LETTERS: Question 1 deserves a thumbs-down
To the editor:
Finally, someone spelled out the truth as to why you should vote no on Question 1 on the November ballot (“Plan for establishment-backed court a blank check that could take any shape,” Oct. 5 Review-Journal). Simply put, if you vote to pass Question 1, you will be giving the Nevada Legislature the power to create any amount of appeals courts it wishes, and you will have no say whatsoever. After passage, the Legislature could create an appeals court in every county in the state. Legislators can increase the number of judges on the courts at will. The first thing you will see is another court in Reno. Then there’s no telling how many more.
Nevada voters did right in 1972, 1988 and 2010, when they voted this question down. In recent months, columnists such as Steve Sebelius, John L. Smith and Jane Ann Morrison (I love her) have used barrels of ink in support of Question 1. They either did not do their homework or were going by what the powers-that-be want. The Legislature and the Nevada Supreme Court have only talked about the tip of the iceberg and their hypocrisy knows no bounds. They will tell you anything to get you to vote yes, anything but the full facts.
If Question 1 passes, we will pay another tax on top of all the taxes we are paying now. In these hard economic times, we do not need to give birth to another tax monster. Please think long and hard on Question 1 before you vote. I guarantee that more appeals courts are on the way if Question 1 passes. Give it a thumbs-down.
MARTIN HENDERSON
LAS VEGAS
Mining and gaming taxes
To the editor:
I had to laugh when I read Bob Fulkerson’s op-ed supporting passage of Question 2, which would erase the mining tax cap (“State needs to extract more taxes from mining,” Oct. 12 Review-Journal). Mr. Fulkerson wrote that Question 2 “will remove the special protection that no other industry in our state enjoys.”
How about the tax on gaming revenue, which has stayed at 6.75 percent for a decade, the lowest in the world. In Macau, it’s 40 percent, and most U.S. casino gaming revenue is taxed at 20 percent or more.
Wake up and smell the revenue. Or are the casinos untouchable?
DANIEL CULBERT
LAS VEGAS
Doctors and government
To the editor:
Gerald J. Gianoli’s commentary was a very gentlemanly way of saying that health care is a commodity, not a right, and therefore truly competent physicians are running to concierge and third-party-free practices, with patients who pay cash (“Doctors subtract government from medical equation,” Oct. 3 Review-Journal). Does this mean President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have accomplished their goal of giving the middle class and below the health care we deserve?
One of the main pillars of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War was that taxation without representation is tyranny. Thus, it became the law of our land that federal bills of taxation originate in, and be passed by, the elected legislative bodies of Congress. When the constitutionality of the law is questioned, the final determination rests with the U.S. Supreme Court. If any part of a bill does not meet constitutional standards, the Supreme Court points out what is to be corrected.
At the time of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act, the balance of power in the House of Representatives had shifted. Knowing the ACA would not pass again in a Republican-majority House, these unelected, black-robed elitists chose to create, legislate, enact and adjudge the Affordable Care Act into a tax.
Such judicial action defines everything from contempt to treason. House Speaker John Boehner should impeach the justices, then repeal the ACA.
DARREL A. RYAN
PAHRUMP
Unions and politics
To the editor:
Regarding Richard Berman’s commentary (“Union dues shouldn’t serve as pipeline to Democrats,” Sept. 30 Review-Journal), he writes that, in part, labor unions use “forced dues money … to push a left-wing agenda a significant bloc of their membership doesn’t support.” My husband and I are retired union employees. I can tell you that we voluntarily donated to our union’s political fund. Such monies went to those candidates who supported working people’s causes, regardless of political affiliation.
A visit to the website of the organization Mr. Berman represents (Center for Union Facts) shows no names of donors. What is Mr. Berman hiding? I suspect big business, which wants to keep Americans down in low-paying jobs, such as what Wal-Mart offers.
Things are not going to get better until we support the middle class with decent wages and benefits. I would hope people are getting tired of this union bashing the Review-Journal seems to support.
BARBARA BOLDT
LAS VEGAS
