Look at the numbers: More guns, less crime
To the editor:
In response to your Tuesday story about the falling crime rate:
As more Americans are able to protect themselves from crime, the criminals are finally getting a little smarter. Firearms and ammunition have experienced record sales. More law-abiding folks are getting permits to carry concealed weapons.
The FBI statistics undermine a favorite argument of anti-gun groups and some mainstream media that "more guns equal more crime," especially when you consider that the decrease in violent crime in 2009 occurred at the same time that firearm sales were surging.
Robert Raider
Henderson
Tax cuts
To the editor:
In his speech in Ohio last week, the president announced that he will not support continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. He stated that these tax breaks amount to $100,000 for folks who are already millionaires.
While it may be true that millionaires don't really need this tax break, I'd be much more willing to gamble that the money in the hands of a consumer will do more to create jobs than if it is directed toward the federal budget. A consumer with $100,000 extra income might buy a car, boat or other consumer goods creating jobs from the salesman through to the parts suppliers. Who knows, he might even splurge on a vacation in Las Vegas.
But if this money is passed on to the government it will get lost in the fog of runaway spending and have little, if any, effect on job creation.
The president went on to say that the country just can't afford the $70 billion a year "cost" of this tax break. As usual, there is not even the first thought that the federal government could reduce spending to account for this "lost revenue." I'm sure there are many candidates for federal office in today's anti-incumbent environment who could easily find more than the $70 billion in wasteful or unnecessary programs that should be cut from the budget.
This approach to managing the federal finances just further reinforces that this administration does not understand the concerns of the majority of the citizenry: That government spending will not create the jobs we need for our economy to recover and the out-of-control spending must stop.
Donald Bittle
Henderson
Fair share
To the editor:
In his letter of Oct. 14, David Mackett says that the "super rich" aren't paying their "fair share" and that higher taxes on them are in order. Obviously Mr. Mackett doesn't know about the graduated income tax which currently taxes the so-called super rich at a much higher rate than us folks in the lower brackets.
In fact, most of the middle class are paying an income tax of 15 percent while the super rich are paying as much as 35 percent. That seems like a fair share and then some.
And let's not forget that about 50 percent of citizens don't pay any income tax at all. What about their "fair share?"
I happen to be retired and am living on a very small fixed income. I pay little or no income tax. But that's OK, President Obama is seeing to it that my health insurance costs will rise dramatically and the quality of my health care will decrease.
I don't produce any jobs. The super rich, even if they save the money that isn't taken by higher taxes, are producing jobs. The money that they bank or invest is the money used to provide mortgages, help businesses expand and provide jobs. Every dollar taken by the federal government is a dollar not available to grow our economy. As Mr. Obama himself said, the government is not in the business of creating jobs, private industry is.
I don't know about anyone else, but to me, when the middle class is paying 15 percent or less in income tax and the so-called super rich are paying as much as 35 percent, the fair share lack is not on the part of the rich, but rather on the rest of us.
By the way, I'm not advocating higher taxes for us middle- and low-class people, I'm advocating less spending by all government agencies.
W.M. Voorhis
Las Vegas
Cops job
To the editor:
Monday's article about the downtown shop selling synthetic marijuana and their problems with the police reinforced a long-held dislike I have about the whole rent-a-cop game businesses are forced to play.
The nuisance order delivered to shop owner Steve Vogt said he should hire a professional security company. I recall a time when that job was done by the police. Now it is the responsibility of the businesses to hire people to maintain law and order?
And exactly what authority do "professional security companies" have? Their workers are not deputized by any government agency. Do they have detention authority or are they just mercenaries hired by private enterprise and public entities? In my mind they are nothing but eyes for the police, but I think many of them consider themselves to have more authority than that.
I am afraid this failure by police departments to take full responsibility for their duties -- and instead expecting private enterprise to take that responsibility at additional expense -- is a mistake.
Dan Dieckmann
Henderson
