Earth can’t handle a growing, prosperous U.S.
To the editor:
The Democrats and Republicans, the tea party and MoveOn.org, the left and the right have no understanding about the problems facing the United States. All of them have no understanding of the relationship between unemployment and the budget deficit. All of them are trying to do the impossible — trying to maintain constant economic growth for an ever-expanding population.
Notwithstanding the intelligence of humanity, the Earth will never be able to supply the resources needed by the United States to satisfy the needs of an ever-growing economy combined with an ever-growing population. The United States’ population today is about 310 million, and it is expected to reach close to 440 million by the year 2050. No action taken by the government, either by the Democrats or Republicans, will permit the Earth to provide the resources necessary to support that level of population at the current standard of living or at any higher standard of living desired by the American people.
The American people must understand that both the economy and the population must cease growing today, and the failure to stop that growth will cause American civilization to collapse into a state of anarchy and death and destruction prior to 2050.
Jason G. Brent
Las Vegas
Labor movement
To the editor:
While I didn’t expect any praise of unions and the working class from the Review-Journal on Labor Day, I was somewhat appalled by your Labor Day editorial.
To the uneducated reader, this editorial implies that early American efforts at organizing labor, while not a “mere walk in the park” (your words), were some kind of orderly process that “proceeded in a more conciliatory vein” (your words again) than the disruption that took place within the European labor movement.
In truth, the history of the American labor movement is a bloody one that includes public and private police forces and armies acting at the behest of industrialists to keep workers’ demands in check. Guns, bombs and nooses were employed on each side, and many dead bodies were left behind. Clashes between cops and workers were common in this country, not only in Europe.
The federal government, during the Grover Cleveland administration, made the decision to declare a September national holiday for Labor Day not solely to recognize America’s workers, but to discourage American unions from recognizing the May Day International Labor Day, which they feared would lead to greater solidarity with the socialist political agenda of the workers in Europe. It was also done to avoid a remembrance of the May 4, 1886, Haymarket Square incident in Chicago, a demonstration of striking workers in support of the eight-hour day, after which four “suspected anarchists” were hanged after being found guilty of a bombing with no evidence other than their political views.
Your editorial might lead some to believe that only in Europe did workers believe some of their employers to be “ruthless exploiters.” A quick study of late 19th- and early 20th-century American robber-baron industrialists, however, would certainly enlighten them to the ruthless exploitation that took place in this country.
The final spin in your editorial: Because the lowliest worker in the free, capitalist society of the United States enjoys a material health and well-being “undreamed of by even the elite in yesterday’s gray cesspools of collectivism,” unions are unnecessary in today’s America.
American workers don’t enjoy any relative well-being simply because America is a free, capitalist society. Any well-being they enjoy today is due to the gains made for them by American unions.
Without unions, who will speak on behalf of America’s workers? Obviously not the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Tom Gillespie
Mesquite
Redistribute wealth
To the editor:
A month ago, I thought, “How odd” when multibillionaire Warren Buffett said he supported the president’s position on raising taxes for the wealthy. Mr. Buffett said he paid a lower income tax rate than his secretary.
The odd part was that he didn’t want to make out a check to the U.S. Treasury and send it in. He wanted it to be taken from him by the government. I’ve never heard of anyone else who felt that way. It was understood that because the submission would have to be voluntary, Mr. Buffett wasn’t going to send in a single additional dollar. Odd.
Then, last week, the Review-Journal ran an article about how the administration had brokered a deal for Mr. Buffett to take a large stake in Bank of America at a substantial discount from the market. He seems to have made $1.5 billion in a single day.
Wait, I get it. His earlier remarks are not so odd after all.
If President Obama would throw me $1.5 billion, I would support him, too. He did say he wanted to redistribute wealth, you know. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.
David Bender
Las Vegas
Top priority
To the editor:
In Tuesday’s Review-Journal, separate front-page articles state that jobs are the No. 1 priority for both President Obama and Congress. Wrong. The top priority for them is getting re-elected; jobs are only a prerequisite.
It is only with elections coming up that they are now concerned with unemployment, which has persisted for three years. Without significant progress in the jobs area by the time of elections, no incumbent deserves to be re-elected.
Henry Schmid
Las Vegas
