To the editor:
In response to Richard Pratt’s letter excoriating Rep. Paul Ryan’s solutions to poverty (“Rep. Ryan’s brilliance dumbfounding,” May 22 Review-Journal), I looked in vain for the words “personal responsibility” and found only blame and excuses.
The formula for success in America is not complicated: Stay in free school and graduate, don’t have children you can’t afford, and make yourself as employable as possible to those hiring in the private sector. If you, as an individual, decide to drop out of school or choose to identify with one of the many cultures in our country that prize alternative appearances or attitudes, you may limit your employment opportunities.
Private-sector employers usually have risked and invested their own hard-earned capital in starting their businesses, and then invested countless hours over many years nurturing the success of said business, while providing gainful employment to many. Publicly traded companies are responsible for profitability to their shareholders. Both are entitled to a fair return on their time and money investment. As such, employers usually hire qualified employees who they feel will reflect their corporate culture positively to the public, and with the expectation that their employees will be punctual, productive and cooperative with other employees.
No one will argue that times are tough out there. That means that private employers have many qualified applicants to choose from, should they decide to expand their businesses. They are and should be very selective in whom they hire, so competition for good jobs is fierce. America is not about guaranteed success or outcomes; our country only guarantees the opportunity for success. Few other countries in this world offer the opportunity for upward mobility and success to those who choose to sacrifice and work hard. How you choose to take advantage of these opportunities is entirely up to you.
To the editor:
Why is there no “none of the above” option on the ballot for judges? Your recent editorial pointed out incompetence or plaintiff-bar bias on the part of District Judge Jessie Walsh (“Awful judgment,” May 22 Review-Journal). Also, her retention score in your biennial survey of attorneys is dismal. Yet she is running for another six-year term unopposed. How can the electorate remove judges who do a poor job if those judges are the only ones on the ballot?
It seems that action needs to be taken by the state Legislature (additional ballot options) or the legal profession (additional candidates). Judicial appointment will not solve the problem, as the editorial suggested; the same forces will prevent problem resolution. Paraphrasing Bill Buckley, who famously stated that he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the New York City phone book than by the Harvard faculty, I would rather the judges in Nevada be selected by the collective wisdom of the electorate than a bunch of lawyers.
Compromise and debt
To the editor:
Regarding Janice Herr’s letter (“The right is wrong,” May 21 Review-Journal), many of her points can be countered, but I will address only the compromise statement: “The country has worked well in the past, and we need to elect intelligent people who don’t think ‘compromise’ is a dirty word.”
Well, for 100 years or so, there have been federal budgetary compromises by the two political parties. These compromises created nearly $100 trillion in entitlement liabilities, and more than $17 trillion in operating debt. So, how can further “compromise” be a solution for our nation, unless the compromises involve reducing outstanding debt, and returning the federal government to a balanced budget?