To boost revenue, repeal smoking law
To the editor:
Despite what the vocal minority claims, an easy way to immediately start adding tax dollars to state coffers would be to rescind the archaic, unconstitutional, anti-business smoking law deceitfully presented to the electorate.
When people were arguing "Yes on 4," "No on 5" and vice versa in 2006, I was calling for a no vote on both. That thousands of children were dying in our streets from secondhand smoke after hanging out in taverns was the most laughable excuse for this law ever conceived. Even the most deranged liberal can hardly make that connection.
After almost a year and a half into this folly, let's list the accomplishments. Bar owners were told they could serve food or allow smoking, but not both. An untold number of short-order cooks and waitresses in Nevada lost their jobs when taverns closed their kitchens to try to retain smoking customers and keep their gambling revenues up. Taxes lost. Bartending and waitress shifts were cut back due to the loss of business. Taxes lost. Hungry customers are now forced to leave taverns to get food because delivery was also banned. Taxes lost. Gamers that once frequented taverns now go to larger casinos, where the gaming tax is a lot less than what smaller taverns pay. Taxes lost.
When the voters enact laws that affect millions of dollars in taxes and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people, do they ever consider any future ramifications?
In the little tavern I frequent, four cooks and three waitresses, two of whom were teachers working part-time to supplement their income, lost their jobs. No longer are they employed as such.
A simple and much easier standard that should have been established was a simple sign that read "No person under the age of 21 allowed on premises." Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Robert Opp
LAS VEGAS
Economics lesson
To the editor:
Sen. John McCain made one of the wiser remarks in this presidential campaign when he admitted he was not well-versed in economics. Both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton have demonstrated their own ignorance with their promises of economic change. Why do they think President Lyndon B. Johnson's war against poverty failed? And why do they think the efforts of other Democratic administrations since FDR have all failed to achieve exactly what the current Democrats are promising?
The answer is that this country's Constitution did not place the government in charge of the economy. The millions of business owners and managers have that job. Without our capitalist economy, this nation would not be the wealthiest in the world. Our government's only power is to interfere with the economy.
The best way government can help is to reduce its interference, i.e., by lowering taxes, or hinder by raising them. And Democrats usually raise them, thereby hindering business. Government can also try to control business activity, which again is a hindrance.
I doubt that any Democratic candidate ever studied Milton Friedman's books on economics. In fact, it is obvious from their letters and voting that relatively few people in this country, including Republicans, understand economics or the capitalist system upon which we all depend. Too bad our schools don't require such study early in children's lives.
P.W. Allen
LAS VEGAS
Food for thought
To the editor:
The International Monetary Fund chairman stated that a food shortage and high food prices are significantly caused by switching crops from food production to agrofuel production (Sunday Review-Journal). According to The History Channel, the direct cost for this fuel is 29 percent higher than for straight fossil fuels.
This is what happens when politics supersedes economics. It has been proved time and again, whether it's called socialism (which has never worked) or global warming (which seems to be coming apart), should the news media really do its job.
Harvey Goldstein
LAS VEGAS
Government 'fixes'
To the editor:
I read the Review-Journal online every day and letters to the editor most of the time. The most troubling trend I see is how people are so willing and ready to allow the government to "fix" any problem they encounter in their lives, from home foreclosure to sore feet.
What most people would realize, if they actually sat down and thought about it, is that most of the problems they have now are the result of government intervention.
The problem we as citizens have is that we are no longer represented in Washington. The people we elect represent Washington to us. In addition, when we ask our politicians to "fix" something for us, we have to be ready to accept all that comes with that request: the corruption, the self-interest and all of the special interest influence against which we have no chance.
Therefore, the next time you ask for the government to "fix" something, ask yourself, "Do I really want all that goes with it?"
STEVE WAUGH
LAS VEGAS
