To the editor:
The current debate regarding the More Cops sales tax initiative and the impact it will have on the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is critically important to residents of the Las Vegas Valley. However, I want to extend a reminder to all concerned that this proposal is also extremely important to smaller police departments within Clark County. This modest proposed increase is absolutely critical for the city of Mesquite to maintain a police force that will sufficiently meet the needs of our community.
As the anchor of emergency services in northeast Clark County, Mesquite’s police force often serves as a first line of defense against drug trafficking, gangs and other crimes that can impact all Clark County residents. If approved by the Clark County Commission, the More Cops initiative will not only aid Metro, but also allow Mesquite to immediately hire two officers, increasing our force by 7 percent. This increase is significant for us. Mesquite’s current officer-to-resident ratio is 1.58 officers per 1,000 residents, one of the lowest ratios in the state. Compared with the national average of 2.0 officers per 1,000 residents, it is easy to understand the importance of this initiative to our residents.
The Mesquite City Council voted unanimously to support the current initiative. I recognize the Legislature has charged the Clark County Commission with the responsibility of authorizing this increase. However, I would respectfully request that the overwhelming support of other city councils in Southern Nevada be given strong consideration as commissioners make this critical decision on our behalf.
The writer is Mesquite’s chief of police.
To the editor:
In response to Caroline Baum’s commentary (“A user’s guide to Obama’s inside-out economics,” Aug. 11 Review-Journal), Ms. Baum writes that the super wealthy 1 percent of the population is responsible for creating jobs in this country. She says wealth is created from the top down and not from the bottom up. However, the 1 percent isn’t creating jobs in the country; it put its money in offshore banks, in order to make more money and avoid paying taxes at home in the country which made it possible to acquire such wealth.
The fact of the matter is that wealth is produced by workers and management pulling together. Henry Ford was faced with the demand of his workers to form a union. He was against it, so much so that he hired gun-toting goons to harass workers who were campaigning to form a union. Workers suffered from long, costly strikes, and some were killed by the hired goons. In time, Henry Ford realized that he could agree to have a union, and by doing so, both management and the workers would benefit. He made an offer to the strikers that he would not only agree to a union, but also that he would give them a substantial increase in pay — with one provision: henceforth, his workers would drive only Ford cars.
This arrangement created a win-win situation for the workers and the company. The company sold more Fords, and the workers, by making more money, could afford to buy Fords. Shortly thereafter, other major car companies unionized.
The end of the story is that if the workers make a good wage, the economy thrives. Statistics show that 70 percent or more of our country’s economic growth is attributed to the average worker making a good wage and spending it. The facts show that workers’ spending is what drives the economy, and in that regard, I respectfully disagree with Ms. Baum’s statement that wealth is produced from the top down. Facts show that wealth comes from the bottom up.
With respect to the national debt, President George W. Bush created the budget problem, and President Barack Obama inherited it. But that is another story.