Job-killing regulation drives poor and rich to Nevada

To the editor:

Your Thursday editorial, "On the MOVE to Las Vegas," highlighted the regulatory issues in California that have been responsible for the economic slowdown there, resulting in the loss of jobs and resultant migration to Nevada, sometimes of homeless or less fortunate folks. That migration is also happening on the other end of the economic spectrum.

It is no secret that California state income taxes impose a significant burden on working people, and many move to Nevada for lower taxes. More surprising, our state of Washington recently imposed a 19 percent death tax on larger estates, and many of us are moving to Las Vegas to escape this onerous new tax.

My wife and I decided that the state of Washington is just not our charity of choice, and a number of Washingtonians feel the very same way and are moving to Nevada in response to this very onerous tax, as well as California-style regulations (Washington lawmakers love to copy California laws).

So, rest assured, Nevada will be home to people of various walks of life, and we are pleased to be moving to Nevada.

Paul Birkeland

Joyce Birkeland

KIRKLAND, WASH.

Selecting judges

To the editor:

In response to your May 23 article, "Lawyers support appointing judges":

Having practiced law in Illinois for more than 40 years and having observed the judicial system here for more than 10, I've been able to observe the qualities of the respective election/appointment systems of selecting judges.

When I first started practicing, Illinois had contested elections for both initial and re-election campaigns. After much soul-searching, Illinois retained the contested initial election and went to a retention ballot for re-elections. Only if an incumbent failed to achieve a 70 percent approval by ballot was there a subsequent contested election for that judicial position.

The Missouri system of appointment, in my opinion, while it works to some extent, is based on politics and not necessarily competence. While it does take the campaign funding out of the process, so does retention balloting. A sitting judge should never be required to seek financial contributions from anyone -- especially members of the State Bar.

As we learned in a celebrated situation here in Clark County, contested elections do not necessarily seat a good candidate, but they at least allow the interested public a chance to vet each candidate and to seek the better one for the position.

It is interesting the article emphasized that older lawyers are opposed to "merit selection"; maybe because we've seen that back-room politics, whether in the executive or judiciary, is not necessarily the best way to preserve judicial integrity.

Earle Malkin

LAS VEGAS

Oil supplies

To the editor:

Your Tuesday editorial, "Congress and the oil companies," missed the mark on a few points.

You wrote: "If oil companies substantially reduced their profits and thus their stock dividends, investment would fall, making it harder for them to afford exploration for and development of the new deposits necessary to keep supplies flowing. Supplies would drop; prices would go up."

I have read in the very recent past that oil companies are not being allowed to "explore," and that even if they were, no new refineries are being built to process more oil than we are already processing. So where are the supplies that would drop?

The only news I read or hear is that our own country supplies very little of the oil we consume. Almost all of it comes from elsewhere, which makes us very vulnerable to what is already happening in the markets.

Just bypass the idiots who are holding exploration back, and let's show the world that we did it before, and we can do it again.

Has all of our Yankee know-how disappeared? I, for one, don't think so.

E.J. McCormick

LAS VEGAS

Fleecing taxpayers

To the editor:

According to a Wednesday article in the Review-Journal, District Judge Elizabeth Halverson's attorneys are withdrawing from her disciplinary case for undisclosed reasons. The suspended Judge Halverson cites that it is her inability to pay. This is not the first time she has shirked her financial obligations.

This woman has been fleecing the taxpayers for more $10,000 a month in salary since last July while sitting home, doing nothing. She can't pay for her own counsel?

In addition, she wants to delay her hearing another five months so she can prepare to act as her own counsel. If she is not familiar enough with her own case and the laws that apply to it, do we really want her back on the bench deciding other cases?

She has wasted enough taxpayer money and time. It would be wise for us all to remember this should she actually appear on the ballot in November.

Laura Friedlander

LAS VEGAS

Behind the rhetoric

To the editor:

I hope people are listening attentively to Sen. Barack Obama's speeches and giving at least a modicum of thought to what he is saying now, as opposed to what he has said earlier on the same subjects. If so, they will have noticed that many of his speeches or declarations on substantive topics are refinements of previous statements he couldn't sell -- corrections to cover the fact that his previous words did not carry the weight of common sense, let alone measure up to the mature thought one would expect of a presidential candidate.

To borrow from the story of "Superman," it's as if the Super Obama responds to exposure of his naive pronouncements by ducking into a phone booth and changing to a different speech.

Consider his cover speech delivered after his "willing to meet with no preconditions" speech. It pointed to various countries, one of which was Iran, as no threat to the United States. Well, Sen. Obama fans, I don't know about you, but to me even the tiniest nuke is a really big bomb, many orders of magnitude above your basic IEDs or shopping mall suicide bombs, which are horrendous enough.

Remember when those tiny missiles started showing up on the tiny island of Cuba? One of Sen. Obama's idols, President Kennedy, decided Cuba had suddenly grown big enough to go to war with -- even though doing so might precipitate war with the great, big Soviet Union.

It's becoming more and more apparent that the forces behind the Obama campaign chose their candidate for his ability to charm and enthrall with scripted rhetoric. But the glowing phrases, resonant tones, far-reaching visions and comforting promises born in carefully honed and meticulously crafted speeches -- calculated to send listeners into euphoric rapture -- won't mean a darn thing to leaders in other countries. Those leaders won't wait patiently for the inevitable interpretation to follow in the aftermath of something naively stated originally. You may get four balls, but you don't get three strikes in that league.

Let's get serious. Selecting a president to lead this great country is big-time. We mustn't confuse it with choosing sides on a playground.

S. Deas

LAS VEGAS

Write stuff?

To the editor:

Geoff Schumacher's Sunday column, "Obama-Webb ticket has the write stuff," is devoted primarily to the book-writing proficiencies of notable people over the years, including Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Jim Webb. The headline would seem to indicate that it is very important the next president (and vice president) of the United States have some mastery of good writing.

I think this is an admirable secondary attribute for a president to have. The column does not mention of what ideologies an Obama/Webb ticket would follow. This seriously concerns me, as the left would have complete control over the direction of our country should we elect Sen. Obama and whatever running mate he chooses.

CLAReNCE LANZRATH

LAS VEGAS