Heller votes against best interests of Nevadans
Economists across the political spectrum agree that President Bush's Troubled Asset Relief Program saved us from an economic freefall into depression. We lost 33 percent of real Gross Domestic Product between 1929 and 1933, and 18 percent in the double-dip of 1937-38. The 2008-09 recession cost us 4 percent of GDP, and even if we lapse into a double dip, it's unlikely to be close to depression proportions.
Shoring up aggregate demand with fiscal and monetary stimulus is essential in times of financial crisis, but the word doesn't seem to have gotten down to Dean Heller, who voted against TARP. On Aug. 10, he voted against a bill to provide $16 billion to extend increased Medicaid assistance to states and $10 billion in funding for states to create or retain teachers' jobs.
That is money Nevada desperately needs, but since his 2006 primary scare, Heller has put the interests of the ideological right ahead of the interests of the state he represents.
Voters should keep this in mind when they go to the polls on Nov. 2.
Rich Dunn
Carson City
Angle right on cutting education, energy agencies
In many ways, Sharron Angle is absolutely correct. We should abolish the Department of Education. Established in 1980 and with a current budget of $50 billion, the U.S. has plummeted from first in the world just 20 years ago, to ninth or 10th now. What has the U.S. gotten for all that money? What has Nevada gotten? According to Rory Reid, Nevada is 51st in education.
Sharron should include the Department of Energy, too. Established in 1977 to end our dependence on foreign oil, we are now much more dependent on foreign oil than ever, and the U.S. still doesn't have an energy policy, in spite of a budget of more than
$25 billion.
All this is more than disgusting - it borders on criminal.
John H. Mallett
Gardnerville
Mosque debate is tempest in a teapot
Many are saying that they have the right under the Constitution to build a mosque a few blocks from the 9/11 site, but go on the question whether it is right to do so. They go on to say that it is an insult to the families of victims of 9/11.
So, are we to condemn all Muslims for the acts of a few radical terrorists? Didn't the bomber of the Oklahoma City office building proclaim to be a Christian? Are we to not allow a Christian Church to be built within a certain distance of that site?
Are Republicans or Democrats to be the self-proclaimed arbiters of what is right and what is wrong? Is that what we want? I think not.
We should be guided by the Constitution and by common sense. The specific location of a mosque is not going to harm anyone. What distance would those who criticize the current proposal deem appropriate? Four blocks? Six blocks? Nowhere in Manhattan?
This is a tempest in a teapot and not worthy of all the ink and blather being devoted to the subject. Let people make their own choices if it is within the law and does no real harm. Focus on more pressing matters: joblessness, the economy, immigration, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, global warming - to name just a few. Where a church is built is not a matter requiring all that much debate.
Drop it. Get a life. Move on.
Peter B. Pitsker
Gardnerville