To the editor:
President Barack Obama keeps saying he wants to help the middle class, but his actions say otherwise. The president is intent on raising the minimum wage to help those who are making a substandard wage. These workers are predominantly younger and new to the workforce.
It has been said many times that entry-level jobs, the ones most affected by minimum wage laws, will be reduced if that wage is increased. Businesses won’t be able to offset the additional wages unless they raise prices. When prices go up, those on fixed incomes will be hurt. Not only will their buying power be affected, but the value of their savings will be reduced.
So, Mr. President, how does this help the middle class? Instead of raising the minimum wage, eliminate it entirely. This way, workers will be paid what they’re worth, rather than some arbitrary amount based on a system that adversely affects everyone. Employers would have to pay a fair wage or no one would accept the position.
To the editor:
Regarding your editorial on home schooling, as a charter school leader, I want to take a moment and thank the editor for bringing the issue of school choice to your readers (“Home schooling ultimate education choice,” Jan. 29 Review-Journal).
As the editorial pointed out, parents’ school-choice options should not be constrained by geographic boundaries, nor should parents be forced to send their children to poorly performing schools. School, for most, is still based on a one-size-fits-all approach, but just like adults, children learn in different ways. It isn’t possible for one type of school to meet the needs of all.
Of course, traditional schools work for many, but this is about finding the best fit for your child. Charter schools, for example, provide parents with an additional option. Many offer innovative curricula, nontraditional schedules, virtual and blended instructional options and specialized areas of focus. Are charter schools the only answer to fix our public school system? Absolutely not. They are, however, a viable option for thousands of students across Nevada.
It is my hope to see more charter school options in Nevada to rival the level of school choice currently available in other states. There are charter schools that have not met expectations, just as there are private schools and public schools that have not adequately served children. Unlike other options, charter schools can be closed for poor performance under the recently adopted charter school contract by the State Public Charter School Authority.
A focus on academics and specialized areas allows high-performing charters to provide families with additional options for a student’s personal and academic success. Being able to work with a variety of students and families across the state has allowed me to hear exactly how having a choice in school attendance has literally changed lives, re-engaged students and reignited a passion for learning.
For Nevada to be economically competitive, school choice simply must be addressed. Parents and students deserve options in what is perhaps the most critical area of their lives.
The writer is principal of Nevada Connections Academy.
Debt ceiling debate
To the editor:
I just read a letter from Jim Graham, who is obviously a President Barack Obama sympathizer (“Republicans perpetuate debt ceiling lie,” Saturday Review-Journal). After reading it three times through and trying to understand Mr. Graham’s logic on the debt ceiling, I walked away totally mystified. Other than blaming Republicans and George W. Bush (man, this is getting old), Mr. Graham offers no real solution; just the same old blame game.
I came up with a simple analogy on why he feels that we must borrow even more money to pay the debt on the money we already borrowed. Assume I just bought a new car and borrowed the money to do so. After diligently making payments for two years, my hours are cut back at my job because of Obamacare and my wages drop 25 percent. In order to make my car payment, I go to the bank where I got the loan and ask them to raise my debt ceiling, so that I can borrow more money to pay for the car which I borrowed money to pay for in the first place. Huh?
Why is it so hard to understand that the government spends more revenue than it takes in? Why do we keep electing politicians who allow this to happen? Why are so many Democratic voters in favor of this? Are they in complete denial of what will happen if we continue down this path? One need look no further than the city of Detroit, run by Democrats for decades, to see what the country will look like if we continue down this road to financial ruin.