Immaculate conception, Washington style

To the editor:

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution states in part: "But in all such Cases the Vote of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively."

Although quaint, could the language be any clearer? How can Speaker Nancy Pelosi now tell us Congress can deem a bill has passed without actually voting on it?

When confronted about this scam, some Democrats have said the Republicans have done it in the past. Two points: First, pointing to someone else's bad behavior to excuse yours is what children do when they are in trouble. Second, and most important, it is unconstitutional.

After the Constitutional Convention, a Mrs. Powel asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Mr. Franklin's response: "A republic, if you can keep it." If Congress can so easily defy the Constitution, it has been proved that "we the people" weren't vigilant enough to keep it.

ROBERT GARDNER

HENDERSON

Payroll tax holiday

To the editor:

The financial hole into which we are digging ourselves with out-of-control spending will make our current problems look trivial compared with those we will be facing in the future. Barring government default or hyperinflation, the only way out of this situation is economic growth and the resulting increased tax revenue. Jobs will directly result from this increased growth.

Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, have proposed a payroll tax holiday. This would provide a 6.2 percent increase in pay (actually 10 percent in take-home pay, because this money would not be subject to additional payroll and income taxes), and the same amount for businesses.

Consumers will be more likely to spend this "free money." The business sector, which currently do not want to borrow in these uncertain times (if they even can), would be able to use this money to expand their business and/or reduce their prices to get more domestic and overseas sales. Both actions would result in new jobs.

This action would jump-start the economy immediately, across all areas of business and the country.

The stimulus bill passed a year ago has been a dismal failure in the generation of jobs. We need to learn the lessons from the 1930s in the U.S., the 2000s in Japan and the results from the first year of the current stimulus: said fiscal policies do not work.

Spending, while generating temporary jobs, does not do anything to encourage long-term growth, which is required to get us out of this death spiral of debt. The government borrowing to support this spending removes capital from the private sector, thereby limiting real growth.

Monetary policy involving low interest rates, low taxes, and reduced spending is a proven approach to our current and future problems.

HENRY SCHMID

LAS VEGAS

Just trust us

To the editor:

To meet Senate reconciliation rules, the Obamacare "fixes" must result in deficit reductions at least as much as those projected (dreamed up) in the original Senate bill.

Since the current version of the fixes will not meet that requirement, Democrats plan to add to the already huge tax increases future Congresses must enact -- taxes the current Congress is afraid to pass.

To paraphrase the great philosopher Wimpy, if you give me a hamburger today, I will pay you next week.

DAVE FAIR

LAS VEGAS

5 million new bureaucrats

To the editor:

I have a theory on the real reasons the Obama administration is so frantically attempting to impose its national health care system on the citizenry of the United States.

Canada's population is approximately 33 million people. Approximately 1.3 million workers are assigned to administer their inept health care system. Extrapolating this out, covering the U.S. citizenry of more than 300 million in a national health care program, could require approximately 5 million or more government employees.

If this bill passed, it would help President Obama with a couple of promises he has made. The unions would be happy, as all of the workers associated with administering a national health plan would undoubtedly belong to one union or another. That would help Mr. Obama's promise to help unions expand their tentacles.

Obama promised to create millions of new jobs. The only problem is that he did not specify in which sector of the economy they would be increased. It is obvious the increases would be in the government sector and not in the private sector. The increase in the government work force would further solidify the Democratic Party base.

I believe most economists would agree that we can best improve our ailing economy by increasing job opportunities in the private sector and not by increasing our already-bloated government bureaucracy. A certain amount of individual responsibility concerning one's health could go a long way in reducing health care costs.

Wait a minute. Would liberals dare bring up individual responsibility, as their goals appear to make the citizenry completely dependent on government?

Caution: If the government gets one foot in the door, it will just be a matter of time before government has it all.

CLARENCE LANZRATH

LAS VEGAS