Conservative News & Commentary

5 Comments

1. Candice Britt ~ Sep. 28, 2012 @ 9:58 am

   Interesting take. However, let's take each of your examples and look at the bigger pictures. First, do you think the general public won't have to pay for those dams to be removed? It's a basic business principle that costs will be passed on to the consumer. So whether the Fed's pay for it or Pacific Power pays for it, at the end of the day WE pay for it. Can you imagine what Klamath would be like without Kingsley. Yes, Lance may be concerned about his job but as one of the "people who pays the bills" - I'm concerned about all their jobs. As one of the top 10 employers in our county, this would be a huge hit to our economy. Do you know all the services the extension center offers the community and the effects of the ag industry here. Of course Riggs may be worried about his job but the extension center is an important asset and if you've ever heard Riggs in action, he works diligently to make sure the ag community is represented. He is an advocate for that industry and is passionate about it. Again, OIT is an important asset. Regardless of her concern for her husband's job security, the answer to that question is important to me as a "bill payer" - I want to ensure that OIT sticks around as it's important to us as well. To think questions of funding aren't important to "the rest of us" is ridiculous. #

2. Not Smith ~ Sep. 28, 2012 @ 10:23 am

   This sounds very much like a "Tea Party" response that lacks depth and incites false anger over issues that are less then a bug splat on the windshield of government spending. In defense of the people that you named, I pose a question to you. Did you take time out of your busy schedule to go to this meeting? If you had, do you think that your questions would have been answered? Kingsley Field is the only F15C training base in North America, thus it probably isn't going anywhere. Pacific Power will still have to pay regardless of which dams they are, so a moot point. The Klamath Basin has a unique ecosystem that research can help us to understand better. Why wouldn't we want to fund that? As well as the Geothermal funding! Any area that has these types of unique resources should be funded to teach us to use these resources with with minimal impact on the environment. This article in the paper is not about people looking for job security, but asking genuine questions about genuine issues. Missing in Action from this discussion was you. I am 95% sure that everyone in the meeting pays their taxes, and will continue to do so. This makes them just like you and I, part of the people that pay the bills. Your inflamatory comments are indicative of the current state of our society, not government. Rather than posting these types of comments on a Web Blog, why don't you get off of your computer and do something that truly reflects what you would like to have happen? Say... Volunteer! #

3. A. Smith ~ Sep. 28, 2012 @ 11:21 am

   Hi Candice, Thanks for writing. I like your "Let's look at the larger picture idea." So let's do that. You are assuming that the public SHOULD pay for dam removal. I'm of the opinion that there should be NO dam removal and if there is WHY is the public on the hook for it? Who own the dams, manage the dams and profits from the dams? Pacific Power. So again, why SHOULD the public be on the hook for this? I agree that businesses will "pass the costs" along to consumers. But here's the rub, right now Pacific Power is making a decision of "free dam removal" versus "cost of relicensing". Which would you choose? Of course the free option. That said, if cost of dam removal is close to or equal to the relicensing amount, maybe Pacific Power might change their tune. Why pay to remove an income producing resource if the cost of relicensing is almost the same. That would be just silly. BTW - PP just can't raise rates. PP has to go to the Public Utility Commission to get approval. And… they are already taking money out of our pockets for dam removal (at least that's what the line item on our power bill says each month). Pacific Power is just trying to get something for free -- well free for them -- while looking ecologically friendly. Again thanks for writing! As for loss of jobs in the county, I'll reply in a different post later on. #

4. A. Smith ~ Sep. 28, 2012 @ 7:35 pm

   Hello Candice - I'm back again to reply to your second question about Kingsley field. Out of all the people that lined up for their money, I would agree that Kingsley is the only legitimate one in line. The Federal Government is to provide for the common defense. All others there should not be getting Federal dollars, period. Kingsley is a great asset to our community, but that's not why we have military bases. We have military bases so we can defend our nation. What is missing from the thinking is whether Kingsley is the best place to have a military base for what it does. The answer could be yes. But we have to face reality and learn the answer could be no. What if Kingsley wasn't the best place and we lost our sovereignty because each community with a military base couldn't imagine their community without one? However the larger point of my articles was who was missing at the table: the tax payer. Each person at the table was a recipient of Federal dollars, but there was silence from the people that foot the bill. Thanks again for your thoughts. A. Smith #

5. A. Smith ~ Sep. 28, 2012 @ 9:10 pm

   Hello there Not Smith. Clever name. Thank you for taking time to write. To keep our discussion at an appropriate level I'm going to ignore your inflammatory comments about Tea Party people. Calling people names doesn't help us discuss different points of view and find the truth. I agree that Kingsley is the only one who asked a question that has a right to Federal dollars. (But see my comments to Candice above as to what the larger question should always be.) I wasn't at the H&N meeting because I wasn't invited. Maybe it was an open forum discussion but I doubt with the Congressman that was the format (I could be wrong). Nevertheless, my point is that all the people asking questions were recipients of Federal funds. There were no questions from people paying the bill. That seems like a backwards session. Of course recipients are going to want funding and more. That isn't the question with a nation drowning in debt. The question is what are the right priorities, and what can we do without. When you have less income than expenses you have to cut. Those are simple budgeting facts. To continue to borrow and print money will collapse our currency and our standard of living like we have never seen. We need to turn the ship and to do so we have to quit spending money on items that are wants and focus only on needs. Dam removal, Geothermal energy research and OSU Extension Center funding are all wants. We will live another day without funding them. Really, we will. If these activities are truly must have's for our society I would expect a private investor or philanthropist to supply the dollars, but not tax payers — we are broke. #

Hi user, you are logged in.