Average tourist already priced off Strip
To the editor:
The assertion of conservative and libertarian contributors that a 3 percentage-point increase in the hotel room tax will result in doomsday for Las Vegas is overblown.
On a room that costs as much as $200 per night, the increased cost of $6 is not a deal killer. The real issue is that the $200-per-night cost is more than half a week's wages for most people, and the table limits of $10 to $25 are above the means of most visitors.
Casino developers have proceeded with a view that there are more and more people with unlimited resources to visit and play in Las Vegas. With or without the tax increase proposed on next week's ballot, the average visitor has been priced out.
Bill Bethke
LAUGHLIN
Exceptional leader
To the editor:
In your Thursday article discussing the changes that the Clark County School Board will encounter following next week's election, you quoted teachers union President Ruben Murillo describing District C candidate Ronan Matthew as someone who "is not a team player."
During my 16 years as a counselor in the Clark County School District, I had the privilege of working with Mr. Matthew in the trenches, at Western High School and Cheyenne High School. I have never met anyone more dedicated to student safety and achievement than Mr. Matthew. His interests have always been with the students.
He did such an exceptional job as principal in these two positions that he was asked to take over as principal of Canyon Springs High School to deal with serious challenges they were facing. He accepted and was instrumental in bringing stability and safety to that high school.
If being a "team player" means rubber-stamping every request that the superintendent and the teachers union brings before the board, then Mr. Matthew is not a team player. He will be a breath of fresh air and someone who continues to lead with the students' best interests in mind. Isn't that what it's all about?
Ralph Iavazzi
LAS VEGAS
Bottom-up economics
To the editor:
In response to Bill Dirkse's well-meaning letter in Monday's newspaper ("Flocking to the government handouts"), there is a time for Reagan-style, supply-side economics, and that time is not now.
It is true that businesses are vital to our economy. But it is also true, and often overlooked, that consumers are vital to business. In his recent book, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan cited the growing gap between rich and poor as one of the major threats to our economic well-being for the next quarter-century.
When a large chunk of our population becomes too poor to behave as good consumers, business continues to sell to those masses on credit -- until the loans go bad and the economy crumbles from the top down.
One can argue all day long whether it is fair to ask the rich (and yes, often the most productive people) in America to pay more into our system. But it's becoming ever more difficult to argue that tax cuts for the wealthy are working to strengthen our economy. We need to restore our middle class for the benefit of everyone, including businesses. And that may require investment by those who can still afford to invest in our country.
Larry McAllister
LAS VEGAS
Poll doubter
To the editor:
Would someone please explain where all these so called "polls" come from?
I have been voting for 60-plus years. In all that time, I have had one phone call asking which candidate I was voting for.
I think each poll tries to make sure the poll leans toward their candidate.
I also never vote for an incumbent unless he has done something for the people instead of lining his own pockets.
Guess how many incumbents I vote for now.
MARGARET THOMAS
LAS VEGAS
Malpractice injustice
To the editor:
Your Sunday article, "Medical malpractice reforms still divide; Cap on damage awards" reveals the devastating hidden impact of the compensation limits, or "caps," that Nevada enacted in medical malpractice cases.
These caps not only unfairly restrict what legitimately injured patients can obtain for devastating injuries caused by grossly negligent medical care, but even worse, they make it nearly impossible for victims with certain types of injuries or income levels to even find an attorney who can finance a lawsuit.
Attorneys wish they could help, but the "caps" make it financially impossible for them to do so.
In fact, it may come as a surprise to some readers that "caps" apply across the board to all cases, not just frivolous cases. They apply no matter how much merit a case has, or the extent of the misconduct of the hospital or doctor. They apply regardless of the severity of the injury. Indeed, those most hurt are the most catastrophically injured.
These horribly treated patients, left with no recourse, are the forgotten faces in the debate of medical malpractice. We hope that organized medicine realizes the cruel impact of this law and joins with consumer groups to repeal it and fight the real culprit for rising insurance rates: a mismanaged and greedy insurance industry.
Joanne Doroshow
NEW YORK
THE WRITER IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY.
Obama's bad habit
To the editor:
Barack Obama has a problem. It is a problem that might get him barred from employment in 20 states, even for the most menial, low-paying job. Yet it is a pastime enjoyed by millions nationwide and it is perfectly legal.
His problem is that he is a smoker. Although he has done a good job cutting down, according to the November edition of Men's Health magazine, "There have been a couple of times during the campaign when I fell off the wagon and bummed one, and I had to kick it again."
Many anti-smokers see smokers as weak, self-destructive and willfully ignorant. Many employers see them that way, also. Smokers now and in the past have always been some of the best people for the job, period. Consider what World War II would have been like without Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, both smokers and the very best men for the job at hand at the time.
Yes, that was a different era, but a good man or woman who is right for a job, regardless of smoking status, will never go out of style or lose value.
The city of North Miami, Fla., in 1995 banned the hiring of smokers, was sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The city won the right to do so. In 2003, they changed their policy because they couldn't find enough qualified applicants without considering smokers, and they also saw no reduction in health care costs.
I have seen Sen. Obama beat up in the media because he's a smoker, but the same freedom that gives the media the right to pass judgment gives Sen. Obama the right to smoke, or quit if he so chooses.
Smokers are just like nonsmokers -- there are very good and very bad people in both groups.
Sen. Obama and smokers in general should be judged only by who they are and what they bring to the job's requirements. Is Sen. Obama the right man for the job, regardless of his smoking status? Millions of voters are being asked that question. Stay tuned for the answer.
Will the anti-smoking Democrats deny him the job if he doesn't quit, just like they have worked so hard to do to the common folk?
Dave Pickrell
KATY, TEXAS
THE WRITER IS PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF SMOKERS FIGHTING DISCRIMINATION.
