Limiting entitlement handouts isn't heartless

To the editor:

In response to the recent letter arguing that Republicans are heartless because they don't want unemployment benefits extended, I say, "Why is this such illogical thinking?"

I work 60 hours a week and spend another 10 driving to and from work. Yet at the end of the week it is implied that I'm supposed to walk across the street and hand a neighbor part of my paycheck -- more than likely a neighbor who you or I wish we didn't have.

Speaking for myself, I'm skeptical of all entitlement programs due to rampant abuse. Many who receive "entitlements" stay on those programs for years. Why? Because it is easier to receive that government paycheck each month than to go to work.

I grew up very poor and my dad refused to accept any public "entitlements." He was a proud man and didn't want handouts from anyone. We went without health insurance and dental coverage. I wore ragged clothes to school, and my shoes often had holes in them, much like you see on homeless people in our city today. Through all of this, I was taught never to envy anyone.

One evening a co-worker said to me, "You always seem happy. Why is that?

I replied, "I am very thankful that I have a job, because I know there are many people who don't have it as good as I do. I am thankful for what I have."

He replied, "I've never felt that way."

Later he stated, "I would think that because you had such a rough life you would be more receptive to government programs."

I replied, "I have worked hard all my life and have never had anything handed to me. I wouldn't want it any other way."

So, if this is what a heartless Republican is, then I'll proudly carry that banner.

Wouldn't it be nice if more people could carry their own banner instead of looking for someone else to carry it for them? We all have a chance at bat in life, but what we make of that chance is up to us. Not anyone else.

We all need to look inward to solve our problems. Government entitlements are not the answer.

Rick Clawson

North Las Vegas

Doing their jobs

To the editor:

Hooray for the Henderson Police Department and the citizen who made the call about a "bunch of guys doing weird moves." If I were entering or leaving the Rebel station and witnessed seven men "of Arabic and Southeast Asian descent" praying next to a van, I would be concerned for my safety as well as my community.

Surely the seven men in question knew their prayer time was approaching -- a more private place could have been selected, they could have gotten their food and gas and been on their way.

Surely the seven men in question know we are fighting a war and that, unfortunately, religious fanatics have murdered thousands of innocent people.

We need to report suspicious activities, and our police officers are doing the right thing responding and asking questions. In my opinion the complaint should be investigated, the officers cleared and the public continue to be vigilant.

P. Schmitz


Smart government

To the editor:

Jim Cassidy's Sunday letter attacked letter writer Charlie Michael concerning the latter's cogent mining economics analysis. Mr. Cassidy's smarmy diatribe reflects the government union take on the relationship between the taxpayers and tax consumers.

Most telling is the part in which he writes, "Do you think that Nevada officials should do any less for the voters in creating enough tax revenue to protect our welfare and services?" So good voters should support raising punitive taxes on productive businesses to grab more goodies for themselves?

In reality, the goodies go to insulated, unionized government bureaucrats.

We need smart, limited government efficiently providing needed services. Since no politician has the guts to get rid of the needless government unions, I wish they would at least bargain for statewide average wages and benefits.



Woman hater

To the editor:

It's sad that Assistant Editorial Page Editor Vin Suprynowicz used half of the Review-Journal's op-ed page Sunday to denigrate women in low-wage jobs (Column, " 'You're going to get in a lot of trouble!' ").

Just because he can't get satisfactory answers from a Florida office, he resorts to name-calling, suggesting these workers have less intelligence "than the average potted plant."

Worse, Mr. Suprynowicz contends they should be happy to earn their $11 hourly wage because better-educated workers in developing nations such as India would be "tickled pink to make $23,000 a year."

Really? Has your columnist lived on anything close to that salary in this economy?

As a rehabilitation counselor working with people who are jobless, I find it unconscionable that your paper allows space for such a personal, misogynistic diatribe.

It's fashionable in this recession to attack our most vulnerable citizens, as if they're to blame for our woes.

If Mr. Suprynowicz isn't pleased with telephone mix-ups, perhaps he should change his number.

He definitely should change his tune -- and show some compassion for workers less privileged than he is.

Kathleen Kenna

Las Vegas