Debate should include all the candidates
To the editor:
In response to the Tuesday story, "Reid, Sandoval to debate Sunday on education": I see where five of the seven gubernatorial candidates on the ballot are being denied entrance to the debate, leaving only Democrat Rory Reid and Republican Brian Sandoval.
So the debate sponsors -- 8 News Now, the Review-Journal and Vegas PBS -- are the new election board that decides who is a candidate and who isn't?
And the decision is based solely on a candidate's fundraising?
This appears to be nothing but a ploy by the media to control an election instead of taking the high road and giving Nevada voters exposure to all the candidates. Politics never changes: Nevadans continue to receive the best politics money can buy.
Ron Moers
Henderson
Depend on government
To the editor:
In his Aug. 20 letter, "Big government," Richard Frost attempts to resurrect the discredited "trickle down theory." He appears to believe if we just give the rich more money, tax free, then the rich will spend the money and stimulate the economy.
Hogwash.
If someone has $50 million, and we give him another $5 million, do you really think he will rush out and spend that extra money? The reality is he will probably buy Treasury bonds. After all, rich people don't get rich by spending money, they get rich by not spending money.
Mr. Frost states, "Any funds kept out of the hands of government will result in stronger economic activity. The fact that government produces nothing other than policies that are detrimental to a growing economy cannot be ignored."
Mr. Frost could not be more wrong. In fact, the government produces jobs. Our government is the world's largest employer. It produces far more jobs than any company on the face of the Earth.
Let's look at the facts.
Shortly after President Bill Clinton was elected, he pushed through a large tax increase for the people in the top tax bracket, the top 1.2 percent, while leaving the tax rate for the middle class untouched. What happened? The country experienced tremendous economic growth. Twenty-three million jobs were created. We had a huge budget surplus. Unemployment was the lowest in 30 years.
Now look at what happened during the Bush administration. As soon as he got into office, Mr. Bush, along with his associates in Congress, was able to enact huge tax cuts for the rich. What happened? The budget surplus left from the Clinton years disappeared. We went from having a budget surplus of $236 billion to having a budget deficit of $1.2 trillion. Unemployment increased.
There were only 1 million jobs created during the entire Bush administration. By the end of the Bush years we were losing jobs at a rate of 800,000 per month.
After examining these facts and figures, can anyone say, with a straight face, that it is better to give the rich more tax breaks?
Rick Tope
Las Vegas
Stay retired
To the editor:
I just heard former Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury telling us that he's going to ask the Legislature to raise our sales taxes another percentage point -- at resorts -- so that a new arena can be built behind the Strip.
He flat out stated that 95 percent of the increase would be paid by tourists.
This is the "big lie" told to all of us who actually pay the taxes. Now this is the continuing lie that has been told to all of us Nevadans throughout the years.
Obviously Mr. Woodbury doesn't understand, or want to understand, that we the people of Nevada pay the bulk of the sales taxes, not the tourists who right now don't seem to want to spend much here in Las Vegas or in other parts of Nevada.
I guess that Mr. Woodbury didn't hear the dismal news that the unemployment rate in Las Vegas is now 14.8 percent and the Nevada rate is up to 14.3 percent. Where does he think that we are going to get more money to pay taxes so that his friends can make money on our backs?
Mr. Woodbury should remain retired, stay out of the spotlight and go pay his fair share of taxes for the rest of the people in Nevada.
Bob Dubin
Las Vegas
Grotesque passion
To the editor:
It is vogue to complain about the "cash" national debt that we will leave for our future generations. There is another, perhaps greater, "national debt" we will leave to future generations. This is only recently being acknowledged.
It is from the political expedient of tax cutting, reduced spending and cash refunds.
This grotesque passion -- designed to pay off our citizens for political gain -- results in a failure to maintain or modernize our nation's infrastructure, institutions and services.
This political expedient has won elections by robbing future generations. The politicians who complain the loudest and most about our local, state and national spending and the effects on future generations, are purposefully silent about the costs of our equal failure to pass along adequate and updated infrastructure, institutions and services.
Our prior generation, the World War II generation, is known as the "Greatest Generation." Our generation will be known as the greedy, selfish generation.
Robert T. Steffan
Las Vegas
