Ensign shows principle, courage on tax vote

To the editor:

With Democrats and even Nevada Republican "leaders" working so arduously to throw Sen. John Ensign under the bus prior to the next election, I hope some are paying deserved attention to what he is doing for Nevada. While it is popular to moralize and absorb the media attention about his personal life, his representation of his constituency is what counts and seems to be largely unnoticed.

His courageous and unpopular vote on the tax compromise bill in the Senate is an example. Surely it would have been easy to support such a popular "tax cut" bill. But he was not deceitful. This bill has no spending cuts, but many expensive, add-on pork projects. It will increase the deficit by almost $1 trillion, as well as increase taxes, such as a devastating 35 percent death tax for small businesses, ranches and farms. Our children will again get stuck with the tab.

Sen. Ensign was one of the very few who jumped the Republican ship. He refused to vote for another irresponsible trillion dollars of unfunded spending. Check out how Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Shelley Berkley, Rep. Dina Titus and Sen. Ensign's anointed would-be replacement, Rep. Dean Heller, voted on this tax compromise bill. Beside Sen. Ensign, who representing Nevada would make the tough vote on principle?

I'm not into throwing stones, but it's amazing how many stone throwers are suiting up. Almost seems like an Iranian-style shot put event. Whatever the senator's family and personal situation, his brand of professional representation is uniquely beneficial and principled for his state and its people.

He deserves our thanks, and this should be remembered in 2012.

JIM TOBIN

LAS VEGAS

American graffiti

To the editor:

Who decided that old Paiute graffiti should be considered artwork, and that new American graffiti is vandalism? Will modern American graffiti receive sacred status 2,000 years hence? Will sanctimonious history buffs call spray can art pictographs? What a farce.

Bill Wisniewski

Las Vegas

For your health

To the editor:

I read with interest your Tuesday editorial, "The right to choose," on ObamaCare. The Constitution specifically states to "promote the general welfare." Does that mean we should do away with Medicare and Social Security?

We must realize that when the Constitution was written, there were only about 4 million people in the country. Even though our Founding Fathers were great visionaries, they could not envision the tremendous growth of this great country they created. They could not envision air travel, telephones, television, automobiles, health and safety issues of the people and the numerous other unforeseen developments and obstacles that were to come.

The editorial implies that we should do away with OSHA and other departments that are for the general welfare of our citizens, as these were not mentioned in the Constitution. Would it be better for our country if it hadn't funded and supported the eradication of polio, measles and many other contagious diseases? Would it be all right for anyone to build any structure without consideration for the safety of its occupants?

Do you want to go by the original Constitution? If so, we would still have slaves and segregation and women would not have the right to vote. Anyone born outside of the 13 original states could not become president.

Not only should our country have health care for its citizens, it should be funded similar to Social Security. For corporations to make a profit on the health care of our citizens is unconscionable.

I can't imagine our Founding Fathers intended the statement to "promote the general welfare" be only for the rich.

Frederick H. Spoerl

Las Vegas

Giving up

To the editor:

I continue to read about the need for redistribution of wealth and wonder how it should be done, and by whom. By whose authority should anyone have that power?

In redistribution, I might set out to find a person who has more than I do and begin the process of getting some of what they have. Of course, there might be someone else who has less than I do who also begins the process of getting some of my money.

Good luck if you like living under the dictates of others without any possibility of following a dream. Go for it, but be careful, because you will most certainly be giving up more than you get in return.

M. Barris

Henderson

Go for volume

To the editor:

We are going green with $1.3 million for solar power facilities that will save $840,000 in energy costs over the systems' projected 30-year life span (Dec. 9 Review-Journal).

It's clear the planners of this city project were not among the 20 percent who passed Nevada's math tests. Perhaps if they can get enough taxpayer money to repeat this process multiple times, they can make it up in volume.

HANS BOHN

LAS VEGAS