So what if private-sector jobs are destroyed?
To the editor:
John L. Smith's Sunday column, "City Fire Department's future is hot topic," is an excellent example of a liberal's worldview. The city of Las Vegas is considering how best to deliver emergency medical and transport services. Mr. Smith asserts that "in challenging economic times it flatly makes better fiscal sense to increase the department's role in the process and allow its experts to handle all or most patient transport."
Mr. Smith neglects to tell us that it costs taxpayers about $1 million a year to crew a Las Vegas Fire Department ambulance. MedicWest and AMR, the two private-sector companies that work alongside the Fire Department, crew an ambulance for less than half that amount, about $400,000 a year. In avoiding this fiscal reality, Mr. Smith doesn't have to answer the obvious question of who is going to pay the difference, so I will: the taxpayers. But cost is not an issue when liberals have the chance to increase the role of government in our lives.
Which brings me to the second part of Mr. Smith's statement, which asserts that we should allow the Fire Department's "experts to handle all or most patient transport." This statement illustrates two beliefs liberals hold. Mr. Smith calls the firefighters "experts" but does not acknowledge the employees of MedicWest and AMR are experts, too. Conclusion: Liberals think government employees are superior to the rest of us. Mr. Smith displays the second and more egregious belief by not even discussing the impact on the employees of AMR (they will find themselves unemployed) if we allow the Fire Department "experts to handle all or most patient transport" services. Conclusion: Damage to the private sector is not an issue when liberals have the chance to take jobs away from businesses and give them to union-dues-paying, public-sector workers, who in turn finance the campaigns of liberal politicians.
This, in the mind of a liberal, is the circle of life. The rest of us can eat cake, if the liberals would be so kind as to leave us a small slice.
MICHAEL EDENS
LAS VEGAS
Home invasion
To the editor:
The proposed Verizon digital video recorder that would allow the company to track consumers through audio and video feeds so it can customize advertising goes too far.
The device clearly violates individuals' privacy rights by watching their movements inside their own homes. Many consumers don't want to share this, even though they're assured the information isn't being compromised at all.
Will Verizon be sharing this information not only with advertisers, but also with government agencies?
The Verizon DVR proposal should be looked at in every detail, from every perspective. Privacy has to be one of them. Customers should think twice about what exactly they're gaining.
BILL MILLER
LAS VEGAS
Good one, Steve
To the editor:
Well done, Steve Sebelius. For the first time in decades, the Review-Journal columnist wrote something I agree with and would support.
On the rare occasion that I sell one of my firearms, I always do the transfer at the police station so the background check can be done and the gun properly registered.
I only wish that more people of your political persuasion could understand the reality about passing laws that have no effect on criminal behavior.
ROBERT RAIDER
HENDERSON
Tax rates
To the editor:
One has to assume that Marlene Drozd, whose letter regarding tax rates and the Constitution was published Monday, is either deliberately ignoring history or she gets her news solely from ultra-conservative sources.
She writes that progressive income tax rates are unconstitutional. Wealthy Americans and profitable corporations have enjoyed tax rates significantly lower than the average and below-average American worker for decades. It is not this administration that has violated the Constitution, but past administrations that have done so.
Any CEO making millions will admit that he or she pays a considerably lower tax rate than that of his or her administrative assistant. And corporations often pay no tax at all on billions of dollars of profits while receiving government subsidies put in place by the very conservative administrations that Ms. Drozd seems to idolize. Ms. Drozd also seems to be unaware of the fact that payroll taxes on the average worker have also been raised.
What President Obama's administration did was to take steps toward leveling the playing field and conforming to our Constitution, a far cry from the violation that she contends.
JOEL STRAUSS
LAS VEGAS
A government illness
To the editor:
The U.S. government is suffering from a chronic, debilitating illness called spenditis. It is highly infectious and easily spreads from one political party to another. The condition is critical and may predispose our country's credit rating to be further downgraded.
Already in intensive care, we may soon have to put up the sign "DNR" - do not resuscitate.
LOU DIVINA TIU
HENDERSON
Priority No. 1
To the editor:
I was wondering when somebody in Congress would have the common sense to prioritize the agenda.
President Barack Obama and Sen. Harry Reid wasted two years shoving ObamaCare through Congress while ignoring the economy, and now they want to go off into gun control instead of making the economy priority No. 1.
Republicans and Democrats both need to get our finances in order and put job creation first. Perhaps when people have a job to go to, they will not be so inclined to resort to violence.
BILL L. WILSON
HENDERSON
