LETTERS: NPRI fills vacuum in watchdog role

To the editor:

Nevada state Sen. Tick Segerblom’s letter admonishing the Nevada Policy Research Institute was a classic example of liberal spin (“NPRI’s divisive study of Nevada PERS overlooks bulk of recipients,” Feb. 7 Review-Journal). NPRI is labeled as divisive for informing the taxpayers that public-sector employees are receiving wages and benefits that no private company could afford to give to its employees.

Sen. Segerblom tries to downplay the harm by claiming there were only 263 retirees who retired with a higher pension income than their working income. Regardless of the percentage, that is 263 too many cases of waste and abuse of public funds.

Sen. Segerblom makes the case that other states pay their public-sector employees more than Nevada, but several cities in America have gone bankrupt due to excessive public-sector wages, benefits and pensions. Making matters worse, the public is not allowed to take part in wage negotiations, even though the public pays the wages.

Institutions such as NPRI are constantly suing the government to release information that the should be available to the public. Why does the government want to hide so much information? Courtesy of NPRI’s TransparentNevada website, the public can view online the records of all the public employees who made more than $400,000 a year in total compensation (salary, overtime and benefits). Courtesy of NPRI, the taxpayer can view the records of dozens of police officers and firefighters who make more in overtime pay than base pay.

We need more institutions like NPRI to shine the light on everything that is wrong — government corruption, public-sector greed and politicians without morals. We need more politicians who represent the public and vote for the good of the community. We need more outsourcing of services to private companies, competing to give taxpayers the best service for their dollar.

We also need a taxpayer union that represents the public at all collective bargaining sessions. Since taxpayers are saddled with the costs of public-sector unions, they should also have a paid representative who has their interests at heart. Government officials certainly don’t.

BRIAN AIKEN

LAS VEGAS

Education funding facts

To the editor:

I’d like to know the facts letter writer Nicholas P. Gartner has (other than a full parking lot) to support his theory that the Clark County School District has too much nonclassroom spending (“District must pare administrative bloat,” Feb. 9 Review-Journal). Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky recently said that Clark County schools are at the bottom of spending for support staff, compared with other school districts in Nevada.

Mr. Gartner states that education takes up half of the state’s overall budget, but I find that grades 1-12 got 23.6 percent of the budget, higher education 9.7 percent, Medicaid 25.4 percent, transportation 9.5 percent, corrections and public assistance 6.9 percent, and “other” 24.9 percent. Mr. Gartner states that CCSD administrators are clueless about how to improve our education system, but has he read the report on all the things they are trying? Education is not a one-legged stool, with just schools and teachers responsible for success or failure. The parents and students are the rest of that three-legged stool.

Mr. Gartner states that any tax hike will negatively impact our state economy, but state tax revenue per capita is $1,106. In California, with its booming economy, it’s $2,561. My husband and I are on a fixed income, but we don’t begrudge schools the money they need to do the job right. These children are the future of our country.

JANICE HERR

LAS VEGAS

Privately fund stadium

To the editor:

Robert Matusiewicz, in his letter to the editor, attempted to compare a soccer stadium requiring taxpayer backing with the backing of businesses such as bars, restaurants and car dealerships (“Soccer stadium would benefit many,” Feb. 8 Review-Journal). He totally misses the point.

Bars, restaurants and car dealerships are private businesses, funded by private entities. Taxpayer money is not used to create or maintain these businesses. The soccer stadium proposal to use taxpayer funds shouldn’t be allowed, as it puts the taxpayer at risk for failure.

If the stadium is a good idea, let someone fund it with private money. No one is saying having a stadium is wrong, only that financing it with taxpayer money is wrong. We don’t fund bars and car dealerships, we shouldn’t fund a stadium. Let private industry do that. Then if you want to go to the games, have at it. But keep me and my money out of it.

JAE JOHNSON

HENDERSON

Money and stadiums

To the editor:

In response to Robert Matusiewicz’s letter (“Soccer stadium would benefit many,” Feb. 8 Review-Journal), my wife and I are retired and living on a fixed income. Taxpayer support of the stadium might not mean as much to Mr. Matusiewicz as it does to us, but in today’s economy, we are careful about where our money goes and for what purpose.

I realize that a soccer stadium would have an impact on the city of Las Vegas. The only question I would ask is: How will we benefit from the many fans who might go to these games?

RAYMOND WRIGHT

LAS VEGAS