How exactly did Harry Reid save CityCenter jobs?
To the editor:
A great deal of attention has been given to Sen. Harry Reid's efforts to "save" CityCenter from a financial crisis before its opening. What, exactly, did Sen. Reid do? Did he get on the phone and pressure bankers to come up with financing? Did he make promises to these bankers, as he did with the senators he persuaded to vote for ObamaCare -- remember the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase"?
No one really knows what actions Sen. Reid took and what consequences these actions will have for taxpayers, either in Nevada or in other states. In step with the new "transparency" of the Obama administration, the majority leader has not let us know what went on behind closed doors. But one can only imagine.
Ellen Shaw
Henderson
Not Harry
To the editor:
When elected to the Senate, Republican Sharron Angle will be a freshman legislator with little power. She is not being elected as the Senate majority leader. The only thing she can accomplish is voting against any more stimulus plans and bills to take over more industries.
In that regard, she should not talk about what she plans to do when elected. Anything she says will be twisted and exaggerated into a wild and radical agenda -- for example her "phase out Social Security" comment, a proposal that would have to be done over at least 45 years, was turned into "penalize senior citizens by taking away their monthly checks."
The major attribute Ms. Angle has is that she is not Harry Reid. She needs to use it.
Richard Healy
Las Vegas
Big money
To the editor:
Recently, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform warned that our national debt, currently at $13 trillion ($13,000,000,000,000) is a "cancer that will destroy the country." This is a perspicacious warning that must be taken seriously. Think about it. The debt figure translates to $47,000 for each American (adult and child inclusive).
Come November, voters should bear this in mind. The only way to extirpate this cancer is to vote out all those politicians who advocate "tax and spend."
Alfonso L. Tiu
Henderson
Dangerous cuts
To the editor:
You are right. We should be slashing the budget for firefighters and police. We lead the nation in the worst schools, health care and highest unemployment.
There is no reason why we can't lead in the in the worst firefighting and police response.
Why should some guy who just had a heart attack on a craps table at Wynn Las Vegas or Bellagio have some firefighter on overtime show up in the first 10 minutes. Let him lay there for a couple of hours. Better yet, have the casino (private sector) take care of him. Look at the money the taxpayers would save.
Bill Clements
Las Vegas
Road to serfdom
To the editor:
A recent letter writer asked where Barack Obama's priorities are when it comes to the lawsuit the federal government recently filed against Arizona over illegal immigration. This president has made it crystal clear that his priorities lie in redistributing wealth and leading this country down the road to serfdom.
Jeanne Armstrong
Surprise, Ariz.
Whose interest?
To the editor:
The article in last week's Review-Journal, "Immigration law challenged," quotes the Justice Department as justifying the lawsuit against Arizona under the guise that the state law is "harming diplomatic relations" and is not a "a careful balance of foreign relations."
These statements highlight how President Obama puts foreign interests above the interests of U.S. citizens.
Henry Schmid
Las Vegas
No profiling
To the editor:
John Brummett's Sunday column showed that he has not read Arizona's illegal immigration law. If a person, as he described, shows a valid driver's license, that person has just proved his citizenship. It doesn't matter if he looks like Pancho Villa, no other documentation needs to be produced.
The evidence that the media doesn't seem interested in reporting facts anymore is disturbing to me, and I hope a lot more people like me.
Rich Ulrich
Kingman, Ariz.
Gun rights
To the editor:
The Supreme Court recently stated we have a Second Amendment right to own a firearm, but at the same time states are still allowed to put restrictions on their ownership, i.e., no felonies, registration, etc. I find this no different, or less restrictive, than allowing corporations to contribute to a candidate but adding the caveat that the corporations be required to disclose such information to the secretary of state.
The voter should indeed be allowed to know the source of such advertising so he can accordingly determine what weight, truth or veracity to give to the ad or its creators.
Ron Moers
Henderson
