Government ‘creates’ jobs at huge cost

To the editor:

Our new president wants to spend $850 billion (so far) on an economic stimulus bill that he says will create 3 million jobs. The question we need to ask is, "Where will that money come from?"

Government can get money to spend only by raising taxes, either directly on people who are alive today or indirectly by borrowing from them and raising taxes on those not yet born. Borrowing is more popular because the people who will have to pay it back are not alive to object to it. The new spending seems to come without cost.

But where is the $850 billion right now? It's in bank deposits, corporate stocks and bonds and municipal bonds. Banks and corporations and municipalities will have to pay higher interest rates to attract replacement capital, reducing their ability to pay for jobs and loans and infrastructure and growth. The 3 million "new" jobs will be mirrored by 3 million jobs lost.

So what to do? Remember that jobs are created by businesses that produce things that people want. Stimulate them by cutting their taxes and their customers' taxes. But to avoid the increased costs of deficits, the tax cut must be matched by a cut in government spending.

The only difference between this plan and the "stimulus" plan is who decides how to spend the money: millions of individuals acting in their own best interest or 536 politicians acting in theirs.

Richard McCord

HENDERSON

Boondoggle delight

To the editor:

Here we go again! Another developer is proposing another casino project for downtown, this time for Union Park ("Developer proposes casino downtown," Saturday Review-Journal). Of course, it is contingent on the Las Vegas City Council approving its new City Hall plan at a cost of at least $150 million.

And the City Council is trying to borrow $80 million from its sewer fund to prop up downtown redevelopment and keep open the cobweb-covered doors for a few more months ("State checking Las Vegas loan proposal," Saturday Review-Journal).

When is the council going to stop pipe-dreaming and subsidizing its downtown obsession? And when are taxpayers going to finally say "enough is enough" to their tax money being used to benefit an area so few of them have ever benefited from?

The least the council could do is use a few measly dollars to dig out the permanent Interstate 15 barrier on F Street, which denies West Las Vegas residents access to downtown. That is a dangerously embarrassing blemish for our city in the new Obama Nation.

KENT RISCHLING

LAS VEGAS

Grammar lesson?

To the editor:

On the front page of the Jan. 24 Las Vegas Sun -- I know the Las Vegas Review-Journal is not responsible for the drivel that flows from its "rival" newspaper even though it's inserted -- is a photo so telling of Nevada's educational failures that I must comment.

In the photo of UNLV students demonstrating against Gov. Jim Gibbons' proposed cuts, there is a sign that says, "Epic Fail Gibbons." Bad grammar? Of course, and it's so obvious that any semi-intelligent reader would scoff at someone who displayed such ignorance in letters 2 feet tall. Perhaps Gov. Gibbons is an epic failure, or has failed in an epic way, but he cannot be "Epic Fail Gibbons."

Apparently, the Sun knew this, and Sun writer Charlotte Hsu felt obliged to explain it. She wrote that UNLV freshman James Valera was using slang made popular on the Internet.

So what we see in the protest is a teenager complaining about funding not guaranteed by the state constitution and doing so in such a way that he proves to the entire world that he's a dimwit. Which, oddly enough, makes somewhat of a case that the poor guy needs an education. Go figure.

For the Sun to try to cover the obvious misuse of "urban slang" because it stands out on its front-page photo, however, was deceptive. They know better. Apparently, they just don't care.

And we wonder why little Jimmy can't write.

Joseph Wheeler

LAS VEGAS

Costly benefits

To the editor:

Your Sunday In Depth story, "Public service pays off," reported that former Henderson Police Chief Richard Perkins received $235,621 for unused vacation and sick leave upon his retirement from the force last year.

Based on his departing salary of $168,478, that would imply that he had 1.4 years of accrued vacation and sick leave. That's almost 73 weeks of paid time off. At six weeks of paid leave per year (four weeks of vacation and two weeks of sick leave), it would 12 years of perfect attendance to save that much.

One has to wonder how much time off he got each year. Didn't the city have any policies in place regarding the use of vacation and sick pay? In the private sector, most companies require their employees to use their paid time off, and they have limits on the maximum amount of leave that can be carried over.

No wonder cites and states are having budget crises.

Clifford Licko

HENDERSON