LETTERS: Nevada needs red-light cameras

Why did our supposed representatives ever pass a law prohibiting red-light cameras in this state? Haven't they read the article claiming that Las Vegas is the fourth-worst city in the nation for red-light runners? ("Report ranks Las Vegas fourth in red-light running cities," Oct. 16 Review-Journal online.) Barely a day goes by without a report of another fatality or serious injury accident because someone with no brain cells ran a red light.

My wife and I were recently at the intersection of Carnegie Street and Horizon Ridge Parkway. There was a moving van waiting to turn onto Carnegie (his light was red) when our light turned green for us. We were halfway through the intersection when a black car came from behind the moving van (which was blocking our view), and ran through the red light at a very high rate of speed. It would have taken perhaps two more seconds and we would have no doubt been killed.

Local municipalities are always crying about not having money for this, that and the other, but they could make a lot of money using red-light cameras. The fine for running a red light should be at least $1,000. For potentially taking a life or two, that seems a fair penalty for those narrow-minded idiots, doesn't it?

Douglas Barron

Henderson

Saving The Mirage

I was very glad to see that Phil Ruffin's offer for The Mirage was turned down ("Ruffin: Offer for Mirage rejected by MGM Resorts," Wednesday Review-Journal). If what happened to the pirate show and the front of Treasure Island are any indication, Mr. Ruffin would have eliminated the volcano and replaced it with a Walgreens.

When will developers and corporations recognize the importance of the attractions that made Las Vegas the iconic tourist draw that it is? Those places seem to be disappearing, one by one.

Larry Fried

Las Vegas

Socialism kills democracy

Ross Tanenbaum appears to be trying to redefine socialism with a new strawman definition, so that the Democratic presidential candidates will not be viewed as socialists ("Sanders and the 'S' word," Oct. 24 Review-Journal letters). Generally accepted socialist countries include Denmark, Sweden, Greece, Argentina and Venezuela. They do not own the banks and other industries, but rather control everything through government rules, regulations, taxes and giving away free stuff.

Hence, Mr. Tanenbaum's proposed definition is invalid. Countries that take the socialist path wind up being essentially dictatorships or, sooner or later, the country can't afford the programs and processes in place, and cutbacks are needed. Puerto Rico and Greece are recent good examples of countries looking for bailouts and will have to cut back social/government programs.

Cutbacks cause significant turmoil. Argentina went bankrupt. Sweden has cut back somewhat successfully, but Greece has just elected a communist president, many people have lost their jobs and retirees have had their pensions cut.

I'm all for helping those in trouble through no fault of their own. But it has to be done in a way that keeps the country growing, so all people continue to prosper. Unfortunately, like the above socialist countries, the United States is not wealthy enough to pay for all the proposed free stuff.

Hence, when the national debt gets so high that the U.S. goes bankrupt, or interest rates rise to a normal range and we cannot pay the interest on our debt (the interest rate has been kept artificially low by the Federal Reserve since the Great Recession began), there will be turmoil in the United States, because there will be nobody to bail us out. The country will be a disaster, especially for the poor and seniors, and our democracy may vanish.

Dirk Dahlgren

Las Vegas

The new speaker

First, I have to congratulate House Speaker Paul Ryan for being a grownup. He voted for the recent debt ceiling and budget deal, even though he admitted it stinks. Sending our country into default is not the way to reduce our debt. It's too bad Sen. Dean Heller and Nevada's other Republican members of Congress are not adults.

However, Speaker Ryan's excuse for not pursuing immigration reform stinks. He said it's because he can't trust President Barack Obama, after the president issued executive orders on immigration. Let's be honest: Mr. Ryan is not pursuing immigration reform because House Republicans can't agree on what to do about undocumented immigrants.

Douglas J. Fleckner

Las Vegas