Planning Rove's retirement party

To the editor:

It's hard to believe, but it's welcome news that Karl Rove is leaving Washington. It appears that the rats are continuing to leave a sinking ship.

I wonder what position in a major corporation will now be handed to Rove to reward him for his loyalty to the Bush administration.

Once he leaves his present position officially, since he will no longer have executive privilege, can Mr. Rove be forced to testify under oath before Congress? I would love to see that happen.

Can you imagine the dirt that he could reveal if he were forced to do so? I'm sure it would put both the president and vice president under the scrutiny of a possible impeachment. At least one new federal prison would need to be built just to handle the Bush administration and their band of corporate thieves.



Tightened up

To the editor:

Saturday's Business section reported that our casinos are not raking in new revenue as quickly as last year. An analyst from the state Gaming Control Board was quoted saying that things have really slowed down, definitely on the slot side.

Wow, this should come as startling news?

One only need go to a local players' casino to see rows and rows of empty chairs. Players are well aware that casino slots and video poker now pay out with little or no consistency, and the play that one gets on a machine with $20 lasts a fraction of the time one got in days gone by.

Casino owners need only look in the mirror of their mansions to find the blame behind a slot and video poker revenue slowdown. The playing public has spoken.




To the editor:

The plan to redistrict Clark County prior to the next census deserves to be moved forward. What in the world do our county commissioners fear from an equitable population balance given the county's continued growth? The proposed redistricting plan would reduce the disparity between districts to 18,000 people.

Why oppose such a common-sense proposal? Commissioners Tom Collins, Chris Giunchigliani and Lawrence Weekly voted against moving forward with the proposal in a preliminary 4-3 vote, whereupon Commission Chairman Rory Reid said he would pull it from further consideration until 2010 because of a lack of a consensus.

Must the commission always move in lockstep? How pitiful. Why not an open debate on a proposal which could only lead to more even representation, participation and interest on the part of the public?




To the editor:

The oft-quoted litany that "illegal immigrants take jobs Americans won't" doesn't take into account the fact that many of these Americans are actually able-bodied individuals who devised illicit means to get paid for doing nothing by the entitlements/welfare bureaucracy.

If government weeded out these goldbricks, they'd have to compete for jobs that they wouldn't accept when they didn't have to work to eat.

Then, billions paid as taxes by productive people wouldn't be doled out to unproductive people; billions now being sent to Mexico by illegal immigrants would remain in America; billions would be pumped back into the economy by wage-earning former goldbricks; and the illegal immigrants (having no reason to remain where the vast majority of legal citizens detest them) would say "adios" to their lawbreaking employers and go home.



Can they say 'illegal'?

To the editor:

My wife, an American citizen born in North Carolina, had to provide verifiable proof of all documentation during the process of applying for various jobs after moving to the Las Vegas area. In addition, many of the jobs required her to have a valid Nevada driver's license, which required even more documentation. Why should it be more difficult for a native born American than it is for someone who enters this country illegally?

Ignorance seems to abound among immigration supporters about the differences between the words "legal" and "illegal." Fernando Romero, president of Hispanics in Politics ("Nevada Hispanic leaders criticize new regulations," Saturday) seems to ignore this very difference as he describes the new reform measures proposed by the Bush administration as "anti-immigrant," when in fact it is illegal immigration that is being addressed.

To suggest that any "backlash" is related to perceived notions of growth in strength of the Hispanic community is ridiculous, and undermines the long overdue attempts of the federal government of the United States to enforce the immigration laws of this country.