Letters to the Editor July 22

Wrong that repeat violent criminal could be paroled

Regarding Rosanne Hoff's July 2 letter, it's another intolerable outrage. An inmate already sentenced to life in prison for kidnap and rape escapes prison and commits the same crime, and gets life with the possibility of parole, then actually gets paroled? Help me out here, where's the logic?

Since he's out on parole amongst the community, and he's on the three-strikes law, and he commits the same crime again for the third time, what will be his penalty then? A fine, perhaps?

And with him being a sex offender, shouldn't the whole community where he lives be made aware he's out and about? Shouldn't the victim and family be the first to be notified?

No, they have to fill out a request form to be made aware that their lives are in danger. That's unacceptable.

With that kind of reasoning, next time Charles Manson has a parole hearing, they might as well grant it. After all, what is he now, 80ish? He's but a frail old man who couldn't possibly hurt a fly now.

Should Ms. Hoff's assailant, a very real danger to society, need food stamps, housing or other assistance, along with jobs, including entry-level part-time jobs, no problem, as long as has no drug offenses.

He won't even be questioned about anything else, which implies that murderers, sex offenders and terrorists are more entitled to eat and have a roof over their heads than people with decades of substance abuse.

That's deplorable and illogical.

Lynnea Malone

Carson City

Medical staff was great after knee surgery

Staying in the hospital is no fun. I had the misfortune of having a knee replacement at Sierra Surgery Hospital from July 11-14.

I cannot give enough praise to the RNs, CNAs, physical therapists and all who attended me in Room 109. They all helped me through, and they had me well-fed and on my feet by the afternoon of my surgery.

Wish I could remember all your names but things were a bit hazy for a day or two. Thanks to all.

Robert Hilderbrand

Carson City

Have Democrat policies really saved us?

In his July 16 comments, Dr. Eugene Paslov has once again resorted to hyperbole to malign an entire group of citizens with whom he disagrees. Do I need to remind you, sir, that without Republican support, the Civil Rights Act would not have passed?

No, all Republicans do not passionately dislike government employees and government itself. What this Republican dislikes is the incredible power wielded behind the scenes by faceless, nameless, unelected and unaccountable career bureaucrats and arrogant career politicians, of any party, who exempt themselves from the laws they pass, who simply vote themselves pay increases and who have, for decade after decade, irresponsibly spent this country into debt by promising everything to everyone.

Paslov finds it outrageous that many Republicans want to vote against an increase in the debt ceiling. Was he equally outraged when, as a senator, President Barack Obama voted against this same increase during the Bush administration? Didn't hear a peep.

It is the Congress that introduces and passes legislation, and since the Democrats have had control of Congress from 2007 until this last midterm election, they have much to answer for. Paslov has claimed that Obama has saved the republic and has succeeded in stabilizing the economy.

If increasing federal spending by nearly 30 percent while our debt continues to climb, and if maintaining an unemployment rate nearly twice what it was under Bush, which has occurred with Obama (constitutes saving), then I guess Democrat policies have indeed saved us.

Ruth Ailes

Carson CitySomeone is lying about Social Security safety

Recently, President Barack Obama stated that if the debt ceiling isn't increased by Aug. 2, he could not guarantee that Social Security checks would be issued.

I find that interesting because of all the liberal pundits with columns in the Nevada Appeal who have repeatedly stated that all the Social Security money that I have paid in is safe and sound in the Social Security Trust Fund.

If the pundits are correct, why would the president say something totally different -- that he could not guarantee that my money in the trust fund would not be paid?

Is it true, as the conservative pundits in the Nevada Appeal say, that the real money I put in has been taken and left with IOUs?

Are the conservative pundits wrong and my money is really there and safe? If so, that would make Obama a liar. If the liberal pundits say the money is there and safe, why would Obama say he can't guarantee my Social Security check? That would make Obama a liar.

Where is my money I've paid in for over 40 years? Either way, someone lied, and I'd better get my check. I've earned it.

Michael Tipton

Carson City