LETTERS: Election again protects incumbents

To the editor:

Well, the offseason “incumbent protection election” is over, and the outcome was pretty much a given. The municipal incumbents swept all the seats they were defending April 7. This is a pathetic result.

The public interest is not served well when the same people are elected year after year. Government becomes a crony club, and new ideas and efficient operations are pushed aside by good-old-boy networks. Taxpayers are footing an expensive bill for government.

This is where the Nevada Legislature needs to step in and schedule all elections for November of even-numbered years, ensuring a good turnout and a more balanced outcome. Doing so would also save the taxpayers the expense of having the additional off-year election.

CURTIS WILLIAMS

HENDERSON

People pay the taxes

To the editor:

Regarding Steve Sebelius’ column on the state’s tax plans (“Tax table is set, so let’s start carving,” April 8 Review-Journal), you could almost hear Mr. Sebelius cackling as he typed, “And boy, did the members of the Theoretical Economists Guild who snipe from the margins take some hits!”

Really? In a capitalist market economy, there is nothing “theoretical” about the reality that only the market — the people — pays taxes.

Want proof? Over the last 10 years, ending Dec. 31, 2014, and covering the cycle of boom, bust and recovery (sort of), the S&P 500 — the very definition of capital — is up 70 percent. The average private-sector wage in Nevada is up 24 percent.

Meanwhile, seniors have seen rates on a 12-month CD go from 4 to 5 percent down to 0.05 percent, as the national economic policy favored banks and corporations and imposed an interest income loss of almost $1 trillion on savers. This is a “tax” that no leader at any level wants to talk about.

Only we, the people, carry the burden of taxation, and it shows in the ever-widening gap between the richest and everyone else. Don’t believe me? Fine. How about the words of another “marginal” theoretical economist: “There is no tax that doesn’t ultimately get passed onto the consumer,” said Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn in a January 2003 Review-Journal article.

It doesn’t matter how much claptrap and economic twaddle Mr. Sebelius throws in our face. The fact that only the market — the people — pays taxes will never change.

KNIGHT ALLEN

LAS VEGAS

Voter ID debate

To the editor:

It boggles my mind when I read letters such as the one written by Paul Speirs-Hernandez (“Voter ID unnecessary,” April 7 Review-Journal). Whenever we go to the bank and try to withdraw from our account, the bank teller requires us to show our ID. Whenever we purchase something with a credit card, the cashier will require us to show our ID. In both cases, the reason we need to show our ID is to prevent any fraud. And in both cases, we do not refuse or question the validity of the request.

Here we are trying to prevent fraud during the election by requiring voters to present their ID, to make sure only qualified and registered voters can vote, and we get all these objections citing how much it will cost the government and violations of rights and discrimination.

Mr. Speirs-Hernandez mentions research that concluded voter fraud is uncommon. Right here in Nevada, in the last presidential election, women were caught voting twice. How can some people object to the ID requirement when we are trying to maintain the integrity of our votes? We do not want people who are not qualified and do not have the right to vote to go to our polling places and elect our politicians. The ID is the only way to assure qualified and registered voters are the ones voting.

MIGUEL REYES-CUERVA

HENDERSON

Protect bus stops

To the editor:

City officials deserve a place in the Hall of Shame for their failure to prevent the deaths of Alyssa Aisa and her grandmother, Maria Garcia, at a bus stop on March 30 (“Two die in crash at Sahara bus stop,” March 31 Review-Journal). Despite multiple similar accidents, these officials appear to have done nothing to prevent them.

This tragic accident could have been prevented or mitigated by a simple, inexpensive and easily constructed protective barrier. City workers could anchor one of those large, portable concrete barricades — normally used to divert traffic, curbside — parallel to the street, about 20 feet upstream from the shelter. A shock absorbing barrier could be installed at the traffic end of the barricade to offer some protection to occupants of out-of-control, oncoming vehicles. This arrangement would not obstruct pedestrian or automobile traffic, nor would it interfere with water flow in the gutter.

If this concept is too complex for the city engineers, I would be happy to provide sketches and instructions.

DAVID STEVENSON

HENDERSON