Department vital to rural America
In response to the Sept. 4 editorial, “Mission creep,” I would like to share the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s mission statement with your readers: “Helping rural America to thrive.” The actions the USDA is taking to help fight the opioid epidemic in rural America are essential to this mission.
Rural America supplies the majority of our nation’s food and energy, and more than 40 percent of our military. The value system of this country is rooted in rural America. Unfortunately, rural America also faces unique challenges that have been ignored for too long. Decades of inattention has led to many of the problems we face today, including higher rates of unemployment, chronic poverty and opioid and prescription drug abuse.
The world has indeed changed since Abraham Lincoln established the Department of Agriculture in 1862, and thankfully the USDA has changed with it. Every five years, Congress reassesses the role of the department when it debates and passes the Farm Bill, which modernizes USDA programs to meet changing needs. Congress has directed the USDA to focus its resources on building a thriving rural economy — complementing, but not resting solely on, our agricultural production system.
Under this administration, the USDA has vigorously invested in the rural way of life, working to help more families make possible the dream of finding a safe and affordable place to live; building schools, libraries, hospitals and public spaces; facilitating the 21st century basic infrastructure of broadband; and infusing communities with the tools they need to innovate, stay competitive and draw in a more talented rural labor force for a wider array of businesses.
Since 2009, the USDA has invested more than $6.8 billion in Nevada.
Rural America is making a remarkable comeback. After years of stagnation as a result of the Great Recession, we’re beginning to see positive trends in major indicators of economic recovery. We need to make sure that progress continues.
Using our existing programs to support people in recovery and create hope in rural communities struggling with addiction is one important step.
Tom Vilsack
Washington, D.C.
The writer is secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
High priority
As a retired teacher, I found two recent Review-Journal articles not just interesting, but frustrating.
The first was an Associated Press account, Divided America, which detailed the vast differences between two schools in Illinois due to economic status and funding gaps. The wealthier school spent $18,800 per pupil while the poorer school spent $12,600. This really comes as no surprise, but what I find frustrating is that Nevada in 2014 spent only $8,414 per pupil, down from the $9,210 spent in 2010. We are not even close to the poorest school.
The second article was the Review-Journal’s recent editorial on class size. The paper’s almost annual argument that class size does not matter and is only the ploy of the union to hire more teachers flies in the face of any actual research.
Reduced class size is not a sure fix, but it is one that countless studies and the Center for Public Education show to be effective. Well-designed and long-term research shows significant “connections between smaller classes and higher student achievement,” especially among minority populations.
At present our high schools average 31 students, the largest in the nation and more than two times the figure in many states. Elementary classes or more than 32 students are way too common.
It is appalling to me that our state and our press put such a low priority on education and the hard fact that it does not come cheap. Student expenditures and class size do make a difference.
Francine Hutton
Las Vegas
