Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion


LETTERS: Address long-term liabilities now

To the editor:

I am writing to thank the Review-Journal for Friday's editorial, "Road to ruin," which called for reform of entitlement programs in order to avert a serious fiscal crisis in the United States.


Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: Stood her ground
  • LETTERS: A moral obligation to not bankrupt the country
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'Allowed' to carry for self-defense
  • LETTERS: Nursery did the right thing with laborers
  • EDITORIAL: Numbers stink?
  • LETTERS: Teachers not most important learning variable
  • LETTERS: Agassi remains a good citizen
  • EDITORIAL: Gotta have faith
  • EDITORIAL: Clunk, clunk
  • LETTERS: Put aside re-election interests for nation's good




  • I couldn't agree more with U.S. Comptroller General David Walker that the $38 trillion promised in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits will create a burden so heavy that it will cripple our economy and threaten America's competitiveness in the global marketplace. There is no more important issue than the long-term health and relevance of our economy.

    We have a similar problem closer to home. Nevada is facing a $10 billion liability because of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the Public Employees' Benefit Program. Nearly 40 percent of our state employees are eligible for retirement in the next 10 years.

    Unless our Legislature reforms these two public employee retirement programs, our state will either be forced to significantly raise taxes or dedicate a much larger portion of the state budget to paying these benefits, taking resources away from education, transportation, public safety and social services.

    The long-term is just around the corner. We need to embrace our role as the stewards for future generations. As such, it is incumbent upon each of us to urge our federal and state elected officials to address these massive liabilities and work to reform entitlement programs.

    Hugh Anderson

    LAS VEGAS

    Dumb move

    To the editor:

    I will be 60 years old in a few months, and I'm trying to put myself in 60-year-old O.J. Simpson's place. I'm in Las Vegas for a wedding. I hear a guy has some of my stolen sports memorabilia and he is staying in a hotel across town.

    Instead of calling the cops to get my stuff back, I get a few guys together and we plan to break into this guy's room. Do we kick the door in? What if he's in the room? Do we wear masks? OK, how many guns do we have? Do we shoot the guy if he resists? Do we kill him or leave him wounded? Do we leave by the door or jump out a window?

    After reading your coverage of Mr. Simpson's arrest, I think jumping out a window would have been his best choice. At least, it would have been the smartest thing he did that day.

    Cary De Grosa

    LAS VEGAS

    Multiple sources

    To the editor:

    For once, I don't disagree with Thomas Mitchell's conclusions in his Sunday column -- even if he did take the long way around the barn to make them. He could have just written the last two lines: "Real men don't chant bad puns. They turn off the TV and pick up the newspaper."

    Fortunately, the Review-Journal doesn't have to be the only newspaper we pick up. We can read USA Today, The Washington Post or The New York Times.

    Mr. Mitchell would have us believe that the Review-Journal is immune from the stigma of articles lacking depth, facts and history. Nothing could be further from the truth. Case in point: In an editorial last week, the Review-Journal railed against the passage of a $106 billion transportation bill that provides funds for highways and bridges because it was "pork-laden."

    The editorial conveniently ignored that we are spending this amount approximately every 77 days at the current level of federal spending. As a wag once said: "A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about some real money." But why single out this particular bill and keep silent on the $9 trillion dollar national debt?

    So, yes, Mr. Mitchell, we read newspapers. But, for balance, we don't limit ourselves to the Review-Journal.

    Joseph Wild

    LAS VEGAS

    No common sense

    To the editor:

    How can anyone think that the Clark County School District's attendance zone decisions regarding the Ingwaldson family, reported in your Monday edition, is "in the best interests of the children" (a phrase we see so often)?

    Bureaucrats who blindly follow rules and deny waivers to those rules, to the exclusion of common sense, deserve no support. The next time I have the opportunity to vote for more money for the school district, the vote is "no."

    Pat Sharp

    LAS VEGAS

    Traffic cameras

    To the editor:

    In response to Sherman Frederick's Sunday column, I was so glad to see that North Las Vegas is entertaining the idea of traffic cameras.

    It should save a lot of lives with all the idiots who run red lights. I can't believe that they wouldn't pay for themselves very quickly and then provide the cities with revenue if they were installed throughout the Las Vegas Valley.

    Dawn D'Errico

    HENDERSON

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 26 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    Randy wrote on September 20, 2007 06:18 AM: Ken - I do not know if you will see this, but my reasoning is: If you can catch more people who are running red lights, and impose progressively severe penalties (including mandatory jail time), MAYBE people will start paying attention. Any person who is a conscientious driver has nothing to worry about. I still do not see why anyone is against the cameras.


    Report abuse

    patte wrote on September 19, 2007 05:40 PM: DON'T DIS MY RJ!! I'VE BEEN TRAVELING AROUND THE COUNTRY READING OTHER NEWSPAPERS INCLUDING USA TODAY WHICH IS
    LIKE WARM PABLUM. BORING!!!
    WHEN I GET IN THE MOOD FOR A LITTLE RANTING, I GO ONLINE TO MY RJ, THEY EVEN LET ME RANT BACK!!!! KEEP IT UP
    THOMAS! RJ KICKS ASS. MY FAV IS STILL
    VIN.


    Report abuse

    Jon Hamel wrote on September 19, 2007 03:52 PM: It certainly is the exception and not the rule that the police are corrupt. In other words, it is very rare. It is the rules of engagement that police are trained in, that has caused some persons to use “crass generalizations” that quite frankly were never meant to be an argument, but as an invective rhetorical expression to express how they feel.
    With regards to traffic cameras . . . even with my Libertarian leanings I don’t see cameras in public places as being a civil liberties issue. If the photo’s can help establish guilt after an auto accident, I say great. If the system is automated to write tickets to the owner of a car, based on running a red light or breaking some other law . . . that would in my mind depend on how the system was in fact utilized. If circumstances are in fact changed to cause innocent persons to be entrapped, for example by a short yellow light . . . then I would draw the line and call foul. Otherwise, I say lets give it a go.


    Report abuse

    John F wrote on September 19, 2007 02:10 PM: to Jen:

    Here's something more corrupt than a Metro cop: a former Metro cop on the county commission.

    There are a lot of people more corrupt than our police, both Metro and NLV. I wouldn't trade places with one of those guys - or gals - for anything. If you had any real idea of what they go through each day I'm sure you would rethink your comment. Anyway, crass generalizations like yours do not constitue a sound argument.


    Report abuse

    Jen wrote on September 19, 2007 01:26 PM: The only thing more corrupt than a Metro cop is a... wait... no, not that... um, not that either... sorry I can't think of anything.


    Report abuse

    Jeremiah wrote on September 19, 2007 11:52 AM: Mark, if not for the snide, pointless smack at NLV, your comment would have been mildly thought-provoking. However, with that "losers" remark you come off as just an ethno-centrist who has no legitimate reasons for being against the traffic cameras.


    Report abuse

    Ken Brown wrote on September 19, 2007 11:25 AM: Randy- It is already illeagal to run a red light and T-bone your neighbor. What makes you think that cameras will stop these maniacs. If I thought they would help I would be screaming for them.
    I saw a new light go in on Vegas Valley near Hollywood. The people who traveled through there were not used to it and ran it many times before getting used to it. Metro decided that placing an officer at the light would slow people down and make the light more visible. What they discovered was people slowed down and drove through the light while keeping a close eye on the officer.
    I dont know what the answer is, but cameras are not going to make any difference.


    Report abuse

    Mike Ault wrote on September 19, 2007 11:12 AM: Correction on my post. I should have refered to the 10th Amendment (and should have spelled it correctly) as well as the Commerce Clause which is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.


    Report abuse

    jj wrote on September 19, 2007 11:12 AM: first traffic cameras,then cameras every where .just look at britain..just wait it's coming.


    Report abuse

    Mike Ault wrote on September 19, 2007 11:07 AM: Lee,

    I believe the lunatic passing himself off as Dr p is refering to the Commerce Clause of the 19th ammendment. The feds use this clause for enforcing just about any rule they want based on the federal government's "right" to control interstate commerce. The fed role was expanded by the US Supreme Court.

    "In 1995, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Lopez (later clarified by United States v. Morrison). There, the Court ruled that Congress had the power to regulate only
    the channels of commerce,
    the instrumentalities of commerce, and
    action that substantially affects interstate commerce" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause).

    Reversing that argument, nut cases like drp construe this as a right to travel due to the above three entitlements.


    Read All Comments