LETTERS: No simple solution to Bundy issue

To the editor:

As much as I sympathize with Cliven Bundy’s perceived states’ rights position, he’s on the wrong side of history. All of the contiguous 48 states had the same problem: not enough resources to maintain their land. Each state gave most of its land to the federal government.

When Nevada was created, the people who lived here were miners and ranchers. Like most states, it couldn’t afford to maintain the land and saw no value in most of the state, so officials gave it away. Since the federal government hasn’t returned that land to Nevada, the feds still have stewardship of that land. Creating the Department of the Interior and later the Bureau of Land Management was a legitimate response to a perceived need to make sure all federal lands were properly maintained. So that’s the setup for what has transpired at the Bundy ranch.

What’s the solution? For the Bundys, there isn’t one. He owes fees to the federal government.

What’s the long-term solution? The Nevada Legislature needs to grow a backbone and throw the feds out of our state. Some of our legislators have been trying to do just that, but because they are in the minority party, their efforts go nowhere.

That said, throwing out the feds has a drawback: the responsibility and cost of maintaining state lands falls on us. Can we afford those costs? Will the additional property taxes and fees collected on that new state land offset the cost of maintaining it? How much are we willing to pay in additional taxes for that privilege? I think we need to answer those questions before we make the next move.

ART GISI

LAS VEGAS

Terrorist threat?

To the editor:

A terrorist threat has been exposed. I’ve obtained information that Cliven Bundy and his militia are plotting to transport his cattle to Washington, D.C., where the cattle will illegally graze on the Capitol lawn in defiance of the Bureau of Land Management.

I’m calling on Sen. Harry Reid to petition President Barack Obama and immediately bring Marines from Quantico, Va., to D.C. for protection against this horrible act of terrorism.

MIKE PIERCY

HENDERSON

Senior benefits

To the editor:

In Catherine Rampell’s commentary, she stated that senior couples who turned 65 in 2010 will “receive about $385,000 in Medicare benefits over their decades of dotage” (“Retirees receiving more than they gave,” April 20 Review-Journal). Ms. Rampell should first of all be ashamed of using the term “dotage,” defined as “a state or period of senile decay marked by a decline of mental poise and alertness.”

Ms. Rampell also does not state what percentage of these “senile” seniors will live for decades after age 65. And although I have no definite figures, I would guess that most seniors are not afflicted with senility or dementia immediately after reaching age 65.

It appears to me that Ms. Rampell perceives seniors as a drain on the country’s resources. The very seniors that she vilifies should be commended for their frugality. My guess is that a large percentage of these seniors have managed to amass some wealth in the form of home equity, which they will surely pass to members of her millennial generation. I personally know members of this senior generation who have passed up cruises and other luxuries to save for their children’s inheritance.

One other point: Older seniors in their 80s and 90s came of age during World War II. They endured many sacrifices and hardships for a war effort that included everyone. Food rationing was the law, and ordinary consumer appliances were not available as all industrial production was converted to the war effort. These vilified seniors also grew up during the years of the Great Depression, and some of them experienced hunger when we had no social programs for the poor.

ANTHONY J. MARINELLI

LAS VEGAS