Taxpayer benefits for illegal aliens

To the editor:

In response to your Feb. 10 article that included comments from Michael Willden, director of the state Department of Health and Human Services:

Mr. Willden states that noncitizens are ineligible for assistance, but later says that 15 percent of December payments for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families went to children of noncitizens born in the United States. What a motivation to not only violate our borders, but to quickly procreate once on U.S. soil.

How many of these noncitizen parents with no Social Security numbers have other income while their kids benefit from our taxes?

While serving in Iraq, we were told that the war would contribute to the security of our nation. Those same politicians who sent us overseas turn a blind eye to the less violent, but far more prevalent flood of illegals who receive numerous forms of assistance while driving down wages and overfilling our children's classrooms.

My employer has subcontracted out a project that employs 15 people for low-skilled construction work. All the workers are non-English speaking. How many U.S. citizens could use several weeks of full-time work these days?

David McAlee

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Wasteful spending

To the editor:

Re: The Feb. 7 letter, "There's a place for government, state workers":

To the two government employees who wrote expressing their dismay at the rising chorus of dissatisfaction with the size of spending of local government: The point that you and your colleagues (and free-spending politicians) miss is that, in bad economic times, the public will not tolerate the wasteful governmental spending that it routinely overlooks in good times.

While there are many useful, valid functions that government must provide (mainly defense and safety), there are also many unneeded, wasteful boondoggles foisted on the taxpaying public. By fighting any and all attempts to cut back on this waste, you risk losing the goodwill and support of those you "serve." It would be much better if you helped to root out inefficiencies and helped shine a light on those agencies that we all know serve no useful function other than to give someone a paycheck.

I would like to end with a question I've often asked, but, for which, I have never received a satisfactory answer: If government is cut back, what exactly are the "vital services" that will be lost? Many of the functions of local government are bureaucracies set-up to oversee rules and regulations foisted on the populace, many to generate revenue. Cut back on a lot of the meaningless, intrusive, uber-regulation and the need for a lot of these expensive, intrusive, meaningless bureaucracies will disappear.

DAVE DOWNER

HENDERSON

No cuts

To the editor:

As a teacher in Clark County, I am appalled by the calls for cuts to education spending and teacher salaries. When politicians are campaigning, they glad-hand teachers and praise us for the wonderful job that we do. They tell us how we have hard jobs and that our jobs are critical. Once these politicians have won the vote of teachers, they turn their back on them by demanding that education be one of the first things to get cut.

Is the state in an economic crisis? Yes. Will cutting back on spending help? Probably. However, our district is one of the lowest performing districts in the nation. The Clark County School District is the fifth largest district in the nation but we have a high dropout rate. When compared to other states, Nevada pays its teachers less than the national average. With the odds stacked against us, why cut education?

The governor is willing to take a gamble by asking school districts to cut jobs and cut pay, but he says that the public can donate money to "educational gift certificates" to pay teacher salaries. That is an insult to teachers. We are not charity cases. I do not want the governor to gamble with teacher salaries in a state where foreclosure and unemployment is rampant. Teachers have mortgages, too.

Who is going to help us when we have trouble paying our mortgage or when our homes go into foreclosure? Will the governor? I wouldn't bet on it.

Rebecca Armstrong

LAS VEGAS

Horse sense

To the editor:

As an advocate and supporter of the "radical animal rights people and horse lovers" referred to in George Parman's self-serving, Jan; 31 commentary condemning everybody who dares to oppose the cattlemens' conclusion that only they can provide for the wild horses, I am concerned that Mr. Parman has confused the culprits with the culprits.

The cattlemen had the better part of a few hundred years to share the range with the wild horses, who, were they not wild horses, could claim eminent domain. Why not? The horses were there with the Indians long before the cattlemen found the freebies.

In place of Mr. Parman taking pictures of "horses attempting to suck water from mud of a spring," why not help provide water? That would be the humane thing to do. Surely, he must be smarter than the horses he is criticizing. Of course, the object of the cattlemen is to make it intolerable for the horses to even exist on what was once the horses' property. And to blame the horses for more and more ranchers being forced out of business borders on lunacy.

Mr. Parman's solution: Put the best horses "on the market" for people to "use" and enjoy. Then euthanize the "older" and "less desirable" but make certain good use comes from that end product.

Regardless, we all agree that the BLM has demonstrated repeatedly that it cannot, or will not, take care of the horses. And it is truly "insane," as Mr. Parman explained, to think the cattlemen will help the horses with whom they compete for food and water. The wife of T. Boone Pickens wanted to help the horses, but got little support. We need, or rather the horses need, a Harry Reid to champion their cause. And help needs to come quickly before BLM makes the bad situation even worse.

DONALD J. DAHLHEIMER

HENDERSON