Why are the taxpayers always on the hook?

To the editor:

Concerning the Tuesday story on the man who was roughed up by a police officer after videotaping him, leading the victim to file a lawsuit and win financial compensation, I ask: Why is it every time a city or county employee does something stupid or illegal that results in a lawsuit, it is the taxpayers of this county — who had nothing to do with what happened — who have to pay the financial penalty that is awarded to the plaintiff?

If a city or county employee is guilty of incompetence, negligence or some illegal act that results in the awarding of financial compensation to the victim or victim’s family, shouldn’t that employee — and only that employee — be the one who should pay the amount of the financial reparation?

I’m already having to support too many others who are too lazy to find a job or would rather receive 99 weeks of unemployment compensation along with their food stamps and other entitlements. Do I also have to support those who are either too stupid or unwilling to follow correct procedures and stay within the law?

S.G. Hayes Sr.

Las Vegas

Moderate thought

To the editor:

So, columnist Steve Sebelius and the folks at the Black Mountain Institute are looking for a common set of facts that will guide them to moderation in politics (Sunday column, “Is moderation possible?”)

OK, let’s take a look at the perennial hot-topic issue of taxes and see if there is any common ground. Do Mr. Sebelius and the people at the institute agree that:

1. Government should not tax the necessities of life?

2. That there is no such thing as a stable tax base?

3. That a “broad-based” tax system is no good because the broader the base the more likely the necessities will be taxed?

4. That the only good tax is one rooted in the free economic choices of a free people?

5. That businesses collect taxes, but do not pay them?

I’m sure Mr. Sebelius and those at the Black Mountain Institute could build a tax system based on these economic facts, but I’m just as sure they wouldn’t want to. You see, today “moderation” in taxation is defined in four words: Show us the money!

KNIGHT ALLEN

LAS VEGAS

One-note song

To the editor:

Vin Suprynowicz’s Sunday column, “What happened to the mule deer?” is nothing new. Hunter’s Alert has been singing this one-note song for at least 20 years.

And, as usual, their verses are short on facts.

Here are actual Nevada numbers to contemplate:

– Coyotes killed since 2000 (all causes of mortality): about 100,000.

— Mountain lions killed since 2000 (all sources of mortality): about 2,400.

– Money spent by the Nevada Department of Wildlife to kill coyotes and mountain lions on behalf of mule deer since 2000: about $4 million.

Mule deer numbers since 2000 have declined from about 135,000 to about 110,000. Looking at historical mule deer population estimates going back to 1870 (NDOW and reference texts), mule deer numbers have been below 150,000 in Nevada more 80 percent of the time. Therefore, current mule deer numbers are historically common.

NDOW’s remarkably well-done monograph about mule deer, published in 2004, details the complexities of deer biology, with habitat factors the most important in determining current status. That publication is available for review at NDOW.org.

Of interest, a recent published paper by Idaho Fish and Game summarized a five-year study looking at the effects of predator removal on mule deer population numbers. While their findings were not supportive of the notion that killing predators “creates” deer, the authors did estimate that, under their study conditions, the dollar cost of “producing” a single, lone trophy buck would be about $17,000.

It is a silly notion, indeed, to claim that predators get a pass in this state when, in fact, they are killed in large numbers, and with no “benefit” to mule deer in the process.

And it is even more silly to claim that killing more predators will improve that circumstance.

Donald A. Molde

Reno

Drilling won’t help

To the editor:

Will more drilling in the United States bring the price of the gasoline down? It’s ridiculous to think that the U.S. president can control gas prices.

U.S. domestic oil production has increased in Texas, Alaska, California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota and offshore, while imported oil has dropped to 45 percent of total consumption.

For more than a century, the cost of a barrel of oil has been determined by global demand, investors and speculators. The American people pay gasoline prices according to the global price set by OPEC and the U.S. dollar value.

Extracting more oil will be environmentally destructive, accelerate global warming and cost a lot of money. The oil companies will pass the cost on to consumers.

No matter how much drilling occurs in the United States, high gasoline prices are here to stay, regardless what Republican candidates say on in the campaign trail.

GERALD A. SANCHEZ SR.

LAS VEGAS