Voting for lawmakers
who cut rather than tax
In a robust, growing economy our government (elected officials such as legislators, commissioners) take from the taxpayers (private sector) and give to the tax-takers (state employees, state aid takers, etc.)
In a depressed economy, shouldn't the legislators be looking at taking from the tax-takers (cuts, reduced wages, reduced state aid, etc.) rather than taking more from the taxpayers who are already suffering from layoffs, cuts in pay, benefits, etc.?
In their individual lives are these legislators looking for increases from their employers or customers, or are they cutting back on spending?
If they are cutting back in their private lives, why not do so in their public lives?
If it is because of votes, I'll definitely vote for those who seek cuts rather than those who want to raise taxes or spending.
SANFORD DEYO
Minden
A new species arises
from the Grand Old Party
A new species of welfare queen has arisen from the Republican Party.
Medicare and Social Security are the entitlement programs which are expected to be most troublesome for our country's future, but another group of entitled people has arisen. They are shaking teabags at politicians and protesting taxes.
Queens like Chuck Muth don't want to pay higher taxes to support the maintenance of a well functioning society, but they still feel entitled to good schools, good roads, short lines at the Department of Motor Vehicles, efficient police and fire departments, and other less obvious but equally important government functions.
Our tax base is imploding because of our state's dependence on hordes of foolish people thronging to Nevada to throw their money away in casinos. Those people have become a little smarter. They are staying away and saving their money, and denying our state the important tax revenue on which we have become so dependent.
It is time to end that dependence and raise taxes appropriately to meet the government's needs. We should not allow our state functions to deteriorate any further. Democrat and Republican politicians alike should ignore the teabag-waving, something-for-nothing welfare queens and do what is necessary to prevent the backsliding of our society.
PHIL STOTTS
Carson City
Question: Who has rights?
I read an article that was written by Guy Farmer in reference to the expense that illegal aliens are costing Nevada. I live in the Central Valley of California where a large number of illegal aliens reside and now call their home and have rights as much as legal citizens. Rights to have their children schooled, social programs and health benefits.
The question is who has rights? Are rights to be given to individuals, who feel that they deserve them, or do rights belong to the individuals legally? Rights by law seem to be overlooked by many who use noncitizens for their own good, i.e.. businesses, politicians, etc. Because of this the citizens are being damaged by the loss of jobs and increased taxation in order to pay for the individuals who say they deserve these rights.
The law is set so that the rights of all individuals, who by law deserve these rights, may have their rights protected. Economically our system is being taxed, literally, because our law is not being upheld or has not been protected.
The government has been elected to uphold and protect the law for the system of law to function. We as citizens see that our law is not being upheld or protected and the reason is simple, we are allowing it.
STEVEN DODD
Oakhurst, Calif.