Argument: A Small Increase in [BLANK] Could Employ 1000 "Workers" - Granite Grok

Argument: A Small Increase in [BLANK] Could Employ 1000 “Workers”

Jeb bradley Lincoln-Lafayette-cropped-1024x638

The veto override of SB365, the Biomass bailout Bill, was a lesson in the mechanics of progressive thinking. The idea was to make everyone else pay more for electricity to save some jobs. One-thousand jobs. If that’s acceptable what’s to stop the government from using that excuse for any other occupation?

With a small increase in the cost of [blank], we can save the jobs of 1000 snipe hunters across New Hampshire. The fact that snipe don’t exist or that ‘hunting’ them is like getting paid to fish in your neighbors above-ground swimming pool are meaningless.

Related: Brookstone’s Failure Should Send a Message to the NH Legislature About Biomass Bailouts

The idea that the money to pay for the increse in [blank] came from someone who might have some other purpose in mind for it, like creating jobs that produce even more efficient, affordable energy might be an ironic example.

But, no. Instead, we are paying more so we can be forced to pay more for something to keep biomass employees employed. Why?

The goal is to get you to accept that the state has a role in deciding who will pay for what and why. Preferably to create a growing constituency whose dependence ensures life-long support of the ruling class that did them the favor in the first place.

A small increase in tax dollars can employ 1000 bureaucrats who will a majority forever vote to keep their paychecks at your expense.

It makes no difference what they do because the point is to pay people not to create anything of value.

So, I find myself amused that the New England Ratepayers Association (NERA) has filed a petition with the  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The Union Leader reported this morning that,

The petition claims that the requirement for utilities to buy power from woodburning plants at above-market prices is a violation of federal law that gives FERC sole authority to set wholesale prices for electricity.

… that “precedent from the Supreme Court and this Commission make clear that whatever the states may do to encourage the use of renewable or fuel diverse generation, they may not advance those objectives by setting the price for wholesale sales of electricity.”

The Union leader also reports that Republican Jeb Bradley, who loves SB365, said, 

“I suspect the folks who are raising this objection now thought the veto would be upheld,” said state Sen. Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, who shepherded SB 365 through the Legislature and led the fight to override Sununu’s veto. “Who is paying this $27,000?” he said. “I find it extraordinary that anyone would want to throw almost 1,000 out of work in New Hampshire. I am very troubled by that.”

I find it extraordinary that a Republican Leader in any elected body would actually say something that stupid. But then, this is Jeb Bradley.

Jeb, I have no idea where the money came from. Probably not the green energy industry. But it could have been from local business owners, taxpayers who don’t like the idea of being forced to pay above market rates because you thought the legislature should pick winners and losers.

And that $27,000.00 was not dragged from the wallets of residents by force.

They donated it willingly.

As for the petition, I have no clue how that will shake out but I will cross my fingers and enjoy watching the show.

Related: Sanctioning Government Plunder and Big Money in Politics