DOE’s ambitions could kill Yucca

To the editor:

So, the Energy Department wants to double the storage capacity at Yucca Mountain (Review-Journal, Friday). How can you double the capacity of something you haven't got?

The DOE hasn't yet obtained approval to build a repository at Yucca Mountain and is already asking Congress to double the capacity. Doesn't that nullify the Environmental Impact Statement for the 70,000 metric-ton facility?

Actually, the DOE might have just shot itself in the foot. Interest in the repository is waning on Capitol Hill anyway, and the thought of doubling the size and doubling the expense will drive the last nails in the facility's coffin.

Ron Bourgoin

ROCKY MOUNT, N.C.

Golden goose

To the editor:

Much has been written in the Review-Journal about a proposed ballot initiative to raise the gaming tax and eliminate the property tax. The bill's supporters cite the gaming industry's vast expansion into less favorable tax districts as reason enough to make them pay more here. Opponents of the measure, such as former Gov. Bob Miller (commentary, Sunday Review-Journal) claim it will be detrimental to the overall health of Nevada's economy.

Mr. Miller misleadingly compares Colorado's $100 million in gaming tax revenues to Nevada's more than $1 billion and seems to claim that the disparity is due to Colorado's tax being three times higher than Nevada's. What he fails to mention is that Colorado only did 1/16th of the total revenues of Nevada in only 46 casinos with limited stakes.

Proponents of the bill are just as guilty of citing misleading information in an effort to garner support for their side, and that is the problem with politics today. Having said that, here's some food for thought (with all statistics taken from the American Gaming Association's Web site, www.americangaming.org):

-- Nevada had $12.62 billion in revenue and collected $1.012 billion in taxes for 2006. New Jersey, Michigan, Mississippi, Louisiana and Colorado had a combined $12.5 billion in revenue and collected $1.775 billion in taxes for 2006. A difference of $763 million in taxes on less revenue. And in case you were wondering, Macau had collected $2.3 billion in taxes through August of this year. Gaming companies are clamoring to get into these higher-taxed markets while we seemingly get the short end of the stick.

But this is where it gets interesting:

-- New Jersey, Michigan, Mississippi, Louisiana and Colorado's 104 casinos employ 104,000 people who make an average of $31,355 per year. Nevada's 274 casinos employ 215,041 who make an average of $39,000 per year. That's 110,000 more jobs (with the same revenues, mind you) that pay $8,645 more per year. The economic impact on the state of Nevada that all those employees have with all that money is massive. More people with more money spending it and creating even more jobs. None of this includes any of the jobs created to serve the casino.

I think when you look at the data, the choice is pretty clear. Adding an additional tax burden to an industry that already covers half the bill would probably be unwise.

Eliminating the property tax comes with its own set of problems. Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. How civilized would we be (or involved) if we no longer had a stake in this community?

Martin Elge

LAS VEGAS

The Bard

To the editor:

It is always fun to read a letter to the editor from an ideologue (left or right) and then try to determine whether the misinformation presented is ignorance or an attempt at deception. It is generally difficult to tell, as in the case of John W. Farley's letter referring to Phyllis Schlafly's piece on English degrees.

Mr. Farley writes that Ms. Schlafly "claims that Shakespeare has 'disappeared' from most English departments at U.S. universities." Ms. Schlafly actually wrote "Shakespeare has disappeared from required courses in English departments at more than three-fourths of the top 25 U.S. universities." Mr. Farley conveniently leaves out the words "required courses" and then goes on to document that at least four schools mentioned in Ms. Schlafly's piece do offer one or more Shakespeare courses.

He neglects, however, to note whether or not they are required for an English degree at those schools. I'll leave it to the reader to decide if Mr. Farley has an agenda.

John B. Alvord

LAS VEGAS