We don't need another Bush in the White House
A few days ago, George H.W. Bush, our 41st president, was on nationwide television expressing his desire that he would like to see his younger son, Jeb Bush, someday run for the senate or even president. Wouldn't any father like his son to hold such a high office?
My personal thought on his wish is negative. Our current president, No. 43 G.W. Bush, is thought by many people throughout the world, and here in our own country, as the worst president ever to hold the position. Why? Numerous reasons. 1) Lied America into a war; 2) torture of prisoners; 3) spying on our own citizens; 4) trying to privatize Social Security; 5) the debt and financial problems we now face as what once was the greatest respected nation in the world.
The foregoing are just the tip of an iceberg. Also, wasn't Jeb mixed up in the vote count in the "election of 2000"? Wasn't Neil Bush, another son, caught up in the savings and loan scandals few years ago?
No, Mr. George Herbert Walker Bush, we don't need the Bush clan to provide another chance at "high office."
I am sure that I alone am not of this opinion. It is said in many circles "power corrupts." Let us not make it happen again. Give us a break.
W.L. DEGRAW
Carson City
Didn't we learn anything from the mortgage collapse?
Thank you Congressman Dean Heller for voting against the $700 billion bailout and the automaker bailout.
As the reports verify, the taxpayer money was handed out to the financial institutions without any controls or reporting requirements.
The result is the $350 billion did nothing to ease the credit markets or bolster the economy. Instead it went into high salaries, huge bonuses, purchasing more companies - i.e. for the enrichment of the institutions instead of benefiting the economy.
Now GMAC is going to reduce the borrowers' requirements to increase car sales.
Did anybody learn anything from the subprime mortgage market collapse?
Once again, I think we have to look toward Reid, Pelosi and their fellow Democrats for squandering the taxpayers' money.
Thank you for your votes Mr. Heller - keep up the good work.
STUART POSSELT
Minden
Windmill farms have deadly side effects
How many migratory birds and others will have been hacked to death by the time windmill aficionados discover that windmill farms are costly and inefficient?
NANCY LAIRD R.N.
Washoe Valley
Bills shortsighted
and contradictory
Regarding the 2009 Conservative Legislative agenda specified by Mr. Muth in the Jan. 2 Appeal: Several of the bills identified are shortsighted, reflect an attempt to subvert separation of church and state, and contradict a fiscal conservative position.
1. Learning-disabled children's scholarships: Funded and managed by " the state? How? Increased taxes? If not, cut what? Conservative or socialist?
2. License plates: Just what we need, another personalized plate.
3. Universal school choice: My fiscal philosophy doesn't extend to making my contributions to the state available to either a flat-earth, geocentric or religious nutcase. As long as any school involved is accredited and teaches sound scientific principles, while excluding all religion, then I can accept this. Does this bill ensure a separation of church and state? I doubt it, based on Mr. Muth's quote: "provide education tax rebates to any parent to send any child to any school of their choice for any reason." Any school, any reason? I'm sure the sponsor, Assemblyman Goedhart, would be equally delighted to see the money used to send kids to schools in Afghanistan, a Maoist school in Hanoi, or "Bob's School of Anarchy," as St. Theresa's, right?
4. Motorcycle helmets: Nothing like riding your Harley with the wind in your hair and the bugs in your teeth. Until you crash. Severe head trauma? Likely. I don't want my insurance to rise to cover those who want the freedom to experience head trauma. Socialize the risk, privatizing the benefits; the masses supporting the few. Then add the significant costs of maintaining a person in a permanent vegetative state. Who bears that - the family? Not. Fiscally conservative? Hardly.
I could support this bill if it included the following: "Anyone riding a motorcycle must sign a waiver indicating that in the case of an accident, if the rider has no helmet, no lifesaving measures are to be rendered." This eliminates my fiscal risk for someone else's stupidity.
If these are indicative of what conservatives have as their most compelling bills in the 2009 session, it's no wonder why they've lost their representative power.
STEVE LANG
Carson City
Bring Arnold home
Regarding Judith Hall's letter about Arnold, the pig: Bring Arnold home.
JACQUELYNE STEINER
Carson City
Not fair giving money to law-breakers
Sen. Reid: During the campaign season you and your party created an agenda comprised in part of comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship, a check to low-income Americans disguised as a tax break, universal health insurance, and more bipartisanship. This agenda raises some questions.
In 1986, the nation passed immigration reform with amnesty and a path to citizenship under some conditions. It also promised to secure the borders. The government delivered amnesty and the path to citizenship, but did not secure the borders and therefore we have the current mess.
What will be different in the immigration reform you promise so that we will have the secure borders that Americans want? As amnesty, or a path to citizenship, is such a divisive issue why not do immigration reform in two parts? First let's use some of the infrastructure bailout money to secure the border, provide an identity check to help business comply with laws against hiring illegal aliens, and immediately deport illegal aliens who commit crimes. The laws are on the books and this has consensus already. Second, let's take our time to deal with amnesty in order to build consensus on the proper solution. No one wants to punish these people, but it is in everyone's interest to take the time to get it right and build bipartisan support.
Let's look further at amnesty. If the people who are here illegally are granted citizenship then they will be receiving checks in the guise of tax relief, free health insurance and all of the other goodies granted to citizens. This is a magnet for more illegal immigration and a reason to secure the border before dealing with a path to citizenship.
American taxpayers who work hard, play by the rules, and follow the law will pay for the benefits provided to those granted citizenship. How is it fair or good policy to take money from law-abiding citizens and give it to those who broke the law?
MIKE MOTT
Elko