Backs of Americans
bending, soon to break
Did everyone read the article on the mega American Embassy in Iraq? (Nevada Appeal, Jan. 6.) It is 10 times larger than any of our embassies in the world and built at a staggering cost of $700 million.
Now, according to our government, it can't house and feed the homeless and poor, can't repair decaying bridges across the nation and our school children will suffer lack of services, all this because of lack of funding. I am tired of our government officials putting aside the needs of their constituents (us) for the wants of the president, big money and countries around the world. When do we matter?
Unfortunately, our government has shown us time and time again that we do not matter. I say we do matter and we deserve better. This country is in a downward spiral and our people are floundering " $700 million for a building in Iraq? What about us? (Get it? We are the U.S.); the homeless and poor, health care, Social Security, home foreclosures and high unemployment?
What about the bailouts the government is handing out? How many of us is that really going to trickle down to? (First the CEOs will get their salaries and bonuses, even though they have mismanaged these companies. And don't forget, they are not even being made accountable for the spending of this money.) We are our government's No. 1 priority. I say let's bail out our people and make this country the strong, great nation it once was.
A government is only as strong as the backs of the common people. Our backs are bending, soon to break. Am I the only person who thinks we are becoming a Third World country, invading and dictating to others, and going broke in the process?
SANDRA MEDEIROS
Stagecoach
Eliminate consultants and see what that saves
There is already talk about no raises for state workers in the next biennial budget and possible increases in the portion the employees and retirees pay for their health care. Now the governor is proposing up to 6 percent salary reductions.
During my 40-plus years of employment a significant amount of time was spent analyzing and monitoring budgets.
When a hiring freeze is implemented because of budget constraints, as is the current situation, a state agency is required to submit to the State Budget Office a request and justification to fill a vacant position. The request is often denied. But instead of accepting the denial and making necessary adjustments, which would result in a real cost saving, the state agency often does an "end around" by hiring a "consultant" to fill the position.
Very often the "consultant" is a former agency employee who has retired and comes back as a contract employee. The cost of the employee is not charged to the "payroll" part of the state budget, but to a different budget category. Some of the rationale used for this decision is that money is saved by not having to pay "employee benefits" to the consultant. Even though the "consultant" does not get paid "benefits" and the state does not have to follow the state personnel rules for a "permanent employee," in most cases the state does not save money because a consultant is paid more per hour and the cost is just moved from one budget category to another.
Before the state Legislature passes legislation to cause state employees to have their wages reduced, the state needs to eliminate every "consultant" under contract and see how much money that will save.
The Legislature needs to ensure that whatever changes are made, they are applied equally to classified and non-classified. There are way too many people being paid by the state who bypass the rules of the State Personnel Commission. It is long overdue to correct these unsound practices.
JOYCE PEIRCE
Carson City
Government sending mixed messages
'Tis truly a puzzlement ... on the one hand, the incoming administration has proposed giving a check for $500 or so to every taxpayer who is then expected to immediately rush out and spend it on some new toy, thereby stimulating the economy. On the other hand, Gov. Jim Gibbons is planning to cut state employee paychecks by 6 percent.
So, after the Fed's rebate, someone with a salary of $40,000 would be $1,900 worse off than before and most likely will pass on the new toy in favor of groceries. 'Tis indeed a puzzlement.
JOHN O'NEILL
Minden