Using the government to quash competition

To the editor:

My husband often needles me for being naive, for believing in an America free of corruption, where entrepreneurship thrives. Sadly, your Dec. 18 article on "Dotty's" gave me the wake-up call he's been lobbying for.

I was absolutely disgusted to read of how members of the Nevada Resort Association, fearing competition, are marshalling their politicians of choice -- County Commissioners Steve Sisolak and Chris Giunchigliani -- to do their bidding. By Mr. Sisolak's own quote he was approached to "slow the expansion of Dotty's."

Oh sure, you can couch it in concern with whether the operator is paying the appropriate taxes, but really it's about killing off competition using a government tool -- oh, I mean the government as a tool.

I was born in a country where you could have an idea for a business, give it your best and the market/consumers would decide whether you ultimately failed or succeeded. It's what I dreamed up growing up in poverty. It's what drove me to start my own business. It's what I share with kids across the value as a Junior Achievement volunteer.

But after reading your article, I guess I finally have to admit that my husband is right: The America I believed in really does not exist anymore.

Mysty Scalia

Las Vegas

Taxing issues

To the editor:

Your Sunday Viewpoints section included a very good pro-con discussion concerning the estate tax between John Brummett (pro) and Sherman Frederick (con). But Mr. Frederick again complains about the fact that not everyone pays income tax.

Without getting into the specifics of the 47 percent who paid no income tax (of course he doesn't explain that a portion of these non-payers are high income people with a multitude of tax shelters) I would like Mr. Frederick to give me an answer to this question:

I have a very good friend who works in the construction trade and had a very difficult time this past year finding work. His income for 2010 is going to be in the neighborhood of $6,000. That is for the entire year. Barely enough to pay his share of rent and buy food. He had to use up a very small savings account just to survive.

So Mr. Frederick, what should he contribute to the support of the country via income taxes and be a "good citizen"? I would be curious to see your answer as he is not the only American struggling to earn a living in these difficult times.

Michael R. Stilley

Mesquite

For profit

To the editor:

In his Friday letter, Frederick H. Spoerl states "For corporations to make a profit on the health care of our citizens is unconscionable." Say what? Does that apply all the way down the line to the rank-and-file employees, from doctors to janitors?

Consider mankind's need for food and water. All of mankind has, always has, and always will require food and water, without exception. And yet there are great corporations involved in and profiting from providing for those even more fundamental needs. Are they just as evil, as well?

And does that label apply all the way down the line to the farmer, rancher, even the illegal immigrant picking the crops?

It sounds as if Mr. Spoerl is advocating a government take over of health care, but people are at the root of the government as well, and those people all work for money. Would that be just as "unconscionable"?

Does anybody believe that health care as we know it would exist today without those "unconscionable corporations" and their profits? Profits are often reinvested to develop the advancing technology that just may extend lives or save them. Does Mr. Spoerl honestly believe his health care options would be what they are today without those corporations he so despises?

Don Dieckmann

Henderson

Easy math

To the editor:

Your Friday editorial on school vouchers, and Glenn Cook's Sunday column, highlight a lack of understanding about some of the educational problems in the public schools.

The private schools have their choice of "raw materials." The public schools do not. In the private schools, if parents don't provide adequately disciplined and motivated youngsters to the school, the youngsters are denied enrollment and thus go to the public schools, which don't have a choice.

In addition, I found through having a youngster at a high-end private school that parental involvement (homework, programs, projects, etc.) is also a requirement. My wife and I determined that if we applied the same effort with him enrolled in public school, he would do as well. We could then save the $12,000 per year for his college fund.

Require the same student and parent performance in the public schools and you may be surprised at the success rate.

I would welcome accountability for the learning of well-behaved, motivated students. And I feel confident that we would welcome vouchers because by being allowed to do our jobs, teachers would be confident that they could compete magnificently with the private schools. But to allow the well-behaved, motivated students to be taken away to attend private school would just subject the public schools to more unearned ridicule. Why? Because only parents who do their jobs teaching appropriate behaviors and motivating their youngsters will utilize the vouchers.

If they won't do their jobs when it's free, I don't see them shelling out a few thousand dollars on top of the voucher for their kid's success.

Herb Johnson

Las Vegas