November 22, 2009
Comments by Sam
Page 1 of 4 | Next
Where was the News Press when MGE requested a 21% increase in its Customer Charge (the flat amount every customer pays even if using no gas for the month)? Increasing that fixed fee from its current $25 per month to almost $30 per month is every bit as unjustified as this rate increase request by the water company. MGE should be allowed zero increase and, as the NP states, the water projects and associated costs should be phased in gradually. Lodge your objections to both increases at www.psc.mo.gov.
On Our opinion: PSC should help on water request
I am just amazed that there have been no comments on this article. Is it because our skepticism is so deep that none of us believe this will actually happen? Or is it due to the long-established status quo?
Hell, yes, the subsidies should be eliminated from oil companies. We saw over the past 2 years that the oil companies made more money than the gross national product of many entire countries. Should we be subsidizing an industry that can do that? I don't think so, but apparently I'm not part of the mainstream. I expected a few people to agree with Obama on this. And to be honest, I expected the agreement to come from others who are also complaining about the stimulus money. I'm like you - I want to keep as much of my own money as possible, so why not start by turning loose this most reviled of industries?
Is it that some of you already have such an ingrained hatred of a man that has been in office for only 8 months that you cannot agree with him on anything? I didn't like the fact that Bush spent over $2 Trillion on the Iraq war and we can't touch any of that Iraqi oil because as soon as we do, the Muslim extremists will state that oil WAS the reason we invaded Iraq. I don't like Obama spendng the billions on Afghanistan, the same war that caused Russia to go broke and can do the same to us.
I'd like to see the oil subsidies dropped. But in reality, I know that as long as the Congressional hogs on both sides of the aisle feast on corporate donations, they will continue to provide in-kind reciprocity to those donors, multiplied by 1000.
On Obama urges end of fossil fuel subsidies
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
momswisher asked the same question I have: Exactly what is this $15 "training" going to teach the workers that they don't already know?
This is reminiscent of the $15 they charged all of us to obtain an "official" birth certificate to apply for a driver's license. The only ongoing income from that farce is now new drivers, so maybe this is a way to keep the money flowing. Servers, convenience store workers, etc are occupations with traditionally high turnover, meaning that this license will be a guaranteed income stream. This city just never quits giving away the store to some while piling the costs onto the rest of us.
4 of 6 people thought this was a good comment.
I feel badly for Mr. Norris and his family. Godspeed to them and I hope the perp is caught so they can achieve some closure.
The one line stated in this story is one we hear far too often in these types of situations: " . . .a robbery attempt gone bad . . ." Would someone please explain to me when a robbery, drug deal, etc, "goes good"? A crime - especially a violent crime such as robbery or drug deal with (most likely stolen) firearms involved - is still a violent, illegal act and adding the term "goes bad" implies that these crimes can be conducted in a "good" manner. Another inane phrase is "wrong place at the wrong time" which almost sounds like it is relieving the perp of all responsibility because the victim was in the wrong place when the bad guy started shooting. Horse-radish! The illegal act is what caused the casualty, not "space-time postitioning" of the victim who is minding their own business. These types of phrases should not even be allowed in an interview because, in my opinion, it's a veiled attempt to relieve the shooter of at least part of the blame and responsibility for what happened.
On Investigation into slaying continues
4 of 6 people thought this was a good comment.
kssmith - I am very close to several teachers in this school district that would not, and did not, say ANYTHING about the levy or bond issues to their students. Sure, the teachers wanted it to pass because they and their pupils are the ones who are going to suffer from these closings and redistricting. Instead of having 23 students next year, many of the teachers will have 30 or more and no para-professional help because the district fired them all. But even facing this repercussion, these teachers did not think it was appropriate to lay a 'tell your folks to vote yes' responsibility on their students. I don't doubt that some teachers DID do that, but I know for a fact that many did not.
It's unfortunate, but the mistrust of this administration is wide-spread. Mr. Huff in particular was one person prior to the election that was a "our way or no way" bully and the voters called him on it. "Pass it or schools we just spent thousands of dollars to upgrade will close." Yes, the administration said that's what it would do if the issues failed, but that tactic was obviously not well received. Nor does it make sense to close buidlings that were recently remodeled.
With what we've seen before and after the election, the credibility of the district is doubted by many. But the recent meetings seem to indicate that the district may now be listening to the public. So maybe we'll see some progress and cooperation. I still think November is too soon for any proposition to appear on the ballot again, no matter what form it takes.
But, as mentioned above, my heart goes out to the teachers and students in the 2009-2010 school year. They are the ones to suffer the consequences of increased class sizes and redistricting. In some cases, this will make achieving the required yearly progress even more difficult. And if anyone is wondering, No, I'm not a teacher. Thanks for listening.
On Panel reports campaign violation
3 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.
I started riding motorcycles in 1973, took a break from riding - as did many of us from that era - to come back to riding in the past 15 years or so. I've always worn a helmet no matter what state I visit. For me, it's just a smart decision because I want to reduce the probability of scrambling my brains if I get hit or my head meets the concrete. That happened one time. On a chilly, dark morning with cold tires, a cold road and a bit of unseen sand while turning at an intersection, the bike slid out from under me. Even at the slow speed I was going, my momentum carried me across the street about 15 feet, my head twice hitting the concrete with gusto. Without the helmet, I could has easily suffered a concussion or worse.
Research studies have proven more than once that the allegations of helmets impairing peripheral vision and hearing are false. I don't debate that this is a personal choice, but when it causes an avoidable cost, society in general (via insurance premiums) should not bear that cost. My insurance rates should be far less than someone who does not wear a helmet. I'm actively taking a precaution to reduce my chance of injury and should be rewarded for such behavior. Non-smokers get better health insurance rates; helmet states should get better motorcycle insurance rates. We probably don't, but our state department of insurance regulation might want to check the stats regarding hemet regulation, rider deaths and insurance premiums. There should be at least some correlation.
I wish we did not have to be so on guard all the time from rude and inattentive cage drivers. Hell, I'd like to be free of that when I'm driving a car, but until Missouri (and most other states) actually implement a true driver's training and testing procedure, for cagers and bike riders alike, motorcyclists are going to die at a higher rate per thousand than the general highway population. There is more to this than just wearing a helmet, but at least a helmet gives the rider a better chance of survival.
As far as seat belt laws are concerned, there is no debate any longer that seat belts do save lives. Ejected drivers and passengers are seriously injured or killed far more often than those belted in. Again, society has to bear the cost by way of insurance premiums for injuries by those who deliberately choose to ignore the proven facts, facts that are expressed as laws. I think our insurance rates are generally too damn high for the wrong reasons, so if we would penalize those who are ignoring these facts, maybe the rest of us would be able to win a few concessions from the insurance industry because we do the right things. These are not coincidental or anecdotal occurances, these are demonstrable facts.
Riders, be careful out there. Car/SUV drivers, please check twice for that motorcycle before you pull out, change lanes or turn left across traffic. Lives depend on it.
On Safety or freedom of choice?
To attaboy - I read various posts regarding various articles and those such as yours that resort to name-calling and serve no purpose nor provide any solutions are not needed. And I hope the NP has the good sense to start eliminating them.
ApparentlySo - I, too, missed the insults asserted by peak1978. I re-read Henry Allison's remarks and was unable to find any verbage that classifies as insulting.
On a larger and more dangerous scale, OSHA and MSHA were instructed by the previous administration to provide "training, guidance and suggestions" but generally not significant fines to companies that had critical and life-threatening violations. The report that emerged from the Sago mine collapse in Jan 2006 stated that the fines for 205 violations for the Sago mines in 2005 totaled about $25,000. Wow. What an incentive to fix anything. The fines were less costly than the repairs so 12 workers died due to conditions within the mine. ApparentlySo's last line is applicable in the same way: any of the violations could have accidentally led to illness or injury of staff or customers. The owners choose to own the businesses; they should know and train the staff in the basic safety rules of that business. Inspections - with consequences - are the only way to enforce those rules.
On Commissioner questions inspection
5 of 6 people thought this was a good comment.
I rarely weigh in on these overdrawn postings that have gone way off track and become personal forums for petty bickering for certain individuals. The letter and many of the resulting comments are valid attempts to approach a problem that is going to continue to plague this city until we can finally work together and develop a real solution. That's not the case for apple in any comments in this discussion or any discussion I've ever seen him/her post.
No, apple. Tony, Hcat and others won't get angry about your continually negative and petty posts. Why would anyone get angry? We can't take you seriously because of your approach and your personal vendettas. In every forum where you've posted, the comments are usually childish, blathering statements that have no meaning or significance. The only reason I even caught this last post of yours is because it was the last post of this article (so far). I just skip your posts and I am now publicly encouraging others to do the same. Heritage - don't bother acknowledging apple's yammering; you are too far above it. And I say that even though our opinions don't always agree. apple will continue the personal attacks as long as people respond. That's not productive for anyone, so don't respond. In business, we encounter people like apple and we don't waste our time debating them. If we find common ground, then we work from there. But usually someone with these types of comments are just interested in hearing themselves quack, so we just move on to a new client. And apple can rest assured that is exactly what I will do with any retort that may be laid out here. Save yourself the trouble because I'll never read it.
On Your letters, June 11, 2009
This rate increase approval is very frustrating in these times of recession/depression. A 12% increase is far more than most of us will receive in our paychecks over 4 years, much less all at once.
That which incites the most cynicsm are the reasons in the original rate increase application in Sept 2008 (pre-election) and the reasons stated now for the rate increase. Here is the link to the original rate increase request as provided to shareholders on Sept 5: http://www.greatplainsenergy.com/investo.... One line extracted from this filing: "The requests also seek recovery of increased operating costs." What increased operating costs? According to official government statistics, the Consumer Price Index (cost of goods & services) is under 3% and the Employment Cost Index (measure of wages and benefits paid by employers) is less than 5% (both on an annualized basis). Granted, raw energy prices increased significantly from Oct '07 to the high around July '08, but those costs were passed on to customers as energy charges. I ask again, what increased operating costs?
Another most infuriating line extracted from that same report: "Through ongoing operational savings realized through KCP&L’s integration with Aquila, the rate increases KCP&L is seeking from customers are significantly lower than they would have otherwise been as stand alone companies." You get that? The utility expected (and still expects) the ratepayers to foot the bill for the mistakes that Aquila's managers made that drove the company into the ground. The owners (read: shareholders and management) are responsible for those liabilities. If a fast-food franchise manager has a "hand in the till disease" and bankrupts his franchise, do his customers pay higher prices to pay for his mistakes? No. They walk away. So why is it that KCP&L expects us to continue to pay for Aquila's mistakes? We don't have the luxury of walking away from our utilities, so the Missouri Public Service Commission is supposed to be a watchdog for the consumer. But as far back as I can remember, the MPSC has yet to see a utility rate request it didn't like. Yeah, they stand tough and say "No, the utility doesn't get 13%, it only gets 12%." (The rate increase amount requested for former Aquila customers was 13.6%.)
If anyone is still reading this, the last link I'll bore you with is this: http://www.greatplainsenergy.com/investo....
A line extracted from this: "Total annual distributions on the equity units will be at a rate of 12.00%, consisting of interest payments at a rate of 10.00% on the subordinated notes and contract adjustment payments at a rate of 2.00% on the purchase contracts." The buyers of the recent equity units sold by Great Plains are being provided a guaranteed 12% return. Interesting how that just matches the rate of increase KCPL was granted.
Been_there - I thought you likely were referencing the way the govt treats its vets. I'm not sure that society at large does understand what goes on at the VA hospitals, so your wording was correct; I just wanted to direct the focus back to where I felt it belonged. You and I have no disagreements at any level. I also tried to choose my words carefully and not turn this into a political argument. This is one situation where I'd like to think that people on both sides of the aisle, whether they agree with each other on any other issues or not, will acknowledge that the very government which William served turned its back on him when he needed help the most.
Page 1 of 4 | Next
JOB SEARCH
RECENTLY DISCUSSED
It's your call, Nov. 19, 2009
(55 comments)
Coleman, Intel join forces
(90 comments)
City wants grant to battle smoking
(80 comments)
Religion in brief for Nov. 21, 2009
(1 comment)
More Popular Discussions
(55 comments)
Coleman, Intel join forces
(90 comments)
City wants grant to battle smoking
(80 comments)
Religion in brief for Nov. 21, 2009
(1 comment)
