Make ‘the rich’ take worst of pay cuts

To the editor:

With respect to Nevada Controller Kim Wallin’s prediction (Friday Review-Journal) that lower-paid state workers “may end up needing public assistance” if they suffer a pay cut, I have a simple solution: Treat proposed pay cuts like Democrats and liberals treat taxes and tax increases. Those earning the most take the biggest hit, and the little guy at the bottom of the pay scale is least affected.

That means the controller, who would be at the upper end of the scale, would sacrifice the most, because surely she can better afford to do so. It is essentially “paying your fair share,” as we so often hear from the left about the rich.

But even if we do consider her opinion that Gov. Brian Sandoval’s proposed 5 percent pay cuts should not be implemented because of the impact on low-ranking workers, would we not be ahead overall if the across-the-board cuts were implemented, thereby saving much money, and then we dealt with the fraction of workers who do need assistance? Does working for the state mean that the employees at the bottom in time, experience and all the other factors which determine any employee’s worth, deserve to be exempted from any sacrifice?

When I was in the Air Force, working a second job bagging groceries in the commissary (rather than take assistance?), I saw Air Force members using food stamps. I will not go into my attitude concerning those who need assistance because they refuse to take responsibility for their personal financial situation and set priorities that will help them to live within their means. But it was apparent to me from that experience, and later experience working as a squadron first sergeant, that often that was the root of many people’s financial problems.

It seems we constantly hear from our government masters that their empires should be exempt from the inevitable sacrifice, with predictions of the end to life as we know it if they are not spared. Please tell me, Ms. Wallin, if you and others in position of responsibility and authority in the government are not willing to impose solutions like the proposed pay cuts, or at least take the larger sacrifice personally, what solutions do you propose? Sticking your head in the sand is not working.

Don Dieckmann

Henderson

Preparing for the worst

To the editor:

In response to your Friday story about Controller Kim Wallin’s comment that some state workers might end up going on welfare:

I am a state employee. I am part of a group that has been informed that we will be laid off in June. I am putting my condo up for short sale.

I am a single mother of an autistic child and will be going on unemployment, food stamps and whatever other public assistance I will qualify for. I don’t get child support from my son’s deadbeat dad, and my son doesn’t qualify for disability because he can feed himself. I have no idea where I will live, how we will afford our medications, let alone food, and whether I’ll ever get another job in this market.

So, yes, some state employees will be going on public assistance. It is not an exaggeration. So much for Gov. Brian Sandoval’s promise to put people to work. He’s putting a bunch of us out of work.

Thank you for destroying the 21 years of my life I put into state service, governor.

Karen Hughes

Las Vegas

Stadium plan

To the editor:

In response to your Saturday report, “UNLV stadium plan gets OK”:

I am not against building a sports arena in Las Vegas, but I think anyone contemplating the construction of one should do so completely at their own expense and not with any tax money, public funds or free public land.

Let the sports conglomerates build to their own content, using their own money, and make the developers keep a reserve with their own funds to tear the thing down and haul it away when sales and venues fall flat.

CHARLIE MICHAEL

NORTH LAS VEGAS