Turn Gold Butte over to state for protection

To the editor:

Your Sunday story on Gold Butte and the efforts of some to get a congressional designation as a National Conservation Area included a lot of information about the group that is anxious to make this happen, but little from the voices of those who oppose the move (“Fight continues to conserve Gold Butte”).

I agree that elevated protection of the history and resources of the area is needed. There are, however, many who believe the better way to accomplish this is to get the feds to turn the area over to the state of Nevada – specifically Clark County – so that we can avoid any more expansion of federal law enforcement in our county.

We need less Washington-directed enforcement – with their connections to Homeland Security, etc. – and more local and home rule. We do not need more federal construction of ticket booths for entrance, asphalt paving, locked-down roads and trails, or constructed campsites and facilities. We need more freedom and local involvement, instead.

You can be sure we will not get more freedom from Washington.

Let’s get an advocacy group and a petition started to have the feds turn the 350,000 acres over to Clark County and keep the local treasure at home.

Mark Andrews

Las Vegas

Real progress

To the editor:

In response to the June 15 letter (“Follow what?”) from Verlon Berkemeyer, who questions what constitutes a “progressive” political stance:

According to dictionary.com, having a progressive ideology means: “favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor. 2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community. 3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement. 4. … of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics. 5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.”

Now, in the context of our current politics, I interpret that to mean: protecting (through governmental oversight and reform) the disadvantaged and discriminated against as well as our planet; maintaining our democratic form of government by assuring that each citizen has a vote that counts (through strict controls over the moneyed interests of the few or our enemies); creating and implementing policies that validate facts and science over hearsay and superstition.

I hope this helps.

Nancy Feldman Maheras

Las Vegas

Bad idea

To the editor:

I support public employees. But when I read the June 7 article, “Unions file paperwork for business tax petition,” it struck me that the unions and teachers are really out of touch with the people who pay their salaries.

Now that the well has gone dry after the housing market crash, they want to petition for a 2 percent business tax. Who do they think is going to pay this business tax? The businesses?

Not on your life.

Businesses will do two things: either lay off employees or raise the prices of their goods and services, which are passed on to the people who pay the salaries of those behind this proposal.

Will there be no end to public employees taking from the private sector to keep their jobs? If this petition makes it on the ballot and passes, it will clearly put people out of work or put more of a burden on people who already earn a meager income or are already out of work.

I urge the average hard-working person of Nevada not to sign this petition or vote for this initiative.

Jerry Fry

Henderson

Union fan

To the editor:

The Sunday letter from John Tominsky (“Union label”) was excellent. In the debate about public and private unions, we sometimes forget these are people, neighbors and citizens just like us who share the same goals and dreams as most Americans. To demonize union members is not only in poor taste and without basis, it is truly un-American.

Let us not forget that for every union contract, there is a party called management or government that also signs off and approves those agreements. Why don’t more people take those parties to task if they dislike union contracts?

Would those who dislike unions decline pay raises or benefit improvements from their companies if offered? I think not.

Paul Carman

Henderson

On the job

To the editor:

The many and multifarious jobs in this country can be assigned to one of two categories.

Most jobs are in the so-called private sector. Private-sector jobs contribute money to the various government treasuries. The other jobs are in the government sector. These jobs consume tax money from those various government treasuries.

There is nothing to be proud of or ashamed of about holding a job in either category.

One would think, however, that government-sector employees – especially teachers – would have the wit to understand that their benefactor is a vibrant and prosperous private sector, and not their scowling and overpaid union bosses.

Robert W. Ritchey

Henderson