GOP caucus timing of legitimate concern
To the editor:
It’s amazing how far off things can get in politics vis a vis the media. I read Tuesday’s front-page article on the possible pressure by Sheldon Adelson regarding the need for an after-Sabbath GOP caucus. Reporter Laura Myers always does a great job. But let me offer pertinent testimony.
At the last Republican presidential caucus, four years ago, I was interviewed by another excellent Review-Journal reporter, Molly Ball, as I exited the caucus on Saturday. She knew I was bothered by the caucus being held on the Sabbath, and she knew I had been complaining at every turn for months. So she formed a question and printed my response in the Review-Journal.
Many of us complained loudly about the caucus excluding some of the staunch voters who are solidly GOP: conservative and orthodox Jews and Seventh-day Adventists. All are the pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, keep-God-in-the-Constitution, seriously fiscally responsible folk who had just been totally omitted.
Lots of us have said for years that we need a weekday caucus. If Miriam Adelson made the call that finally was heard, mazel tov! Todah rabah, Dr. M. But let no one assume that there were not those who complained for years about not being able to participate on Shabbat.
Monterey Brookman
Las Vegas
Whose money?
To the editor:
In response to Ashley Warren’s Thursday letter in which she argues that the $10 million Sheldon and Miriam Adelson gave to Newt Gingrich’s campaign should have been spent on local schools:
Maybe we should all remember it is their money they earned. They should be able to spend it any way they chose.
I’m curious if someone tells Ashley Warren how to spend the money she earns.
Jim Pearce
St. George, Utah
Not our money
To the editor:
Two recent articles in the Review-Journal caught my attention.
The first discussed the installation of solar panels on several Clark County schools at a cost in excess of $250,000. The second, had to do with spending approximately $1,000 each for gifted and talented students to attend some workshop at a total cost of more than $185,000. In each case, the article explained that local residents should not be concerned because these efforts were to be funded by grants and no local dollars would be spent.
I suspect that the author of the articles was the public relations office of the school district. Only the beneficiary of these funds would deem it unnecessary to be concerned because the funds were provided by some other level of government. As local, county, state and federal taxpayers, what part of any government spending should we not be concerned about?
Timothy T. Inch
Boulder City
Charity case
To the editor:
Reading the Thursday Nevada section, I came across the article informing me that County Commissioners Lawrence Weekly and Chris Giunchigliani would like to take funds from the Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth. The amount — $100,000 — instead would be diverted to augment a summer swimming program for low-income families.
I realize that the homeless youth program has become an inadvertent victim of a catfight and that Kathleen Vermillion herself may be culpable in sloppy money management. But I believe that situation is being taken care of.
In this recovery money needs to be spent wisely. We as a community need to evaluate our priorities. In this case it smells of less than altruistic purposes. Homeless youth do not vote, but the low-income parents do. Guess who is more important to a politician?
To me this looks to be nothing more than a couple of commissioners who want the county to pay for baby sitters so they can crow about helping low-income families. They just won’t tell you it was at the expense of those who have even less.
The Nevada Partnership is working to resolve the issues brought up by an audit. What sense does it make to hurt them even further than they already are? Since these two commissioners have made their priorities known, it will be up to the low-income voters to answer the question: Which is more important, a summertime baby sitter or helping a homeless child?
Darrell Welch
North Las Vegas
Same old
To the editor:
I wonder how really hard Congress will “try” on this one? The president mentioned insider trading in his State of the Union speech. So now the stage is set for more new laws to make members of Congress abide by the same rules as those of us who elected them. Fantastic.
Sounds great, but will Congress limit itself on a favorite perk, or is this just pre-election political posturing both for the Congress and the president?
My guess is that there will be a lot of smoke and mirrors, but nothing will really change. We voters should not hold our breath.
AL CIRCILLO
LAS VEGAS
