To the editor:
Vin Suprynowicz's Sunday column accurately portrays what is happening here in America. Many small businesses have been put out of business -- as well as Americans who worked as plumbers, painters, carpenters, carpet and tile installers, etc. -- by illegal immigration.
If you object to the illegals, you are called a racist when it is far from the truth. Illegals continue to reap all the benefits when the American citizens are paying the price. Illegals have driven up the cost of health care. Many Americans are opposed to the comprehensive immigration bill because it creates more benefits for the illegals.
Many legal immigrants came to the United States and did not ask for any benefits. They worked hard and took care of their families without any government assistance. They were proud to be Americans and respected our country.
Most political leaders are not interested in what their constituents want. They think we are not smart enough to know what is good for America.
Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. John Ensign, Rep. Jon Porter and Rep. Shelley Berkley: Where is the fence that was supposed to be built?
NORTH LAS VEGAS
To the editor:
Sen. Harry Reid's Sunday letter ("Big Oil fleecing customers") is as long as it is illogical. It's also loaded with the class-warfare buzzwords that are his party's bread and butter.
Sen. Reid seems to think that the nebulous demon of "Big Oil" relishes the bad press and public opinion that accompany higher prices, and that oil is the one industry on the planet in which the producers openly seek the consumers' hostility. In fairness, maybe it's the gas stations' fault for being the only retailers who broadcast their increasing prices in 3-foot-high plastic numerals.
But as any freshman economics student knows, higher prices mean less consumption. If anything, Sen. Reid should presumably be overjoyed that the nation is making a smaller "carbon footprint" than it would with lower gas prices.
If oil companies could generate enough revenue by volume to offset reduced prices, they'd reduce prices -- just like they did from the late 1970s through the late 1990s. It's impossible to generate billions of dollars without an understanding of how markets work. (Impossible for capitalists operating in a free market, that is -- not for the Washington politicians who confiscate 18.4 cents from every gallon of gasoline you buy.)
Sen. Reid's insistence that "automakers can and should build more efficient vehicles" shows that he knows as much about automotive engineering as he does about economics. Congress can legislate all the increased fuel standards it wants, but it can't force the creation of technology. Any obvious economic advantage that would accrue to the first automaker to produce a 100-mile-per-gallon car is negated by that car's present failure to exist.
Sen. Reid's disjointed solution calls for the harnessing of solar power, even though solar power can't be collected at night and any solar plant must occupy a far larger area than any oil refinery of similar capacity. He buttresses his argument with the laughably optimistic claim that "capturing one week of Nevada's sunshine could provide enough energy to fuel every car and truck in the United States for an entire year." Yes, if the entire state were covered in solar panels and a solar-powered car existed as anything other than a science-project curiosity.
What's exceptionally hypocritical about Sen. Reid's purported desire to see America 's oil-based economy diversify is his continued outspokenness against the Yucca Mountain Project. While not a generator of usable energy itself, the facility at Yucca Mountain would be a necessary link in an economy with a significant nuclear component -- nuclear being the one power source which boasts negligible greenhouse gas emissions.
Maybe Sen. Reid will get his wish and gas retailers really will magically lower gas prices to 59 cents per gallon. Then he and his cronies can protest that the retailers can't possibly be charging enough to pay their employees a fair and decent wage.
To the editor:
Geoff Schumacher was right on in his Sunday column. I am 71 years old, and although I hate to pay taxes as well as the next guy, the tax for education is one that I am particularly proud to pay.
When my children were going to school, older citizens paid their education taxes without complaining. For one thing, they knew that children are the hope of the world, not just our nation. Without a quality education for our children, there is no hope for the future.
There are plenty of taxes to complain about and plenty of reasons to complain about what is done with tax money. But education is surely not one of them. I think teachers are the least paid for the greatest gain that our tax dollars can buy. I'm proud to pay for education: