Taxi police save us from potential mayhem
To the editor:
The articles about the "airport sting" conducted by the Transportation Authority sound despairing to most readers because they do not tell the full story ("Woman stung in state agency's sting," Sunday Road Warrior column, and "Airport sting," Tuesday editorial).
Both stories mentioned that Delinda Epstein was down on her luck when she decided to illegally accept payment for transporting a passenger from McCarran International Airport. But who would pick up Ms. Epstein's passenger if her car had mechanical difficulties? What would happen if Ms. Epstein was involved in a terrible accident while transporting a person with minimal insurance coverage? What if Ms. Epstein would have raped, robbed or killed? We would be reading a very different story.
Las Vegas taxi drivers have been though a background check. Las Vegas taxi companies have protections that offer the cabbies and the riding public a safe means of conveyance: cameras, qualified mechanics and commercial insurance with sufficient limits of coverage.
The Transportation Authority is not out to harass people who are down on their luck, nor is the Transportation Authority out to protect big business. The Transportation Authority protects the riding public.
Being down on one's luck does not give people the right to violate the law.
Ben Merliss
LAS VEGAS
Spending machine
To the editor:
Regarding Friday's Review-Journal editorial, "A perpetual tax-and-spend cycle":
I support the Review-Journal's position that the government budget setting during flush economic times inevitably leads to budget distress during slow times. In fact, the excerpted letter below was sent to all of Nevada's lawmakers this year during their hand-wringing over the budget cuts and the ensuing tax increases that we the people are now enjoying. I hasten to add that of the 63 legislators who received my missive, only one acknowledged my efforts.
The following is my "accountant's solution" to the tax-and-spend cycle so accurately described by the Review-Journal editorial board.
"The crux of the problem is not fluctuating revenue. Economies are always waxing and waning and thereby creating increasing or decreasing revenue streams for any tax system. The problem is the elected official who wants to pander to the electorate by increasing spending to the limit of resources during boom economies, which leads to gut-wrenching cutbacks or deficit spending during recessionary economies such as now.
"The solution to this dilemma is simple, but it requires discipline on the part of all elected officials, particularly those officials who are compelled to pander for votes by succumbing to special interest groups or by providing funds for targeted voter groups so as to engender their support to ensure re-election.
"The solution requires that the state budget dollar amount be limited by law to the rolling average of the past five years' tax revenues. During boom economies, excess revenue will be collected and invested so as to be available during recessionary economies when tax collections inevitably fall below the five-year rolling average. During successive years of economic growth, the budget would increase incrementally, and during successive years of economic slowdowns, the budget would decrease incrementally. There would be no need for cataclysmic shifts such as the current legislators are dealing with now. "
I am no legal scholar. This suggestion may require an amendment to the state constitution, or it may require a referendum vote of the populace. I don't know. What I do know is human nature, and that means any practical solution will have to be the law of the land, or weak-kneed politicians wanting to buy votes will spend.
Ron Ecklund
HENDERSON
Double standard
To the editor:
I find it rather interesting that when Nevada's junior senator is involved in a sex scandal, where the so-called victim is involved in a blackmail scheme, the reporting appears to focus on the senator rather than the blackmailers.
Take David Letterman and his sex scandal, where the authorities immediately went after the blackmailers and considered Mr. Letterman the victim. Is there a double-standard for politicians and entertainers?
Where is our district attorney? Asleep as usual?
R.A. Salter
HENDERSON
Two drops
To the editor:
Chris Miller (Saturday letter) tells us that carbon dioxide is not important because it makes up "less than 0.04 percent of the atmosphere." What does a number like that really mean?
Here is a safe and simple experiment that your children can do to help you decide if 0.04 percent is truly insignificant. Start with a clear drinking glass filled with about 8 ounces of water. Now add two drops of food coloring. Can you see any change? Two drops is about 0.04 percent.
Stanley Cloud
HENDERSON
