By Democrats’ definition, ‘stimulus’ can’t fail

To the editor:

No matter what happens with future employment, the Democrats’ “economic stimulus” by their definition will be a big success. The plan says it will either add or preserve 3 million jobs.

Let us consider three possible ways that may happen two years from now:

First, the number of employed increases by 1 million, a big success since 2 million jobs have been preserved.

Second, the number of employed decreases by 2 million, a big success because without this stimulus, total employment would have decreased by 5 million.

Third, the number of unemployed doesn’t change, a big success since without this stimulus, 3 million more people would have lost their jobs.

So, as you can clearly see, this phony economic stimulus is a big success no matter what happens in the future, by the Democrats’ definition. Smart, don’t you think?

Marc Jeric


Image problems

To the editor:

Now that Wall Street and our country’s lending industry have completed their greed-driven ruination of every American’s dream of home ownership, they have set their sites on diverting the blame.

Why not convince the world that Las Vegas is to blame? Wells Fargo and now Goldman Sachs have pulled meetings scheduled to be held here, as if being in Las Vegas is bad for their image. They seriously need to look in the mirror.

The only difference between Wall Street and Las Vegas Boulevard is that in Las Vegas people gamble with their own money.

David Lyons


Sorry’s not enough

To the editor:

I don’t blame Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman for being irate with Washington. He’s more than justified in his demands for an apology from President Obama for singling out Las Vegas as an unsavory destination for business travel (Wednesday Review-Journal).

If President Bush had cost Las Vegas the loss of revenues that President Obama has, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be screaming from the rooftops. All of a sudden Sen. Reid lost his voice.

Or does he think telling us that President Obama is coming to Las Vegas in the spring is appeasement enough (Friday Review-Journal)?

Sorry, Sen. Reid, the president’s visit is not enough. Tell the president to bring a signed blank check and let the hotels fill in the amount — and he can forget the verbal apology.

Bob Giglia


Out of context

To the editor:

So, the not-so-honorable Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman wants an apology from President Obama for saying that companies shouldn’t travel to Las Vegas on the taxpayer’s dime? Well, people in hell want ice water, too, but that doesn’t mean they get it.

Mayor Goodman will not get, nor does he deserve, an apology. He conveniently ignored the phrase “on the taxpayer’s dime.” As far as I’m concerned, companies shouldn’t hold meetings in Peoria, Ill., “on the taxpayer’s dime.” Let them spend their own money, not ours.

The mayor’s demand for an apology is nothing more or less than political posturing and grandstanding. He should be ashamed to call himself an American, at a time when we all need to be sacrificing and supporting calls to end the excesses indulged in by these business “leaders.”

President Obama never said that people should not visit Las Vegas. What he said was that it shouldn’t be financed via taxpayer dollars. Mr. Goodman chose to deliberately misinterpret his remarks by taking them out of context.

Joseph Wild


Where’s the outrage

To the editor:

Our supreme leader has decreed that our town is off-limits for business travel to those who’ve received federal bailout money.

Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Shelley Berkley and Rep. Dina Titus should be all over this. Are they too busy spending my great-grandkids’ money to pay attention? Where is the outrage from all the union members who put this man in power? I guess we got what the majority wanted.

Robert Raider


It’s our money

To the editor:

President Obama’s quote on the front page of Tuesday’s Review-Journal is very telling: “The federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life.”

Those “resources” are the taxes they have taken from businesses and individuals and the future taxes the government will take from us. Give those “resources” back to the American people and businesses in the form of tax cuts and let us jolt the economy back to life as we see fit. Wasting our precious “resources” on partisan paybacks to groups such as ACORN and the other many, many pork projects that the stimulus package is stuffed with will do nothing for our economy and will just put us further into debt.

Karen Gunderson


Bottoms up

To the editor:

In response to the “stimulus” bill: Spending our way into prosperity makes as much sense as drinking your way into sobriety.

Where did we ever get this bunch of airheads?

R.A. Salter


Trust the pros?

To the editor:

In response to Vin Suprynowicz’s Sunday column about people managing their 401(k) accounts: Mr. Suprynowicz bemoans the fact that if he was just allowed to manage his own account, he could have avoided suffering substantial losses in the recent economic downturn.

The whole point of a 401(k) account is to achieve tax-deferred status when your income is high and incur taxes when your income is low. Should that allow the government to determine what our accounts are invested in? OK, maybe yes, maybe no. Everyone has an opinion.

The real issue is not only do most laymen not know how to invest, most professionals don’t, either. When things are banging and all the fine folks are raking in the dough, everyone is a genius, but once the proverbial assets hit the fan, it all comes out in the wash.

Any good adviser will advise his clients to mimic the economy, meaning 30 percent in government bonds, 50 percent in the Dow Jones, 10 percent in Nasdaq, 5 percent in cash and 5 percent in gold, on average. These averages are flexible, depending on your risk aversion, age, etc. Getting a steady 10 percent return will allow you to retire nice and comfy when it’s time to spend the kids’ inheritance.

So, Mr. Suprynowicz, please stick to your libertarian rants and leave the investing to those who get paid to lose your money.

Daniel Malloy


Coal way too costly

To the editor:

Planning a major, long-lived coal-fired power plant based on unsustainable practices is a very bad idea (“Reid applauds NV Energy for shelving Ely coal plant,” Tuesday Review-Journal).

Coal is considered an economically viable choice for energy only because all of the impacts related to its use are not properly accounted for in our economic system. The numerous negative environmental effects from its mining through the release and disposal of waste products are well-documented. Isn’t the true cost of acidifying the oceans and increasing the atmospheric carbon dioxide content incalculable? We can’t afford to go there, we know it, and we must stop going down that dead-end road.

Gouging the Earth in one place and piling waste in another creates two areas of destruction. Displacing production from use results in more wasted energy plus the need for additional and/or enlarged energy corridors with their associated negative effects. For the sake of jobs, why degrade a relatively pristine environment over a large area for a long time to produce more power enabling growth in an area without enough water to sustainably support it?

The industry is championing clean coal but has not proved that it can be delivered. Even if it could, it is a technology that should be replaced, and Ely is a poor place to put it. Apparently, even NV Energy now sees the light.

The fact that NV Energy has just postponed its plans for a coal-based energy facility near Ely lends credence to the argument that if enough true costs are addressed by economics, then coal becomes too expensive to use.

William Belknap



News Headlines
pos-2 — ads_infeed_1
post-4 — ads_infeed_2
Local Spotlight
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like