Tax hikes grow the economy? Really?

To the editor:

It seems like the world has been turned upside down. I moved to Las Vegas in 1977. During the past 30 years, the politicians and government workers have stated time and time again that "growth does not pay for growth." All of the taxes generated by new homes and residents, including building permit fees, impact fees, water/sewer hook-up fees, sales and property taxes paid by the new residents, vehicle registration fees and gasoline taxes paid by new residents, etc., supposedly do not cover the costs of meeting their demand for services. Hence, for all these years, the more we grow the more we have been told we must raise taxes.

Then things slow down, and there is less growth. If everything we have been told is true, this would mean that the need to increase taxes should abate. If "growth does not pay for growth," less growth would mean we've finally been relieved of the pressure to raise taxes.

A few weeks ago, the Review-Journal ran a short article about a government "consultant" who stated that the economic slowdown has reduced expected revenues, and that without the taxes generated by growth, we must now raise taxes.

So there it is. If we grow, we must raise taxes. If we don't grow, we must raise taxes.

Finally, in Thursday's Review-Journal, state employee Hank Stone explains it all. He writes that new taxes would "raise the revenues this state needs to maintain and grow its economy."

Now I understand. For all of these years, it has been the government that has been growing the economy of Nevada. The more they raise our taxes, the more our economy has grown. And, of course, when they stop raising taxes, the economy shrinks.

If this is true, we need a special session of the Legislature to raise taxes to the absolute maximum. Let the state take all of our earnings, property and wealth, and we should end up with the world's most vibrant economy this side of North Korea.

John M. McGrail

LAS VEGAS

Unwise bailout

To the editor:

Our politicians and media have finally reached the pinnacle of spin. For example, a major story out of Washington, D.C., is being described as follows: "Congress overwhelmingly supports a bill to provide relief for homeowners facing foreclosure."

The use of the term "homeowners" is absurd. They would more properly be called "home buyers," or even better, "attempted home buyers." If they owned their homes they wouldn't be subject to foreclosure by anyone.

Let's get rid of the spin, and call it what it is. The pandering politicians overwhelmingly support giving taxpayer money to banks for giving their money to attempted home buyers whose gamble didn't work out.

Jim Brown

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Mission accomplished

To the editor:

In response to the Ann Coulter column you published June 20 under the headline "Bush's America -- completely al-Qaida free since 2001":

So, now Ms. Coulter thinks that George W. Bush is a "moral giant." It was just about one year ago when she was calling him "really stupid." Seriously. Go figure. Of course, why should we expect consistency from Ms. Coulter in any department except one: inanity.

Recently, however, those in the know, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba have been calling Bush things much worse than "really stupid" -- things like "unconstitutional," "impeachable" and "war criminal."

Ms. Coulter's giddy claim is based on President Bush supposedly having prevented another attack by al-Qaida on American soil. Is she so deluded that she actually believes that Osama bin Laden, who remains free as a bird, could not have staged another attack if he'd really wanted to? But one of bin Laden's primary stated goals was to bog America down in a war in Muslim lands. With one fell swoop, on 9/11, he set the trap that would lead President Bush to invade the Arab world, shred the Constitution, wreck the economy and become the spitting target of the entire world. He only needed to do it once, and believe this, he had inside dope on what kind of a character he was dealing with in the White House.

As for GOP Sen. John McCain, Ms. Coulter pegs him a "lickspittle" and "not worthy of kissing Bush's rear end," as she herself is now doing. Interesting, because Sen. McCain, who was formerly a victim of President Bush's superior moral standing and slime, now appears to have super-glued his kisser to President Bush's tuchis.

While Ms. Coulter and Sen. McCain surge at the presidential derriere, and President Bush surges at the Iraqi tar baby, the Taliban surge in Afghanistan along with heroin production and bin Laden bides his time in Pakistan.

Mission accomplished! But whose?

Bob Hannah

HENDERSON