Taxes from Question 2 money well spent

To the editor:

As I opened the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Thursday, I was a little disappointed to find a 1B article above the fold about a think tank questioning the need for Clark County Question No. 2. Is this the fair and balanced reporting we should expect from the Review-Journal? I sincerely hope we will see a pro-Question 2 article above the fold in the near future.

The Nevada Policy Research Institute argues that because the school district has since 1994 spent an average of $12 million at each campus that is slated to receive Question 2 funding (about $660,000 a year), the schools don't need any more money to replace and upgrade old facilities. Yet according to a Review-Journal report from Sept. 19, there are classrooms that leak and have too few outlets.

I believe there is no more important investment we can make in society than in our children. I will be voting in favor of Clark County Question 2 and hope you will join me. It is a small price to pay an additional $74.28 per year on a $100,000 home for children to be in a safe classroom where they can plug in a computer.

Brian Weldon

Las Vegas

Bad business decision

To the editor:

In watching a political ad featuring Bernie Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, it strikes me that by stating his opposition to the president's re-election, he has angered a large segment of his customer base.

As a liberal Democrat, I will not set foot in a Home Depot ever again. As a former businessman myself, it seems absurd to alienate any potential customer. I question Mr. Marcus' intellect and business acumen with this decision. I'm sure many Democrats feel as I do.

I suspect Lowe's is thrilled. Apparently, Mr. Marcus is following his candidate's position of not caring about the 47 percent.

Joe Cerva

Las Vegas

Against women

To the editor:

The rights of women to control their own lives has been centuries in the making. The gains made over the decades in this country are more threatened now than any of us who fought for them imagined we would be seeing again in the 21st century. But they are here in force in the men who would be president and vice president on the Republican ticket, and in the shocking numbers of legislators who have demonstrated both ignorance and a naked hostility to all women.

The battle is ugly and urgent. Control of our own bodies and lives is an economic as well as civil rights issue. When asked about gun control, Mitt Romney responded that gun violence can be traced to single mothers, assuming that all of them irresponsibly had babies before getting married because in his worldview, no single mother is a widow, a woman who was divorced by her husband, a battered woman who escaped with her life and those of her children, a victim of rape or incest. Allowed to fulfill their agenda, Romney/Ryan and the rest of the misogynists who support them will do great damage to the fabric of this society.

JUDITH HALPRIN

HENDERSON

Lance's legacy

To the editor:

Cyclist Lance Armstrong's legacy will be a world-class hypocrite who rode his self-serving nonprofit until LIVESTRONG became LIVEWRONG.

As a spokesman who allegedly "Just did it," the wheels fell off his credibility.

Instead of hope at the finish line, we got a dope on the ropes.

Jim Frake

Las Vegas

Pyramid scheme

To the editor:

Voters want politicians to be honest and say what they truly believe. Yet Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., is criticized for saying last year that Social Security is a pyramid scheme.

I think Social Security meets the criteria for a pyramid scheme. The Social Security taxes imposed on all of today's workers are paying the people who currently receive Social Security benefits. These taxpayers pay their taxes with the expectation that they will receive the same benefits.

But will they? Rational people say they will not. Isn't this a pyramid scheme? What country can continue to pay out $11 for every $7 in collects in taxes?

Ralph Whittle

Las Vegas

Obama can't win

To the editor:

In response to Don Ahnger's Thursday letter: Since when do president haters care about numbers or facts?

Sure, the Labor Department's unemployment rate doesn't include all the stuff we'd like included in the Don Ahnger unemployment rate, such as Americans who don't want work badly enough to actually look once a year. But, boy, those numbers were treated as gospel when Labor's "misleading" rate went from 8.2 percent to 8.3 percent a while back.

If Labor's rate gets worse, the president's no good. If Labor's rate gets better, it's "misleading" and the president is still bad. If the president tries to fix a problem, he's a budget-busting communist. If he tries to save taxpayer money somewhere, he's not doing anything.

Terry Meyer

Las Vegas

Taxed twice

To the editor:

After reading Richard Rychtarik's Wednesday letter regarding Mitt Romney's "47 percent" and the capital gains benefits, it is time to correct a huge misunderstanding held by him and many people today.

Capital gains income comes from money invested in the stock market. That profit is taxed at such a low rate because any money invested has already been taxed as normal income before it was invested. Any profit, therefore, is actually taxed twice, the second time (capital gains) at the lower rate.

In Mr. Romney's case, he does not receive a salary because he lives off the profit from his investments and is taxed solely at that lower rate. However, I am sure that when he earned a salary - that he then used to invest - it was most certainly taxed at a higher rate.

Also be aware that all of the money that is invested by Mr. Rychtarik's 47 percent is going back into the economy by providing capital to businesses that create jobs and put Americans to work.

Finally, it is not a crime in America to be rich. Anyone can take advantage of the opportunity available in our system. We should not vilify those who have.

Duane Mattox

Las Vegas

Cut spending

To the editor:

Raise taxes? No!

Under President Ronald Reagan, tax revenue grew about 50 percent after his tax cuts passed. The problem was that spending grew by about the same rate. The deficit is a two-sided equation.

If you look at President Clinton's years, some taxes were raised, but spending was controlled. The Republican Congress, working with President Clinton, made budget deals that resulted in a surplus. Some think we cut too much and paid for it on 9/11. The cuts in intelligence gathering may not have been wise. It was not a smooth road. Remember the government shutdown? I do wonder though, if President Clinton will ever thank the Republican Congress that allowed him to be a successful president. Probably not.

No matter who wins this year's presidential election, we must curb spending. In a recession (or slow recovery, if you prefer), raising taxes could hurt the economy. That is why President Obama previously agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts. It was not the time to raise taxes, then or now.

Curtis Jackson

mesquite