Figuring out collapse isn’t brain surgery

To the editor:

In response to the Wednesday story, "Panel to analyze financial collapse":

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is like a common cold. It lingers and lingers, with persistent annoyance and no resolution.

One wonders if former Wall Street analyst Heather Murren, who is presiding over the commission, is any more knowledgeable than Rep. Shelley Berkley about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. A radio caller asked Rep. Berkley about the act and why it wasn't included in the Obama financial reform package. She obviously couldn't respond and said she would have her staff look into it after the program.

The Glass-Steagal Act was enacted in the 1930s to separate commercial banks from investment banks, thus curbing uncontrolled speculation in financial markets. It worked for almost 70 years. In 1999, leaders in both houses repealed the act saying, "We can rely on the integrity of the market to police itself."

Obviously we couldn't, and we can't. Why wasn't it put back into action?

Canada didn't experience a housing bust because it didn't provide credit to non-credit worthy applicants. This is not rocket science. We don't need more commissions and more studies. We need unambiguous laws, diligent enforcement and meaningful penalties for transgressions.

Don't hold your breath -- speak out loud and clear.

Len Kreisler

Las Vegas

Made his choice

To the editor:

I would like to thank the Review-Journal for the Tuesday article, "41 to Angle."

I was torn between giving our "can be bought" Harry Reid my vote or someone whose vote cannot be bought or bargained for. We have for too long allowed the lobbyists and big money firms to run our country. As anyone can see, this type of rule has destroyed our government "of the people, by the people and for the people."

Again, thank you for making up the minds of me, my wife and my son. We will now be voting for Sharron Angle to truly "represent" us in the U.S. Senate in a way that no other "representative" has ever done before: voting "for the people" instead of voting for big business and power.

Sen. Reid has, to my knowledge, never listened to the people of Nevada, and has instead voted for big government and voted for whoever gave him the most to win his vote. I can only hope that more voters read between the lines of this article, and vote with their minds instead of their hearts.

James Barden

Las Vegas

Votes principles

To the editor:

According to your Tuesday story, "41 to Angle," GOP Senate hopeful Sharron Angle votes her principles rather than bend to the old boy network. Can't have that, can we?

Meanwhile, Harry Reid is bankrupting our nation, but he's good for Nevada.

Right.

Bob Gore

Las Vegas

For Titus

To the editor:

Your Friday editorial "The Heck with it" accuses the AFSCME union of smear tactics against Joe Heck, the GOP candidate running against incumbent Rep. Dina Titus. Though the ad by the union against Mr. Heck is guilty of political hyperbole (and what political ad is not), your analysis of his positions on Gardasil and Social Security is faulty.

Regarding Gardasil, a vaccine which prevents cervical cancer, Joe Heck voted against requiring it to be covered by health insurance companies. It is not true -- as you state -- that most health insurance plans require out-of-pocket payment for well care vaccinations. As any family with children can tell you, immunizations are covered in full by their health plans. Are you saying that you are willing to risk our children's health in order to, as you say, not "drive up health insurance costs for everyone"?

As a grandmother and a senior, I cannot agree with your position.

Because childhood immunizations are required by law for school attendance, we should not be burdening American families with these kinds of added expenses. Voting against a vaccine that can prevent cancer is both archaic and extreme. This is not the position we expect from a doctor -- that is, not supporting coverage for well care for children. Has Joe Heck ever heard of preventive medicine? Is this doctor looking out for you?

Regarding Joe Heck's position on Social Security, he supports a voluntary opting out of this entitlement for the purpose of investing, with all its possible risk. You are again in error by equating Social Security benefits with pension funds, which are investment plans that are subject to risk. (Do we not remember the loss of 30 percent of their worth due to the current recession?)

Social Security, by its very name, was designed as a no-risk fail-safe in our retirement years. Those employees who are fortunate enough to have both plans can allow investments with their pensions and still protect their Social "Security" by leaving it untouched. To accuse government employee unions of hypocrisy is unjustified because they do not advocate risking all of an individual's future funds.

Again, this position of risking Social Security benefits defeats the purpose and intent of the insurance and is both archaic and extreme. Social Security in its current form (even for those who are tempted to risk it) really does cover our backs.

Carole Manganaris

Henderson