Aging incumbents hate term limits, but so do lobbyists

To the editor:

In response to Erin Neff's April 13 column, "Lawmakers just hate term limits": Ms. Neff may want to talk to a few members of the Legislature who are not entrenched committee chairmen. I realize that such voices do not have as much celebrity, but what they have to say is as valid, if not more valid, than someone desperately trying to hang onto power in spite of the will of the people.

Regarding lobbyists, Ms. Neff's opinion of that matter is actually the polar opposite of the reality. Lobbyists do not want term limits to come into play any more than the unholy trinity of state Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and state Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus. Some of these lobbyists have spent years and tens of thousands of dollars cultivating relationships. The last thing they want to do is to have to start over, especially with an unknown quantity.

Look at this from behind their eyes. The newly elected candidate may be, heaven forbid, actually serious about representing his or her district. He may take that oath of office at its word. This is a potential nightmare in the making.

Some hyperbole there, of course, but it makes my point. The longer a politician is in office, the greater chance there is of him having been paid for, lock, stock and barrel. We do have some who manage to be completely honest all the way through their terms of office, but in today's world, that is a rarity.

The people have spoken as to what they want done by initiative. Our constitution, both state and federal, allow this. You want precedent? Look at the Founding Fathers and how they set up the original Congress. They knew longevity created corruption.

Is it not interesting that the ones fighting the will of the people on term limits are also the ones who passed the bill narrowing the state's initiative process?

Bob Beers

HENDERSON

THE WRITER, A REPUBLICAN, REPRESENTS ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 21.

Balanced reporting

To the editor:

Could it be that we're finally getting some balance in reporting about the environment? Witness the column by Michael Berliner, published in Friday's Review-Journal, outlining the hidden agenda of some radical environmentalists. By coincidence, The Wall Street Journal on Friday had an article reviewing some of the statistical problems in measuring the environmental health of the planet.

Readers need to appreciate these complexities before they endorse simplistic solutions offered by environmental lobbyists that can have catastrophic, unintended consequences for all of us.

Don Fisk

HENDERSON

Stopping the takeover

To the editor:

In response to your Tuesday editorial, "Against human prosperity," and Tuesday's Page 9A article, "Environmentalists try to derail plans for border fence."

Has it occurred to anyone that all any entity, large or small, would have to do to bring America to its knees would be to fund the Sierra Club and others of its ilk?

It has been more than 50 years since any substantial undertakings in the area of infrastructure have been made. During that time, the population of America has grown by almost 150 million people. Have you noticed that environmental organizations will file lawsuits to stop any effort to fill this need without ever offering any suggestions as to what we do about this problem?

For instance, when we did not have it, they suggested wind power. Then, when wind power was developed at great expense, they sued to stop it because it supposedly killed birds. Any bird that could not miss one of those slow-moving blades needs to turn in its pilot's license, but that did not make a difference. It was a reason to file suit and slow down development.

I believe that if there are any good people out there in a position to do something about this takeover, they should begin at once -- hopefully peacefully, and hopefully before the American way of life resembles that of a Third World country.

Gerald Ernst

LAS VEGAS