There’s always a reason to raise taxes
To the editor:
It is too bad that our state and national representatives do not grasp the inequities outlined in your editorial of April 9, "Who really costs us money?"
What is the difference between the 2004 surgeon general's report that directed "any negative economic impacts from gains in longevity with smoking reductions should not be emphasized in public health decisions" and the federal prosecutors who purposely withheld contrary evidence in the trial of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens? Both involve federal officials withholding contrary evidence to advance their case. At least the prosecutors in the Stevens case are under investigation.
I also wonder what happens when the programs financed by cigarette taxes dwindle because governments have taxed a large percentage of smokers to such an extent that they quit. Or, in the case of Oregon, when the some of the taxes are used to finance smoking cessation programs.
What are they going to tax next? Fattening foods, fast food, liquor (oops, they already do), text messaging, excess annual driving miles -- where does it end? You tell me.
I am a smoker of nearly 50 years. I am in excellent health and take no medications. How many nonsmokers of my age can say that?
Michael R. Stilley
MESQUITE
Reid delivers
To the editor:
In Publisher Sherman Frederick's April 4 column ("Harry Reid: Too big to fail"), he questioned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's power to positively influence the lives of Nevadans.
My experience has been that Sen. Reid has consistently delivered when we needed him to deliver for Southern Nevada transportation. Let me cite a few specific examples.
The funds the Regional Transportation Commission is currently spending to construct the Downtown Connector ACE rapid transit line and a new bus maintenance facility at the Las Vegas Beltway and South Decatur Boulevard were redirected to Las Vegas from another transportation project somewhere else that was not able to go forward. Sen. Reid was instrumental in ensuring that the money was redirected to Las Vegas. This money came from a transit account that Nevada has previously never been able to access.
Sen. Reid's efforts have also included ensuring that the U.S. Department of Transportation accounted for population growth in its new highway and transit funding formulas. This resulted in Nevada receiving a 30 percent increase in federal highway funding and a 152 percent increase in Nevada's transit funding.
Highway funds mean jobs to construction crews here in Nevada and a better commute when projects are complete. Transit funds mean that workers have access to public transportation to help them get to work each day. Without the updated formulas, Nevada would receive fewer dollars from the federal government -- money that Nevadans paid to the federal government in taxes.
Those same formulas were used to determine how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds were dispersed. The stimulus package means $270 million in roadway and transit funding to the state of Nevada. At least $141 million of that money will be spent here in Southern Nevada.
The Regional Transportation Commission recently commissioned a study that estimates the projects being funded with stimulus money will generate more than 1,600 jobs for our community. Those projects will create an estimated $102.5 million in direct payroll and a total of more than $216 million in economic activity in the valley. That means jobs for Nevadans, sales for local suppliers and money that residents can use to further stimulate our economy.
The federal system for appropriating funds is complicated and burdensome. Thanks to Sen. Reid and the rest of Nevada's congressional delegation, Nevada receives more transportation dollars back from the Highway Trust Fund than what we pay into the fund. To me, that means he delivers more jobs and a better quality of life for those of us who live here.
Jacob Snow
LAS VEGAS
THE WRITER IS GENERAL MANAGER OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA.
Free choice
To the editor:
Why is all the time and trouble being taken regarding smoking in restaurants ("Senate bill would ease smoking restrictions," April 4 Review-Journal)?
It seems to me the easiest and best method to change the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act would be to enact a law that states a business must post on its front door whether smoking is allowed inside the establishment. This way, individuals could make their own choices on whether to enter or go someplace else.
Of course, then the good people who think they know everything couldn't make your decision for you.
BRYCE LEE
LAS VEGAS
