LETTERS: Teacher shortage due to job’s demands, not salary

To the editor:

As a retired Clark County School District instructor, this might strike a sour note with many in the profession, but I disagree with the assertion in Walter Goldstein’s letter that CCSD teachers are underpaid (“Teacher salaries,” May 16 Review-Journal). In round numbers, top of the pay scale teachers earn in the neighborhood of $70,000 in salary, plus about $25,000 in benefits. Combined, that equates to about $500 per work day — a professional-level paycheck by any measure.

Pay isn’t the problem causing teacher shortages. Simply put, the problem is that it’s one of the toughest jobs in America. Teachers deal with varied student learning styles, overcrowded classrooms, unruly students, uncaring parents, supply shortages, outdated textbooks and technology, a bloated education bureaucracy and perhaps the most stressful of all, an intense workday that allows for only one 30-minute lunch break in seven hours (no other breaks, as in most lines of work).

All this prevents many from entering the profession and drives many out within five years. These are the issues that need to be addressed when tackling teacher shortages.

ROBERT BENCIVENGA

HENDERSON

Funding the ACA

To the editor:

Every few days, we see a new cry to fix a problematic feature of the monstrosity called the Affordable Care Act. The real issue is the duplicity that was used to promote this bill and the impact of these proposed changes to the legislation.

We were told, numerous times, that the ACA would not cost us a dime — yet the Congressional Budget Office now says the ACA will cost the taxpayers of this country over $1 trillion in the next 10 years. Despite the soaring costs, the left wants us to jettison a part of the bill that brings tens of billions of dollars to the ACA. We now see people such as Rep. Dina Titus squealing about the “Cadillac tax” on insurance policies that provide top benefits (“‘Cadillac tax’ repeal boosts Obamacare,” May 10 Review-Journal). These policies — usually included in union benefits packages — are at the heart of the funding mechanism of the ACA.

To remove that tax would cause a gaping hole in ACA funding, leading to higher surcharges and fees from people who have ordinary policies. That’s right, the taxpayers with policies that barely reach the essential services level will be charged more to make up the difference, and the people with gold-plated policies will be charged less while having superior plans. And remember, the bulk of those policies that barely reach the minimum acceptable standards are held by taxpayers in the middle class.

Liberals will claim the right doesn’t want to help “fix” the plan, but they never tell us where the lost revenue will come from for exempting these Cadillac plans. Will the surcharge on every Obamacare plan be raised? Will the fine be increased on those without insurance? Will there be more and more surcharges on services to make up the difference? Tell us, Rep. Titus, your proposal to make up the tens of billions of dollars you want to flush down the toilet to appease your union constituents. We’d like to know.

JOSEPH SCHILLMOELLER

LAS VEGAS

Solar-utility conflict

To the editor:

Regarding Gary Musser’s letter (“On solar, planet comes before profits,” May 24 Review-Journal), he wants us to believe that NV Energy’s desire to end net metering of rooftop solar power is part of a struggle between good and evil. In the evil camp are the billionaire owners of electric utilities, such as Warren Buffett, who would sacrifice the planet for short-term profits, while the good guys are the purveyors of solar panels. That statement alone should be sufficient proof that the net metering “controversy” is just a very successful propaganda campaign by the solar industry to retain a valuable subsidy.

Actually, the dispute is between utilities owned by shareholders, one of whom is billionaire Warren Buffett, and solar companies owned by shareholders, one of whom is billionaire Elon Musk. The issue is simply this: What kind of financial arrangement should exist between a utility and the solar owners connected to its grid? Solar owners (and those who sell solar systems) want the utility to pay the full retail rate for the energy they sell to the utility (net metering), while the utility owner wants to pay a wholesale rate (feed-in tariff), because it has to resell the energy.

Net metering makes no economic sense to the utility, but the utility company has agreed to a limited amount as an incentive for solar installation. Holding the limit on net metering to 3 percent will not mean the end of solar installation and, therefore, will not mean the end of the world, as Mr. Musser and the solar industry claim. The Public Utilities Commission will simply decide on a new rate plan that works for both NV Energy and the growing solar industry. It probably won’t affect existing solar owners at all, but it might mean a little less profit for Mr. Musk.

STANLEY CLOUD

HENDERSON