Once I earn it, I can spend it how I like

To the editor:

I have read in a few of the letters to the editor that many people don't think I, as a teacher, should be able to unionize because I am paid with taxpayer money. It is my understanding they don't like the fact that I pay union dues, with "their tax money" and then the union uses "their tax money" to pay off politicians so these politicians will give me higher pay and more benefits.

I don't know if these taxpayers realize it, but I earned that money. I work many hours every week. I also work a lot of unpaid overtime. I have also paid thousands of dollars to get my education, and by contract with the district, I have to continue paying for classes in order to keep my license.

I work very hard to earn my money.

I was under the impression that once I earned the money, it is not the taxpayers' any longer. This is no different than if I worked at Wal-Mart. What makes these taxpayers think that this money is still theirs after I earn it? Do the taxpayers want an accountability report from public-sector workers so they can approve of the way we are spending "their tax money"?

I have a right to negotiate with my boss regarding the amount of money I earn, just as you do. If I want to negotiate with others I work with, I am allowed to do so, just as you are. The paying of dues with the money I earn is no different than doctors paying dues to the American Medical Association or bankers paying dues to the National Bankers Association.

We all pay these dues with the money we earned so we can have our rights protected.

Mark Azevedo

Las Vegas

Two-faced liberals

To the editor:

Last summer, the Democratic Party made it a point to paint the Tea Party as "racist" and "thugs" who spat on people and portrayed Barack Obama as Adolf Hitler. Despite very flimsy evidence to support their claims, they were "outraged" by the supposed behavior of these concerned Americans.

Now we see the events unfolding in Wisconsin. The pro-union crowd has stormed the Capitol building. There are numerous reports of representatives being spat on by the crowd. There are hundreds of signs portraying Gov. Scott Walker as Hitler, Mussolini and Mubarak. The rhetoric put forth by the crowd is nothing short of super-heated, and the crowd is no better than an unruly mob forcing Republican representatives to take cover in their locked offices.

And what is the Democratic response? Nancy Pelosi calls it "democracy in action," and the DNC has sent operatives to stoke the flames of dissent. Almost without a doubt, there will be some sort of violent reaction as the measures are passed in Madison. Will the Democratic Party accept some of the blame for fanning those flames with the continuous drumbeat of the "rich are screwing the poor" and the rest of their "call to arms"?

What I see is the hypocrisy of the left, who will utilize violence and thuggery if necessary to reach their goals. The left should be ashamed of what is happening in Wisconsin. Instead, they are embracing these activities. Talk about a double standard.

Joseph Schillmoeller

Las Vegas

Nice diversion

To the editor:

If anyone believes that the presidential election in 2012 will not boil down to a battle with Big Labor to stop this destructive progressive political nosedive, he need only look to Wisconsin.

What is being touted as a revolt of the teachers is really nothing more than a union, Democratic Party, election ploy to maintain the status quo. Namely, keep wages and benefits high at continued unsustainable costs to taxpayers.

To those who might want to stay home in November 2012 and let someone else elect your next president or legislator, just tune in the spectacle being played out by teachers who were duped into abandoning their classrooms to shill for the unions.

Don't forget that the president has dispatched his re-election troops to stir the pot. That's really the most you could expect from someone without the nerve to create a real budget that addresses our economic mess.

He'd rather just kick the can on down the road to governors who have the guts to stand up for taxpayers. This also creates a nice diversion from the president's failure to productively handle social, economic and foreign policy matters for the past two years.

Jeff Dwyer

Las Vegas

Not fair

To the editor:

There is a controversy in Congress over federal funding for abortion. I have always had the view that having an abortion is a bad decision. However, it is not a government problem, responsibility or function.

First, if a woman wants an abortion and she can find a doctor willing to perform that medical procedure, then so be it.

Second, if she is willing to pay for it, then again so be it.

However, I will never agree to my wife having to pay taxes to provide for some other woman's indiscretions. We as individuals make decisions, and sometimes they are bad decisions. It is not society's responsibility to pay for those bad decisions.

I have the same view for people who indulge in drugs or alcohol.

Socialists want to make individuals dependent on the government and use other people's money to solve their problems. That is not fair to the people who are responsible for themselves.

Burton J. Simpson

Las Vegas