GOP presidential field focusing on non-issues

It’s difficult to believe that in an election year with such critical issues as the Arab Spring, homelessness among people who have never been homeless, foreclosures, Iranian nuclear ambitions — good or bad — and crippling national debt, Republican candidates for president seem preoccupied with such relative non-issues as gay marriage and abortion.

Does whomever one chooses to marry really impact my life and personal values? And to those who claim to be “pro-life” but usually favor the death penalty, do we really want more unwanted children languishing in orphanages, foster homes or in the street among the homeless?

The ongoing mantra from the right and its supporters suggest most clearly that the primary goal of Republicans is to remove the president from office, to expunge “ObamaCare” and to retool the machinery of government to the standards of the lunatic Tea Party.

John Esperian

Las Vegas

Spending plan

To the editor:

Why is it not surprising that President Obama’s proposed budget is another stellar example of federal ineffectiveness, generously laced with class envy in hopes of attracting votes during this election year?

The requested $3.8 trillion carries with it an additional $1.3 trillion in deficit spending and $1.5 trillion in increased taxes. Adding to the national debt does not seem to bother members of this administration (I guess they do not read about the crisis in Greece).

The same old theme of bleeding the wealthy seems paramount in this budget. In reference to the “Buffett Rule” (taxpayers with earnings of more than $1 million pay 30 percent), it would make little difference in the $1.5 trillion allegedly needed to erase the deficit. Earners reporting more than $1 million number less than 250,000, so the increase in revenue would be insignificant, even if they currently pay zero.

With a record-size government, which is getting bigger and worse, what happened to Mr. Obama’s request on Jan. 13 to be allowed to streamline government by merging agencies with similar functions? That’s a far cry from relatively newly created agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has a fiscal 2012 budget of more than $200 million.

Another agency that seems to be free-spending our tax dollars is the Department of Energy and its loan guarantee program.

Mr. Obama recently said, “We can’t just cut our way into growth.” Just remember these words were spoken back in 2009 by the man who promised us he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his four-year term. He should have said and committed to, “We can’t spend our way into prosperity.”

Robert Latchford

Henderson

Phone records

To the editor:

So now that the offensively intrusive and blatantly illegal ban on cellphone use while driving has been forced onto the residents of Nevada, I have a few questions and suggestions. How do the police enforce this law? Do they issue citations based merely on sight, or do they actually have the unconstitutional mandate to perform a warrantless search of our cellphone records? How do they know if you have been talking or texting on your phone unless they check actual records from your provider?

Obtaining these records requires a warrant. Do they just issue citations on a hunch?

My suggestion to protesting and annulling this Nanny State intrusion on your civil liberties is to refuse to allow any police officer to search your cellphone without a legal warrant. I also suggest turning your cellphone off and holding it up to your ear any time you drive. Holding a shoe or a box or a hamburger — or just your hand up to your ear — will suffice, as well.

The point is, how — without a warrant issued by a judge — do the police prove you were talking on your cellphone while driving? Can you spell Fourth Amendment?

I will be driving and talking on my “Get Smart” shoe phone whenever I drive in Nevada.

J.D. Collier

Henderson

Another dream

To the editor:

Just like Steve Sebelius (Sunday column), I too have looked back from the 2031 Legislature. But unlike his vision, mine is more positive.

What happened is that in 2012 a small group of conservatives had an epiphany. It suddenly dawned on them that what they were trying to “conserve” was in fact the most radically liberal system of government ever devised by the mind of man. A system rooted in the free choices of a free people in all areas — political, social and economic.

This led them to abandon their oppressive policies of sticking their noses into people’s individual lives in Nevada. They became known as Classical Liberal Conservatives (CLCs), and they were successful in the election, gaining control of the state Senate and picking up a couple of seats in the Assembly.

By 2014, the CLCs took the lead and successfully articulated how fraudulent and cruel the regressive statists’ business income tax was, and the people crushed it at the polls that November.

By the 2019 Legislature the CLCs from both parties had control and the economic tyranny of the regressive statists had been relegated to irrelevance. All through the 2020s, operating under the expanding freedom of classical liberalism, the people of Nevada created a level of economic prosperity and political and social justice unmatched in our state’s history.

The 2031 Legislature will be a celebration of the power of human liberty, but it all hinges on the positive answer to one crucial question: Are there any CLCs out there?

KNIGHT ALLEN

LAS VEGAS