To the editor:
I noticed that unemployment numbers have gone down lately. This is not due to job creation, but because more folks are working in part-time jobs or going on welfare rolls. A perfect example is Illinois, President Barack Obama’s home state, where 300,000 fewer people are working compared with six years ago, when the president took office.
The Obama administration tries to blame others for not getting things done, such as a minimum wage increase or immigration reform. That’s mostly because the president refuses to work across the aisle, as Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan did with success.
Democrats try to pretend that Republicans are only for the rich, yet just as many Democrats are in the 1 percent. They say voter ID laws are really bad, yet anyone with a brain can easily get identification. Do we really want the brainless voting, or voter fraud? I believe that those who have never worked a day in their lives should not be able to vote, since they contribute nothing to the tax base.
The only thing this administration has done is increase the national debt to record highs — debt that will be put on our children’s backs. The dozens of welfare programs are not meant as incentive to get people back to work, but rather to try to buy their votes in order to stay in power. It’s disgusting.
JOHN G. BECK
Appeals court objective
To the editor:
Over the past several weeks, I have read various commentaries urging voters to approve Question 1 and establish a Nevada Court of Appeals. Most discussions tout the relief a dedicated appeals bench would provide Nevada Supreme Court justices (who now hear all appeals) and cite the relatively low costs ($1.5 million per year) anticipated to operate the proposed three-judge court. The Review-Journal endorsed passage of ballot Question 1.
Foremost among appeals court proponents is Supreme Court Justice James W. Hardesty, who voiced that support in an op-ed (“New panel would improve case law, speed resolution,” Oct. 5 Review-Journal). Countering Justice Hardesty’s position was an analysis by Knight Allen (“Plan for establishment-backed court a blank check that could take any shape”).
Mr. Allen raised some interesting points, chief among them that although Question 1 would, if passed, authorize a three-judge appeals panel, there is already language in the question authorizing the Legislature to increase that number. Simultaneously, Mr. Allen asked, if a three-judge panel is the objective, why has the Nevada Supreme Court already submitted to the 2015 Legislature Bill Draft Request 495, which revises provisions relating to the Court of Appeals? Something doesn’t quite add up here.
Attempts to establish an appeals court are not new, and voters have rejected such four times since 1972. Now we have a new proposal for a seemingly small, relatively inexpensive court. But in the fine print are hints that Question 1’s stated objective is not quite what it appears at first glance.
So how about it, Justice Hardesty? Would you, or other proponents, care to specifically address the gray areas regarding Question 1?
ALEX L. HEINDL
Question 3 opposition
To the editor:
John L. Smith’s column (or news report) has me scratching my head — all the more so because I know Mr. Smith to be an enlightened columnist and I read him regularly (“Money sought to defeat tax vote,” Oct. 17 Review-Journal). However, if the “No on Question 3” campaign has largely outspent proponents, and if the question is “taking a beating in the media,” why would Mr. Smith give voice to another big money, anti-schools fundraiser?
Indeed, the only balance I found in the piece was to point out that Oscar Goodman, also a “No” spokesman, was an “ex-mob lawyer.” With all due respect, was Mr. Smith’s article “news” or his views as a columnist? I’m confused as to why he would pile on with big money, anti-student interests such as gaming, mining and insurers. Besides, his only mention that Question 3 would benefit education came in a short phrase in the last 13 words of his column.
I’m glad to learn that Mr. Smith’s topical fundraiser also included Review-Journal Publisher Mark Ficarra. Is that another worrisome point?