Making it more difficult on the unemployed
To the editor:
A Tuesday Review-Journal story discussed the many unemployed Nevadans still waiting for unemployment checks or relief because of an antiquated computer system. Reportedly, a fix for this is still three years away, at a cost of $35 million.
Benefits were suspended for about 40,000 of Nevada's estimated 120,000 unemployed claimants. President Barack Obama's approved benefit extension was signed on July 22. As the article indicates, when claims are re-activated, the employment department sends claimants a letter, who then have to call the claim center to file a claim and start receiving their extended benefits.
Sounds good, but the kicker is that trying to make a call into the center to get all of this rolling is beyond a challenge -- the phone system is overloaded. That is criminal given today's technology.
Last week, the department phone system handled 84,000 calls, but can accommodate only about 400 calls in queue. Callers then get an almost perpetual "busy" signal.
Talk about frustration for all of those thousands of people. What happened to the process of filing online?
And where is Sen. Harry Reid when it comes to helping improve this horrendous problem? Much has been said about what Sen. Reid has "done" for Nevada, but the more important list of what he has not done seems to be growing daily.
This is a terrible situation for many unemployed who rely on their benefits checks each week to try to make ends meet.
Geoff Marsh
Las Vegas
Make the rich pay
To the editor:
Tom Cameron's Monday letter promoted several myths concerning Social Security and the Democratic Party.
Social Security is solvent until at least 2037 based on projected receipts and benefit outlays. Instead of decreasing benefits, something that is indeed politically risky, an easy and ideal fix would be to eliminate the $106,800 maximum salary base. If the rich had all of their wages subject to Social Security withholding, like the middle-class and poor, not only would a regressive tax be eliminated, but Social Security's solvency would be assured for many generations without cutting benefits.
Mr. Cameron portrayed Sen. Harry Reid and the Democrats as dishonest enablers of a Ponzi scheme, yet if it wasn't for the Democrats, President Bush's 2005 plan to privatize Social Security and place it in the hands of Wall Street investors would have resulted in the meltdown that he is inaccurately predicting.
The idea that Social Security is filled with IOU's is dishonest rhetoric promoted by partisan hacks. Social Security funds are invested in U.S. Treasury bonds and securities, the safest and most reliable securities in the world. The U.S. government has never defaulted on Treasury notes, yet some people are comparing them to Bernie Madoff's treachery?
In reality, the actual fear-mongers are the people who want to eliminate Social Security or place it in the hands of investors, who only care about their bottom line and not the people it was designed to assist
James N. Bragge
North Las Vegas
Union gift
To the editor:
Our Democrats are paying off the teacher and firefighter unions with another $26 billion increase in the national debt. They say that measure will save 200,000 jobs -- at an average cost of $130,000 per job. The other beneficiaries of that new largess are the bankrupt Democrat states.
There are two facts when considering this new robbery perpetrated on the American people, namely:
1. It now takes 17 active firefighters to support one pensioner.
2. Only 45 percent of teachers teach (mainly self-esteem), while 55 percent of union members administer, develop, write reports, congregate, interrelate, enforce political correctness and diversity, clean corridors, police games, assist in conventions, lobby, engage in political activities and contribute their dues to Democrats.
Now we all understand a little better this new gift from our future generations to today's unions.
Marc Jeric
Las Vegas
All mouth
To the editor:
Lewis Aronow wrote in Friday's letters that he believed the income tax should again feature a 90 percent rate.
Why wait for the income tax rules to change? This is the perfect opportunity for the gentleman to back up his words with action. If he truly believes what he proposes for others, then there is nothing stopping him from giving the federal government 90 percent of his income.
Anyone who is not willing to do what they ask of others should not be offering such suggestions.
I wish many in Congress would believe that, too.
Steven G. Hayes Sr.
Las Vegas
Harry's pick
To the editor:
First, I would like to wish Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick a speedy and complete recovery from bypass surgery.
He is a big part of Las Vegas and Nevada.
Second, I want to say that I will vote for Sharron Angle for U.S. Senate one compelling reason: She is the candidate Harry Reid and his minions picked for us.
Who am I to argue with Harry Reid?
Ron Rash
Henderson
