A lesson in economic ignorance

To the editor:

Jan Gilbert, a lobbyist for the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, defended the $1 billion in tax increases passed by the Legislature (Review-Journal, Tuesday). She then displays her jaw-dropping economic ignorance by stating that "most people" will not feel any effect from these taxes. People will not be shopping as much, so she doubts they will notice the 0.35 percentage-point increase in the sales tax rate.

If people are shopping less, as she predicts, how will the state and local governments collect the millions they have projected as revenue from this added sales tax? If people are shopping less, how will businesses survive, grow and hire some of the 10 percent of the unemployed? Does this lady not realize that it is all that "shopping" that creates government revenue?

Orinne Morehead

LAS VEGAS

Bad choice

To the editor:

Newt Gingrich is right. So is Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and every other conservative "talking head." Sonia Sotomayor is a racist and a bigot. Hasn't anyone on the socialist side of the aisle read any of her opinions or heard any of her speeches? I refer to it as "reverse racism." Racism is not a one-way street.

Empathy for particular groups is not compatible with the concept of equal justice under the law. The job of a judge is to apply the law fairly, not tilt the scales of justice in favor of one party or another.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was noted for his judicial ability and temperament. He often said he "loathed most of the things in favor of which he decided." But, he ruled as he did because, in his opinion, a judge's job is "to see that the game is played according to the rules, whether I liked them or not."

Under our system, it's the job of the legislatures to make the rules and the job of the judges is to apply them constitutionally. Apparently, Sonia Sotomayor thinks judges have the right to substitute their opinions for those of lawmakers. Unfortunately for her, the court of appeals is not where policy is made.

Her personal story is a better qualification for being a guest on Oprah or Montel or Tyra Banks or the Jerry Springer show than for being a Supreme Court justice. Her empathy, a euphemism for bias, should be a major disqualification.

Her opinions, in which she doesn't apply the law and which have been overturned several times by the Supreme Court, should be another disqualification.

Mike Niederberger

LAS VEGAS

Simplistic principles

To the editor:

Thanks to Thomas Mitchell for giving us Gov. Jim Gibbons' nicely encapsulated definition of Republicanism (Sunday column). The governor's statement of his boilerplate principles points out why the Republican Party has failed and is failing so miserably in governing, locally and nationally. Apparently, only Republicans believe in the following:

-- Smaller government. This is a country of 300 million people. How "small" can the government be? How about being for better, more efficient government?

-- Lower taxes. Who wouldn't like lower taxes? President Bush the Elder found out the practicality of this stance, and Gov. Gibbons is finding out now.

-- Less regulation. We have found out the hard way what the result of this is: Enron-style irresponsibility, which in that case ended with the ruin of a company and its employees and now is the near ruination of our country.

-- Hard work and responsibility. To imply that the majority of Americans who voted against Republicans (and won) are lazy and irresponsible is stupid and insulting.

-- Having a job vs. being on the government payroll. The last time I checked, working for the government was "having a job." You know, like the governor does.

-- Paycheck vs. welfare check. The problem is that there have to be jobs in order for people to work and get those paychecks. End result of the era of Reagan/Bush-onomics: Bye-bye jobs.

Mr. Mitchell's conclusion is that a general public dissatisfaction with Gov. Gibbons is "perhaps" deserved. Aside from the personal clownishness that Gov. Gibbons has exhibited, if he and his party continue spouting insultingly simplistic principles and ignoring the actual well-being of the citizens, there will continue to be increasing dissatisfaction with him and a well-deserved withering of the Republican Party.

Bob Hannah

HENDERSON

Good and bad

To the editor:

In good times, the state of Nevada did not have enough money for services and had to increase taxes so state services could increase capacity to keep up with the population growth. Remember the line, "Growth does not pay for growth"?

In bad times, the state of Nevada does not have enough tax revenue to keep existing service levels and will increase taxes to keep these services.

So my question is: When does our state not need to increase taxes?

Michael Moore

NORTH LAS VEGAS