Government must spend money
To the editor:
The Republicans say they are tired of all the money the government is spending to help the citizens of our nation. One GOP senator tried to stop the extension of unemployment benefits that eventually passed.
Now they want to stop the government from giving senior citizens $250 to make up for the fact that they didn't get a cost-of-living raise in Social Security. Their excuse: It adds to our national debt.
Their excuse for not wanting to extend unemployment benefits? The people who are unemployed won't continue to look for work. They don't want to pass health care reform because of the cost to the national debt, when they know if something isn't done the whole nation will go bankrupt.
Republicans can't seem to understand that for eight years they were the party that put the nation in debt.
To meet any kind of budget you will have to spend just to keep any of the programs you already have in place. A perfect example is Gov. Jim Gibbons wanting to cut higher education by 30 percent -- that would mean no sports, no UNLV School of Nursing, no College of Southern Nevada.
In order for some programs to run, you have to spend. If your car is broken, don't you go get it fixed?
Michelle Bracey
Las Vegas
Democratic blowhards
To the editor:
GOP Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky held up a bill that would fund unemployment benefits (among other things), and the press, as well as other members of Congress, stumbled all over themselves to criticize him.
But seriously, did anyone not think that eventually the bill would pass and the benefits will be applied retroactively? Come on.
Sen. Bunning was making a point. The Democrats recently decided to implement "paygo" -- meaning any bill that requires spending must have a means to pay for that spending. Then, the Democrats try to push through a $10 billion bill that is not funded.
Who is kidding whom? Sen. Bunning says "paygo means paygo" or it doesn't. Then the Democrats blow a lot of hot air.
I have to agree with Sen. Bunning: The bill should pass only when it is amended with a means to pay for the spending.
David Adams
Las Vegas
Spending overhaul
To the editor:
A recent Review-Journal headline quoted lawmakers as saying that in the next regular session there will be a "tax overhaul" and/or a "retooling of the tax system." Why don't I hear cries about a "spending overhaul" or "retooling the spending system"?
Why is it necessary for legislatures to always focus on taxes, and not on spending? It is spending that gets states and legislatures into budgetary problems.
My message to the Legislature is: Get your spending in order because we have enough taxes. Do you hear us?
Jerry Pattison
Las Vegas
Boxed up
To the editor:
For years I've marveled at the mismanagement of the U.S. Postal Service. The failure of them to modernize their "customer service" is, in my opinion, directly responsible for their decline.
In point of fact, the USPS does a great job delivering letters and parcels -- once you can get them into the system. But as we all know, mailing a package has turned into a process only slightly less onerous than a root canal.
Had only the USPS bigwigs asked for an extra penny postage years ago and used the money to modernize their system and rewrite the rules to eliminate their clerks using tape-measures and scales (state of the art in 1930, I suppose) and bottle-necking the whole process.
Oh sure, I can buy postage online if I know the exact weight and dimensions of my parcel or use one of their "flat rate" boxes. But I still have to find a way to get the parcel into the hands of the USPS. Competitive business practices would have streamlined this whole process years ago.
James T. Davenport
Las Vegas
Reading homework
To the editor:
Byron York's Wednesday commentary reflects his opinions on why the current administration should drop health care reform -- or at least start over from scratch. He does not dispute the polling that suggests Americans like many of the concepts of the plan, but then refers to other polls stating that Americans do not want the legislation in its current form.
Now let's be honest here: How many people in the United States have read the proposed legislation? How about a show of hands?
Republicans love to point out the size of this bill, 1,900 pages, 2,000 pages. I think I even heard 2,400 or 2,800 pages. Is it really reasonable to expect that all those people polled who "don't like the bill" but like most of the components actually read it, and understand it too?
I think it more likely that 90 percent of them are too busy working and the other 10 percent are too busy trying to find a job.
Michael Goodman
Henderson
Sold short
To the editor:
In your recent story about the success of the first kidney transplant chain at UMC, you rightfully highlighted the work of transplant coordinator Cecile Aguayo. Her hard work and extensive training allowed not only the Nevada recipient, but 11 others to receive a new lease on life with a new kidney.
You have sold Ms. Aguayo short, however, by not identifying her as a registered nurse. The readers of the Review-Journal deserve to know the credentials of those identified in your stories, and the professional nurses of Nevada deserve credit for their education, training and commitment to serve the people of Nevada.
Michael Sieczka
HENDERSON
The writer is a registered nurse.
