Correcting an inequity among the branches

To the editor:

In a Nov. 15 editorial, the Review-Journal staff expressed bewilderment over the 8-point margin by which voters approved State Question 1, allowing the state Legislature to call itself into special session. The puzzlement of the editors is caused by their obsession over tax increases. Question 1 was not about taxes, it was about repairing the Nevada Constitution. The voting public does not have an obsession over taxes. Yes, the voters turned down two tax increases on Nov. 6, but the ballot arguments for and against those tax increases were both compelling, and the voters made their choice.

In the arguments in the ballot pamphlet, and in media articles dealing with Question 1, I worked to emphasize the inequities among Nevada's three equal and independent branches of government. Suppose our national congressional delegation were restricted to lawmaking for only four months out of their two-year term, and that for the following 20 months, only the president (head of the executive branch) could convene the legislative branch (Congress) to perform its constitutional duties.

Suppose that when the president convened Congress, Congress could consider only issues that the president dictated, and could consider nothing else - no independent thinking by our elected congressional delegation about additional or alternative issues.

What a disaster that would be for the nation. But those are exactly the conditions that existed in Nevada before Nov. 6. Those conditions were a gross violation of the concept of three equal and independent branches of government upon which our nation and our state were founded. The voters recognized this inequality.

HARRY MORTENSON

LAS VEGAS

The writer served 14 years in the Nevada Assembly. State Question 1 resulted from a bill the writer introduced during the 2009 legislative session.

Too many kids

To the editor:

Regarding "Automatic raises for teachers called waste of money" (Nov. 17): Nevada Superintendent of Schools James Guthrie argues that the large class sizes we see are not an issue.

I average 40 students per class this year in my middle school, and I need clarification on how I can be "effective" with that many students. If I were to spend one minute with each student in class, I would be left with 10 minutes to teach. That is simply not feasible.

Do I focus on the students that seem to have the most potential for growth? Do I focus on the strongest students, hoping to bolster the average test scores? Do I just focus on those who need the most help and let the stronger students fend for themselves?

Regardless of the approach, the group of students on which I am not focusing may not show adequate growth, and as a result I would not be considered an "effective" teacher. Thus, I would not be eligible for a pay raise under his proposed merit system.

And if the merit system comes into play, I assure you that I no longer wish to teach any special needs students, or even grade-level students for that matter, because the work-to-reward ratio would be much higher than a schedule made up of accelerated classes. Or, I could make a career change.

Bear in mind that my opinions are those of a teacher at one of the highest achieving middle schools in the state. I cannot even imagine the exodus from teaching you will see from the at-risk schools. Attract better teachers with large class sizes and a merit system? To use the language of the youth: LOL!

CHET CHRISTNER

LAS VEGAS

Voter's remorse

To the editor:

After crying in my beer for the past week lamenting America's lost opportunity by not electing the eminently qualified Mitt Romney to be president, I needed some comic relief, which I found in Susan Estrich's Nov. 16 column ("Obama's 'rich' can't afford tax hikes.")

Having voted for President Obama's re-election, Ms. Estrich is suddenly concerned about his insisting on tax hikes for the "rich," of which she is one. I'm sorry, was she asleep during the campaign or just so distracted by the contraception sideshow (i.e., "War on Women") that she didn't hear what the president was saying?

Mr. Obama made his intention to raise taxes perfectly clear. In fact, his campaign was based on the class warfare rhetoric that Ms. Estrich now warns him to be "careful" about. One reason she voted for Mr. Obama was because she didn't want ObamaCare to be repealed, even though without it, she was able to buy insurance for her friend with the pre-existing condition. That made me laugh.

I also got a good laugh out of her complaining about paying more taxes, "percentage-wise," than Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett. Mitt Romney's tax rate was 15 percent, or in dollar terms, $14 million in federal taxes in 2011. Yet I'm supposed to feel sorry for her that she paid what, maybe 18 percent after deductions? And now she's warning the president not to take away her favorite deductions, just the ones that "allow the truly rich to not work."

I'm afraid Ms. Estrich is just one of many Obama voters who are going to experience voter's remorse in the very near future. ObamaCare has already increased the cost of health care and it's only going to get worse, especially for those individuals who currently choose not to pay for insurance but will soon be forced to pay one way or another.

By the way, I would love to know whether Ms. Estrich also voted for California's Proposition 30 and to help elect that supermajority of Democrats in the California Legislature. It's not just the federal government looking to raise taxes on the "rich."

LORI JO KLEMPTNER

HENDERSON

Terrorists

To the editor:

I read The Associated Press article "Clash of will fuels Mideast violence," and I could hardly believe what I was reading. The two writers must live in a complete dreamland. The Hamas terrorists are responsible for the destruction and deaths on both sides of this conflict. Hamas builds rocket-launching sites on top of apartment buildings that house innocent men, women, and children. Hamas knows that Israel, like the United States, does not intend to harm innocent victims, but Hamas fires the rockets directly into civilian areas in Israel. Hamas targets women and children while Hamas and its leaders hide behind innocent civilians and show that they are cowards. Yet, this story makes it sound like both sides are victims.

Americans should support Israel in its fight to survive and should be responding to ill-advised and negative articles. We Americans should show the world that we stand by our friends and that we will not stand for journalism that tries to lie about who the real criminals are in this war.

Israel has a population of around 7 million people, while its neighbors who want to destroy Israel have combined populations in the hundreds of millions. Remember, the rockets Hamas fires into Israel came from Iran - that country that wants to build nuclear weapons. The people in Gaza voted for Hamas, and now those people will have to live with the repercussions of their choice.

Israel learned its lesson from the United States - peace through strength.

BOB DUBIN

LAS VEGAS