Just trying to become more efficient
To the editor:
In his Thursday letter, Gerald Kelly railed against the Social Security Administration's plan to eliminate check payment for benefits in favor of direct deposit. He argues that funds on deposit at a bank can be seized by creditors and other sinister forces.
I guess he as a point.
As for the plan for 100 percent direct deposit, however, this is an instance where our government is actually making a move to become more efficient. It's a cost reduction.
There was a time, back in the 20th century, when we had people railing against being paid by check. Time moved forward and, in the end, everyone went with it. This is one of those moments in time.
Mr. Kelly asks for alternatives. If he has debts that can be satisfied only by seizure, the logical thing for him to do would be to pay them.
Jim Cassidy
Henderson
No threat
To the editor:
In response to Judy Treichel's letter ("Nuclear energy," Thursday): She should check her facts before quoting the "DOE's own analysis."
Aside from being a direct contributor to that analysis (amongst hundreds of others), I am a health care professional and valley resident who would be concerned about any threat to my own water supply. Nowhere in the report is it stated that our drinking water aquifer would be threatened by the Yucca Mountain Project.
The water table threats reported were for shallow zones of brackish water. Those threats would come true only after 10,000 years of possible seepage, and then only in the event of seismic disruption after that time.
It's time for scientific fact to overcome the misstatements of those opposing a project that would bring 4,000 jobs and millions of dollars to our state. The potential "threat" to which Ms. Treichel refers is not reasonable to consider in any scientific or engineering light.
Lew Gordon
Las Vegas
Too spineless
To the editor:
Wednesday's Review-Journal reported the Senate failed to end the ethanol subsidy. The story noted that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., voted against the measure because he did not like the tactics used by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to force the Senate to vote.
In November 2010, a letter from 17 senators requested that Sen. Reid put the continuation of ethanol subsidies to a vote. Signing the letter were many senators of his own party, including Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Sheldon Whitehouse. As far back as the '90s, non-farm legislators were decrying the subsidies, which raise food prices and force out cheaper foreign energy alternatives, thusly hitting Americans in the pocketbook for no good reason other than enriching some politically connected fat cats.
In the ensuing months, senators such as Tom Coburn have sought a vote seeking to circumvent the endless dillydallying by Sen. Reid and others too spineless to attack the interests supporting the bill.
In the meantime, with the handwriting on the wall for the ultimate end of this indefensible subsidy, those interested in its benefits have been crafting and pushing legislation to transfer government money directly to the ethanol blending industry through direct assistance rather than a tax credit.
Simply, they have been working to assure that when the tax credit ends there will be a substitute source of funds to tap to the direct detriment of the American taxpayer. The delay in the vote was assisting in this effort.
Sen. Coburn used the acceptable but somewhat uncommon method of a cloture motion to force a vote. This circumvented objections holding up the measure in committees. He previously tried a more ordinary route around obstructionist objections by filing a motion to suspend the rules, but those in control of the Senate assured that the motion never even came to the floor.
Sen. Reid is the person who is in charge of getting matters to the floor of the Senate. Sen. Reid, therefore, is a person who has been material in thwarting a vote on the measure. If he truly supported the ending of subsidies, as presented, he would have seen to a vote as requested.
Instead, we get the excuse from Sen. Reid's office that he objected to the process and not the substance.
This is, in a word, tripe. If you support the goal, vote for the measure and represent your constituents.
If, instead, you wish to protect the status quo, continue to burden the taxpayer and assure that your benefactors feed at the public trough, then keep the measure bottled up so you don't have to take responsibility.
BOB NERSESIAN
LAS VEGAS
Paul backer
To the editor:
Kudos to the Review-Journal's Steve Sebelius for his Wednesday column, "Paul shows he's only real GOP choice." Mr. Sebelius did an excellent job of pinpointing a few of Rep. Ron Paul's highlights from the New Hampshire debate and clearly depicted why Rep. Paul is the only real GOP choice.
Thanks, Mr. Sebelius, for being a true journalist. And thank you, Review-Journal, for allowing him to be so.
A.J. Maimbourg
Las Vegas
Job loss
To the editor:
What is the point of Democratic President Barack Obama focusing on more jobs for individuals when Republican governors keep deleting current jobs to balance their state budgets?
It's like trying to build sand castles by the ocean.
Marlene Dallatore
Las Vegas
