Since when has NH Insider started accepting anonymously sourced hack attackers as guest bloggers? What next? Post the ravings of commenters on the Free Republic website?

A few comments: Mr. Anonymous says, "RGGI will make energy in New Hampshire more expensive and no one can dispute that." Well, as a matter of record, someone does dispute it. Prof. Gittell of UNH did the only cost analysis of RGGI and says it will decrease the cost of energy.

Mr. Anonymous goes on to say, "Since Lynch has condoned laundering tax money through the energy companies....that happen to relate directly to how much more money ends up in the state coffers.." The money raised by RGGI goes to fund methods to reduce energy use, not into the state coffers.

Hack attacker states: the "program ... is almost guaranteed to make [the need for fuel assistance] greater each and every year'. Since tjhe program is designed to fund alternatives and reduce the use of oil, it will hardly increase our dependence.

"We’re getting Lynch’d." A supposedly serious blog is reduced to making fun of a candidates last name with an obvious double entendre. I noticed on the original website, the author included a picture of a noose, presumably to help drive home the point for the slower witted. How clever. How cute. How puerile.

And how correct. "Professor" Gittell is a flaming left-wing apologist for higher taxes.. He needed to be exposed.

Observer:

I worked with this "flaming left-wing apologist for higher taxes" and the NH Business and Industry Association to implement an R&D tax credit for business this year.

Rep. Marsh how quickly you forget that John Lynch's own 2004 campaign website sold "Lynch Kits." Too bad you didn't get this worked up when outside economists told you and the other W&M members that your budget numbers were bogus.

Thanks for the deficit Rep.

Rep. Marsh - you and your left wing big spending cohorts in the legislature have borrowed and spent us into a major fiscal disaster. Tell us again who is the hack?

Gavin:

I'll respond to you one time. First, I hope you are now satisfied that the income tax bill the House tabled is now dead. You seemed for a long time to be under a curious and unshakeable misapprehension that there was a secret plan to resurrect it. There was not.

I am impressed that you are able to state with conviction that economists told us that a recession was likely or imminent, when a) they did not, and b) you were never present. You must be a remarkable person, indeed.

We are not in a deficit. The budget for the year just ended was balanced, and for the new year we will end balanced. However, if you want to thank anyone for the reduced state revenues, I suggest you start with the federal administration, as its lax oversight of bank lending practices led to the huge write-offs and losses that are driving the current downturn. I suppose that this explanation may prove too complex for you, however.

Concerned Taxpayer:

Nobody from either party in the NH House or Senate is a hack. I appreciate and salute the service all all members in our legislature, even when I disagree vehemently with their political beliefs. We are all essentially volunteers, working 100 days a year (in my case) or more for essentially no pay. If this has escaped your notice, I am sorry to hear it.

I testified against this abomination in person. I was NOT anonymous.

http://www.nhcitizen.org/modules/content/index.php?id=10

Rowland:

A`cabal prevents anti-global warming folks from speaking? Your characterization of how the scientific world's works and the reality of global warming borders on the hysteric. Let's just call it hysterical and be charitable.

"Right now China is outputting many times more greenhouse gases than the entire United States" This is a very curious factiod. Or, since it is simply not true, falsoid. Where did you come up with it? Wherever it was, put it back. It makes you look ignorant, which I am sure you are not. China produces about 10% more total CO2 than the US, but each person in China produces about 1/5th what an American does.

"Carbon offsets are like the indulgences racket of the pre-Reformation Church", and "This bill says that money is to be given to private corporations. Which private corporations? Who decides, and on what basis? Does the biggest kickback win?" If this was the extent of my knowledge on a subject, I would be very, very quiet about it. Just some friendly advice.

Finally, trees don't offset carbon. They sequester it, for some period of time, depending on their life cycle. It pretty much doesn't matter where they are planted, because (and this may surprise you, but it shouldn't) air moves around the globe freely, and carbon removed here is just as good as carbon removed in Timbuktu or Shanghai.

Rep Marsh thanks for condescending response, but nothing less was expected from a person like yourself.

My post never mentioned anything regarding an income tax bill, but you were quick to point out (guilty conscious?) that the bill is dead (spin it all you like, its tabled, not dead). I guess its all semantics when you say that the budget is balanced as if it were truly indeed balanced then Lynch wouldn’t have to borrow a few hundred million to cover obligations which should have been reserved in the first place, but what do I know, I only work for a fortune 500 company and hold an MBA from NYU.

To pass the buck off on the Feds is silly, as any good budget writer knows that in a downturn you don’t increase spending twofold, but rather keep the increase at a minimum to cover mandates and required debt obligations. Lynch recognized that and has backpedaled like the politician he is by enforcing cuts in areas that never should have been increased. 2009 will be even tighter than this year, and thanks to the NH current majority in the house and senate, 500 people will be out of work due to regulation, and electricity will spike as a result of the bogus RGGI bill (just ask our friends in NY). These are just a few examples on how government created unnecessary hardships on its’ residents.

In response to Mr. Marsh; I know you are in favor of RGGI, but the text below is pulled directly from the independent study. It is difficult to get a different impression than that the State controls the cost of credits—the state benefits financially from these costs—the rate payers will bear the burden of them—and that the state can do whatever it wants with the money. Since we never get to vote on the offset rates set by the state--the state can milk us at will.

Yes, the state could offer rate relief, but why would I want to give the state my money so that it could then decide if I deserve to get some of it back? (after filtering it through a government agency or three before deciding if I even qualify)

It’s my money. If I want to spend it on energy, food, movie rentals, or to elect someone to replace you, that’s my choice. If I want to spend it on renewable’s, also my choice. But you and Gov. Lynch have decided in advance what my energy money should buy, and despite your protests have provided no guarantee that this is what the money will be used for; and there is nothing in RGGI that requires that you do. Given the budgetary acrobatics of the last two years, I am unwilling to believe it would or could.

Here’s the relevant text-from research done by Ross Gittell, PhD, and Matt Magnussen, MBA, from UNH

“The costs of RGGI will primarily be borne by ratepayers no matter how carbon allowances are allocated. If New Hampshire joins RGGI, the costs of RGGI are expected to increase the electric utility bills of New Hampshire customers by $20 million (if $2 carbon allowance price) in 2009 rising to $88 million (if $8 carbon allowance price) in 2018. If NH were not to participate in RGGI, electricity costs would increase to a lesser degree, $7 million in 2009 rising to $36 million in 2018. However, the revenue expected from auctioning carbon allowances with RGGI participation more than offsets the added cost of joining RGGI.

The state would expect to receive allowances valued at $17 million in 2009 rising to $62 million by 2018. These funds could be used to help address the increased cost of RGGI to electricity customers through rebates or funding energy efficiency. These funds could also be put to other purposes by the State.”

Emphasis mine.

Nothing personal Rep Marsh, but where my money is concerned, I’m not inclined to believe a democrat, and we are talking about many millions. I just don't trust you with my money, nor should I have to.

I don't know why you are complaining about elcabra's blog: There are other anonymous blogs on here, and worse, attacks on candidates are now being done under the guise of 'press releases' for every little issue, with no allowances for commenting.

So at least you got to have your say Mike, and you were decidedly slapped down by those like Rowland who are paying attention to all of this nonsense.

RGGI is a boondoggle and bad for the taxpayers.

"elcabra":

I urge you to look at the bill you testified on, HB1434.

The money the state takes in from the sale of carbon .."allowances shall be deposited in the greenhouse gas emissions reduction fund"

Observer: Smacked-down by Rowland? That's a good one!

To what use may these funds be put? "II. Fund moneys shall be used to support energy efficiency, conservation, and demand response programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated within the state, which may include programs proposed and administered by private entities, as well as by the department, the commission, and other state and local governmental agencies. Such programs may include, but not be limited to, improving the electrical and thermal energy efficiency of New Hampshire’s residential housing and commercial building stock via weatherization, energy auditing, energy efficiency related work force training and development, revolving loan funds for efficiency related investment, related industrial process and control systems, integration of passive solar heating and ventilation systems, and efforts to increase adherence to energy related building and electrical codes. These funds shall not be transferred or used for any other purpose."

The funds cannot be put to other use, except in the event the price of the allowances is greater than a threshhold, they go back to rate payers.

Regarding the quote from Prof Gittel's work, you have selected a section to make your point, while igmoring the larger section that disproves what you are trying to say:
"If New Hampshire chose to use 100 percent of auction revenue to invest in energy efficiency for utility customers, PSNH customers’ electricity bills would increase by 0.9 percent in 2009 but decrease 1.4 percent by 2018. The average PSNH residential customer could expect to pay $0.87 more per month in 2009, but save $1.37 by 2018. For the other New Hampshire utilities, their customers’ electricity rates would increase by 0.5 percent in 2009 and decrease by 1.7 percent by 2018. The average other New Hampshire utilities residential customer could expect to pay $0.48 more per month in 2009, but save $1.70 by 2018.

Therefore a key finding of the UNH study is that, over the long term, New Hampshire electric rate payers’ costs will decrease if New Hampshire participates in RGGI, auctions allowances, and invests the auction revenues in energy efficiency."

Now you can argue that Prof. Gittel doesn't understand what he is talking about, but to take a quote out of context, and not include the operative quote that follows a couple paragraphs later, seems to smack of intellectual dishonesty.

If you think after a huge increase, the cost will suddenly and magically go down in 2018 I have a bridge I'll sell you...

Sort of like the telephone tax for the Spanish-American war, ya know?

This whole RGGI thing is a huge scam and the equivalent of selling a pet rock.

Observer:

By spending the return on alternative energy sources and ways to save energy, we will be reducing demand and increase supply of alternatives. In this was the price of energy will be reduced. This is simple Micro-economics 101.

Tell you what, I'll trade you my pet rock for your bridge. Straight up.

This is nothing like the 3% tax imposed on long distance phone calls that had its antecedents in 1898. For one thing, that tax no longer exists.

So Mr. Marsh, if I have this correct then its ok for NH residents and businesses to go through 10 years of pain with regards to rates? Sort of sounds like the Mass healthcare where it was only supposed to cost $316 million,but really cost over $1 billion. One thing you or any other rep fail to mention are NIMBYs. The Cape Wind project was help up for years by NIMBYs. Another example would be the current wind project going on in St. Lawrence County NY, which has been held up for the last 8 years because of NIMBYs.

Lets go through an excercise where Greenland is the subject municipality of a proposed 25 turbine wind farm. Now while Mr. Marsh would be for the project how many residents do you suppose would be against it? How many people do you think would get together and file a lawsuit to prohibit the windfarm from ruining their view?

So while the NIBMYs take up time in the courts, NH residents would have less cash in their pockets, and lose their jobs because the remaining firms would relocate out of NH & the NE region. In turn people like Mr. Marsh will propose more taxes to create a bigger welfare state which was all caused by an artificial economy killer known as regulation. While I think alternative energy is the way to go, its best to leave it to the private sector and not force it upon the residents by imposing more mandates on a position embraced by a former VP and his 10 minute powerpoint presentation.

Gavin:

Sorry, but I said I would respond to you one time. I already did. You need to find another interlocuter.

Best of luck

Hey Mike, doing what a dem does best i see. Strike down and silence any sort of speech that doesn't agree with your mantra.

At least your pompous posts will make good fodder in Greenland.

FD- Greenland:

I am sorry to hear that you think I have silenced speech, That wasn't my intention, and I hope not what I did. I gather from your post that you live in Greenland. I am always interested in hearing from constituents, so if you would like to contact me, try mike@marsh.org.

Mr. Marsh,

No matter what the objective,or what evidence we choose to support it, several things are clear.

I think it should be up to the citizens of New Hampshire to decide, each exercising their own free will in the marketplace. You appear to prefer that the state assume this role.


The state has used its legislative authority (with RGGI) to effectively mandate a rate increase from which it will accumulate income. This is income it would not have without the legisltion, or the rate increase. Everyone who uses energy will be affected. It doesn't matter if we pay more for just a week, just a year, or forever. It is money extracted from the income of New Hampshire citizens, against their will, which ends up in the possesion of the State of New Hampshire. This is a tax on energy. It is a tax that everyone will pay.

That makes it a broad based tax. Perhaps THE broad based tax.

Good intentions do not justify the tax; it still violates Lynch's pledge.

Do you disagree with any of these observations?

elcabra:

Interesting comments, and yes i disagree with a couple of them.

I think the starting point should be: do you accept the general findings of most scientists that global warming is happening, it is dangerous, and it is man-made? If you do not, then RGGI makes no sense. If you do believe these propositions, then support for RGGI is obvious: from an economic perspective we have a problem in that the price of carbon-based does not properly reflect its true cost to society. RGGI seeks to adjust the price by including the additional environmental cost of burning carbon, using a market approach rather than a diktat.

As for whether RGGI violates Lynch's pledge, the answer is obviously not. Imagine if you will that we determined that rusted out cars posed a general danger, and we mandated that car inspections include an inspection for rust on the car body, that this be done every year, and that the cost of an inspection was to increase by $8 per year to pay for this additional inspection. This is certainly broad-based, but it is not a tax.

As we both agree (I hope), the revenue from RGGI goes into a fund to decrease energy usage or improve energy efficiency. The state gains nothing from the transaction.

You propose that, rather than use RGGI to change carbon use behavior, it should be optional and based on free will. I would suggest to you that this would be even less effective than if we asked people going through the tolls on I-93 for a donation rather than impose a toll.