YES on (energy) public option by SignyM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

YES on (energy) public option

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, April 30, 2010 12:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 454
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, April 30, 2010 3:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Cleverly disguised as a "right to vote", Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) - which held its shareholders meeting outside of its major market of California- is agitating to prevent municipalities from entering the energy utilities business. And they promised their shareholders that the $34 million dedicated to this campaign wouldn't come from the shareholders, but directly from the ratepayers.

When Enron was busy gaming the utilities system, electricity rates tripled in California even as the underlying production costs remained basically the same. The only utilities which stabilized prices were the city utilites: DWP in LA, for example.

Much like health insurances, telecoms, and banks, energy companies essentially form monopolies. And like ALL good capitalist businesses, the LAST thing they want is competition! So ratepayers get to pay for their own shackles.

This is a perfect example of economic force.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 7:23 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I was given a sheaf of petitions to sign, and this was one I rejected. The reason is that it calls for a TWO-THIRDS majority of voters to acquiesce to it, if you're talking about the same measure as I read. It got on the ballot anyway, which isn't a good sign.

How did you recognize the con? By a surface perusal, it looks like it IS a "right to vote" measure, giving the public the right to vote on whether municipalities can buy utililities. That's how it's being advertised, too.

Two-third majority is an unreasonable number; hell, our legislators can't get a two-thirds majority on almost anything in this stupid state, how can you expect two thirds of the PUBLIC to agree? But many people will vote for it because it looks like a "right to vote" on utilities, without realizing it's a con. People like the right to vote on issues, and can be easily manipulated into thinking municipalities shouldn't be allowed to spend "their money" on something they can't decide. That's why it worries me.

I have the same problems you do with electricity, and I agree something has to be done. This is a con in my opinion, just one more way of keeping electriciity in the hands of PG&E.

When I'm given petitions to sign, I'm careful to read them. There were a couple of others I didn't sign. It's way too easy to see the title of something you agree with and sign it without reading the details.

That's how so many got conned into registering Republican when they thought they were signing a petition to legalize marijuana. It's happened here and elsewhere.

If more people read the petition AND the issue, then thought about it when signing or voting, these cons wouldn't work; looking to see who's backing it is a second way of ensuring it's about what you agree with and not a con. It's too easy to give a false title or not include the details when asking for signatures OR votes.

I fear too many will fall into the trap of wanting to have control over something they don't control now and will vote for it. I hope we're smarter than that, butI fear we're not.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 7:31 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

But that's a free-market economy, Signy! They're free to do whatever the hell they want, and they're free to charge you whatever they want, and you're free to pay them. What could be more in line with the founders' ideals?

[/snark]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 12:43 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Yeah, well, we got these DTE bastards, so far as I understand, they've been forced to allow competition, at least in regards to natural gas providers (and allowed to collect retroactive profits, too - the fekkin GCR is higher than my whole damn bill!) but they gamed the system by having a PR group set up a bunch of shell companies using scam tactics to masquerade as "competition" while ripping off anyone who falls for it so it makes THEM look good in comparison.

I tossed one off the property the other day, and wasn't at all surprised when she drove off in a DTE truck, neither.

So watch out for THAT crap too.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 12:55 PM

WHOZIT

kill me

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE