To the editor:
I would like to offer clarification in response to Harold Mann’s letter in the April 4 Review-Journal. The headline, “Mayor’s snub of Metro shows priorities,” gives the wrong impression of my long-consistent stance regarding police funding.
Mr. Mann’s letter is in response to an article that reported on an idea by Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak that would require the city to take additional monies from the general fund to help pay for police services (“Budget for police may grow,” March 27 Review-Journal). I rejected Commissioner Sisolak’s idea because there is already a solution before him and the County Commission — the More Cops sales tax increase. All of the mayors in Southern Nevada support enacting More Cops, and more importantly, so do the majority of the people in the state of Nevada who voted for it. We have three commissioners standing in the way of the will of the people by not passing the tax.
In addition, the city has budgeted 25.6 percent of its budget, or $127.7 million, to fund the Metropolitan Police Department. Nearly 66 percent of the city’s budget is spent on public safety.
Further, the city is already facing a $9 million budget deficit next fiscal year; Commissioner Sisolak’s idea would increase that shortfall to nearly $11 million.
So to be clear, I certainly did not snub Metro, I simply disagree with Commissioner Sisolak’s idea when the solution of More Cops has been available all this time.
CAROLYN G. GOODMAN
The writer is mayor of Las Vegas.
First Amendment areas
To the editor:
It doesn’t matter where you stand on the Cliven Bundy trespass cattle affair. If Dave Bundy was standing on a public highway, peacefully filming the roundup, and not threatening anyone physically or verbally, nor obstructing officials’ ability to move in or out of the property, they had no right to arrest him (“Rancher’s son says his rights violated,” Tuesday Review-Journal).
And where in the Constitution are First Amendment rights limited to a small patch of ground, which is owned by the citizenry — you and me? Like a noose drawing tighter, when you have accepted some of your rights being taken away, soon they will all be slowly taken away.
To the editor:
The more I read about this proposed margins tax the more frightening it becomes. Our business, a small company with 125 employees, manufactures a product used in the rail/transit industry, as well as in entertainment and military markets. The company prides itself on its product being made in America.
In 2004, due to high taxes, cost of living and unfriendly business climate, the company moved from California to Nevada. The company competes against international companies that manufacture in China, India and Korea, and so far has been successful in that competition.
When taxes are increased, that increase is usually passed on to the consumer. If the margins tax were to pass, our company would be hard-pressed to pass this increase on to customers. Our lower-tiered employees make more than the minimum wage, and all employees are offered a medical plan that exceeds the Affordable Care Act’s minimum requirements.
Our profit margins are already quite low. Last year, it was 2.6 percent. Any new tax means the company must cut something out of its expenses. I certainly don’t want to take anything away from the employees. I would urge anyone reading this letter to vote no on the margins tax initiative.