As has been noted several times in earlier comments, the legislature has mandated continuing education (CE).  As such, arguing against it in general in this forum is a quixotic exercise--it's the law.  If you want to change the law, fine, but this is not an appropriate place to do it--you need to take that up with your elected representatives.  However, what we can influence here with constructive public comments is how this law is executed in regulations, and try to ensure it's done in a reasonable way, taking into account the legitimate concerns of the regulated public.

In my federal government career as an engineer, I have never needed a PE license, have never stamped a plan or drawing, and in fact don't own a stamp.  I earned the license in 1989, and have maintained it, at significant expense, basically as a professional credential (not to mention a source of personal pride).  For those in similar situations (and judging from previous comments, there are many), whose employers will not compensate them for the time and expense of CE, I suspect that many would find maintaining a basically inactive license a luxury they can no longer afford.  Certainly I would think twice (or three times) before paying a grand or so a year and spending a significant amount of uncompensated personal time simply for the privilege of hanging an unnecessary certificate on my wall and appending the honorific "P.E." to my name on my business cards.

Therefore, I would suggest consideration of a tiered requirement for CE, where those with (for lack of a better word) "active" licenses, i.e., who actually do or supervise design work and stamp plans, would be required to have CE as a condition of license renewal--and those who do not actively apply their license (e.g., many of those in government, academia, etc.) would not.  There is ample precedent for such an arrangement.  For example FAA pilot licenses don't ever expire, but a pilot must maintain "currency" (as demonstrated through a biennial flight review) for a particular flight to be undertaken.  Such a framework, essentially requiring "currency" for active professional engineering work, would achieve the objective of the law by ensuring continuing education for those actively engaged in professional engineering work, while not penalizing or applying unreasonable personal burdens to those who have gone to the time and expense of obtaining the license, but are not actively applying it.