Special favors buy access to politicians
To the editor:
Your Wednesday editorial, "They come to believe they're entitled," makes several good points, but misses the biggest point of all: There is a reason that many companies like Countrywide provide special treatment to powerful people like Sens. Kent Conrad and Christopher Dodd.
Try to ignore it, explain it away or say it isn't significant all you want, but this special treatment is used to buy access. Access is used to advocate for legislation you want and against legislation you don't want. It amounts to covert bribery, and it is why our elected officials so often pass legislation that isn't in our interests and never can seem to address the most important issues we face.
The legislation passed is what lobbyists for powerful groups and businesses want passed. If an issue such as immigration reform comes up, and dealing with it effectively will harm certain powerful groups and businesses, Congress always finds a way to put off dealing with it.
Access is the reason, and as long as we minimize what Countrywide, Sens. Dodd and Conrad and many, many others routinely engage in (trading favored treatment for access), our country will be run by lobbyists employed by powerful interests that are only looking out for what is best for them.
Michael K. Casler
LAS VEGAS
Federalist lesson
To the editor:
"The house of representatives ... can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interest, and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny." -- Federalist No. 57, February 19, 1788.
A fine statement from long, long ago. Wish it were followed by our modern-day representatives. In today's ball game, the reason our members of Congress try so desperately to get re-elected is that they would hate to return to the "real world" and have to make a living under the laws they passed.
Al Ciricillo
LAS VEGAS
The cost of going green
To the editor:
There were a couple of interesting reports in the "In Brief" part of Tuesday's Review-Journal Business section.
"California utility to buy energy from Sempra" included this rather telling statement: "Sempra didn't disclose the price Pacific Gas & Electric will pay for Copper Mountain's output."
Know why? Because no one wants you to know how much "going green" is going to cost you.
The other item was "Huge wind farm slated for northwest Arizona." Again, no discussion of the cost, but there is a benchmark you can consider. Denmark is a world leader in "free" wind energy. Their cost per kilowatt hour is 38 cents, which is over three times more than the new, higher rate we are now paying NV Energy for our electricity. As NV Energy obeys our Legislature's "green" mandate to buy more renewable energy, we can expect to see our energy bills move even higher.
It's a great deal for the elected officials. They legislate the decline in our standard of living, and NV Energy and the Public Utilities Commission get blamed for it.
How sweet is that?
Knight Allen
LAS VEGAS
Targeted remark
To the editor:
Your Saturday editorial criticized the federal government for promulgating directives that discourage federal employees from sponsoring or attending meetings in "locations and accommodations that give the appearance of being lavish or are resort destinations."
To my mind, such instructions are amusing because the low-level expense accounts and per diems of the average government worker often make it financially burdensome to the attendee.
I believe that the editorial stems from President Obama's line from earlier this year: "You can't take a trip to the Super Bowl or down to Las Vegas on the taxpayer's dime." (His exact words.)
President Obama's remark was targeted. He was not talking about the American Carpet Dealers or some such organization that is profitable and can afford a lavish meeting -- if the shareholders stand still for it.
The president could have used Jackson Hole, Aspen, Hawaii, et al. in place of Las Vegas.
David L. Sullivan
LAS VEGAS
Waiting game
To the editor:
I think President Obama has been a lot smarter than we recognize. August was never his real deadline for health care reform (he understands the machinations of Congress better than that).
He's waiting for October or November, when the 2010 health insurance premiums will be arriving in our mail.
With health insurance executives swinging from light poles, he'll be able to push through any plan he wants.
Graham H. Tye
NORTH LAS VEGAS
