When did ‘profit’ become a dirty word?

To the editor:

I read with dismay Susan Estrich's Wednesday commentary on Andre Agassi's plan to build 75 more charter schools over the next four years. From the subheadline ("novel concept -- yet it's deeply troubling") I was expecting to read that there was something wrong with the program itself.

As I read it, I began to think her concerns with the plan related to taking away resources from public school systems, or that Mr. Agassi's plan would exclude California.

Finally, though, I had to conclude that her real issue was with the words "for profit."

She holds that charter schools are only laboratories for experimenting with new ideas that may or may not be incorporated into the public school systems. In theory, this implies that each charter school is a case study in different teaching concepts, and should not be duplicated in any other charter school.

Interestingly enough, this rule has already been broken by the KIPP charter schools, which with their proven record for success have expanded to 99 locations across the country. In fact, the first school being built by Mr. Agassi's partners is a KIPP school in Philly.

Ms. Estrich's real problem though, would appear to be the "for profit" part of the plan. It would seem that Andre Agassi and his partners are not altruistic enough for her.

As I understand it, by law, public funding is provided only for the operation and not for the construction of any charter school. Which means they are going to build 75 schools out of their own pockets.

Once the schools are open for four or five years, they should prove stable enough to generate enough funds to pay back the investors with interest. Any good businessman can tell you the next step: plow the money back in to build more schools.

More success to you, Andre.

Thomas J. Stansfield

Las Vegas

Scenic route

To the editor:

Thursday's story about the two Metro police officers who went to Arizona while they were supposed to be working was very disturbing. If a private-sector worker went to work and then took the company car with company gasoline to go sight-seeing in another state without authorization, he would have been terminated.

But not a member of Metro. The department gives them a paid, five-month vacation.

This is costing the taxpayers approximately $22,916 per officer. And another $22,916 for the officers they needed to cover their shifts while they were on paid leave. That is almost $100,000 of taxpayer money that could be used for our city.

Was this a sweetheart deal between the union and the sheriff?

I think it is time for Metro to be held to the same standards the rest of us are held to. These officers are still receiving paid leave until June 18, when they will be disciplined and lose one week's pay. Unbelievable.

D. Moniz

Las Vegas

Heck's right

To the editor:

A pyramid scheme starts by recruiting investors with an offer of guaranteed high returns. But the earliest investors receive a return paid for by money from new recruits, not a return on any real investment.

From the day the scam is initiated, liabilities exceed assets. The only way it can continue making payments is by getting additional investors.

Like it or not, this describes Social Security.

The only way current taxpayers will collect is if people in the future continue making payments. That's because current taxes are being used to pay current beneficiaries. Pyramid schemes collapse because they run out of investors. Social Security continues because the government forces people to participate. If people could opt out, the system would fail.

Part of what made Social Security work originally was that the retirement age was set higher than average life expectancy. This meant people would pay into the system but never collect benefits. Since then, life expectancy has gone up dramatically. The retirement age has not.

If Social Security had to live by the rules applied to private retirement plans, it would be closed and the administrators would be in jail for fraud.

Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., was right. Social Security is a pyramid scheme. I don't fault him for saying it, I fault him for not backing up his comments.

The real question is: Does the country have the will to stop the name calling and fix it before it bankrupts us all?

Philip Cohen

Las Vegas

Judicial hardball

To the editor:

In response to the Thursday op-ed, "Fill the vacancies on the federal bench," co-written by Mayor Oscar Goodman:

The piece notes that, "Filling vacancies on our federal courts should not be a partisan food fight." Maybe Mr. Goodman should explain that to Robert Bork. Senate Democrats, especially the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, so vilified Mr. Bork (a Reagan nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court) that we have a new verb in our vocabulary, to be "borked."

Then, during the Bush administration, so many judicial vacancies remained unfilled because of Democrat filibusters that Republicans threatened to change the rules on judicial nominees. That would have allowed a simple majority, instead of 60 percent, to overrule a judicial filibuster, something Democrats called the "nuclear option." Mr. Bush nominated 39 people to fill 27 judgeships who were either denied an up-or-down vote by the Judiciary Committee or by filibuster.

The filibuster of judicial nominees had been used only once before in American history.

Mr. Goodman writes, "For those vacancies with nominees, the Senate has not moved forward with confirmation votes in a timely way." Well, I looked, but I couldn't find any articles where he complained about the same tie-up during the Bush administration. I guess he was too busy with his mayoral duties back then.

Finally, the authors also write, "The Senate has procedures for cutting off debate and bringing even controversial nominees to a vote." Yes, and Republicans should play hardball, exactly like the Democrats did, and filibuster those controversial nominees.

Robert Gardner

Henderson