To the editor:
It was with great interest that I read Rep. Dina Titus’ letter to the editor (“‘Cadillac tax’ repeal boosts Obamacare,” May 10 Review-Journal). During her previous term in Congress, after she was elected in 2008, I wrote her letters pointing out discrepancies in the Affordable Care Act. However, she voted lockstep with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pass the bill and then see what was in it.
The SEIU was a force, lending its support as well. What we have found in the legislation is a Pandora’s box of problems, intentional and otherwise. The Cadillac tax was pushed by Democrats from the White House on down as one way to help fund the ACA. Now, the SEIU and other unions are concerned about the implications of the tax on their members.
Like most politicians, Rep. Titus is great at pointing fingers at problems without really considering the answer. Her solution of just repealing the tax is shortsighted at best. She does not offer a viable means to recover the revenue that will not be collected. Where will that money come from?
When the ACA was passed, Medicare took a $500 million hit. Seniors and those of us with disabilities have been paying dearly for that boondoggle. If the “Cadillac tax” is repealed, will the missing money come from Medicare again?
Ask doctors and nurses if the compensation has affected the care patients receive. Rep. Titus failed to note that her tax-repeal proposal will definitely affect Nevada adversely by shortchanging the budget for Medicare in this state.
Gov. Brian Sandoval backed creating an ACA exchange in Nevada, and he is a Republican. The ACA is not a partisan issue, as Rep. Titus would like to color it. This is a long-term issue that needs long-term solutions, not mere campaign rhetoric.
NORTH LAS VEGAS
To the editor:
The NFL has spoken. Unless New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady successfully appeals his punishment, he will miss the first four games of the upcoming season and will forfeit $2 million. His reputation might have been sullied a bit, but the NFL’s punishment will not change Mr. Brady’s standard of living.
His overall income will still put him in the uppermost part of the upper 1 percent, along with his supermodel wife, Gisele Bundchen, who earned $47 million in 2014. And let’s not forget that Mr. Brady’s share of this year’s Super Bowl bonus was $2.6 million. So his net earnings will actually increase by at least $600,000 this year.
The Patriots have to pay the NFL a $1 million fine. But they’re paying Mr. Brady $2 million less as a result of his penalties, so the Patriots are actually $1 million better off. Yes, the Patriots lose two draft picks, but the picks they eventually get will probably be less expensive than the ones they lost, meaning their overall net gain will be well in excess of $1 million. Plus, there’s all the free publicity the team has received, meaning that both the Patriots and Mr. Brady are making out just fine.
Had the NFL banished Mr. Brady and/or coach Bill Belichick from football for life, that would have been a real punishment. What the NFL actually did was just meaningless window dressing.
Start naming names
To the editor:
After reading Jim Hunter’s letter (“Draining Lake Mead,” Wednesday Review-Journal), I too am amazed at all the homes being built here, as well as the water parks. We know the names of the homebuilders, as they are plastered on billboards around the city. How about someone giving us the names of the politicians who grant these building permits, so that we can vote them out of office?