Wishing more politicians were like Thatcher

To the editor:

Kudos on an excellent editorial eulogy to “Iron Lady” Margaret Thatcher (“Margaret Thatcher, freedom fighter,” April 10 Review-Journal). She was truly a remarkable person and great leader. You bemoan the paucity of character in our politicians, and rightly so, saying, “How unfortunate that the current ruling political class are so lacking in men and women of character who learned from childhood to think of businesses not as cash cows, but as engines of wealth and job creation.”

It made me stop and think. What if we really had a candidate for high office who earned his own money through hard work, didn’t cheat on his wife, helped others with a compassionate, cheerful heart, understood economics in the same way as Mrs. Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and possessed unyielding character, refusing to compromise his standards or corrupt his office? Wow, that would be great. We would all vote for him and live happily ever after.

Or would we just all sell out and vote for the guy who promised us free stuff?

Let’s ask Mitt Romney. At least I know we’d get an honest answer.



Medical marijuana

To the editor:

I just got my medicinal marijuana card and was disappointed to see it replaced my driver’s license. It has a large green band across the middle saying I’m a marijuana user. Now every time I buy something and they need to confirm my ID, they now see my medicine. There are thousands of different medications people are on, and they aren’t displayed every time you need to prove your identity.




To the editor:

Sequestration. What does that word really mean in budgetary facts? Most reading this manage a household or business budget and are required to spend less than they earn. Budgets are made up of revenue and expenses, and only governments are able to, year after year, spend more (expenses) than they receive in tax receipts (can’t really call it revenue).

Let’s now visit the facts regarding sequestration, that all-too-often-talked-about government requirement to cut some bloated spending. See, governments, especially the federal government, use math only bureaucrats and some in the mainstream media understand.

In simple terms, if the federal budget last year was $10 and this year was expected to be $10.70 (an increase of 7 percent), but sequestration cut this budget to $10.40 (a cut of 3 percent, oh my, however in a real budget terms an increase of 4 percent year over year), how much cutting does the federal government actually need to manage? The news is full of doom-and-gloom predictions and stories. The latest to affect Las Vegas are the cancellation of the air show (“Nellis officials cancel this year’s Aviation Nation air show,” March 26 Review-Journal), Red Flag exercises and the parking of combat aircraft.

So, many should be very interested in a rational explanation, and an opening of government accounting books with real cash-flow figures to explain why there is so much pain when spending is actually increasing. Deficits — spending more than tax receipts — are another subject altogether.



Gun rights

To the editor:

Assemblyman William Horne’s AB234 is nothing more than another attack on our Second Amendment rights, and it’s punitive at that. The bill seeks another $25 per purchase of firearms and 2 cents per round of ammo to help fund Nevada’s mental health system. Why do a select few have to pay for an entire community’s problem?

If Mr. Horne truly wants to help the mental health issue, why not tax everyone? Gun owners all over the country are paying at least three to four times more now for ammunition, if they can find it now. They also pay the $25 background check fee every time they purchase a weapon, along with additional taxes imposed. Of course, let’s not leave out the additional 2.3 percent for ObamaCare.

Mr. Horne, let’s just be fair. Mental health is everyone’s problem. No? Then let’s look at people who own hammers, knives, baseball bats, golf clubs, etc., to punish them, too, for owning such dangerous weapons.



Gas tax editorial

To the editor:

I oppose your editorial recommendation for putting gasoline tax increases on next year’s ballot (“Gas tax hikes,” Thursday Review-Journal). For that matter, every tax increase proposal in any form should be rejected. Nevada has the economic opportunity of a generation to be the antidote to California’s disastrous economic policies. Instead, our elected leaders can’t seem to keep their hands out of taxpayers’ pockets. As a result, we’re headed in the same direction as California.

How arrogant do our elected officials have to be to deceive us into thinking that they are wisely spending every single tax dollar? How else do they conclude that tax increases are the only viable option?

Before jumping on the bandwagon of higher taxes, let’s take a look at prevailing wage reform, binding arbitration reform and public employee pension and benefits reform. Let’s look at all the wasteful spending programs and patronage contracts.

Elected officials shouldn’t intrude upon the taxpayers, hat in hand, demanding more money before getting their own house in order.

We may find out that we can have the roads and low taxes at the same time.



News Headlines
Local Spotlight
Add Event
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like