LETTERS: 'The Butler' doesn't do it for veteran

To the editor:

Congratulations to a Korean War veteran who now happens to own a movie theater in Kentucky. As the owner, Ike Boutwell has not allowed “The Butler” to be shown, due to Jane Fonda playing the role of Nancy Reagan.

I can understand such casting decisions happening in Hollywood, where the word “morality” is missing from the dictionary. But for Oprah Winfrey, who doesn’t need the money, to allow her name to be associated with this travesty is unconscionable. Jane Fonda’s response to those supporting the boycott was to “get a life,” a slap in the face. She has forgotten that her actions got prisoners in Vietnam beaten and tortured. She is not only a traitor but a despicable human.



No tax credits

To the editor:

Sunday’s commentary by Ramesh Ponnuru (“Investing in kids deserves more credit”) sets the premise that there should be a tax credit for having kids in the upcoming “blank slate” debate. Why?

All tax credits should be eliminated, period. Taxes should be charged against all income no matter the source. Everyone should pay taxes, “have a dog in the fight,” as the saying goes. This also holds true for business. There should be no special carve-outs, (depletion, depreciation, etc.).

The only exception would be charities not having to pay on contributions. But contributors should get no credit for that contribution. This structure would eliminate a lot of special interests lobbying Congress and presidents for special consideration in tax laws.

The new structure could be progressive in nature, with low-income earners paying the least. Let’s level the playing field in business. If it’s a good idea or business model, it will prosper. Why should any company get credit, because of its particular industry or research? With a true flat tax, everyone would know how much they are paying and what others are paying as well.



Eminent domain

To the editor:

Regarding Robert Hockett’s Aug. 18 commentary (“Eminent domain: All gain, no pain”), didn’t Mr. Hockett make a glorious case for using eminent domain to solve our mortgage problems?

Actually, no, he didn’t.

As is almost always the case when ivory-tower elites cast their pearls of wisdom before the masses, it’s what he doesn’t say that makes all the difference. For example, nowhere in Mr. Hockett’s article does he mention “Kelo v. City of New London” or “Pappas v. City of Las Vegas,” two cases which, based on his article, he probably approved of gleefully.

Know what else wasn’t in the column? Nevada’s PISTOL amendment — the People’s Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land. The amendment was put in place specifically to protect Nevadans against the abuses of eminent domain that we saw in Kelo and Pappas.

I’m sure Mr. Hockett — with his fine legal mind, along with all the experience he has gained at the Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund, and his ability to parse words to the point that they mean only what he wants them to mean — could show any elected body here in Clark County that the PISTOL Amendment really doesn’t mean what it says and that using eminent domain to enrich a private corporation (Mortgage Resolution Partners) is a good thing. Well, it’s not. It’s a vicious example of crony capitalism, socializing risk and privatizing profit. It should have no place in Nevada..

As a resident of Las Vegas, I am so pleased that Mayor Carolyn Goodman and the City Council have gone on the record that they will not participate in this assault on the PISTOL amendment. It would be great if the other local governments in Clark County would do the same — including North Las Vegas.

Our elected officials have all kinds of problems to deal with, without wasting time and resources attacking our state’s constitution in order to serve the interests of a private corporation.