Older generation’s view
One of the special times I share with my mother is when we talk politics. At 87, her mind is sharper than mine and she is a keen observer of life.
In a recent conversation, she lamented the state of our country and declared, “This president has tried to help this country and get things done and he hasn’t been allowed to do his job because the other side is only worried about seeing him fail.”
My mom was not born into a life of privilege. Life began for her in a drafty log cabin in rural southwestern Virginia in 1924 — one of eight children. The family luxury was a rug that partially blocked the cold from seeping through the floorboards. A child of the Depression, she saw the initiatives of FDR get people back to work with his “Alphabet Soup” programs.
We lament together that politics has become a rich man’s game, funded by greed, not capitalism. In the meantime, more people are suffering the effects of congressional obstructionism. Those of the evaporating middle class who embrace the Right don’t seem to realize that it will only take the loss of a job or a catastrophic health event to throw them under bus with all those they have derided as being lazy bums.
Mom “gets it,” and she worries. What I would give to be able to reassure her that things will turn around and we will act as one united country and not antagonistic factions apparently aimed at mutual self-destruction.
Lori Wingo
Bangor
Maine GOP’s time
I encourage Maine residents to participate in the political system. The Maine Republican Party has scheduled caucuses for Feb. 4-11. With the withdrawal from the race of major contender Michele Bachmann, the coming suspension of the campaign of Rick Perry and the fall from public favor of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney is the apple of the eyes of all of the major media outlets.
Attempts to expose his shady past have not worked for Romney as they have for Gingrich or Santorum. Mitt Romney is a multimillionaire, and has a less-than-stellar record of job creation as a super PAC supportive of Gingrich has showed.
Despite persistent attempts by the mainstream media to remove 12-term Texas Rep. Ron Paul from the public eye, Paul’s moderate views on social issues (a civil libertarian with pro-life views), monetary policy (a consistent fiscal conservative) and an opponent of all wars not declared by Congress, as the constitution mandates, has resonated with people across the United States. Paul placed third in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, and second in the New Hampshire primaries on Jan. 10.
I strongly urge voters to let their voice be heard and stand up to the media’s attack on well-known and well-liked candidates that happen to be disliked by the mainstream media elite. As the system is a caucus, it is only open to registered members of the Republican Party. If you feel strongly about a current candidate, but are not currently a Republican, consider registering as one. Please show the candidate of your choice has the backing of the Republican Party of Maine.
Wiley Glidden
Newport
Role of energy subsidies
Gov. LePage said, “Without a subsidy, wind doesn’t work,” but he “doesn’t have a problem with wind.”
Well, if our governor is so concerned about energy subsidies, perhaps he ought to look at those that are doing little more than draining funds from the U.S. Treasury.
Despite all the rhetoric recently about oil and gas subsidies keeping gasoline prices low, the oil and gas industry agrees that they do little in that regard. One study quoted by Pulitzer Prize-winning ProPublica found that eliminating them would cost the average American just $2 a year.
The proper role of subsidies is to help establish an industry that will benefit people, the economy, and/or the environment over the long run. When petroleum was first discovered this was absolutely true. Now that industry is both mature and the cause of some of our biggest problems.
Wind power and other renewables are young industries that are slowly replacing the fossil energy that is being depleted while it pollutes our air and water. Clean, renewable energy means clearer air, fishing with no risk of mercury poison and the security of endless supplies of zero cost “fuel.”
In the end, the arguments used by big oil and gas to maintain their (now unnecessary and harmful) subsidies are the same ones that should translate into our governor’s support for wind power.
The last time I checked Maine has wind, lots of it. What we don’t have is oil and gas. Let’s keep our people working on tomorrow’s energy today
Steve Perry
Lincoln
Fund up in smoke?
There has been a great deal of public debate concerning the governor’s supplemental budget. Cuts to MaineCare and private, non-medical institutions have garnered much of the attention, and for good reason. However, it is time to put the proposed cuts to the Fund for a Healthy Maine in the spotlight; cuts that will result in the elimination of essential prevention efforts in Maine.
Since its establishment, through the prevention efforts of the local Healthy Maine Partnerships, Maine has utilized the fund as it was initially intended, targeting tobacco and preventable chronic conditions impacting Maine families. This foundation for Maine’s public health system is currently proposed for elimination.
Prevention is the first, best and most cost-effective step in decreasing and containing Maine’s health care costs. A recent report by the bipartisan legislative committee charged with studying the feasibility of the FHM confirms that fund dollars are being spent on effective prevention programs and recommends continued support for these initiatives.
Currently Maine is the eighth healthiest state in the country and is 22nd in public health spending, thus showcasing that for every $1 spent on prevention Maine saves $7.50. If the cuts to the fund move forward as proposed Maine will fall to 48th in public health spending and over time, one can assume Maine’s health ranking will be adversely affected.
As discussion in Augusta continues it is imperative that legislators understand the outcomes of past and current prevention efforts, and the long-term financial burden Maine will face if prevention efforts are abolished.
Maxine Austin
Sidney
Maxine, the Fund of a Healthy Maine sounds like it has good intentions. However, it is a good example of big government using tax payer money to run people’s lives for them. It is time for we as a society to take personal responsibility for our own health and well being and time for government to get smaller and stop saying, “no one is allowed to fail.”
Well the Republican/Tea/MHPC party has taken care of Maine citizens by putting health insurance a little further out of reach for the most needy. Which is the aim of the Insurance industry, who really only want to insure the young and healty.
Bonny, the Fund for a Healthy Maine is funded from the tobacco settlement. There is no tax payer money involved. This fund was set up for prevention programs to try to undo all the damage the tobacco companies have caused. The Governor is trying to raid it in order to fix a one time budget gap. This is a short sighted and poor use of this money.
That’s what we’re trying to do: get people take responsibility for their health and stop smoking.
LORI,
Your moms a Democrat. What else would she say about Mr. Obama? Listen closely for the flute, as she may want to follow him off the cliff.
MAXINE,
Your thoughts are the reason America is going under. No one wants their favorite program cut, but without cuts to all programs we’ll never get our financial house in order. Let the axe fall and may it’s cuts be deep, or this nation as we know it will not survive.
Lori your Mom has it all figured out correctly. Too bad that GOP cheerleaders here didn’t have her wisdom…they won’t be satisfied until they vote in another incomp like Bush to completely ruin what we have left!
Gee – my mom’s 90 – she worked since she was in 7th grade. Got her GED at age 60. She’s so freaked out over this presidency I can’t even talk to her about it.
Lori Wingo – Tell your mother to stop listening to the mainstream media. When she was younger, the mainstream media actually tried to tell the truth. That hasn’t been true since the mid 60s. They can’t be trusted to tell the truth. Unfortunately, far too many elderly, like your mother, still rely on them for the news, and they still think they’re being told the truth.
Wiley Glidden – You’re carrying water for the left. Romney is NOT the best choice to beat Obama. Romney is, unfortunately, the best choice to lose to Obama.
The RIGHT is choosing Romney, not the left. Quit it with your conspiracy theories and excuses. He’s won two states already and it isn’t George Soros stuffing the ballot boxes. Own it. You guys are pretty incapable of picking winners.
The RIGHT is choosing Romney, not the left. Quit it with your conspiracy theories and excuses. He’s won two states already and it isn’t George Soros stuffing the ballot boxes. Own it. You guys are pretty incapable of picking winners.
Note that’s the political right, not necessarily right as in correct.
I don’t think she needs to be told who to trust when it comes to politics. Depression era survivors already know that you can’t trust a Republican politician.
Ej lecturing us on honesty, what a joke!
EJ values the truth so highly that he uses it sparingly.
Sometimes you do make a good point.
Lori, While EJ has, on occasion, some valid points, he is way off on this one. The Republican Congress has as its only objective to defeat the President. It doesn’t matter what party people are in, if they don’t have the money to pay for what they want, and really deserve, they won’t get it.
Government is only about greed.
Actually, I do have a valid point. My point is not to trust the mainstream media. Your point is completely different. I believe we might both be right.
Can you guess which Republican President made sure that the broadcast media didn’t have to tell the truth?
EJ, you have posted an excellent critique of Faux News, the cable news network favored by whites over 65. Studies have shown that those who rely on Faux News as their main source of information are the most likely to be misinformed: to believe we found WMD in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, that President Obama was born in Kenya, and that he was raised as a Muslim.
and to think that moral midgets and/or vulture capitalists are a really smart choice for president
One candidate would likely strap a blue collar worker to the top of his car and drive him to Canada, while the other would fire that blue collar worker and replace him with child laborers. This is not my father’s Republican party.
There are many sources of information and the “mainstream media” is only one of them. Without knowing, you don’t know what infomation inputs any of us use. And, your definition of mainstream media is apparently any public source that doesn’t agree with you on absolutely everything.
So, who is your best choice to try to beat President Obama? You seem to be in the minority among Rs. Even a majority of Iowa caucus voters, before the meetings, said that even though they’d rather vote for someone else, that they though Romney had the bast chance of beating the President.
Lori Wingo, My father is the same exact age, he served in two wars, ran a successful business and raised six kids all of whom received at least a 4 year college education. He also was a depression era child, grew up dirt poor in NYC. He says that Obama is the worst thing to happen to this country in his lifetime.
So politics only being a wealthy man’s game is just fine and dandy?
Remind your father about Pearl Harbor, 9-11, the Jim Crow south, and the senseless slaughter of the Viet Nam war. That will bring him to his senses.
I don’t need to remind him. He lived through it. As far as his senses, I wager his are a lot sharper than yours.
My Dad would be 106 (died at 86), slightly to old to have served (all of his nephews did), was a conscientious worker, with an 8th grade education fathered two kids with college educations, depression era, group up dirt poor as a 1st generation American. He probably would have respected President Obama, voted for him, and looked forward to his programs. Of course I can’t say for sure, but I had endless discussions with him on all sorts of topics with my Dad, including politics. The best read 8th grqade educated person I’ve ever known, far wiser than many with better education.
Lori Wingo—My Dad just turned 89. He fears it will be close to 50 years before this country gets back to when it was at it’s best. I’m thinking he means mid-60s to early 80’s.
Steve you should do a little research on the cost per kwh from wind power before you refer to it as no cost. It nis the most expensive,least efficient way to produce power known
I believe that he was refering to the cost of the fuel to run wind turbines. I don’t believe there is a delivery fee or any cost involved with element that truns those proplellers. The same for hydro power, so far the rivers still run downstream and the tides still flow in and out of Passamaquoddy Bay at no charge.
What does it cost to mine the coal and deliver it to the coal generating plants? What does it cost do buy and deliver LNG to those generating plants? What does it cost to get a nuke generator up and running these days?
Free fuel or not, the fact is, wind power can’t survive without government mandates that consumers buy it. Even after decades of use in Europe, that same fact applies there.
I would agree that we should eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels, but wind power still wouldn’t be able to compete with them without mandated public assistance.
As far as what it costs to deliver NG to generating plants: Apparently, not so much that wind power still can’t compete with it.
And “slowly replacing fossil energy…..” Slow ain’t the word. Glacial would be more like it. The scale of wind development that would be required to get us off of fossil fuels hasn’t even been imagined yet.
As much as we wish it would, wind power won’t replace the relatively small amount of coal burned in New England generators. ISO-New England has already said that the coal generators will likely be replaced by natural gas generators – not wind turbines.
The question is not so much about whether there should or should not be any wind development in Maine, but rather about whether or not we should be handing our state over to a form of electricity generation that has such large impacts and so limited potential.
The US gov. has subsidized all sorts of new inovations over the years. They subsidized and continue to subsidize Rail Roads, the Airlines, Oil and Gas. They allow mountains to be strip mined to non existence for coal, and other minerals.
Wind, solar, tidal power generators are in their infancy. Some will fail, some will make discoveries that will open other doors. Wind at this point doesn’t make the claim that it is the total answer, neither does solar or tidal. They are all pieces of the puzzle. To styfle experimentation at this early stage is like cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
Commercial wind farms have been in operation since the late 1970’s so to state that it is a “young industry” is absurd. Those farms failed because they couldn’t economically compete and those were also heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. Any reference whatsoever that wind will displace oil fired generation is also absurd. The US gets less than 1% of its electricity from oil fired generation and those are almost exclusively “peaking” units.
Wind power may have low variable cost (no fuel) but they have extremely high fixed cost compared to all other power generators. The capital cost for wind farms is 2 to 4 times higher than natural gas or coal. In addition, wind farms operate at best in Maine at approximately 30% capacity factors while natural gas can operate at +90% capacity factors. When you allocate both capital and operating cost on a per kilowatt generated basis wind power is the most expensive energy source by far.
You should also consider that the financial markets consider wind energy to be the highest risk energy projects and price these investments accordingly: junk bond category. If the proposed ballot initiative succeeds for “new renewables” Maine’s electricity costs will increase dramatically.
A comparable development happened with anti-missile missiles. They were first attempted in the early 1960s, but failed because of the lack of proper technology (computers) and material. After the military spent billions on research and development 50 years later we are now capable of shooting down an incoming missile. My point is that both sides are right as far as their views go. It may take several decades, but oil and coal are limited resources. Eventually we will have to develop something else. If we do not start now we will end up getting behind other industrial countries. As others have pointed out, some methods will fail, some will lead to even better methods, but the critical thing is to begin before it becomes such a problem that wars are fought just for resources. We have already seenthe consequences of small wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, which in reality were wars fought for control of oil resources.
Perhaps we should stop giving billion dollar subsidies to the international oil corporations and use that money to subsidize alternative research.
Like CERN in Switzerland. Hopefully something will come of that , and not just a playtoy for physicists. Money spent on wind is a waste. Solar may come along soon, but hydro and tidal will always be steadier power than wind and the trans. lines do not have to be overbuilt. For big power to replace nasty coal power plants , nat. gas or new nukes can fill the bill now. Nat gas can fuel our cars and we will not have to drive golf carts with batteries that explode. Dump some money to make “fracking” environmentally safe.
The problem with any undertaking is that the exact outcome can only be predicted (guessed) based on current knowledge. 100 years from now people will be able to look back and say such and such a project was a big waste of money and effort. As in the invention of the light bulb, we may find hundreds of ways it doesnt work before the correct one is found. What would have happened if Edison had given up after the first dozen attempts?
I have a question about the “free” cost of running these industrial turbines. If each blade weighs seven tons, for a total of 21 tons of blade per turbine, how hard does the wind have to be blowing to start those blades turning? And why are those blades turning when the wind isn’t blowing? How much power is being drawn OFF the grid to keep these machines functioning, lights, motors and so forth? Is there any data on this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBYjZG8O6qE&feature=related
Nothing is totally free. What is free is the wind, sun and water currents. There is no import or transportation costs involved, they just are. At some point in time, there will be someone who figures out an efficient cost effective way of utilizing these sources of power. Some ideas will not pan out as in the infancy of aviation and automobiles. I would rather see one in ten succeed than see none attempted.
What does it cost to mine rare earth metals in China, chemically process them, manufacture turbines and ship them across the ocean? The carbon emissions will choke us all as the wind turbines spin slowly away. Windsprawl emissions are so high before they are up and running that they could never repay their own carbon debt. China will double their c02 by 2030. IF wind turbines made one iota of difference we will never notice with China burning more coal each year and the USA will sell them all they can. What is wrong with this picture? People need to look beyond the imaginary world of wind predictions and deal with reality.
oh dear oh dear..if you research these renewables you will see there is plenty wrong with them that are causing MORE environmental problems- how could huge industrial wind turbines ever be considered natural alternatives? read up on it and you will see the only people saying it is good is those getting those subsidies or related to them in some way financially..your reasoning may have been the idea but it is much more complex and not easy and pat..as it may appear.,.which makes its deception all the more confusing..dividing communities and negatively affecting wildlife and humans.
oh..and ps Steve wind, lots of it? the biggest wind farm planned is in a known low wind area (even the for wind Sierra Club told the DEP this) in the worst scenario for wind..hilly forests..and all that is required is blasting, dynamiting, deforesting beautiful forests, ruining wildlife habitats in an area ranked by the State as 1A and ruining one of the most highly ranked places in the country for star gazing over two amazing lakes with flashing red lights 45 stories high- does that sound FREE to you?? Please know your facts..things are not what they are said to be- wind is at best intermittent and even in high wind areas there are storage and transmission issues..
Steve Perry is all wrong about energy subsidies as they relate to electricity production. As another commenter pointed out, the wind industry would not exist without all the subsidies, tax breaks, and mandates. Wind is such a feckless source of electricity, that it requires far greater subsidies than any other source of electricity per Megawatt Hour. In July 2011, the USEIA published results for 2010 for subsidies per MWH (direct, tax, R & D, and electricity support). The subsidy per MWH is $52.43 for wind; the next highest is $2.78 for nuclear, then 84 cents for hydro, 64 cents for coal, and 63 cents for natural gas. Support for wind is bad economics, based on poor science, mandated by bad public policy caused by lobbyists influencing politicians pandering to be “green” rather than making sound decisions based on economics.
I thought Steve Perry was the lead singer for Journey.
Steve, wind may be “zero cost fuel”. But at what price, really? The newly completed Rollins project in Lincoln Lakes that you so admire comes in at more than $3 million per turbine. The early data gleaned from FERC indicates that those 40 turbines will never come close to 25% capacity factor in output. Just like the nearby Stetson I & II, which have achieved the highest quarterly output figure of 23%. The wind project would never pay for itself without all the subsidies, including the nice ARRA gift to First Wind from the taxpayers of 30% of the construction cost of Rollins.
This fickle trickle of electricity is mandated into the grid, otherwise, ISO New England would totally ignore it. As it is, wind is never regarded part of the day ahead purchase by the ISO because it is unpredictable and unreliable for base load and base load following needs.
Meanwhile, the sprawling, 7 mile long footprint of blasted away and leveled ridges is an environmental disaster. Wind is a scam perpetrated on people who are not paying attention. Wake up, people, before First Wind destroys every ridge in northeastern Maine that Haynes, Gardiner, Baskahegan, and other large landowners are willing to prostitute for this folly.
Lastly, Steve, how about disclosing to the readers just what is your connection to the wind industry?
Since Steve Perry of Lincoln didn’t post his answer to my question, I will do so. He works for the Sargent Company and I know he was a lead engineer for them at both Stetson Mt. & Rollins Wind projects. Gee, wonder why he wants to push wind?
Steve Perry, naive wind shill, and anyone else who believes wind is worth subsidizing, put this in your search engine and read: “The Wind Subsidy Bubble: Green pork should be a GOP budget target” Wall Street Journal, December 20, 2010
Somehow, I think the Wall Street Journal may have a lot more credibility on this issue.
Steve Perry –
Grid-scale wind is an industry that would not exist without our government reaching into our pockets and separating us from the money we’ve earned. It’s an industry that lectures us about sustainability which is built on unsustainable subsidies.
You can read much more on this at the following link and it just might change your mind:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/unsustainable-subsidies
As for Maine having lots of wind, we are actually 89% below the national average. See:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/maine-s-wind-is-poor
Lori Wingo- Your mother had the good fortune to live during a time when greed was still condemned. These days, it is encouraged. I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s when things were much better as well.
Things have never been better. It may just be that people were less informed or less jaded. Greed has fueled this country since the earliest days. What was the Boston Tea Party but a rebellion against paying more taxes for a bloated government by a bunch of well-off merchants in the colonies? Greed and self-interest fuel every segment of society. But it shouldn’t stop us for attempting to pursue constitutionally sound policy.
Greed has not “fueled” this country for everyone. Just for some. It is still a sin to be greedy, that has not changed. What has changed is that society no longer condemns it.
——————————
Sin? What is sin? It is easy to condemn the greed you see in another’s eye, but not so easy to rein in your own greed. Perceived self-interest motivates every action. Some may call that self-interest “greedy” while others consider it reasonable and just.
We are talking about the love of money, right? You’ll never have enough, once you fall in love with the stuff. There are currently 6 individuals in Arkansas that possess more wealth than the bottom 96 MILLION Americans. They accumulated that insane wealth, in part, by paying their average employee less than half the federal poverty level. That is the kind of greed that is taking this country down the tubes and will eventually lead to a revolution. Just like every single time in 5,000 years of recorded history. Greed is indefensible, yet there are those who continue to try. My distant relative, Teddy Roosevelt, once said it best when he said “America can only be a great place to live if it is a little great for everyone”.
——————————
Maxine, making cigarettes illegal would make an interesting referendum item for the November 2012 ballot. It would also be a good way to show everyone the power of corporate lobbies and just how much the state needs cigarette taxes for its own survival. However, the good health of our citizens has very little to do with it.
Why not hold a referendum campaign to make cigarettes more deadly? R.J. Reynolds would have to poison one out of 1000 cigarettes and not tell the smoker which one that might be. The anti-smoker bias is such that the referendum might pass! It would make for a lot of money for the television stations statewide.
More deadly how, like an exploding cigar? Is there really an “anti-smoker bias”? It is my understanding that cigarettes are symbolic of personal freedom, as in that ill-conceived Herman Cain ad. Plus I see the tobacco companies are doing quite well with sales of lower-taxed, non-cigarette tobacco products. Nicorette lozenges, for example, deliver nicotine with no carcinogenic properties. It is cigarette smoke that is carcinogenic, not nicotine. (BTW marijuana smoke has not been linked to any cancers.) I say outlaw cigarettes and be done with it.
This is a Swiftean proposal. One out of every thousand cigarettes would kill upon first puff. Seeing one’s fellow smoker die before your eyes might have a dramatic effect on the teenage smoker. Prohibition of street drugs has been a wonderful subsidy for the drug traffickers. I don’t want to subsidize cigarette makers as well.
Agreed. Current efforts are succeeding pretty well. Cigarette sales are down 55% in the past 10 years.
Nicotine may or may not be carcinogenic but it is quite toxic and has a number of other badd effects.
Really? From what I’ve read it isn’t any more toxic than, say, caffeine. I suppose the singular worst effect is its addictive properties.
On a statewide basis only? Surely, you jest.
The only reason this could be a jest is because of how utterly ridiculous it is that marijuana is illegal and cigarettes are not.
To Willey Glidden . . .and the Democrats need to be doing the very same thing!
Steve Perry, If WIND is experimental, why such a grand scale? Experimental is on top of DiMillo’s restaurant in Portland. Experimental is the tidal machine that can be moved easily.
Experimental is NOT destroying the fragile, ice age eco-system of moutain tops. Not one mountain top but ridge after ridge, permanently marred, no chance for recovery.
Lori: Yawn Not convinced that your Mom is very sharp if she backs Obama
Steve Perry: Wind doesn’t take any coal burner plants offline. Go nuclear!!
Maxine: There’s never enough $$$ to spend.
Yawn away my flatlander friend. Fox News and Rush will tell you EVERYTHING you need to know while you nap away. At least this lady sounds like she’s lived through some tough times and lived to tell about it.
Flat: So, you think the electorate are fools and will vote for the moral midgets and vulture capitalists you Republicans have put up for president.
Ah, but you don’t know either Lori or her mother, do you. And what are we to assume about you and your opinions?
Wind estimates need to be compared with power output of wind turbines at certain speeds. the Avg. speed of wind in most of Maine is about 5.5m/sec. or 12+mph. A Vestas v112-3.0 mW wind turbine will only produce about 625 Kw at that speed. Max output is achieved at 26 mph or 12m/sec.
There are areas with higher wind velocities, i.e. 6.5 – 7.0 m/sec; but they may need expensive transmission lines. http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/images/windmaps/me_80m.jpg
There is wind; but it will barely achieve a 28% output over time of the rated capacity. There are lakeshores, islands and mountains with a higher velocity of wind; but commercial wind requires subsidies and extensive infrastructure.
The operational maintenance of large wind turbines is both expensive and required to maintain the 15 year warranties.
Lori Wingo, Maxine Austin: good letters.
….
A logician would tell you that the word “worst”, or any other extreme adjective, will lose the argument for any speaker. Poll any of the four events I have listed with any random sample of the American public, any random group of historians or any random group of economists, and you will find that each will rate each and every one of the four as far more tragic events in the life of this country. The American public, when polled, overwhelmingly rate George W. Bush as a worse President that Obama. I suspect that your father might spend a lot of time watching Faux News. As computer programmers will tell you: “Garbage in, garbage out.”