It looks like MA Dem Party Chair Thomas McGee liked the Beacon Hill Institute’s work on competitiveness back in April.
Just a FYI for those few BMGers interested in policy done right: Harry Reid’s Nevada is also paying attention to recent work from Suffolk University’s free market think tank.
.
Please share widely!
“for those few BMGers interested in policy done right”
That’s kind of a fuck you right there, wouldn’t you say?
I know you’re better than that.
In fact, I just did.
So does ALEC!
I love it when right-wing douchebags drop by with uninformative, slightly insulting posts.
Don’t take Wikipedia’s entry for it, check out the sources.
…you’d think somebody would have bought these folks a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People. Or at least the “For Dummies” summary.
.
That’s me!
And they are d-bags! They are the CATO Institute of Massachusetts. Or the Heritage Foundation. Or the Hoover Institute. Or some other douche bag think tank.
If their post doesn’t do it, their record will.
Flawed reports attacking Renewable Portfolio Standards
The Beacon Hill Institute has been criticized for producing a series of flawed reports attacking state clean energy policies.[6][7][8] Frank Ackerman, a Harvard PhD and Senior Economist with Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., said[9] the Beacon Hill Institute models:
-contained “wild overstatement(s)” of the cost of wind energy;
-assumed that expensive backup capacity was always needed and running when wind energy was used;
-inflated the price of new transmission capacity;
-exaggerated how much energy use per customer will be needed compared with the widely-cited Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook, and overestimated job losses due to assumption of “hypersensitivity to tax rates.”
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has used the BHI studies in an effort to eliminate state standards for renewable energy.[9] Both Beacon Hill Institute and ALEC have financial connections to fossil fuel interests who would benefit from eliminating clean energy policies.[10]
Grant request controversy
Beacon Hill Institute has been under pressure by its host, Suffolk University, after language submitting a grant request that concluded economic research findings before performing any research. The grant was submitted to The Searle Foundation, a prominent conservative foundation, in 2013.[11] The request showed that the Beacon Hill Institute intended to pursue research with the express goal of eliminating climate regulations, stating: “Success will take the form of media recognition, dissemination to stakeholders, and legislative activity that will pare back or repeal RGGI.”[11] RGGI refers to the multi-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a carbon-reduction initiative in the US northeast.
Suffolk University later issued a statement saying BHI had not consulted its host university about the grant proposal, against the university’s rules, and that it would not have authorized the grant proposal as conceived by BHI. The statement further said the research was against the university’s mission.[11] However the university continues to support BHI’s efforts by approving similar grant applications resulting in similar studies.
The grant proposal, which sought $38,825 to undermine or overturn RGGI, was submitted to Searle Freedom Trust (a leading funder of conservative and libertarian causes) on behalf of Beacon Hill Institute by the State Policy Network (SPN).[11] SPN is a network of state-level think tanks that have published analyses on clean energy policies and other issues that have come under partisan attacks from climate change advocacy publications such as the Guardian.[12]
Ray Shamie was effective. It doesn’t mean he was legit.
Context is everything…Sen. McGee rights a letter to the editor using talking points from a conservative group to undermine arguments of a conservative candidate. Then the conservative group uses that to suggest Sen. McGee supports their view.
This is the level of public discourse we have come to…pathetic.
that the folks at Suffolk would be laying low for a while, after the story emerged that the person they chose as Director of the Center for Real Estate at business school had his home foreclosed on, that he owes a million in unpaid taxes and business judgments, and that he still managed to make political contributions long after these problems came to light.
That way, people wouldn’t be making smart ass comments like “Suffolk: Pedagogy Done Right.”