LETTERS: Can’t run on your record? Attack opponents’ donors

To the editor:

This is unbelievable. Reps. Dina Titus and Steven Horsford and the Democratic Party are alleging that “dark money” is being accepted by the GOP (“Beware GOP’s spending edge, Dems told,” Sunday Review-Journal).

The Democrats can’t campaign on the failures of the Obama administration over the past six years, so they’re using scare tactics. If money were coming their way, you wouldn’t hear anything about it. They should be ashamed of themselves.



Great photograph

To the editor:

Letters such as this usually commend writers or chew on them and their editors. However, a picture is worth a thousand words, especially when it shows two jets in a nose-to-nose kiss at McCarran Airport (“Kiss n’ Tell,” Tuesday Review-Journal). Better still, it’s an American cozying up to a Swiss, and the photo images a great Las Vegas welcome to foreign tourists and their money.

I wish it were that easy for President Obama to put America’s good face out there, though it was harder still for his predecessor. Then again, the United States and Russia are already nose to nose. Press photographers often risk their lives, with little consolation. It must have been great to be Jerry Henkel, the Review-Journal’s peeping Tom. Thanks for the shot!



Power bills

To the editor:

One of the May 3 Review-Journal headlines for the article on a bill increase sought by NV Energy, “Average bill to go up $2.82,” seems inaccurate. Within the article we learn that NV Energy is also seeking a “basic service charge” increase from $10 to $15.25, or $5.25 per month on top of a $2.82 increase for the cost of power. Therefore the average total bill would increase by $8.02, or about 2.5 percent.

The article is full of useful information. As pointed out by Dan Jacobson, technical staff manager for the Bureau of Consumer Protection, a more than 50 percent increase in the basic service charge is unfair to the poor, who must pay it even if they reduce electricity use. This would be a regressive payment approach.

This approach should not be too surprising given that Nevada seems to love regressive taxation. In the article, an NV Energy spokesman identifies efficiency savings of $25 million from smart meters. These savings relate to staff, fuel and fleet expenses. Given these savings I suggest the “basic service charge” be reduced to $5 from the current $10 rather than increased. Having people pay based on usage is fair and progressive, and it is more likely to result in reduced energy consumption.

The company says a service charge increase would effectively increase charges in the winter (low usage) and reduce charges in the summer (high usage). This approach artificially reduces energy costs in the high-use months. This may result in increased consumption due to the reduction of the “cost” consideration related to energy consumption during these months.

But wait, NV Energy sells energy, so it may want more energy usage to increase its profits. 



Nevada never had land

To the editor:

I am writing to correct historical inaccuracies as presented by Art Gisi (“No simple solution to Bundy issue,” Sunday letter to the editor) relative to the federal lands within the state of Nevada.

Nevada never had control of public lands within state boundaries, nor did the state give those lands to the federal government. It was never the state’s to give away. By the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, with Mexico, the federal government obtained ownership of these lands in 1848. Nevada territory was created in 1861 and became a state in 1864.

As part of becoming a state, the federal government gave Nevada 2.7 million acres, as trust lands, to be used for funding public schools. Currently there are 3,000 acres remaining in state control. These trust lands were the only real estate the state owned and had control over. The Legislature cannot ask for a return of those lands which the state never owned or controlled originally.



Driverless political party

To the editor:

I read with interest the note in the “Political Eye” column describing Rep. Dina Titus’ ride around town in a driverless car and her support for the concept (“Titus survives driverless car,” Monday Review-Journal). I am not surprised by her support. After all, Rep. Titus and her fellow Democrats have been sailing on a rudderless ship for the past 5½ years.

What could possibly go wrong with driverless cars? Answer: Take a good, hard look around at our economy, health care, energy costs, unemployment, etc. Yes, there is a downward trend, but a correctable one — through an election. And our one and only chance to change it comes in November 2016.