Depression stimulus helped employment numbers
To the editor:
In response to your Saturday editorial, "We're No. 1," it has been wisely said: "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
The editorial states that "heavy-handed government interventions made unemployment worse every year throughout the 1930s." The facts are: Between 1930 to 1933, while the government watched, the unemployment rate in the United States rose from 3.14 percent to 24.75 percent. In 1934, the unemployment rate was 21.6 percent. So in April 1935, Congress passed (although hotly debated at the time) the Works Progress Administration program. From 1935 until 1939 the total amount spent was $7 billion (approximately $770 billion in today's dollars). By 1939, the last year of the program, unemployment had dropped to 17.05 percent.
After the program ended, the unemployment rate continued to improve without further government stimulus, dropping to 14.45 percent in 1940 and 9.66 percent in 1941.
BARRY THALDEN
HENDERSON
Blame the GOP
To the editor:
Clark County has been one of the country's hardest-hit areas when it comes to unemployment and government budget deficits. The GOP and the Harry Reid haters can attempt to lay the blame for this debacle at the feet of our great senator, but it is a fairy tale at best.
The lack of regulations in the housing, construction and financial markets that created this crisis came thanks to a GOP-controlled administration.
Remember when land values skyrocketed and developers were building at an uncontrolled and, for the most part, unregulated pace? The construction workers and families came here by the thousands from other states to stake their claim for work. If the folks who migrated here during the boom had returned to their initial residence during the downturn, our unemployment rate would be comparable to most other states.
What we do not need is the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Joe Barton and other right-wing crazies polluting our minds, trying to separate fact from fiction.
United is a win-win situation.
Don Ellis
Henderson
Art of compromise
To the editor:
Your Monday editorial, "Buying votes," suggested the recent legislative compromise necessary to get the Disclose Act passed by Congress has produced a "bad bill."
It has not. Responsible legislating is the art of compromise, so long as the objectives of the legislation are kept intact.
The Disclose Act is all about the fundamental right of voters to know which groups are spending money to influence their elections and which donors are funding these groups. Several lobbying organizations geared up to kill the legislation -- and likely would have succeeded -- but congressional leaders negotiated a very limited exemption principally benefiting the National Rifle Association and Sierra Club.
These groups must still be identified as sponsoring any campaign ad, but they need not disclose their individual donors. It is a troubling strategic decision, but the compromise poses little damage to overall objectives of the legislation. We all know who is behind the NRA and the Sierra Club, and their policy agendas are a matter of public record.
The Disclose Act still provides what the public desperately needs to know: full disclosure of the otherwise secretive corporate and wealthy funders behind the tidal wave of campaign ads following the Supreme Court's disastrous decision to allow unlimited corporate spending in elections.
Craig Holman
Washington, D.C.
The writer is a legislative representative with the group Public Citizen.
Entitlement dangers
To the editor:
Talk about misinformation. We seniors on Medicare and Social Security are being told that Sharron Angle is a threat to Medicare and Social Security, with the implication that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is our salvation.
But Social Security and Medicare are nearly broke, and we have heard nothing from Sen. Reid on how he intends to save them. Is he really concerned, or does he just want to be re-elected?
The immediate danger to Social Security and Medicare is a bankrupt nation brought about by President Obama's deficit spending, not Sharron Angle's efforts to keep our retirement money out of the hands of politicians. When there's no money in the Treasury, rest assured, we won't get Social Security checks.
President Obama has been able to pass expensive legislation against the will of the people -- e.g. ObamaCare -- mainly because of two people: Sen. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Thus the immediate threat to Social Security is Obama's deficit spending, enabled by our own Sen. Harry Reid.
LEE R. BISHOP
Las Vegas
Going broke
To the editor:
According to your Tuesday article, "County agencies to feel strain," the county is going to lay off 106 full-time workers to save $28 million. That's $264,000 per employee. Where can I get a job like that?
No wonder the county is broke.
jim haddad
las vegas
