reduce the lifespan of our roads and bridges. An Obama ‘two fer’.
EPA expects to finalize its ‘Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category’ in September 2015. Known by the acronyms SEEG or ELG, these rules will change the way all electrical power stations handle cooling, process, and steam condensate water. These rules cover all steam powered turbine operations, but will most severely affect coal-fired power stations whose MATs required scrubbers and CCR required ash handling systems will generate a lot of waste water.
(17)Nuh Uh.(0)After Proposal 1, After Plan B, Electricity Front and Center
Part I: Background
Later this year, Michigan’s electrical utilities are expected to satisfy the 10% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements of PA 295 of 2008. Partial reregulation of electricity in Michigan under the same PA 295 of 2008 denied choice of supplier on 90% of electricity consumption, while exempting large, politically potent, electricity consumers. At the same time, the U.S. EPA is progressively tightening their noose around the neck of the coal industry with an array of ever more restrictive regulations upon coal-fired power plants. A political clash of titans is looming in Michigan.
Taken together, these circumstances will trigger a wild four-way donnybrook pitting electrical utilities, electricity consumers, and environmental wackos against one another later this year. But this is only three parties, so why do you say four-way? Large industrial consumers have substantially escaped the consequences of PA 295, while smaller Michigan consumers – including residential consumers – have experienced the fifth highest rate of electricity cost increases in the nation. These two electricity consuming groups’ interests do not coincide.
(14)Nuh Uh.(0)Opposing proposal 15-1 are the overtaxed citizens from BOTH sides of the spectrum.
Photo from actual Traverse City Protest.
It could possibly be an unusual gathering April 15.
Given the fact that most conservative Republicans and the left-of-center Democrats agree that the May 5th proposal is an unmitigated disaster, its possible they might actually walk side by side at 11AM in Front of the Traverse City Post Office on Tax Day. If one watches the polling results, follows through by reading the comments on the major media pro 15-1 shill attempts, one might walk away thinking the only the political class centrists are the ones who really really want this garbage.
Holding breath on working together? Not entirely.
However, what a treat it would be to shove this bad medicine down the throat of the cronyist Snyder and his milquetoast minions. The mantra of there being “no plan B” is worn out already. Putting taxpayers into a corner might elicit thoughts of the wolverine that is threatened once this play is done. Higher taxes hurt the left as much as the right, and passage of this boondoggle is a constitutionally guaranteed increase of taxes every single year.
Where: In front of Traverse City Post Office on Union and State St.
When: 11 am till 1 pm or as long as you can. April 15th tax day (Depending on size we may walk to the Parkway and Union St.) Appropriate signs please.
If you are in the area on April 15 at 11AM, join 15-1 opponents to say NO to higher taxes.
(26)Nuh Uh.(1)Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank Questions BLS State Level Employment Data Revisions
Kurt Weiss at the Michigan Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (DTMB) reported on March 25th that Michigan’s February 2015 seasonally adjusted unemployment rate dropped to 5.9% from January’s 6.3% figure. This was followed on April 2nd by the DTMB release of non seasonal adjusted employment data for February 2015. This quite large one month drop is great news for Michigan workers, if it indeed reflects our labor market. But does it?
Twelve Month Discrepancies Between Seasonally Adjusted and Unadjusted Data Differentials
The DTMB Michigan non seasonally adjusted (NSA) employment report for February 2015, at the bottom of page 6, showed that Michigan’s civilian labor force declined by 33,000 workers over the twelve preceding months. But the seasonally adjusted (SA) employment report for February 2015 at the top of page 2 showed that Michigan’s civilian labor force increased by 7,000 workers over the same twelve months. The growth of Michiganders employed over the same twelve month period also shows a 5,000 worker NSA/SA discrepancy: 101,000 not seasonally adjusted versus 96,000 seasonally adjusted. And the shrinkage of Michigan’s unemployed worker population over the same twelve month period shows a 46,000 worker NSA/SA discrepancy: 134,000 not seasonally adjusted versus 88,000 seasonally adjusted.
Valid seasonal corrections should produce twelve month differentials which agree with comparable item non seasonally adjusted differentials over the same twelve month period. Here we have a 0.85% discrepancy in Michigan’s total civilian labor force, a 0.1% discrepancy in civilian employment over the same twelve month period, and a 12.5% discrepancy in the shrinkage of Michigan’s unemployed worker population over the same twelve month period.
How did this happen?
The DTMB turns its employment data over to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics for X-13ARIMA-SEAT seasonal adjustment. BLS also adjusts underlying data periodically for changes in the Michigan population estimates of the U.S. Census. The two (SA and NSA) February 2015 DTMB employment reports both reflect substantial BLS revisions undertaken in early 2015. A note at the top of page 2 in the DTMB February 2015 SA employment report:
Note: The data in this release reflects recently revised historical estimates. Seasonally adjusted labor force estimates for 1976-2014 for Michigan and 1990-2014 for the Detroit-Warren-Dearborn MSA were revised. Previous published data should be replaced with this new series. In addition, seasonally adjusted payroll job data was revised for 2010-2014. For newly revised data, please contact DTMB at 313-456-3090.
The DTMB February 2015 NSA employment report bears a similar note on its first page noting that it was also subjected to substantial revisions.
So Michigan’s employment data has been subjected to substantial revisions at BLS which produce seasonal adjustments that do not cross check against comparable item non seasonally adjusted data over the most recent 12 month period.
(16)Nuh Uh.(0)
