Las Vegas does not have a monopoly on debauchery
To the editor:
Initially, I was stunned to read Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman's comments in reaction to President Obama's call for fiscal restraint. I certainly agree that U.S. taxpayers should not be subsidizing business vacations masked as "conventions" or "conferences."
However, the mayor was quite correct to take issue with the fact that Las Vegas was singled out as a nefarious travel destination (Thursday Review-Journal). On Monday, the president specifically cited Las Vegas as the wrong place to go (for those receiving bailouts) at this time. Why point the finger at Las Vegas when so many other places offer similar activities?
Why not add Miami, New York or San Diego to the list of cities to avoid? I'll even bet the bars and massage parlors in Des Moines, Iowa, are rockin' when the annual farm equipment convention rolls into town.
The president was wrong to mention Las Vegas by name. Anyone who thinks business excess and waste is limited to Las Vegas convention-goers must have been with Michael Phelps at that bong party.
Nolan Dalla
LAS VEGAS
Basic business concept
To the editor:
This letter is in response to the question from Buzz Daly in his Feb. 7 letter to the editor. He asked why some executives and managers with financial institutions that received bailout money deserve the bonuses and rewards common to their industry -- such as Wells Fargo's since-cancelled Las Vegas trip. He asks: "If these so-called top performers were actually producing positive (profitable) results, why would their institutions require billions of dollars in rescue funds?"
His question is typical of those asked by unsophisticated and naive people across the country and reveals such an appalling lack of understanding of basic business concepts and organizations that I am not sure the answer will be understood, but here goes:
Imagine a bank with five divisions: retail/branch banking makes a $10 billion profit; commercial banking makes a $10 billion profit; private banking and trust services makes a $10 billion profit; credit card and consumer lending makes a $10 billion profit; and the real estate lending division loses $100 billion. The bank has lost $60 billion, is in trouble, and accepts federal rescue money.
Now, of course the people in charge of the real estate division and the most senior executives who oversee the failed division -- right up to the CEO -- deserve nothing and perhaps should be fired. But why should the top-performing people at the other divisions that generated $40 billion in profit not be rewarded?
The bank hands out these rewards not because they are generous, but to keep their best people. In the business world, these people are called "big producers." If the banks do not give these bonuses, their big producers will be snatched up by other firms that do recognize their worth and the profit they produce.
Many of these people have built close, personal relationships with their best customers, and these important customers will also transfer their business to the new firm.
The net result is that the bank has not only managed to lose a fortune in the real estate division, it has also destroyed all of its profitable divisions.
John M. McGrail
LAS VEGAS
Strings attached
To the editor:
While I have a problem with the government putting compensation restrictions on the chief executive officers of private companies that receive "bailout" loan money from my tax dollars, I also see merit to that idea. But I think we should take that a step further.
If someone receives welfare, is it not fair to put restrictions on those recipients? A recipient should not be permitted to purchase tobacco or alcohol, not to mention illicit drugs. They should not be permitted to buy $100 shoes for themselves or their 2-year-old offspring who are just learning to walk. They should not own fancy, late-model vehicles. No flat screen TVs or other luxury electronics, and no expanded cable with all the premium channels. No vacations. In Las Vegas and other places with gambling, they should be barred from those facilities. No playing the lottery.
If you need my money to survive, you can not afford luxuries. You need to concentrate on the essentials required to survive.
My wife quit her job after 11 years in order to pursue her college degree. We gave up about 25 percent of our income to do so. We have cut back in order to survive, keep up with expenses and get her through college. Is that too much to ask from those who live at taxpayer expense?
Don Dieckmann
HENDERSON
