Anti-jaywalking campaign could save lives

To the editor:

I am very surprised that no one has suggested or implemented a marketing campaign in regard to the rising pedestrian death toll in Las Vegas. Unfortunately, it seems that we need to remind people to obey the laws.

I see examples almost every day - people jaywalking across six-lane highways, even when there is a traffic light with crosswalks only a few hundred feet away. I cringe, hoping they make it to the other side. And if they did get hit, how would the unsuspecting driver feel when someone steps from around another car right in their path with no time to respond?

It's a tragedy for all involved.

The only solution as far as I can see is to start a major campaign in our airports, on the Strip, on hotel in-house channels, on billboards, etc. We have people visit here from all over the world where, in some instances, jaywalking is accepted and normal. The more times we remind our guests and locals that it just isn't worth the risk to jaywalk, the more lives will be saved.

Even if the campaign saves one life, it's worth it.

Jenel Stine

Las Vegas

Tax issue

To the editor:

In his Sunday letter to the editor, Alex Fekete focuses all his attention on Mitt Romney's taxes. It appears he has bought into the assumption that Mr. Romney sits down at the kitchen table with a calculator and figures out his personal income taxes each year.

But Mr. Fekete should consider that if you make $21 million or so per year, you probably have a highly competent CPA/tax expert doing your taxes - and his job would be to minimize the tax bill of his client.

Also, please consider that 13.8 percent of $21 million means Mr. Romney probably paid somewhere around $2.9 million. I paid less than that. Did Mr. Fekete? Just what is each person's "fair share"?

If you want, you might add the $2.1 million Mr. Romney paid to his church in tithing and an unknown amount of other charitable contributions and arrive at the conclusion that Mr. Romney gave up at least $5 million of personal income last year alone.

Mr. Fekete shouldn't drink the Kool-Aid. There is no legitimate governmental issue here. The Democrat strategists cannot run the incumbent on his record. They cannot run him on the promises he's broken. They cannot run him on his failed economy. The only strategy left is to distract the voters with non-issues demonizing the opponent and making their candidate at least appear to be "the devil you know."

It comes down to this: Is it more important to know what Mr. Romney did with his own money or to know what Barack Obama did with our tax dollars?

Ronnie Garner

Henderson

Health costs

To the editor:

John L. Smith has a knack for stirring up controversy ("Ryan offers a break, albeit brief, from the political name calling," Aug. 15 column). The big debate of the moment is whether the president wants to partially fund ObamaCare by raiding Medicare? True or untrue?

The original premise of ObamaCare was to insure the 30 million citizens who do not currently have insurance. The administration has claimed that ObamaCare will improve service, reduce costs and allow us to pay down the national debt. Really? Why does the cost continue to rise each time the Office of Management and Budget does another estimate?

The administration claims that the $716 billion taken from Medicare to fund ObamaCare comes from increased efficiencies. More than $400 billion comes from reduced payments to doctors and hospitals. Ask your health care providers how much more of a reduction they can stand before they refuse Medicare patients.

Another $150 billion comes from discontinuing Medicare Advantage. The law establishes an Independent Payment Advisory Board - a 15-person panel designed to control health care costs by cutting payments to doctors. This is an unaccountable, unelected board whose members will make decisions about what the providers and the hospitals have to do. This bureaucratic board will put price controls on Medicare that will lead to denied care for current seniors.

And remember, this is but one of 159 new government agencies created by ObamaCare - all designed to employ hundreds of petty bureaucrats to write regulations and slow down government by justifying their existence.

Improved efficiencies? You are kidding.

The administration position must have been drafted by the same genius who manipulated the numbers to make the claim earlier this year that "Obama is the most frugal president in 60 years." Can you really believe that adding 30 million people to the insured rolls with no additional doctors or medical facilities will improve medical care? And don't forget the administration's desire to offer amnesty to illegal aliens. This will only speed the bankruptcy of the country.

Each of us has to decide for himself in November.

Bill Thompson

Las Vegas

Energy subsidies

To the editor:

Regarding Sen. Harry Reid's Sunday commentary, "The truth about clean energy in Nevada," here's all you need to know:

The Congressional Research Office reports that oil, gas and coal producers pay a net $10 billion in federal taxes per year when tax incentives are counted.

Meanwhile, solar and wind power producers are net tax consumers to the tune of $6 billion, including subsidies, grants and loan guarantees lost to several green energy bankruptcies.

Sen. Reid's essay can be summarized as: Federal taxpayers, including Nevada businesses and individuals, are funding clean energy jobs for Nevadans. What a deal.

Lynn Muzzy

Minden