042524

Posted on No Comment

SOMEONE SUGGESTED THAT THE TWO OF THESE MIGHT FIT TOGETER. WORKS FOR ME!

Maine Joins Blue State Push to Undermine the Electoral College

CV NEWS FEED // Democratic Maine Governor Janet Mills Monday last week okayed a bill to align her state with the likes of New York and California in a campaign to undermine the U.S. Electoral College.

Mills did not sign LD 1578 nor did she veto it, allowing it to become law nevertheless. 

“Under the legislation, Maine joins the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [NPVIC], which would only take effect if the coalition secures pledges for at least 270 electoral votes – the threshold needed to elect a president,” a press release from Mills’ office states.

With Mills’ approval sans signature, Maine becomes the 17th state to join the controversial NPVIC. With its four electoral votes added to the total, the effort now has a total of 209 electoral votes. 

If more states with electoral votes adding up to 61 join the compact, it will go into effect, completely transforming the way the country selects its president every four years. 

When the NPVIC has at least 270 electoral votes from its member states, each of them “would allocate all its electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote for president, regardless of how individual states voted in an election,” the Associated Press (AP) noted.

This would therefore eliminate the Electoral College without an act of Congress or Constitutional amendment. Instead, the candidate that wins the national popular vote nationwide would win the election.

As a result, many critics have denounced the compact as unconstitutional.

“Maine is making a big mistake,” said Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky in an interview with NTD News.

He added that “there is a good reason for using [the Electoral College system] instead of the national popular vote.”

STATE OF THE UNION

  
California’s New Electricity-Income Tax Is Only Weeks Away – HotAir

In a couple of weeks, California’s Public Utilities Commission will vote on whether or not to adopt a new fixed charge for electricity, one that will likely be based on income.

When I first wrote about this proposal a year ago, the utilities were suggesting that fee could be as high as $85 a month for some households. That’s not including whatever the utilities charge for actual usage of electricity. The new fixed fee as proposed was essentially an income tax being paid via your electric bill. Since then, the proposal has been scaled back quite a bit but some version of it now seems likely to pass.

Most utilities across the country already collect fixed charges. But this proposed regulation comes with a distinctly California twist: The fixed charges would vary by income, with higher earners paying a $24 fee and lower-income households paying either $6 or $12.

The proposed charges are significantly less steep than ones proposed by the utilities themselves last spring, which topped out at $128 per month for the highest earners. But with a national average of roughly $11 per month, the $24 fee under consideration is still on the high end. Though most households will be compensated, at least partially, through lower rates, that sticker shock has engendered plenty of political outrage.

The other aspect of this change is that in order to offset the fixed charge, which as noted would start around double the average in other states, is that utilities would have to cut the price of electricity by volume. In other words, the income adjusted flat fee would allow utilities to charge a little less per kilowatt hour.

Under the proposed change, people who use less electricity will pay a bit more as a result of the fee, while those who rack up large power bills will save thanks to the lower usage rates…

“Those who consume more electricity, such as a single family home with (a) pool, will receive a discount at the expense of a low electricity user, such as an apartment renter,” wrote Jacqui Irwin, an Assemblymember from Thousand Oaks, along with 21 of her fellow Democratic colleagues last fall.

Cutting the rate for usage does make sense given that California already has the highest electricity rates in the contiguous US. A former head of the Public Utilities Commission says rates are so high because the PUC is not doing its job.

California now holds the ignominious prize for the highest electricity rates in the nation, except Hawaii. How did we get into this predicament? 

Because the California Public Utilities Commission — the five-member agency appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom that regulates the prices, service and reliability of private energy utilities — has failed to do its job…

Fixed fees are the start, not the end, of more rate increases because the commission doesn’t prohibit the fixed charge from increasing whenever PG&E wants. The plan lacks safeguards against utility double-dipping, so it will be hard to tell whether the costs embedded in this new fixed charge are duplicated in other cost-recovery requests…

The Public Utilities Commission’s rubberstamping of unproven, unwarranted, unjust electricity costs must stop. It is up to the state Legislature to inject sanity into the regulatory system and protect California families and businesses from ruinous, undeserved rate increases.

This is my guess for what happens next. Some version of the fixed fee will get adopted next month and then a year or so from now, the utilities will increase that fee, more than offsetting whatever change is made to the cost per kilowatt hour. In other words, this plan which is being sold as a way to reduce sky high electricity costs will quickly result in higher costs for nearly everyone within a few years. Democrats opposed the original plan because the rates were so steep and the whole idea came as a shock to rate-payers. But the shock will wear off and, like the frog in the heating pot, once people get used to it the utilities will start cranking up the rates and the PUC will continue to rubber-stamp those requests. The only way to avoid the new electricity income tax is to leave the state.

SNL GOT IT RIGHT

House Democrat introduces bill aimed at Trump that would strip Secret Service protection from felons

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) on Friday introduced legislation that would strip Secret Service protection from convicted felons sentenced to prison, a bill clearly aimed at former President Donald Trump

“Unfortunately, current law doesn’t anticipate how Secret Service protection would impact the felony prison sentences of a protectee – even a former President,” Thompson, the former chairman of the House Jan. 6 select committee, said in a statement. 

“It is regrettable that it has come to this, but this previously unthought-of scenario could become our reality,” he added. SEE STORY HERE

Testing a Bullet Proof Windshield
The customer insisted the salesman show the integrity of the bullet proof glass before saying YES!

 

 

C’ya

L.pyle#1621   

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 GB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, text. Drop file here