It’s a matter of urgency that we fund higher ed

To the editor:

For several years, funding allocated to higher education in Nevada has fallen woefully short of the level needed to sustain and develop quality and breadth. For one who has devoted his entire career in higher education, both in the United States and overseas, this represents a sad state of affairs.

It is generally agreed that Nevada's successful economic recovery and upturn in the quality of life hinge on first-rate education, and constant budget-cutting for higher education would only result in further deterioration in form and substance, here at home and nationally.

While the governor's "no new taxes" pledge is commendable, funding for education has to be seen as a special case. The Nevada community as a whole must think in terms of some unique sacrifice to save the life-blood of prosperity as represented in high quality education.

The governor should consider appointing a study group to develop plans for a levy or special education tax with a five-year sunset, solely to fund education. To protect the economically weakest in our state, a means-based exemption could be put in place, but to make the future brighter and prosperous there is no choice but to raise the stature of education funding to a new level of urgency.

S. Dayal

Henderson

No voucher fan

To the editor:

Personally, I find the concept of school vouchers a little bit suspect. It's not clear to me what proponents are trying to accomplish.

Supporters of vouchers claim that they are trying to give parents a choice of a better school and promote competition among schools. This competition will make schools better. But if better schools are the ultimate objective, why not work to make public schools better?

So what is this obsession with vouchers? There is little or no evidence that vouchers have resolved the ills of student learning. Could this just be a way to get low-performing students out the public school system? Or could the agenda be that vouchers would cover the 20,000 students currently attending private schools in Nevada?

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in Arizona 76 percent of the voucher funds expended went to children already in private schools.

Armando Gaytan

Reno

Budget works

To the editor:

In Sunday's Nevada section, I see hundreds packed in to either complain about or support Gov. Brian Sandoval's proposed budget. Because there seemed to be few in support, let me lend another voice of support.

First, when people agree with a proposal, you very seldom see those people out to support it. When there is dissension (which is usually a smaller faction of the population), those people turn out en masse. It is akin to the squeaky wheel theory.

But, this time, the governor must stay true to his belief.

The article tells us of John Clark. He dropped out of school, where a free education was being provided. Then he ended up a felon and, I assume, was rehabilitated at taxpayer expense. He then married and had three children (his choice) who need extra assistance, again at the expense of taxpayers. Kudos to him for turning his life around. That is truly exemplary. But my pockets are empty, so no more assistance.

I then turn to Sunday's front-page story, "The twisted trail of mediation," and read about Jeanne Bullock, who is in foreclosure. She was a professional musician here in town who no longer gets the bookings she once had. She now sells beauty products out of a cubicle. I pay more than $50 per week for my two children to take piano lessons. Become an entrepreneur, Ms. Bullock, and start your own music studio rather than wait for the government to mediate or bail you out of your situation.

People say they do not want the government to cut special services that they need. But they forget who the government is. We are all the government. When you ask for money to pay for needs, you are actually asking your neighbor, your family and your friends. The population as a whole cannot continue to support the few who continually have their hand out.

Although many of the cuts are painful to me as well, I support Gov. Sandoval's budget proposal.

Ann Craig

Las Vegas

Military costs

To the editor:

In his otherwise astute column on how to actually cut federal spending to what we can afford, John Stossel makes the usual mistake of assuming that eliminating foreign military bases will save money. No way. Any alleged savings are sure to prove both superficial and a very false economy.

The purpose of the military is to reduce enemy capabilities and render them harmless. To do that, troops must be stationed and deployed to where they can reach said capabilities, preferably in a prompt and pre-emptive manner. Failing that, they must at least be able to counterattack at a moment's notice. "Bringing the boys home" negates the reason for their existence.

Yes, you could maybe save a few immediate dollars, but in short order, other and larger expenses are actuarily certain to arise.

To stabilize and contain these necessary costs, two things will prove most useful: The first is to replace the current catch-as-catch can basing system with a comprehensive study of geographic needs and proceed accordingly. The second is to move both ballistic missile defense and strategic bombardment into orbit.

And that is what we ought to be doing.

Dave Hanley

Las Vegas