Firing people to maintain corporate profits
To the editor:
In response to Joel Silverman's Sunday letter, "One local entrepreneur is now on strike":
I am so pleased to learn that Mr. "1 percent" Silverman has achieved the exalted position where he can decide he doesn't need anyone else working for him to continue to grow his wealth. Obviously, the greed bug has not bitten him fatally, nor have the restrictive government regulations prevented him from acquiring enough to arrive at this point where he has such options.
Small businesses, and even larger ones, continue to accrue profits by reducing their work forces and blaming their action on government regulations. And if it isn't government they blame, then it must be union demands.
As they reduce staff, these businesses provide less service than ever before, further discouraging their few remaining customers and helping to destroy a positive business climate. Prices go up, service goes down and the remaining employed individuals can't afford to buy the goods.
When I read about gross sales being down but profits up in certain industries, I can't help but wonder how many more employees they're going to fire to maintain that profit. What conclusion can you reach other than that the same business owners who complain about regulations are contributing to their own demise and the demise of a system that once worked for all?
Joy Bellis
Las Vegas
Moral values
To the editor:
In his Sunday letter to the editor, Charles Edgley states that his problem with Chick-fil-A "is in parading [their Christian values] with the subtext that everyone else's values are inferior." It sounds to me as if Mr. Edgley has an inferiority complex.
The Chick-fil-A executive was simply stating the company's values. If Mr. Edgley feels put down by that, then he is the one with the problem.
Is Mr. Edgley implying that Chick-fil-A officials (and, by extension, other Christians) don't have the right to state their values because of a perceived slight?
Mark Thomas
North Las Vegas
Teat party
To the editor:
Although many talk of the "Tea Party" as a distinct party with membership, etc. - and in some limited cases it is - the Tea Party is much more than that. Any citizen of the United States who believes in the Constitution, in the genius of the Founding Fathers in creating a government of, by and for the individual wholly unlike any that had come before (or since) - and in the greatness of this country and the ability of each person to achieve his own level of greatness if willing to make the sacrifices and put in the hard work - is a Tea Party member whether or not he identifies himself as such.
On the other hand, liberals or "progressives" do not believe in any of the above, and may more aptly be called members of the "teat party."
Which would you rather do - throw King George's tea into the harbor or grovel at his feet begging for scraps? The choice in November is clear. Tea or teat?
Rick Ainsworth
Henderson
Too pro-Israel
To the editor:
In "Don't overlook Adelson's many contributions" (Friday letter), Dr. Hugh Bassewitz lauds the accomplishments and community contributions of billionaire casino developer Sheldon Adelson. But are buying politicians and political influence in support of a foreign nation the acts of a good citizen?
Where is Sheldon Adelson's primary allegiance - to Israel or the United States? How he is spending his money strongly suggests a pro-Israel bias. If Mr. Adelson gets his way, the corrupt politicians he has bought will wipe out U.S. efforts to deal even-handedly with Palestine and Israel. Giving unconditional support for whatever action Israel chooses to take in its conflict with the Arab world is akin to the disaster caused by Kaiser Wilhelm II's "blank check" assurance to Austria, a critical link in the chain of events leading up to the outbreak of World War I in Europe in 1914.
Mr. Adelson should cease his efforts to dictate U.S.-Israel foreign relations and let the Palestinian question be worked out by the peoples involved.
Richard York
Las Vegas
