The best redistribution policy? Charity
To the editor:
Sen. Barack Obama wants to redistribute the wealth of high income people and give it to those less fortunate. What does this really mean? If you work hard and are successful, more of your money will go to the government, and then the government will decide who should receive that money.
Many Americans already redistribute their wealth -- by donating to charity. Even people who cannot afford to do so donate to their church or other organizations of their choice. Many people don't agree with where some of their tax money currently goes. Sen. Obama wants to take more money from the "wealthy" and have the government make even more decisions regarding where it goes. Instead of allowing you to donate your money to a local charity of your choice, Sen. Obama may give your money to a program in another city that he deems more worthy.
The Obamas donated less than 1 percent of their 2000-2004 income to charities, according to Bloomberg News. That amount rose to 5.7 percent in 2007, after he announced his candidacy for president; they donated $250,000 of their income of $4.2 million. Over the years, the money was given to charities of their choosing, including the Trinity United Church of Christ. With all that we have heard about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, many of us may not think that was a worthy cause, but that was Sen. Obama's choice alone, and as Americans, we all deserve to have that choice.
If Sen. Obama wants to redistribute his wealth, he should donate much more than 5.7 percent. If the government takes more of our money, will there be enough left over to give to the charities of our choosing?
Karen Sommer
LAS VEGAS
About face
To the editor:
In 2006, the Review-Journal editorial board tore state Supreme Court Justice Nancy Becker to shreds in multiple editorials, saying she must go because of her ruling in Guinn v. Legislature to overturn a voter-approved constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds support for tax increases.
In an about face, you now support the re-election of Chief Justice Mark Gibbons, who voted the same as Justice Becker. Your good ol' boy attitude and double standards are showing. I will join Jim McDaniel (Thursday letters), and will not be voting to retain Chief Justice Gibbons. Your endorsement of him was indeed flawed.
Martin Henderson
LAS VEGAS
Rewarding failure
To the editor:
It sometimes seems that I am living in the United States of Alice in Wonderland. The polls are telling us that the Democrat-controlled Congress has single-digit approval ratings.
Now the polls are telling us that the American solution to this poorly performing Congress is to elect more Democrats and seat a Democrat as president.
Am I wrong, or am I truly peering through the looking glass?
Edward J. Cooper
LAUGHLIN
Other candidates
To the editor:
As expected, the Review-Journal has endorsed the Republican candidate for president and the Las Vegas Sun has endorsed the Democratic nominee. Both newspapers compared the two candidates to each other.
Many of us are disgusted with this process. There are four other candidates on my ballot for president, and I would have liked to have seen one of the two newspapers stand up and acknowledge that these candidates exist. They don't have a chance because they don't get any press.
Robert McEntee
LAS VEGAS
Giving back
To the editor:
In response to Monday's Political Notebook column, in which Henderson plumber Jack Ramjeeawon supports higher taxes on himself and others ("Jack the Plumber has a word for Joe"):
I applaud Mr. Ramjeeawon's desire to "give back to the community that has given to us." May I suggest, instead of giving to the federal government, which is notorious for waste, that he either give his excess monies to local charities -- or reduce his charges for plumbing work in this community.
Nancy Shaw
HENDERSON
Having it both ways
To the editor:
Does the Review-Journal have any research requirements for its writers? How is it that Molly Ball can write: "Obama himself does not support gay marriage" ("Stylin' For Obama," Tuesday Review-Journal) without any attribution for this statement?
Just a brief examination of Sen. Obama's positions would lead the average person to a much different conclusion.
For example, Sen. Obama opposes Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriages in California. He will seek to repeal the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. He opposes a national constitutional amendment protecting marriage. He will abolish the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals in the military. And he will appoint liberal Supreme Court and federal court justices.
Sen. Obama may say he doesn't support gay marriage, but his positions tell a different story.
Richard Ziser
LAS VEGAS
THE WRITER IS THE FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE COALITION FOR THE PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE IN NEVADA.
