Must help vulnerable
I supported Elizabeth Warren for president; she was my girl, and I am sad about her withdrawal. I didn't expect her to do well in Arkansas because it seems the majority of the people in the state will not vote for a kind and decent candidate. There's certainly systemic racism in this country, but there's also rampant sexism. Contemplate how long this nation has existed with no female president while more enlightened countries have long had female heads of state.
I am offended by the recent letters from the hardworking individuals who praise their own work ethic. The implication of these letters is that people who need help have not worked hard and are basically freeloaders.
Things do not always proceed according to plan. My husband killed himself, and with help from a kindly relative, I raised three children as a single parent. Unfortunately, I have an illness which sometimes interferes with the ability to work. Nevertheless, I earned a master's degree and obtained a nursing license at age 65. I was pushing a cart down a nursing home hall on my feet for eight hours. Now I find myself relying on Social Security, and with three children who ignore me.
Socialism does not involve a person on a street corner giving out free money. We need to help the vulnerable in our society.
Expertise is lacking
I'm not sure where Ray Dillon gets his information about solar energy generation in his opinion piece, "A threat to state: Solar users must pay fair share." Perhaps he's just winging it in his diatribe. His job history does not seem to include any expertise in the energy sector, unless chairman of the board of America's Car Mart qualifies.
He says, "Under the current 1:1 full retail rate credit, customers with private solar generation fail to pay their fair share of the fixed electric utility costs required to serve them." He neglects to mention that even if I generate more power than I use, I still have to pay a fixed monthly fee for maintenance of the system. His claim that solar generators don't pay for maintenance of the system is therefore either a confession of ignorance or a deliberate lie of omission. He could perhaps argue that the fixed fee, $7 per month, is too low, but he probably lacks the expertise to assess that issue. SWEPCO set the fee, and if it's not enough, it could raise it, but it seems satisfied with that charge. But the point is, all solar users contribute to the maintenance of the system, completely contradicting his claim.
He says this raises the rates for people who do not have solar power, a fallacious claim because solar users help pay to maintain the system and SWEPCO uses the power for other customers. SWEPCO is glad to get my electrons and charge people without solar power for using them, so how is it raising rates? In fact, it may be stabilizing rates because SWEPCO uses less fossil fuel when solar power is available. If Mr. Dillon looked at his monthly bill, he would find that a large amount is fuel costs. When solar power is plentiful, SWEPCO can idle some of its fossil-fuel generation capacity, saving fuel costs and maintenance. Not to mention reducing the inevitable pollution from burning fossil fuels.
MALCOLM K. CLEAVELAND
I noticed Friday morning in the paper that the mayor of Little Rock has declared a state of emergency because of the coronavirus.
What about the drugs and gang killings? Is that not more of a problem, or does that not matter to him? Sounds like he is more interested in getting welfare payments from the state and the federal governments than policing the troubled areas in the city.
Which one has caused more deaths?
Plans were too vague
I appreciate Rex Nelson's pieces on Arkansas and his depth of knowledge and promotion of our beloved state. However, I take exception to his recent comments on Jonesboro.
Rex visited the local Rotary where he was thoroughly briefed on how "the Tea Party crowd" voted down a 1 cent additional sales tax, thereby depriving Jonesboro of "quality-of-life projects [including] bike trails, sidewalks and an aquatic center. There also would have been new fire stations and police substations." Further: "Because of the growth, [tax advocates] had thought of Jonesboro as a progressive place with residents who were willing to invest in the city. That turned out not to be the case." Kind of judgmental, friends.
Many of us who voted against the tax increase were concerned over many elements: the blitz to vote in August versus during a general election in November; a vague plan on how quality-of-life projects were to be developed and funded long-term; the "it's for the children so just vote for it" media blitz; social media and our own local government representatives; and by tying quality of life with public safety in a single proposal.
I do hope the Team Jonesboro folks present a more refined plan without a rushed timeline. We all desire quality-of-life development. But Jonesboro also needs a greater depth of well-paying jobs to retain ASU grads and attract new residents. Quality-of-life projects will enhance our community and well-being, but they won't pay the rent. As a unified group we can create the synergy we need to address our future development. We would love to have northwest's trail system and a multifunction aquatic facility as well as career-oriented jobs for our citizens. Finally, I challenge Little Rock residents to review your leadership's similar proposal and demand specifics and a vote that includes all citizens.
Editorial on 03/14/2020
Print Headline: Letters