| This was bopping around on Facebook earlier today. It's a column this morning by Brian Dickerson on why he's voting in favor of Proposal 3. There is something that ought to be addressed that he left off. It's the new ad campaign intended to double down on Nolan Finley's silly assertion that because it's been bankrolled by out-of-state -- CALIFORNIA! no less -- interests that it's evil. Well, no it's not. Proposal 3 is either good policy or not in its own right. Put another way, let's say that there was a real no-brainer yes proposal on the ballot -- I can't think of one off the top of my head that wouldn't upset half of you -- but we found out that it's chief sponsor was Hitler's bastard son. Would you vote against your own clear self-interest because Hitler's son also thought it was a good idea? Dumb question. The thing would probably be defeated. But, it would be stupid, and it's almost as stupid to vote against a ballot proposal because people from California think it's such a good idea that they put money into it. Anyway, Brian Dickerson. Utilities in most other states are already living with renewable energy mandates more aggressive than Michigan's. Minnesota, Illinois and Ohio have adopted laws establishing the same 25% by 2025 standard Proposal 3's backers want to establish here. I think he's a bit cavalier with the fact that it's a constitutional amendment rather than a simple statute. A bad idea isn't defensible by saying that others had it first. But, in the larger scheme of things, the fact that its framers chose a constitutional amendment isn't worse than the good it would do, and it's certainly preferable than leaving it to a state Legislature that's shown no aptitude to handle energy policy. Keep in mind, just a few minutes ago, I posted about one of them -- who is professionally grounded in the natural sciences -- believes black helicopter conspiracy theories about the U.N. |
