To bring back tourists, keep cutting prices

To the editor:

Regarding Geoff Schumacher's Friday column, "Las Vegas mythbusting," I agree with most of his conclusions. However, I disagree that the casinos cannot further reduce prices because they have too much debt. I believe that they must reduce prices to stay in business. I would rather make 2 percent on $1 million than 10 percent on $100,000.

You cannot attract business by raising prices when you get more competition. This is what the casinos have been doing for years. When you increase the house hold on the games, when you reduce comps, and then you actually raise the prices, you are driving away business.

If the Nevada casinos would offer the customer great gaming by reducing the house hold, the customer would get more entertainment for his gambling dollar. Most people plan to spend a certain amount for gambling when they visit Las Vegas. When they lose that money in a few hours, they feel like they were cheated.

To get the people to visit Las Vegas, Las Vegas has to become what is was. It was the gambling capital of the world. It was the entertainment capital of the world. It was the place to go for an inexpensive vacation because rooms, shows and food were inexpensive.

As Rita Rudner would say, the casinos all have great names. What would you call a casino with high prices, a bad gambling club and tight games? You would call it "Empty."

Some casino, in desperation, will decide to offer the best gambling in the world. It will offer the best blackjack rules, the best slot return, the best video poker games, the best dice rules, the best roulette game and the best keno return. Then it will offer a good gambling club. It will advertise the best gambling in the world. It will be called "Profitable."

The company will be happy because the casino is full. The employees will be happy because they are getting tips and are busy. The customers will be happy because they are getting a great vacation with lots of entertainment for their money. Other businesses will be happy because people are visiting Las Vegas and spending money. Last, but not least, the state will be happy because it is getting tax revenue.

Thomas Jones

LAS VEGAS

Fiscal insanity

To the editor:

The headline on former Rep. J.C. Watts' Sunday Review-Journal column said it best: "We'll all pay for this massive spending plan." He wrote that his father and grandmother frequently told him that money didn't grow on trees. That really brought back memories. My father, in the '50s and '60s, would make the same statement.

I agree with Mr. Watts that even though China, Germany, Japan and other countries are buying our government bonds, eventually these countries will need the money themselves. We cannot borrow our way into prosperity without having to increase taxes.

I was shocked to learn that, according to Mr. Watts, "the Obama administration's first budget outline spends more money than the previous administration spent on two wars, 9/11, Katrina and the tech bubble bursting combined."

Mr. Watts' commentary should stand as the message for all real Republicans, as we plan and look toward the 2010 election -- and it starts right here in the great state of Nevada by replacing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Robert B. Sulliman Jr.

HENDERSON

Crazy greedy

To the editor:

Rosie Adaoag and her family have been evicted from their dream home ("Face of hard times: Henderson officer sees families grieve over evictions," Sunday Review-Journal). Why do I not feel sorry for them?

First off, buying a $500,000 home on a yearly wage of $39,000 is crazy. Saying they let the lenders push them, knowing their monthly payments would be $4,500 but could be refinanced later, is stupid. The Adaoag family wanted this house and shot for the moon.

What has happened to these people and others? Greed. Living from paycheck to paycheck, unable to pay mortgages, not paying taxes, going on welfare at a drop of a hat and just plain being foolish has gotten out of hand.

I wouldn't buy a $500,000 home with a $100,000 yearly income. Divide that $100,000 by 12 and you have gross income of $8,333.33 per month. Subtract your house payment of $4,500 and you have $3,833.33 for all the other expenses -- and that is before taxes, insurance, furniture, cars, medical bills, food and any other bills you might incur.

That is just crazy, man. Crazy

Jo Anne Smith

MESQUITE

Dangerous work

To the editor:

I certainly have sympathy for the Yucca Mountain Project workers losing their jobs. However, those people should stop work on the nuclear waste repository for the same reasons that drug-producing poppy farmers are put out of work: Even though they are providing income for their families, their enterprise is dangerous to the rest of the population.

JOHN SNYDER

LAS VEGAS