LETTERS: Don’t forget, taxpayers provide subsidies for rooftop solar users
To the editor:
No one can be blamed for taking advantage of the subsidies to install solar panels on their houses. But their defensive letters — such as the one from Alise Bamforth (“NV Energy ad,” May 16 Review-Journal) — that deny the increased costs for everyone else have no basis in fact.
Taxpayers pay for the subsidies solar users receive. And as the amount of rooftop power climbs, the average cost of electricity from NV Energy has to rise to offset high-priced power from other sources. Renewable energy is expensive, and consumers have to pay for it one way or another.
TOM KELLER
HENDERSON
GOP and immigration
To the editor:
I read Lawrence Kudlow’s column on immigration and have an entirely different take on the subject (“Republican rigidity alienates Hispanics,” May 15 Review-Journal). Mr. Kudlow says Republicans should be open to giving citizenship to undocumented immigrants who illegally entered the U.S.
Republicans and all Americans should be in favor of the rule of law. In a Paragon Insights poll, by a margin of 56 to 37 percent, Hispanics want laws that make it harder to hire undocumented immigrants. The poll also showed that 58 percent of Americans oppose President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty plan.
Mr. Kudlow says Hispanics “believe in the sanctity of life, racial justice (whatever that means), economic growth and the values of hard work.” One thing he failed to mention, according to a Pew Research poll, is that 81 percent of new Latino immigrants, 75 percent of U.S. Hispanics, 72 percent of second-generation immigrants and 58 percent of third-generation immigrants favor big government, and only 19 percent prefer smaller government.
So if it’s a choice between big-government Democrats and small-government Republicans, who do you think the majority of Hispanics will vote for?
ROBERT GARDNER
HENDERSON
Certainties in life expand
To the editor:
An old expression states, “The only things certain in this life are death and taxes.” We need to make some updates to the “certain” things in life.
First, politicians will lie, steal, misappropriate funds and have affairs. “I didn’t have anything to do with my family getting good city jobs. As mayor, I don’t do any hiring.” “I turned over all pertinent emails. Trust me.” “We had plans to file amended tax returns. It was just coincidence that someone else found the error before we got around to it.”
Second, when discussing Social Security, members of Congress will throw their collective hands in the air, cry “Woe is us” and ignore the fact that Lyndon B. Johnson gave them carte blanche to use that money any way they saw fit, effectively bankrupting the fund.
Third, various councils, commissions, boards and associations will approve new construction and development while the next item on the agenda is how to cut down on water usage.
Fourth, taxes remain a sure thing, but when raised, 80 percent will go to administrators, consultants, advisors and lobbyists. Maybe these same people might see their way to pass some on to the classroom.
One thing on the “certain” list that might change is death. With medical advances, life can be extended by decades, but only if you are in the 1 percent, with the money to afford the treatments. The Affordable Care Act won’t help you there. One thing we can count on, though, is that in the long run, everyday Americans will be the ones called on to pay for all of these certainties.
It all kind of makes you wish for the days when there were only two certain things in life.
LOU YOUNG
NORTH LAS VEGAS
Catering gay weddings
To the editor:
After reading the reactions to L. Brent Bozell’s commentary (“A Christian solution on gay weddings,” April 22 Review-Journal), I feel the need to explain to the letter writers the important points they did not address. First of all, Nadia Romeo’s very critical observation suggests that the business owners in question — those who refuse catering for gay celebrations — should disavow their own Christian beliefs, church dogma and “make sacrifices” in such instances (“Un-Christian response,” May 1 Review-Journal).
Obviously Ms. Romeo does not realize the sinful position in which a Christian would find him or herself in doing so. The gift of faith leads one so gifted to follow his beliefs or suffer the consequences. The truly charitable answer to the problem would be for the gay couple to be understanding of the business owner’s position and simply take the request elsewhere. End of problem.
On the same subject, David Stahl writes that “caterers have the right to not serve gays,” but then goes on to contribute his belief that “gays do not want to force their lifestyle on others.” (“Not very Christian solution,” May 7 Review-Journal). Which begs the question: Why are gay couples then filing complaints with the “human rights” bureaucrats and suing business owners, who are being fined and made to promise to perpetually violate their consciences, fulfilling all gay marriage requests?
If business owners are forced to engage in events against their own beliefs, they certainly deserve the right to express those beliefs.
JOANNE M. CAMPBELL
BOULDER CITY
