LETTERS: Editorial off mark; Heck, GOP at fault for CDC’s Ebola response

To the editor:

The Review-Journal editorial board attacked me Wednesday for criticizing Rep. Joe Heck and the Republican House of Representatives over the CDC’s inability to respond appropriately to the emerging Ebola crisis.

Review-Journal readers don’t need to take my word for it that federal budget cuts have made it difficult for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to respond to Ebola. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is generally viewed as the preeminent expert in the field of infectious diseases in this country, if not the world.

In testimony to a Senate committee on the effects of sequestration on the response to Ebola, Dr. Fauci said, “I have to tell you honestly it’s been a significant impact on us. It has eroded our ability to respond to these emerging threats and is particularly damaging.”

His expert opinion was echoed by testimony that same day by Dr. Beth Bell, director of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. According to the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Fauci has acknowledged that the CDC has failed to protect caregivers.

In 2011, Rep. Heck voted to cut $56 million in funding to enhance the ability of state and local agencies to detect and respond to infectious diseases and other public health threats, and to strengthen public health infrastructure related to responding to and preventing associated infections. On his congressional website, he described these funds as a “slush fund.”

In 2013, The Washington Post said, “Republicans would bear more of the blame for a failure” to eliminate the indiscriminate budget cuts of sequestration.

Rep. Heck, a physician, should have taken a leadership role on this issue, but he failed to do so. This is just another example of Rep. Heck saying one thing in Nevada and doing something else in Washington.

ERIN BILBRAY

LAS VEGAS

The writer is the Democratic candidate for Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District.

Cranor endorsement

To the editor:

I was shocked to read the Oct. 17 newspaper and see the Review-Journal is still endorsing Erin Cranor for Clark County School Board trustee. Do you not read your own paper? Ms. Cranor exceeded her authority by demanding that the Clark County School District end its relationship with the organization that served as the district’s heath care consultant. This action brought about a costly lawsuit.

The district is paying $100,100 to have Mrs. Cranor’s name removed from the lawsuit. However, it seems the check was cut a month ago without the School Board’s knowledge. The district is required to get the board’s OK for amounts exceeding $100,000, so its lawyers paid the additional $100 to circumvent this requirement. Talk about a lack of integrity.

Meanwhile, the taxpayers still do not know the cost of the legal fees to remove Mrs. Cranor from the lawsuit, nor the fees and final costs that will be charged to settle the lawsuit against the district itself.

Rather than endorsing Mrs. Cranor, the Review-Journal should be calling for her removal from the board and encouraging the district to enter into a civil lawsuit to recoup all costs involved in the final settlement from Mrs. Cranor. The board should also encourage the district to remove anyone who is or was involved in this cover-up. Readers should go to the School Board’s website and demand Mrs. Cranor’s removal.

If all else fails, I hope the voters in District G have the moral fortitude to vote her out of office.

MICHAEL A. DONNELLY

LAS VEGAS

English in America

To the editor:

Kudos to Brian Covey for his cogent letter on the social and economic pitfalls of not speaking English in America. (“Non-English speakers taxing society,” Oct. 3 Review-Journal). I am in total agreement with his views.

The United States has for centuries offered immigrants countless opportunities and a level of generosity unparalleled by any other nation. All it asks in return is that its adopted citizens make a contribution in terms of their commitment to the citizenship they now enjoy.

A large part of that commitment is speaking, reading and writing in English to be economically, socially and politically productive. One cannot profess to be an American and participate in the decision-making process without speaking English well. However, English is not the official language of the United States by federal mandate, but rather only by usage and custom.

That little lapse of legal precedent seemed rather insignificant through most of our history until fairly recently. Instead of being the language of the land, English now has to share the billing with other languages on ballots, directional signs, public service bulletins and more.

I knew no English before the age of 10, when I came to this country. I spoke only German. But I learned. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants over the years learned English, without the benefit of federally funded or mandated bilingual education classes, and we succeeded. All it takes is an ounce of intelligence and a ton of determination. It can be done. More importantly, for us it was a point of pride to learn to speak, think and act like an American in our new homeland.

Apparently, that is not the prevailing attitude among many current immigrants. However, I see no reason why my taxpayer dollars should continue to fund such widespread apathy.

EVA MIKUTOWICZ

MESQUITE