We can’t borrow our way out of economic crisis

To the editor:

During Monday's testimony before Congress, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that he supports another stimulus package from Congress. The figure $300 billion is being kicked around. That's almost double the size of the $168 billion stimulus package that failed to jump-start the economy. Mr. Bernanke's testimony also included his support of the recently passed $700 billion bailout, I mean, rescue bill, and he explained how that money, which was borrowed, would act to correct the current economic problems caused by borrowing too much.

And so now, the members of Congress, aided by Mr. Bernanke's wisdom, will retreat into their hallowed halls and pass a new law regarding our economy.

Folks, I have some disturbing news. Contrary to man's imagination, economics is a science. And like the other sciences, such as biology and physics, man discovers its laws -- he does not invent them. Man cannot secret off to some smoke-filled legislative back room and issue a decree that will defy gravity, make pigs fly or rid us of our problems caused by being too much in debt ... by borrowing more.

Economics is a science, and as such, it has inalienable properties of its own, endowed to it by its creator. And I believe it self-evident that amongst these laws are: no free lunches; consumption must equal production; there are limits to how much a man or a nation can plunge into debt; and Mr. Bernanke is an absolute idiot.

Here is something else to consider: Anna Schwartz, collaborator of the great economist Milton Freidman, agrees with President Bush regarding the current economic crisis. Its cause was "easy credit."

If our current economic ills were caused by using credit too often and too easily, is it reasonable to believe that the cure will be to once again rely on credit?

The only answer to the problem of borrowing and spending too much is to realize it. Once you realize it, you'll know what the answer is. And you'll know that borrowing more is the last thing you should do. It will only make matters worse.

Clay Season

LAS VEGAS

Agenda revealed

To the editor:

The Obama campaign and the media have thoroughly trashed a private citizen, Joe Wurzelbacher, who answered his doorbell and tricked the Messiah into blurting out his real economic plan: "Spread the wealth around."

Lynn Muzzy

MINDEN

Incremental socialism

To the editor:

Norman Thomas smiled from the grave when Sen. Barack Obama, absent a teleprompter, revealed to "Joe the Plumber" that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."

Who was Norman Thomas? I'll save you a Google. Norman Thomas was the socialist standard bearer in every presidential election from 1928 to 1948. He once said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." Think about it.

Guy Roark

LAS VEGAS

Stealing is stealing

To the editor:

Can anyone tell me why I would be arrested if I stole money from a rich man because I thought I needed it worse than he did, but when Barack Obama suggests the same thing and calls it "spreading the wealth around," the masses applaud?

Matthew L. Kinney

BOULDER CITY

'Trivial' fraud

To the editor:

If the Review-Journal's John L. Smith, in his Oct. 19 column, thinks that attempted voter registration fraud by ACORN is just a trivial prank because it was working mainly for his political persuasion, then he probably thinks the Watergate break-in was just a fraternity prank where a bunch of fellows got into the wrong room, and Monica Lewinsky was just helping Bill Clinton get the poison out of an embarrassing snake bite.

Besides, what are a few hundred thousand illegal votes? It's an old tradition, especially in the Democratic Party. Gossip is it helped John Kennedy win Illinois (coincidence?) and become president in 1960. The only difference this time is the allegations and investigation are coming before the election instead of after.

And it really doesn't matter about voting, anyway. Everybody has been told Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is going to be our next president, one way or another, so I guess Mr. Smith is right. It is all just trivial.

KENT RISCHLING

LAS VEGAS

Foreign aid

To the editor:

I am tired of Sen. Barack Obama being targeted and smeared for his positions on spreading the wealth of Americans. What a bunch of hypocrites.

What has America been doing for the past 50 years or more, but spreading our hard-earned American wealth all around the world. Hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions, have been spread among Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Korea, Africa and Palestine, to name just a few places. Not to mention the many loans to countries that we have forgiven.

Perhaps the biggest socialist is not Sen. Obama, but the United States of America. It seems to revel in picking our pockets and sending the cash overseas.

Gary Haskins

LAS VEGAS

Average American

To the editor:

I do not understand today's people. They go around saying that we need more common people in our government. Yet, when someone such as Sarah Palin runs for office, she is put down as not political enough.

John McCain picked her from a normal, average American household. She represents the common people as a mother, having a special-needs child, a child in the U.S. armed forces, a daughter who is a going to be a teenage mother. Some people never have these problems, but most people have or have had one or more of these things in their family. She is one of us.

Why are so many Americans against her? Could it be the media and the way they look down on her? How would the media react to you running for office? Would they look for things wrong with you and your family to make you look bad to the public?

I guess the average American is not what you want in office -- what you want is a slick political hack.

Theresa Amon

SANDY VALLEY

Economically illiterate

To the editor:

You should change the name of your newspaper to the Republican-Journal, not the Review-Journal.

A well-informed decision on whom to endorse for president would have, at best, concluded both are equally qualified. But if you had a better understanding of economics and human nature, you would have endorsed Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain. Instead, you've fallen victim to the belief that if an economic mantra and other falsehoods are repeated enough times, they must be true. Please take an Economics 101 class before your next endorsement.

Maria Rubin

LAS VEGAS

Be afraid

To the editor:

Sen. Barack Obama has made a lot of promises and proposals that will expand entitlements and spending by our federal government. Those of us who pay taxes are worried that he will get a Democrat-controlled Congress to go along with his proposals, which will move our country closer to socialist policies.

Whenever Sen. Obama speaks, he reminds me of the words of President Gerald Ford, who told a joint session of Congress in 1974: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Shouldn't we all be worried?

Sharon Hayes

LAS VEGAS