What if we don’t like the way Harry votes?
To the editor:
Over the past few months, I have seen several letters to the editor in which the writers say we should re-elect Harry Reid because he has the power of majority leader. I just don't get that logic.
What if we don't like Sen. Reid's stands on the issues and the way he votes? Are we supposed to vote for him just because he is the No. 1 guy? This argument makes no sense to me.
A vote is a vote, and each vote matters in the Senate. I don't care if my senator is the one drinking the coffee or pouring the coffee, as long as he or she votes the way I want.
I can only hope the vast majority of voters are smart enough to figure out this basic tenet of democracy before November.
Vivian Scott
Henderson
Rationing champion
To the editor:
President Obama has made a recess appointment to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service. This appointee is Dr. Donald Berwick. He has expressed his admiration for the British system, specifically its fiscal responsibility, which is managed by deciding to allow persons to die rather than spend the money needed to heal them. In the debates on Obamacare, these were called "death panels" or "death squads."
I wonder how AARP members feel about their organization's support of Obamacare now. They should not forget that most of the automobile recalls have been blamed on bean counters not spending the money necessary to make the vehicles safe. That attitude is now to be applied to our health care. Happy?
Charles Lingo
Henderson
Obama's priorities
To the editor:
Once again, President Obama is coming to Las Vegas to attend a lavish dinner and fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and appear at invitation-only events.
Meanwhile, residents of Las Vegas are experiencing 14 percent unemployment and are struggling to keep their homes. Mr. Obama cannot see fit to talk to the working folks of Nevada.
Additionally, Mr. Obama will be a stone's throw away from Arizona, where he seems to think filing a lawsuit against a state is the right thing to do when Arizona only wants existing federal immigration laws to be enforced by our government. Why doesn't he take the time to visit the Mexican border in Arizona and see for himself what is really happening?
Mr. Obama, where are your priorities?
Monica Starnes
Las Vegas
Crazy Harry
To the editor:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is aggressively attacking his Republican opponent, Sharron Angle, for proposing a radical change to our Social Security and Medicare systems. Democratic Party advertisements refer to her ideas as "wacky" and "crazy."
She believes the current system is bankrupt and needs to be fixed as soon as possible. She has stated that changes need to be made to secure the benefits of current retirees and to set up private accounts for younger people so that the government is prohibited from raiding them to pay for other programs.
Call me crazy, but I agree with her.
The government reassures us that Social Security trust funds will take care of annual deficits until 2043. But as the CBO points out in a footnote to a 2009 report, the trust fund is nothing more than an accounting entry that represents the amount the government can legally spend on Social Security without additional authorization from Congress. All of the money that the federal government has collected for Social Security since its enactment in the 1930s has been spent on prior and current Social Security recipients and other government programs. The only way any current or future Social Security beneficiary will get an additional penny of benefits is from the collection of future tax revenues.
Our Medicare and Medicaid systems are in even worse shape. In fact, Sen. Reid's health care legislation is projected to raise a half-trillion dollars in additional taxes over the next 10 years and is supposed to take another half-trillion away from Medicare spending during that period. At the same time, Sen. Reid's health care reforms force millions of persons into state Medicaid programs, which he offers to pay for -- until Barack Obama is re-elected president.
But certainly, after raising all that additional federal tax money and slashing Medicare, Sen. Reid's health care legislation must at least reduce our projected cost of health care, right?
Not according to the Congressional Budget Office. In May, CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf said the legislation would not prevent costs from rising further, and would increase overall federal health care spending "by nearly $400 billion during the 2010-2019 period"
The CBO doesn't even estimate the additional cost of non-government health care costs associated with Sen. Reid's health care law. By mandating "essential benefits" and prohibiting even a nominal co-payment for preventive care, the additional demand for health care will strip our current health care supply. Economics 101 tells you that costs will go up.
If Ms. Angle is crazy, I'm not sure what the appropriate adjective is to describe our majority leader, Harry Reid.
Bryan J. Dziedziak
Henderson
