Legislature again headed for train wreck

To the editor:

Our wonderful legislators are at it again. One thing voters have insisted on is that each legislative session be restricted to 120 days. Lawmakers know this before the start of each session, but evidently they do not understand what that means or what the voters really want. If they were to take the voters seriously, you would think they would tackle the biggest priorities first.

For example, the budget. But again it appears they will not finish business as required and a special session will need to be called.

Maybe the voters need to insist on another constitutional amendment, one that mandates that the budget be passed before any other bills may be considered.

This session we have had numerous ridiculous bills considered and some approved (i.e. transgender rights, mandatory helmets, etc.). All that takes up considerable time -- but still nothing on the budget. Let's spend time on what's necessary and finish that before wasting all this time on Nanny State ideas.

Oh well, I guess legislators have nothing else to do with their time. So let's call another special session and waste some more money.



Crying game

To the editor:

Your Wednesday front-page story on Carson City, noted that "emotional Democrats all but surrendered hope for new taxes Tuesday as they dramatically slashed their state spending wish list."

Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, was quoted as saying, "I feel sad and embarrassed."

So Democrats are literally crying because they can't raise taxes. I think that says it all.

B. Darling


Cutting costs

To the editor:

It's outrageous that the Public Utilities Commission has again approved an NV Energy rate increase (Tuesday Review-Journal). NV Energy asked for a 5.3 percent increase and was given 3.4 percent. When the economy was doing better, NV Energy used to ask for 14 percent to 17 percent hike and get half to two-thirds of that. Once they even got a decrease.

Asking the community to pay more because their projections on income fell short is most insulting to people who spent the winter colder than usual to save energy -- and they did. Thus they paid less for their bills (and helped the environment). And their reward? Higher bills. Even little kids get frustrated and stop trying if there is no reward.

The revenue shortfall could be corrected easily: reduce executive compensation.

Albert H. Capanna

Las Vegas

Prison population

To the editor:

In response to Debra J. Saunders' Thursday commentary about California prisons, "Scary high court wants prisoners set free":

What's really scary is that we have a federal government that refuses to perform its constitutional duty to enforce existing immigration laws and secure our sovereign borders. There is an almost complete disregard as to enforcing employer sanctions, E-verify and cooperation with local law enforcement: As an example, just think "sanctuary cities."

According to California Gov. Jerry Brown's office, more than 11 percent of incarcerated individuals in California prisons are illegal aliens. This equates to approximately 15,730 prisoners at an estimated cost to taxpayers of more than $50,000 per prisoner. Just envision what California could do to improve its prison system with close to $1 billion in savings by deporting all but the most violent illegal alien criminals.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered California to release 33,000 inmates, over a two-year time period, with a complete disregard as to the negative effects on the law-abiding populace of California.

It's time for our federal government to seriously address the real bull in the china shop: illegal immigration.

John J. Erlanger

Las Vegas

Smoking tolerance

To the editor:

As a member of the non-smoking majority, I admit to being pleased that I can go into a supermarket, retail store, movie theater or government building and not have to deal with smokers.

On the other hand, the fanaticism and zealotry articulated by Stephanie Steinberg in her Tuesday letter, "Deep breath," goes way beyond any reasonable limit when it comes to smoking. As a majority, we non-smokers have the power to impose our will and make it dominant in society. But we have no right at all to completely destroy the freedom of the minority to do something we don't like.

Make no mistake, the price we pay as human beings when we allow dogmatic, obsessed and intolerant individuals to get control of the law is far greater than any dollar and cent cost we may have to pay for the negatives of smoking.

Assembly Bill 571 represents a little elbow room, a little tolerance for a minority that has become way too ostracized in our culture. AB571 and the legislators backing it deserve our support.



Immoral and illegal

To the editor:

In response to the Thursday letter from Michael R. Stilley of Mesquite, who argues the choice to allow smoking or not should be up to the owner of the tavern:

Smoking kills the smoker and the people near the smoker. It kills slowly. It poisons lungs and causes cancer. This is well-known to everyone, whether or not they admit it.

Spoiled food will kill anyone who eats it. So Mr. Stilley is telling us that should the tavern owner have spoiled burgers on hand, it is his choice to serve them to his customers or not. As you must know, the health department would not stand for this practice. I do not see the difference.

No one has the right to knowingly endanger the health of anyone else. It is immoral, illegal and certainly against the laws of the state of Nevada, not to mention a poor way of treating your customers.

P.C. Rustigian

Las Vegas