In the March 20th article, "Point Austin: Removing the Mask," Michael King of the Austin Chronicle continues to write about his frustration with Rick Perry rejecting the $555 million in Federal Stimulus funds. Rick Perry insists that accepting this money would be a bad idea. This money would help unemployed and low income folks get on their feet during this recession, but Perry insists this money is like drugs to a crack-head, people would get addicted. WOW. Of course he replaced Bush, perhaps they work with the same speech writer.
Okay, so the deal is that the state will receive the funds if it expands its "unemployment - insurance eligibility requirements in keeping with contemporary work patterns (spousal dislocation, part-time work, etc.)" Only 20% of those eligible for unemployment are actually receiving it. The point of providing this assistance is to help those in need, and we are in a recession. People have need.
"This sort of argument for turning down a gift horse in hard times is roughly akin to a child refusing to accept his allowance because it will eventually have to be replenished, perhaps even by his own efforts. Maybe that's how they do things back in Perry's hometown of Paint Creek – but in most parts of Texas, it's called cutting off your nose to spite the feds."
Perry doesn't want this money, because it is support from the Federal Government, and Texas is known for keeping itself separate from the Federal Government when at all possible. King basically is trying to prove this, but is also saying that it's a very juvenile response when we are in need. As they say, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
King has been pretty vocal about his feelings towards Perry and the republican party over the past few weeks (anyone who reads the Chronicle regularly will have probably noticed this). In addition to Perry's rejection of the $555 million, there is also the new Voter ID act which specifically targets minorities, making it harder for them to vote, and Perry's interest in helping big business (like how we are digging AIG out of their hole - even though their workers are in Michigan).
Most of the folks who will probably find King's opinion to resinate will be democrats, minorities, low-income Texans, and the unemployed. King does make some good points to the Republicans reading his article. These people who will agree with King's opinion will be unlikely to vote for the Republican party in the upcoming years, and Perry will be running again soon. It's funny how Perry is trying so hard to do right for Texas but is hurting the people that make up the state. The only thing King doesn't hit on is that Perry is doing exactly what a republican would do (supporting big business, and the upper middle-class), even if it means hurting that party's future popularity.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Go Solar Energy Go!
Austin is becoming more and more interested in solar energy. The City has been proposing tax-cuts to residents interested in investing in solar power, and/or breaks on solar panels. This topic has been under a great deal of discussion at my building, as we are considering going Solar. The problem is always money, the cost of the panels, and installation.
On March 6, the Austin Chronicle article by Katherine Gregor, "Cool City: Solar Subtleties" Solar Power in Austin is further discussed.
The city has proposed a $250 million solar-power-purchase agreement which is to be "the first step toward becoming a partially solar-powered municipality, as required by the City Council-mandated Austin Climate Protection Plan."
Presently, Austin is trying to lock-in a fixed low price for solar energy. Solar power is expensive, but is getting more reasonable. One of the most expensive attributes will be the start-up contract price, which may raise energy rates overall. In numbers, a non-green home pays about $37 per month, whereas a green home could end up paying about $155 per month. Residents like Robert C Duncan criticize the plan, preferring Austin adopt a "nuclear-power-purchase agreement" instead. The council mandate seems very clear about using "solar power by 2020."
Local is on its way, but presently, panels are produced in China, and Gemini Solar (whom Austin is negotiating a plan with) is based in San Francisco.
Overall, it's clear Austin is firm about attaining solar energy. Austin wants to start using solar energy now as a means to learn more and become most efficient in harnessing it. Why you should read this article? This may effect your future energy costs, and way of life.
On March 6, the Austin Chronicle article by Katherine Gregor, "Cool City: Solar Subtleties" Solar Power in Austin is further discussed.
The city has proposed a $250 million solar-power-purchase agreement which is to be "the first step toward becoming a partially solar-powered municipality, as required by the City Council-mandated Austin Climate Protection Plan."
Presently, Austin is trying to lock-in a fixed low price for solar energy. Solar power is expensive, but is getting more reasonable. One of the most expensive attributes will be the start-up contract price, which may raise energy rates overall. In numbers, a non-green home pays about $37 per month, whereas a green home could end up paying about $155 per month. Residents like Robert C Duncan criticize the plan, preferring Austin adopt a "nuclear-power-purchase agreement" instead. The council mandate seems very clear about using "solar power by 2020."
Local is on its way, but presently, panels are produced in China, and Gemini Solar (whom Austin is negotiating a plan with) is based in San Francisco.
Overall, it's clear Austin is firm about attaining solar energy. Austin wants to start using solar energy now as a means to learn more and become most efficient in harnessing it. Why you should read this article? This may effect your future energy costs, and way of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
