"prepare for less federal funding" -- Brownback

Photo by Alec Sprague on Flickr

A lot of people are upset about how Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has been treating Kansans.  Many are saying "who voted for this guy?"  My response to that question is that a lot of people voted for him.  The real question is, who didn't vote at all, but might have if they felt empowered? And what can we do about it now besides get angry and go sulk on facebook?

I don't actually know who doesn't vote.  All of my friends say they vote.  Honestly, I'm so tied up with volunteer work and parenting that I don't have time to go on a political binge to "get out the vote."  But I feel like the system is broken.  Politicians are pandering to the minority who fund their campaigns, their ideologies don't match the realities, and the people will suffer for it.  When we vote in what is often thought of as the most important election--the presidential election--the electoral college system douses our chances of ever having a real voice.  Very little about this system really gives any individual the feeling of empowerment.

I'm already feeling the impact of executive decisions made by Brownback.  I was looking forward to the day when I didn't have to pay $20,000 per year for family health insurance, but Brownback sent federal funding back that might help me select health insurance providers.  I was hoping to get a loan through the Department of Energy grant that was funding the Efficiency Kansas program (see my previous blog). I must admit, I haven't faced any life-threatening situations because of budget cuts.  But some people might actually become injured, ill or even die if they have to "prepare for less federal funding."  Consider them, always, I'd say to the governor.

• Women and men who are battered by their partners and need help getting out
• Children who are abused
• People who were hoping to finally be able to find affordable insurance coverage and get medical treatment
• People in need of contraceptives or condoms
• People who need testing or treatment for STDs
• Women who need affordable gynecological exam and cancer screenings 
• People with heart disease or diabetes
• Mentally ill and homeless

I wonder why there is such a disconnect between the people in charge of making these decisions and those who are impacted.  Is it because they don't know any poor people?  Do they not read the news?  Are they simply lacking compassion for those who are less fortunate?  Do they honestly believe that some other program will emerge in time to save the health and lives of those in danger?

The ironies of Governor Brownback's ideas on how federal money should be spent never cease.  He is diverting federal money from programs that work (or haven't been given fighting chance) in order to promote programs that might look good to his followers, but in the end are disastrous.  For example, the money "saved" when SRS offices close, along with federal grants (if he gets them) will help fund his faith-based marriage initiatives.  SRS saves lives. Government-funded marriage meddling does not save lives.  I don't want to fail to mention the new policies and cuts that might put Planned Parenthood offices out of business.  Planned Parenthood is not just an abortion clinic, as Brownback seems to believe, and the services they provide can't be sought at Walgreens. 

I have written before about Brownback's abolishment of the Kansas Arts Commission.  But that's just the tip of the iceberg.  I can't even begin to list everything he's fiddling with.  But the tenor of his decisions are always the same:  rely less on federal money, unless the money can be used to further his ideologies, and do what's best for big business, disregarding the little people.  Now he's telling Kansas universities that they should consolidate programs that aren't attracting enough students and focus more on research. 

“I think you need to look at consolidating some programs if they don’t have very many graduates in those areas,” Brownback said. “I’ve seen other states do that. It’s a way of concentrating resources in key areas. Again, I think you’ve got to be willing to make hard choices.”

Hard choices...like where will my children go to school now if  they don't want to become pharmacists? 

My children can't vote now, and they can't call Brownback to voice their opinion of their future college choices.  But you can vote and voice your opinion in creative and powerful ways, as has been recently witnessed here in Kansas and in other states.  And if you know someone who is impacted directly by misguided decisions in government, encourage them to do the same.  Here are some resources for voicing your opinion at the federal and state levels:

Contact your U.S. House Representative
Contact your U.S. Senator
Find you Kansas Legislator

Kansas Governor’s office

785-292-3232

governor@ks.gov

 

Lawrence area Senators and House representatives

Senator Marci Francisco

Marci.francisco@senate.ks.gov

785-296-7364

Senator Tom Holland

Tom.holland@senate.gov

785-296-7372

Senator Anthony Hensley

Anthony.hensley@senate.gov

785-296-3245

Representative Terri Lois Gregory

Terrilois.gregory@house.ks.gov

785-296-7646

Representative Anthony Brown

Anthony.brown@house.ks.gov

785-296-7679

Representative Barbara Ballard

Barbara.ballard@house.ks.gov

785-296-7697

Representative Tom Sloan

Tom.sloan@house.ks.gov

785-296-7654

Representative Paul Davis

Paul.davis@house.ks.gov

785-296-7630

Representative Ann Mah

Ann.mah@house.ks.gov

785-296-7668

Representative William R. Prescott

Willie.prescott@house.ks.gov

785-296-7644

My Written Complaint to the Department of Energy

I am a resident of Kansas and a owner of a 1968-model home in Lawrence, Kansas. A few months ago, I learned about a great program in the newspaper and by word of mouth, and began participating in it. The Efficiency Kansas program was initiated in 2009 and was funded by $38 mill of DOE money. The money is supposed to be spent by April 1, 2012, and the purpose of the funding was to allow homeowners in Kansas to weatherize their homes, improve the energy efficiency and reduce the overall cost of heating and cooling. As a homeowner, I took advantage of the program by following the first step; to hire an energy auditor to do an inspection of my home. One incentive for participation was that the audit, worth $600-700 was only $100, because a grant has been provided to cover the difference.

We paid Licenced auditor, Robert Coffman of Airtight Home Energy Audits, who has told me that the program took a while to gain momentum, partly because it sounds "too good to be true." This is a link to a PDF file of all of the auditors in Kansas who are participating in the program: www.efficiencykansas.com/document.fetcher.php?document_id=60

Mr. Coffman has verbally expressed that our energy savings would pay for the cost of the loan we would receive through the Effeciency Kansas Program. These loans were to be low to zero interest loans and would be integrated with our energy bills so that there would be little impact on our finances. Mr. Coffman's small business has been overwhelmed recently by requests by homeowners to participate, and he has also been too busy meeting with government entities to write up our report, so we have not been able to collect all of the information we need in order to move on to the next step.

Mr. Coffman also told me that because the program was until recently largely unknown, private contractors were working slowly to complete the improvements, and were often over-bidding because the work does not consist of large remodeling jobs, but involves less glamorous jobs like caulking and insulation. Therefore, he started to hire his own contractors and was in the throes of training new employees, buying new computers to manage his business, and greatly expanding his small business. Then the the Kansas Energy Office informed energy auditors and utility companies on July 20 that $22 million in the loan program was being diverted to fund three renewable energy projects overseen by the Kansas Department of Commerce. Their reasoning was that not all of the money is slated to be spent by the 2012 deadline. I have never heard of any grant deadline being rescinded in such a way. Money promised to programs should be used for the programs until the deadline is reached. And if the program is successful and not all of the money is spent, perhaps the deadline should be extended. Thousands of residents of Kansas could benefit from this program, along with all of the contractors and auditors who are doing the work, and most of all, energy conservation would be tangible to the individual and not allocated to corporations. Governor Sam Brownback has made a point during his administration to put more emphasis on corporations, and this is one example.

According the the Lawrence Journal World on Aug 9, "The funds will be diverted to other projects which still need to receive final approval from the DOE, include a biomethane production facility at an ethanol plant in Oakley, money to upgrade equipment used to harvest and transport plants used to make bioenergy, and converting 38 retail gas stations in the Wichita area so they can carry fuels with a higher percentage of ethanol." The primary source of the ethanol will be corn, and I am opposed to the use of corn to produce ethanol because it costs more energy to produce corn ethanol than is available in the ethanol product. Corn production is also subsidized by the government, monopolized by Monsanto Corporation, and generally inconsistent with any logical energy-saving plan.

This summer, our family has spent around $175 per month to keep our home cooled to 82 degrees F, and our air conditioner rarely paused. In the winter, we supplement with a wood-burning stove, but still pay high costs for heating. It is a fact that if we were able to better weatherize our home, we would have more affordable heating and cooling bills.

One more point that you should consider is that these audits and home improvements are included in the "Take Charge Challenge." This is a friendly competition between cities in Kansas, which encourages residents and businesses to improve the efficiency of their buildings. According to the website: "The Climate and Energy Project (CEP), in partnership with the Kansas Energy Office (KEO), is hosting the Take Charge! Challenge from January through September 2011. The KEO, a division of the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC), provided $1 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds to implement this year’s Take Charge! Challenge." Removal of the funding for the Efficiency Kansas program really puts into question how that money can be appropriated as well. Please take a look at this program on their website, http://www.takechargekansas.org/Site_Data/Sub_Pages/Home.php. If you click on "How are standings calculated?" you will see that the Efficiency Kansas program is listed as the most important category for consideration in allocation of the awards.

Please thoughtfully consider my complaint about the misuse of the DOE funds by the State of Kansas.

Most sincerely
Angela M. Babbit

The Climate Change Double Standard

Without a doubt, I believe that our climate is changing due to our increased use of fossil fuels, deforestation and other social/environmental injustices in the world.  But climate change proponents, please follow your own rules.  If anti-climate-change theologians tell you that they know that the climate is NOT warmer because of their local weather patterns, you will likely tell them it's not about local weather.  It's about global averages and major shifts in climate patterns, oceanic currents, polar ice caps, and cumulative impacts of multiple worldwide changes. But what about hot, dry local weather? That helps your case, doesn't it?

I was spurred on to write this blog entry based on another, more well-read blog than my own about global warming in Texas.  Treehugger.com states that

In the Dallas-Fort Worth area, Thursday [Aug 4, 2011] marked the 34th consecutive day that the mercury level went over the 100 mark. Dating back to 1895, July was the hottest month ever recorded in Texas, a state that knows a few things about serious heat. 

It's good we have some historical data for comparison, but the devil's advocate in me asks, don't records happen all the time, everywhere and at hot and cold extremes?  Is this kind of information helpful to anyone who is on the fence about climate change?  Isn't this feeding into the arguments against climate change, if you seemingly have a double standard of your definition of climate change?  On one hand you say "colder, snowier weather in your burg doesn't mean the ice age is coming," and on the other hand you say, "drought in Texas means climate catastrophe."  Please, offer a more tangible explanation of what's going on.

Another example:  The New York Times reported in April on the dryness of the soil in Midland, Texas, but did not offer broader information that indicates a larger trend, except to say that la Niña was involved.  And by broader information, I don't mean just a map of the United States that shows how dry it is this summer.

Not only is this a snapshot rather than an illustration of a trend, but the population density in the areas of high rainfall generally exceeds the drought-stricken areas.

Population data from the 2000 U.S. Census and 2007 population estimates.

The likelihood of convincing the scattered masses in the bible belt that praying for rain isn't the best option has proven to be low.  No, instead they pass laws like this one in the legislature:

H.R.910: To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.

It's really no wonder that people are confused when they are only given snapshots of a larger issue, and they can't see the forest for the trees.  And speaking of confused people who live around trees, you'll only need to watch a minute or two of this video to see how and why this Oregon man is genuinely baffled by reports that "global warming causes cooling."

I must admit I did not watch the entire video, above, but I did hear him say (I paraphrasae) that Greenland was once agricultural, and that the thick layer of ice on it now was not anthropogenic.   Ironically, glacial evidence suggests that the initial non-reversed changes in our atmosphere commenced when agriculture came on the scene, around 7000 to 6000 BC, far before the industrial revolution.  These findings by the Center for the Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets are not yet published as far as I can tell.

 If you really want to get an idea of what's going on with the world's climate, or if you're wanting to write an article about local weather and want to tie it into global trends, visit the NASA Surface Temperature Data website.  If you already spent too much time watching that video, above, please at least watch this one-minute animation of 10-Year Mean Anomalies from 1881-2007.  Or, if you have even less time, watch this 20-second version.  They will leave you seeing red.