Wednesday, July 22, 2009

New Poll Shows Consumer Rejection of Cap-and-Tax Plans

July 20, 2009
Update My Profile

New Poll "Foreshadows Massive Consumer Rejection of Cap-and-Tax Plans," Civil Rights Leader Says:

Rapidly growing consumer grassroots movement also "will punish those who push these anti-consumer schemes," Innis warns
North Las Vegas, NV -- A new national poll confirms that a rapidly growing consumer tide is building against cap-and-tax plans that will raise electricity bills, according to civil rights champion Roy Innis, who says the poll "foreshadows a huge defeat for cap-and-tax activists and their supporters in the U.S. Senate."
The national poll, conducted by Lauer Johnson Research (LJR) on behalf of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, found nearly six in 10 Americans oppose paying any more than they currently pay in their electricity bills to combat climate change. It also found that an overwhelming 78 percent of all respondents say that a $50 increase monthly in utility bills "would be a hardship."
"Poll after poll now shows the same thing that we hear in our national grassroots campaign against cap-and-tax," Innis said. "Consumers are rising up in strong opposition to cap-and-tax schemes that will raise their rates. They can't afford even small increases in their energy bills. And they don't believe politicians' promises that cap-and-tax is a free lunch."
Innis added "It's also becoming crystal clear that consumers and voters are going to be angry enough punish those who get behind these anti-consumer tax plans. In fact, I predict that consumer anger isn't going to be focused only on the sound-bite politicians. I think consumer anger is going to expand to include those private sector interests that sought to line their own pockets through the cap-and-tax feeding frenzy in Washington, D.C."
Innis urged leaders in the U.S. Senate and in the business community to "get back to the drawing board and come up with legislation that focuses on rapidly advancing emissions technologies, not legislation that seeks to punish consumers for using American energy."
The national poll, conducted by Lauer Johnson Research (LJR) on behalf of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, had a sample size of 807 and a +/- 3.5% sampling error rate. It found:
58 percent of Americans opposed to pay any more than they currently pay in their electricity bills to combat climate change, a 23% increase in those unwilling to pay more since 2007.
One-half (50%) of the country opposes enacting a carbon tax to fund energy research, which represents a 49-point shift (22% drop in agree; 27% increase in disagree) away from supporting a carbon tax for energy research in 2007.
Interest in protecting the environment and fighting climate change has dropped from a low priority (8%) in 2007 to receiving virtually no attention (3%) in 2009.
Fifty-five percent of all respondents, and 69% of working/lower class families, say a $20 increase in their monthly electric bill would cause financial difficulty for their household.
68% disagree with the idea that Congress should enact a carbon tax to encourage consumers to cut back on their electricity usage.
Not one respondent indicated a willingness to pay over 20% more on their monthly electricity bill to combat climate change, according to the survey. "Working/lower class and age 65+ respondents are the least willing to pay more, but substantial percentages of all classes and age cohorts indicate they do not want to see their electric bills increase by even one dollar for the purposes of combating climate change," the survey summary memo noted.
Both this survey and a recent Gallup Poll have found that for the first time in Gallup’s 25 year history of asking Americans about the trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth, a majority of Americans say economic growth should be given the priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.
# # #
Contact: Niger Innis, National Spokesman, (702) 463-0768


Dear Paul:

I read in the DMN last week that one of the programs to be cut from the Park Department budget was the Send a Kid to Camp program. The last time Dallas was dealing with a severe economic turn down, we had to discontinue the summer camp programs the Park Department had provided children all over the city for decades. In order to, at the minimum, serve the most underprivileged and at risk of our youth during the summer months, Park Board President Ida Papert asked me to develop a plan to keep some camps open in target areas. The challenge was to provide a positive summer experience to our higher risk youth at little or no cost to the Park Department. Sensing that youth serving agencies were also feeling the financial pinch, we developed a plan to form partnerships with such agencies whereby the City allowed them to utilize our parks and other facilities at no cost if they would provide the staffing and programming. I met with numerous youth serving agencies, developed a short and simple agreement between them and the City of Dallas, and a few signed on to partner up with us for the good of the kids. We jointly reached out to the public to provide funding to fill the financial gap for such items as refreshments, equipment, supplies and field trips. We were successful, and several Send a Kid to Camp camps were operated that first summer at little or no cost to the Park Department or City of Dallas. A contribution form for Send a Kid to Camp was included in water and electric bills to the citizens, grocery store check out counters took donations, vendors to the city were asked to contribute, and contributions were solicited by mail and public service announcements. All in all, the program was a win-win for the city, the youth serving agencies and primarily for the kids served. Since the Send a Kid to Camp program has operated successfully and served perhaps 50,000 or more of our children over the past 20 plus years, it would be a shame to see it discontinued just because times are tough. Tough times are why we started the program in the first place!

I firmly believe that a child will make a positive choice if a positive choice is available. Without the positive choice of attending a summer camp, many of our high risk youth face a summer of boredom with too much non productive time on their hands to get into mischief. Is this really a cost effective option for Dallas, or are we all better served by providing our youth with a physically and mentally challenging camping experience? I know from painful experience from my time on the Park Board in lean financial times that you are being besieged with valid pleas to spare programs across the board. Nevertheless, I encourage you and the Park Board to preserve the Send a Kid to Program for the benefit of our city and most of all, our youth. Thanks.

James P. Graham
PresidentPalo Petroleum, Inc.5944 Luther LaneSuite 900Dallas, Texas 75225(214) 691-3676

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Main Post Office on Interstate 30

Where are the elected officials? We need USPS or an elected official to call a community meeting to discuss what all of the losses for Dallas would be if the sorting of mail would be moved from the facility on Interstate 30. If the main functions are moved, do you believe that USPS would operate out of this facility? It would not be cost effective to do so.

It is my understanding that USPS is closing all of the Post Offices where they do not own the land and building. Will this be in your neighborhood?

I usually work late so I have to use the Main Post Office because the one in my neighborhood closes at 6:00 p.m. and you do not get a minute over that.

I understand effencies, but at what cost to large number of customers do you make such a move? I do not think that there are more customers in Coppell than in Dallas. I believe that the following aspects of our mail service will be affected;

a. Home and Business mail delivery in Dallas will be affected if this takes place.

b. There will be job loss of tenured employees that primarily live in Dallas.

c. Dallas will loose the postmark (8th largest city with no postmark). Coppell will be the postmark.

d. Dallas residents will loose the convenience of using a Post Office in the evenings for stamps, money orders, shipping boxes and mailing letters.

Help me ask for a community meeting so that USPS can explain this move to Coppell to the Dallas residents and elected officials. Call your Dallas City Councilperson, State Senator, State Representative, US Representative and US Senator.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Saving Paul Quinn College

What is so sad to me is that some people do not understand that cities like Atlanta are successful because they embrace higher education. Atlanta has three (3) Historical Black Colleges (Clark Atlanta, Morehouse and Spellman). Dallas should be embracing all institutions of higher learning for the sake of making sure all of our children have educational options. People in this city always talk about an educated workforce, but we are still struggling with making sure that happens.

We spend millions of taxpayer dollars on colleges like the UT System and Texas A&M System each year to ensure that they are able to meet the needs of the students. I am not against us investing in our future with any of the institutions but I believe that Paul Quinn also have value and should be treated in the manner.

The facts are that many professional African Americans graduate from Historical Black Institutions of higher learning.
Saving Paul Quinn College is a win for all of Dallas.

Friday, July 3, 2009

DISD School Named for Adelpha Callejo

Lew Blackburn's vote for Adelpha Callejo was to get the votes against the naming of a school in Carla Ranger's district for John Hope Franklin. If you had attended the board meeting, you would have seen who was speaking for Lew Blackburn about the name of a school in the old Wilmer Hutchins School Distrit. It was Jerome Garza, Nancy Bingham, Edwin Flores and Jack Lowe, all of the slam dunk five except Ellis and she voted with them. It was obvious that a deal was cut before the meeting on how the voting would be.

Lew Blackburn was one of the trustees who was most vocal at the briefing about naming a school for Adelpha. God help us and pleace help the African American children that will enter that school. NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!

It is time to consider breaking up this district into smaller and more manageable districts. Each board meeting is a disaster. We need change now!!!