Published: August 13, 2009 01:08 am      

LETTERS: Aug. 12, 2009

Reader responds to Roggenkamp’s claims about Energy Bill



In response to Kelly Roggenkamp’s letter to the editor recently, I was surprised by his claim that Congressman Baron Hill should tell locals where to place a biomass plant, but be against the Energy Bill that passed the House of Representatives at the end of July. The debate on the biomass plant notwithstanding, it’s time for the truth to be told about the Energy Bill and there were several factual errors in his letter.

Let’s get this clear: The Energy Bill is about protecting our national security and creating jobs. We, as Americans, are tired of exporting more than $700 billion each year to a Saudi prince or al Qaeda terrorists. This bill, instead, is predicted to create more than 38,000 jobs in Indiana in an economic sector growing 2.5 times the rate of traditional jobs over the past 10 years.

Mr. Roggenkamp is correct only in that the original version was unworkable for Indiana. But, it was Congressman Baron Hill who fought to add provisions which make the bill passed by the House attainable for Hoosiers. Mr. Hill’s biggest concern was indeed the impact the legislation had on electric consumers and fears that the bill would cause a burdensome spike in rates.

Mr. Hill fought for lowering the renewable energy standard to an attainable level and allocating 90 percent of emission allowances to regulated entities like utility companies. This is a big departure from the original bill, which called for an auctioning of allowances and would have raised rates.

Mr. Hill also fought for a waste-to-energy provision as a source to reach the renewable energy standard, something that should interest Mr. Roggenkamp and his support of biomass facilities. A longtime supporter of clean coal technology, Mr. Hill ensured that the bill included incentives for new technology, such as carbon capture, so that Indiana can continue to safely use fuel sources like coal and become a leader in the industry.

The assertion that the bill is a tax — think again. Several independent reviews of the legislation have found that the impact would be negligible, and eventually completely offset by cost-saving implements. Let’s also stop thinking that Mr. Hill is the only supporter of the measure. More than 22,000 small business owners delivered a petition to Congress calling for action on this issue and the list of other supporters includes companies such as Alcoa, Caterpillar, John Deere, Duke Energy, Ford, General Electric, PepsiCo, Shell and Siemens. Even religious groups such as the Conference of Catholic Bishops, the United Methodist Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church support it.

Let’s stop pretending the boogieman is out to get us and recognize that Mr. Hill is doing just what we sent him to Washington to do — serve as an independent voice for his constituents!

— Dennis O. Roudenbush, Georgetown Township



Georgetown woman reaches Baron Hill



I am very concerned with the proposed healthcare reform. I am extremely disappointed that Baron Hill is not going to hold town hall meetings to listen to his constituents. I think Mr. Hill has seen how poorly town hall meetings have gone all around the country and is avoiding the hostility of the good people who sent him to Washington.

I have contacted his office via e-mail about the healthcare issue. Mr. Hill’s office informed me that there are actually three proposed plans. How do we, the taxpayers, find out what these plans are and how they differ? I asked Mr. Hill if these plans are so wonderful, would he consider putting himself and his family on one rather than the Cadillac program our Congress has given to themselves with our tax dollars?

Mr. Hill did not address my question at all. But, if any one of these plans is as good as Mr. Hill and his fellow lawmakers say they are, then we, as taxpayers, should require their participation as well. Think of the savings to the national budget. Besides, we’re all in this together — right?

— Elizabeth Madden, Georgetown



Reader comments on city trash problems

Trash, trash, everywhere and not the men to take it.

This is the problem as we hear it from the mayor. Not enough men to maintain the streets, paint the lines, paint the signs and to also pick up yard waste from the alleys. That story would hold water, except how much repairing have you noticed around and about the city?

Not much, based on the driving techniques required to miss potholes, crumbling pavement and pure ditches along railroad tracks.

For full disclosure, before someone says something about me being in the county, my wife does own property within the city.

When the job of trash pickup was taken away from the city and outsourced to a private hauler, I do not remember that yard waste was not included. It may have been mentioned, but I do not recall it. I assumed, as most would, the hauler would pick up yard waste as they do in the county.

County fees, which are basically the same as current city fees, include this. Bagged yard waste is picked up with regular trash. Separate trucks pick up large, nonbagged items after a phone request by the homeowner to the hauler. If this works in the county, it can work in the city. I believe the city is simply looking for new money, whether from increasing trash fees, sewage fees or stormwater fees.

The current economy is hurting the city just as it is hurting everyone. The problem: Homeowners do not have the privilege of just asking the boss for more money, if they’re lucky enough to be employed that is. I don’t think retired folks would get far asking for a $5 increase in their Social Security to cover it either.

I have a suggestion: We should call the mayor’s bluff and request residential trash pickup every two weeks and to include yard waste at no increase. On yard waste, this would be an improvement. In some areas of town, it currently sits in alleys for three or more weeks. Every two weeks would be great!

Also, for those who are able to do it, the city should set up two or three or more sites around town for homeowners to bring their own yard waste for mass pickup or recycling by someone like Earth First or others. Commercial customers would still be picked up on the current schedule.

It should be noted that it is not necessary to bag your yard clippings every time you mow. Remember the “mulcher mower” fad a few years ago? What happened to that?

We were supposed to mulch and not bag to help the planet. If you mow at least once a week during the growing season, there’s really no need to bag. There must be a way to resolve this without raising fees or cutting the service as the mayor has threatened. Whom is he kidding? Cut the service? Is he prepared to make New Albany the laughing stock of the area and possibly have the Board of Health step in when alleys begin to be blocked by tons of decomposing waste?

I doubt if the fire department would like blocked alleys, either. What would the mayor suggest my 87-year-old mother-in-law do with her grass clippings — make a salad?

— Ron Cates Sr., Georgetown



Reader advocates health care reform and HR 676



Bernard Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for defrauding thousands of investors out of almost $65 billion. The biggest scam in this country was not the one perpetrated by Bernard Madoff, but the one perpetrated by the health insurance industry. Why do we need an insurance company taking our money for health care, keeping 30 percent of it, and paying as little as possible in claims?

The real beneficiaries are the CEOs of these health insurance companies: Ron Williams, Aetna, $24,300,112; H. Edward Hanway, CIGNA, $12,236,740; Angela Braly, WellPoint, $9,844,212; Dale Wolf, Coventry Health Care, $9,047,469; Michael Neidorff, Centene, $8,774,483; James Carlson, AMERIGROUP, $5,292,546; Michael McCallister, Humana, $4,764,309.

I am on Medicare, which means there is no middleman to keep as much of my premiums as possible. Instead, my doctor and I decide what tests I need, what specialists I need and what medicines I need. There is no insurance company searching for ways to avoid paying the claims.

Medicare’s overhead is approximately 3 percent instead of 30 percent. Why should we keep paying this extra 27 percent?

And the Veterans Administration pays only 60 percent of what the rest of us do for pharmaceuticals.

We can all be on an improved Medicare — Medicare with no premiums, no copays, coverage for dental and all prescriptions. And this coverage would cost less than what we are paying now.

Our government could save approximately $400 billion per year. Our employers would have more money to spend on employees. Our Medicare tax may increase by 3 percent or 4 percent, but our income tax certainly wouldn’t. And we would have no more premiums, copays, prescription copays. We may even see raises because our employers will no longer being paying for your health insurance.

Ask your congressman to vote for HR 676 and provide us with the quality of health care that we deserve.

— Linda Mitchell, Clarksville