Tough times, strong feelings
To the editor:
Gov. Jim Gibbons wants K-12 teachers, higher education employees and other state workers to shoulder the responsibility for balancing his budget. Never mind that mining, gaming, banking and other industries do not pay their fair share of taxes in Nevada, and that they and their families enjoy our roads, schools, colleges, and social services even though they contribute less than others in the community.
Gov. Gibbons says he promises to restore the salaries when the economy gets better. Just like he promised to love, honor and cherish, in good times and bad, to stay married to his wife. We all know he has not kept that promise, so why should we believe him now?
Gov. Gibbons is no longer relevant, but the problem is he doesn't know it. We can only hope the Legislature will show him he's no longer relevant by passing a real budget, which protects Nevada's young people from the predatory nature of Gov. Gibbons and makes the businesses he has long protected pay their fair share.
Why would any business consider relocating to Nevada when Gov. Gibbons has just announced he wants to rape its K-16 students? You can't attract the best educators by cutting 6 percent off their already below-average pay. You can't educate our K-12 students by cutting 7.5 percent of their funds for the classroom (I guess you want the class sizes to jump to 50). You can't get qualified college students to enter the work force when you reduce their services by 36 percent. You know, governor, the ones you want all these businesses to hire.
The governor's budget proposal positions Nevada to head straight to the bottom of the barrel in every negative category for standard of living. If this proposal passes, we will witness an exodus of Nevada's current best and brightest, and the other 49 states will benefit from their hard work, creativity and ingenuity. No one with children, nor any young people in college, will want to live in Nevada, because Nevada's leader has no interest in ensuring they have an education.
Nevada voted for change in 2008, and they'll do it again in 2010.
C. Scott
LAS VEGAS
A little perspective
To the editor:
I am no fan of our governor's proposal to reduce the state university system budget by 35 percent, but Karen Scott's idea that somehow state employees should be exempt from helping to keep their own jobs is troubling (Jan. 18 letter to the editor).
Ms. Scott and others have tried to make this issue sound as though state employees are being asked to give up the last bit of bread from their table. When put in real context, what is being suggested is that state employees' wages return to what they were last year.
If Ms. Scott and the unions would ask the 2.5 million Americans who lost their jobs last year and the other 750,000 who are expected to lose their jobs this year if they would like their jobs back at a 6 percent wage reduction, guess what their answer would be?
If there is a big concern about the teachers' wages, then how about the unions and teachers agreeing to have the teachers making more than $50,000 per year roll back 6 percent. That takes care of the people at the entry level of the wage scale.
Of course, the unions won't agree to something this practical.
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Las Vegas resorts asked the unions to reduce the work week to four days so they could keep the majority of their employees working and earning a paycheck. The Culinary union refused, saying that seniority must prevail. The result was a wholesale reduction of employees and, of course, union dues to the Culinary. After about three weeks, the Culinary went back to the hotels and said it had made a mistake -- their membership would like to return to work at the reduced hours.
It was too late. The employees had been laid off, given their vacation pay and had to make do with unemployment benefits.
Ms. Scott and the unions would rather have the rest of us pay a 2 percent "fine" so they don't have to simply return to what they were earning last year.
Our country and our state are in a financial crisis. The last time I looked, state employees were Americans and Nevadans. It's time they starting acting it.
Barry Perea
LAS VEGAS
Fines all around
To the editor:
In the Jan. 18 Review-Journal, Karen Scott of Carson City notes the tough economic times and berates our governor because he "has not asked all the citizens of Nevada to pay the state's expenses ... Only some Nevadans will pay."
By this she means only government employees will pay in the form of lower salary increases, or perhaps even a pay reduction. This is a myopic, government functionary view of the world.
As a retiree whose retirement income consists mainly of 401(k) and IRA income, I have already seen my retirement account balances reduced by 30 to 40 percent due to the crash of the stock and bond markets.
Furthermore, due to the federal efforts to drive interest rates down, even my "safe" money market investments are paying almost no interest. My retirement prospects have suffered drastically, and now Ms. Scott wants me and others like me to pay a 2 percent "citizen's fine" so that she and her government compatriots will not have to pay a "6 percent fine" in the form of lower salaries.
As noted, I've already lost a lot more than 6 percent. Perhaps Ms. Scott and other government workers would also like to "pay a fine" to replenish the retirement accounts of those of us who labored in the private sector so that we will not be unduly penalized by these tough economic times.
John Welch
HENDERSON
Too much to ask
To the editor:
As a teacher, listening to the governor's State of the State speech left me torn. I certainly understand the call for action and the need for all of us to help. Believe me when I say that we teachers have been trying to do that for our entire careers.
But my family comes first. And even though the governor made it clear that I would be an insensitive monster to fight against what he perceives as our burden, I have to. It is too much to ask in these hard times, and I am not falling for the "take a pay cut or lose your job" fallacy. That sounds too much like choosing between losing my job and losing my house.
I know, I sound like a jerk. I don't want to be, though. After all, according to the governor's speech, I should be trying to "do what's best for the children."
Wait. Did I miss something? We will pay for their health care but not their education? So we have a healthy community that can't compete for jobs? I think perhaps the governor missed something else as well.
If all the hundreds of families with two state employees get hit with 6 percent pay cuts, I would venture to say we will be looking to move in with our governor. I hear he has an extra room or two.
Jason Kern
HENDERSON
Making sacrifices
To the editor:
The Review-Journal Jan. 17 editorial highlighting the potential negative effect of increasing room taxes on Las Vegas tourism meshed perfectly with Darrell Welch's letter of the same day, which tried to educate politicians on economic realities.
Americans are pretty much ignorant when it comes to economics, but most of us understand that times are tough and sacrifices must be made. The problem is the poiticians' pandering to the special interests, who naturally don't want to share the pain.
Government at all levels is broken, and trying to milk more taxes out of a failing economy isn't going to help it. Before the tax hikers get us into a California-style crisis, they must find ways to eliminate automatic raises, increase employee contributions to health care and retirement and cut the size of bureaucracies such as the Clark County School District administration.
Tom Keller
HENDERSON
The un-people
To the editor:
According to Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons, "Nevada government should meet the needs of the people; people should not meet the needs of Nevada government."
Apparently, the governor does not consider public-sector employees people.
I agree that taxes are not the way to spur economic growth, but cutting spending by cutting salaries would be more devastating to our future than raising taxes on corporations that can deduct those increases. His proposed 6 percent salary cut is, in effect, a 6 percent tax upon a specific group that cannot recoup the losses in any way. The casinos, which face an increased room tax, may deduct at least a portion of the increased tax. The same holds true for other businesses.
Assemblyman Ty Cobb, D-Reno, notes, "While some may disagree with a 6 percent pay cut, it is not feasible to expect government to be immune to the same economic forces that employers and hundreds of thousands of families are already facing."
Actually, government is not immune and has never been immune. Budget cuts impact the state's ability to perform services in ways that are not readily apparent. Just ask the teacher who buys supplies for the classroom, the budgetary analyst who buys his own pencils and scrap paper, or the police officer who responds to a call without a partner.
Those public servants did all that before the proposed 6 percent salary cut.
But then, they're not really people.
J. Thomas Peterson
LAS VEGAS
