Girding up to fight yesterday’s battles
To the editor:
If all these intrusive Transportation Security Administration/Homeland Security methods and scanners had been in place in September, 2001, what would have happened?
The terrorists would still have managed to pull off 9-11, that's what.
9-11 was enabled by an enforced policy of non-resistance to hijackers and by nothing else. That was the essential element. Remember that the heroes of Flight 93 were technically in violation of various federal statutes and regulations when they foiled the ultimate aims of their group of hijackers.
Today we have an aroused bunch of passengers and crew members. Hijacking ain't gonna happen and you can take that as gospel.
Explosives are the only real problem as they are the only thing that can give on-board and in-flight terrorism actual capabilities. Pre-existing detection methods were at least as effective as these new intrusions and often more so.
Claims of new necessity and/or heightened public safety lack veracity.
Our new Congress should put forth some corrective legislation ASAP.
DAVE HANLEY
LAS VEGAS
Bin Laden useful
To the editor:
Many letters and columns have deplored the outrageous frisking and X-raying of passengers by TSA personnel. Even Rep. Ron Paul has introduced a bill to stop this unconstitutional searching.
Has anyone realized that Osama bin Laden may be laughing his head off at the national reaction he created by his 9-11 terrorist act that resulted in today's choking, hellish, police-state environment? Has anyone realized that Osama bin Laden has created a reaction that gives our federal government an excuse to violate our Constitution?
Has anyone realized the reason Osama bin Laden has not been caught by our government is that he provides a useful excuse to our government to increase its tyrannical power over the American people?
FRANK M. PELTESON
LAS VEGAS
Common good?
To the editor:
Sen. Harry Reid refuses to support a ban on congressional earmarks. As justification he said, "I have an obligation to the people of Nevada to do what is important to Nevada, not what is important to some bureaucrat down here (in Washington) with green eyeshades.
So I am not going, personally, going to back off of bringing stuff back to Nevada."
At first glance that sounds good for the citizens of Nevada. The only problem with that stance is that 98 other senators feel the same way about their respective states. And all the House members are concerned with their home states, also. With all these different factions fighting each other over the available money, is it any wonder our country is operating in the red -- and digging ourselves a little deeper every day?
Ending earmarks and establishing a line item veto are becoming more important as the United States slides deeper into a black hole of debt. In order for any state to truly prosper the union must survive. It is truly sad that a person in the position of Senate majority leader doesn't understand this.
RON GARRETT
Las Vegas
Time for a raise?
To the editor:
The 2011 fiscal year budget as submitted to Congress by the Obama administration has not yet received congressional approval. One noteworthy item within the budget is a 1.4 percent pay raise effective Jan. 1 for approximately 2 million civilian federal employees.
When the country's unemployment rate is around 10 percent and we're going broke, how does the administration justify a pay raise? It's insane. What business will give pay raises to their entire staff when they are going bankrupt? A 1.4 percent pay raise may not seem like a lot, but it will cost millions of dollars and send a hollow message to any federal employee who is actually trying to reduce costs.
Today many public unions are making concessions to deal with state and local budget shortfalls.
Congress must show leadership and freeze federal salaries until the economy recovers and provide this country with good financial management.
On the other hand, an optimist might argue the raise is less than the 2 percent the feds received in 2010.
PAUL MARKOWSKI
LAS VEGAS
Rhodes development
To the editor:
Bill Rhodes wants to develop Blue Diamond Hill and if past history proves anything he will do it despite public concerns. Refusing his wish to exceed the zoned density level will not hurt my feelings at all. He bought the land with pre-existing stipulations, so it would be his bad deal.
If the county commissioners OK the deal they should be sure Mr. Rhodes pays for all costs of infrastructure development, including utilities and roads due to increased demand. A surety bond should be imposed to make certain the terms agreed upon are fulfilled.
The taxpayers have been left on the hook before by unfulfilled promises. It's time to run the business of the county as a business and not a clique.
DARRELL WELCH
NORTH LAS VEGAS
Unemployment
To the editor:
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will be able to prevent a continual rise in the unemployment rate.
The U.S. population is expected to increase by 122 million people by 2050. Based on the reasonable assumptions that the average family unit will consist of four people and that each family unit will require 1.5 jobs, the U.S. economy will be required to produce, on average, in excess of 95,000 new jobs each and every month for the next 480 months.
It is highly unlikely the economy will be able to do that. More importantly, the United States will not have the resources to do that -- unemployment will increase both in absolute numbers and in percentages, and tremendous stresses will be placed on the social order.
JASON G. BRENT
LAS VEGAS
