Federal regulation won’t smarten, slim kids

To the editor:

The commentary by Peter Orszag that appeared in Monday’s Review-Journal (“How summer vacation makes kids dumber, fatter”) is a perfect example of the current administration’s top-down, heavy-handed approach to any perceived problem.

Mr. Orszag presents a study which purports to show that children, particularly from low-income families, gain weight and lose academic skills during their summer vacations from school. He then proposes using government regulation, funded by tax money, to address these issues, implicitly claiming that we are helpless to do so without more government aid and intervention, ignoring the many simple and direct solutions readily available to parents, regardless of income.

Here are just a few of the many options available:

– Turn off the television, unplug the Internet and the Xbox, and send your children out to play.

– If you buy toys, get bicycles, tricycles, sports equipment or other muscle-powered toys, not Game Boys and battery-powered Humvees.

– Encourage them to read. Do this all the time, not just in the summer.

- Enroll them in summer school sessions, youth activity groups and sports leagues. Most of these are available at little or no cost because they are already subsidized by one branch of government or another.

- When they are old enough, encourage them to volunteer with community organizations. Again, do this all the time, not just in the summer.

If you do this for your children, they will be smarter, more physically fit and more involved in their community. If you don’t, no amount of federal regulation or funding will help.

James Rickett

Las Vegas

Job loss

To the editor:

In reference to Steve Chapman’s Sunday commentary, “Outsourcing saves jobs,” evidently I am living on a different planet than Mr. Chapman.

I retired a year ago from a global corporation that did its fair share of outsourcing, and I never saw one job created here in America for Americans due to outsourcing. Mr. Chapman stated several times that outsourcing “destroys some jobs but creates just as many others.” I would like to know exactly what are these “many other” jobs to which he refers.

I also don’t believe the majority of people are concerned with “improving” their “material well-being,” as stated. My guess would be they are far more concerned with how to feed their families – which cannot be done without a job.

Sorry, Mr. Chapman. I lived through three outsourcing/downsizing experiences in my company, and they were not good experiences. They created nothing, except getting the job done in another country at half the price.

The sad part about Mr. Chapman’s essay is that some people will read it and think, “Well, if he wrote it, it must be correct.” He even stated that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney don’t understand outsourcing and the jobs it creates. Count me in with them, because evidently I don’t understand it, either.

Donna Tracy

Las Vegas

Sun shines

To the editor:

Spiro Agnew’s “nattering nabobs of negativism” are back and in residence on these pages. Just when you thought the debate over solar power was getting more reasoned, suddenly many Review-Journal readers and columnists are dismissing solar on the basis of its economics. Just four years ago, they might have had a point, but consider the following two cases.

– A 5-kilowatt, grid-tied system was installed in Las Vegas in September 2008 for a total unsubsidized cost of $44,986. It produced – and is still producing – 10,600 kilowatt-hours per year. At the current power rate of about 12 cents per KWH, that is a savings of $1,272 and a simple interest return of 2.8 percent.

– Another 5-kilowatt system was installed in July 2012. This time, the total unsubsidized cost was $23,562, a drop of 48 percent in just under four years. It also produces 10,600 kilowatt hours, providing a simple interest return of 5.4 percent, also tax-free. This is at least equal to what someone could earn from the payout on a lifetime annuity. And remember, the homeowner is protected from future power rate increases.

The solar industry has arrived and will be healthy in the years to come – with or without subsidies.

Durward P. Jackson

Las Vegas

U.S. carnage

To the editor:

Twelve people murdered in Colorado in spectacular fashion. So what’s the big deal?

We’ve had about 5,000 murders by firearms already this year and we can expect about another 3,000 to 4,000 over the rest of the year. Nine thousand murders by firearms, plus around 18,000 firearm suicides, plus 1,000 or so accidental gunshot deaths and pretty soon we’re talking big numbers of Americans killed by guns each year.

So why the big deal about Aurora with only 12 deaths, when throughout America we average about 80 gunshot deaths per day, every day, for 365 days per year, every year?

Soon the interest in Aurora will wane. Then tomorrow, the next day, and the next, etc. we’ll go back to killing 80 more, 80 more, 80 more – 80 killings a day, every day, until Dec. 31. Then on Jan. 1, 2013, we’ll start on our next 30,000 per year.

What is it about Americans and America that desensitizes us to so many violent deaths? We must love violence to tolerate so many killings. Why? No other country on Earth puts up with that kind of violence.

In my view, if the NRA isn’t part of the problem – as I’m sure the group’s supporters will proclaim – the organization sure as hell hasn’t shown to be of any use in solving it. Maybe the NRA leadership, like most Americans, don’t think 30,000 deaths a year is enough to warrant action. I wonder what number would be high enough to get our attention and the NRA’s attention enough to start working on the problem.

David J. Mackett

Las Vegas