LETTERS: Purpose of ESAs is to assist any family with children

Steve Sebelius stated that Education Savings Accounts were sold to the Nevada Legislature, in part, "as a way to level the playing field between students from rich and poor backgrounds" ("The wealthy, not the poor, apply for ESAs," Nov. 1 Review-Journal). As soon as I read that, I knew he was digging deep into the Democratic Party class warfare playbook to discredit the program.

Mr. Sebelius goes on to write that the money for private tuition was supposed to help poor people "escape" to better schools, then saying, "Turns out, not so much."

Let's get real, Mr. Sebelius. The main purpose of ESAs is for any family with schoolchildren, rich or poor, to use some of the tax money they already pay toward public education for a private education. It was never designed to benefit only poor people. Mr. Sebelius points out that 50 percent of ESA applications come from families with household incomes of $65,000 and up, 40 percent came from families who earn between $42,000 and $65,000, and 10 percent came from families with incomes up to $24,000.

Instead of making this about class warfare, we should be encouraging families with incomes up to $24,000 to put their students in private schools, and yes, there are ones that are affordable. Unfortunately, we are continually bombarded by media commentators and education officials who convince us public schools only need more money to improve. That is rubbish. All we have done the past 40 years is feed a beast that devours more and more of our tax money and has failed to improve our children's education.

Mr. Sebelius and the liberal establishment can't admit that our public school system is failing. Since the Department of Education was formed in the late 1970s — President Jimmy Carter's political payoff to teachers unions for their 1976 endorsement — public school test scores have not improved and in many areas have gone down. Our school systems have become bureaucratic public institutions that are, in many ways, controlled by the Department of Education and are ripe with fraud and mismanagement.

We need more parents to take an active interest in their children's education, to wake up and recognize our public school system needs a complete engine overhaul — or to be taken to the junkyard and discarded.

Michael O. Kreps

Las Vegas

Socialism alternative

Sen. Bernie Sanders vows to explain his belief in socialism ("Sanders to explain democratic socialism," Oct. 19 Review-Journal). I can't wait for his rendition.

The Democratic presidential candidate intimates that police, fire departments and libraries are examples of socialist programs, so we shouldn't be shocked or alarmed, because we already participate in socialism. However, these entities provide equal services to all citizens, regardless of the individual's financial ability.

Real socialism, as Sen. Sanders states, relies upon more taxes on the wealthy and corporations, thereby allowing more government spending on programs for the poor. As such, that does not provide equal service to all citizens. You won't hear the senator suggest that those who receive the assistance programs' benefits be required to pay it back in some fashion that would benefit those who supplied the funds. You won't hear him suggest there be a dollar limit placed on the amount that can be gifted to the recipient, or a limit placed on the amount of time one can participate in that assistance program.

You also won't hear Sen. Sanders speak of requiring an independent body to monitor the distribution of the programs' assets.

So instead of socialism, how about this: The government creates a donation fundraising avenue, rather than one of taxation. Should an individual, no matter the tax bracket, or a corporation wish to donate, it would receive a pre-established tax credit for each donation. People can then make the choice to give or withhold donations if the government is not using the money in a productive manner.

Should the amount of donations not meet the expectations, it will be up to the government to change the expectations. This might also help stamp out the idea that the government should provide assistance to an individual in perpetuity.

Doug Plunkett

Las Vegas

Social Security freeze

I see Social Security recipients won't get a cost-of-living adjustment this year again. The federal government says the cost of gas has gone down and, as a result, consumer prices are down. I guess the people who made this decision don't do any grocery shopping or buy gas in Nevada. Gas prices are on the upswing, and eggs lately have cost more than $3 a dozen.

This is our money. The government has no right to do this.

Henry Hertel

Las Vegas