Special election preferable to appointment

To the editor:

On the task of replacing departing Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Wolfson as he moves to the district attorney's office, City Councilman Bob Coffin stated: "We have too much to do without worrying about an extended campaign."

Mr. Coffin favors a political appointment process for Ward 2, adding, "I'd rather have an appointment, just get it over with."

Mr. Coffin is incorrect. The "extended campaign" is not his to worry over, it is for the voting citizens. The importance of the democratic process outweighs the convenience of a political appointment. Bypassing an election in favor of an appointment removes thousands of voices in a single vote, detracting from the democratic process.

In 2009, I wrote about elected politicians taking an oath to serve in a specific capacity and then departing for greener pastures. I asked whether a politician who openly chooses to pursue his political ambition in the midst of a term should have to utilize his own funds -- i.e. political war chest -- to pay for the election triggered by his decision to leave the office. Should Mr. Wolfson utilize his war chest to offset the costs of a special election to the taxpayers of Las Vegas?

And so, the initial choices are appointing a City Council member or holding an election -- and then, who will pay? The public or the politicians?

Martin Dean Dupalo

Las Vegas

The writer is president of the Nevada Center for Public Ethics.

Tax games

To the editor:

President Obama, in Tuesday's State of the Union address, bemoans the fact that individuals such as Mitt Romney are paying an effective tax rate of only 15 percent on income derived from capital gains. To offset this grave injustice, he is proposing an effective tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than $1 million from whatever source, in the interest of fairness.

Of course, this fairness doctrine, which Mr. Obama so passionately and unequivocally embraces, disappears into thin air when the concept of taxing the same income multiple times comes into play. The fairness doctrine is conspicuously absent when it is revealed that roughly 47 percent of the population pay no federal income tax.

The president wants this additional revenue so he can continue his reckless and wasteful spending habits, which have our country $15 trillion in debt. By the president's way of thinking, he acquires votes by seeing how much of other people's money he can waste.

Our country deserves a president who is willing to tackle the deficit and make tough and necessary reforms regarding entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. What our country does not need is another four years of a president who kicks the can down the road because he lacks the courage to tell the American people the truth.

Ray Kolander

Las Vegas