‘Big Oil’ profits because we keep buying

To the editor:

In response to Ken Hamm's March 10 critique of the Review-Journal editorial, "Attacking 'Big Oil,' " I offer this from Economics 101.

Mr. Hamm's analogy of ice cream and gasoline is referring to the price elasticity of demand. He is correct about the differences between ice cream and gasoline and how their demand reacts to changes in price. He observes that when the price of some goods (ice cream) rises, there is a significant change in demand, and in others (gasoline), there is no or little change in demand. He infers that the oil companies can charge whatever they want because there will be little change in demand. But that is only part of the story.

The record profits that the oil companies are reaping are coming on record sales. The return on those sales has increased, but only slightly so, from 5 percent to 10 percent since 2002. Concurrently, world demand has risen, and so has the main input to produce gasoline (crude oil).

The facts are that prices are the best way to allocate resources. China, India and the United States are all consuming larger amounts of oil than ever before. All of these countries are bidding up the price of oil as their demand increases, thus allocating resources efficiently. The oil companies are making record profits by meeting the demands of the consumer. I personally would encourage consumers to buy more economical cars if they want to make a difference in their consumption, and hence their total gasoline bill.

Another note: When inelastic goods (such as gasoline) are taxed, most if not all of the tax will be passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. Companies are unlikely to hurt their bottom line if consumers are willing to pay at any price.

Keep that in mind when our presidential candidates speak about who they are going to tax and who will actually pay those taxes.

Joseph Hassen

NORTH LAS VEGAS

False labels

To the editor:

The front-page Associated Press article in the March 10 Review-Journal reports that the Southern Poverty Law Center has charged the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) with being a "hate group."

I researched FAIR and found it to be a principled, concerned group advocating fairness and justice in the reform of current immigration policies. I have also noticed that proponents of open borders and amnesty for illegals (such as the National Council of La Raza) consistently ignore data and the American concern for justice on who should enter the United States. It appears to me that the irrational, strident screams of amnesty advocates lack logic and heart-felt concern for Americans who bear the financial burden for the health care, education and incarceration costs of illegals. They also attack through false charges ("hate") rather than through reasoned regard for law and taxpayer fairness.

Businesses that hire illegals continue to attract more and more illegals and their dependents -- all at the expense of American taxpayers. Schools also bear the burden of increased numbers of students in special limited-English-proficiency programs. These classes are costly to local taxpayers and an added fiscal burden at the national level. Furthermore, these remedial programs absorb resources that otherwise would be available for legal, English-speaking students.

While it is true that illegals do make some positive contribution to our American society, those contributions are far short of what they extract.

Come one, come all -- legally. It is not "hate" to be against illegal migration.

Paula Stone

HENDERSON

Illegal jackpot

To the editor:

I cannot believe that the state has authorized such a big payday for the people affected by the crash caused by former Nevada Highway Patrol trooper Joshua Corcran ("Board approves accident payout," Wednesday Review-Journal).

Although Mr. Corcran was definitely at fault, the $1.3 million award should have been severely limited because these people weren't even in the country legally. They had no business being on the road in the first place, probably not having proper licenses, registration or insurance.

At least the baby born to the surviving teenager won't be milking taxpayers for years to come -- if her mother doesn't squander the money on something else.

Louise Nelson

HENDERSON

Tax hikes and earmarks

To the editor:

U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad's Wednesday letter repeated that the Democratic budget has no tax increases.

If you let the marriage penalty relief expire, that is an increase in taxes for a lot of families in the middle class. If you let the $1,000 per child tax credit revert to $500 per child, that is an increase in taxes paid for the same real income.

Let's not play around with the effects of letting the Bush tax cuts expire and claiming that is not a tax increase. If I pay more taxes on the same income, it sure as hell is a tax increase.

And while we are at it, let's hear the House and Senate demand no more earmarks for more than one year. Earmarks are nothing more than taxpayer-funded campaign contributions. Let's ban them forever.

Sue Grue

LAS VEGAS