Make trash hauler live up to sweet deal

I want to thank Steve Sebelius for his Wednesday column on Republic Services and company officials wanting to renegotiate their contract to one-day-a-week trash pickup (“It’s trash day in the great rotten borough”).

In the past, the only public official who seemed to want to make them live up to their contract was County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani. Perhaps when Republic officials come before the commission, Steve Sisolak will tell them that they have a contract with the county until 2035 for twice-a-week pickup and, “It is what it is, whether that’s right or not, that’s not the point.”

Let us all remember that Republic Services was given a monopoly for trash pickup in our valley until 2035. The company’s deal included cleaning up the Sunrise landfill to comply with EPA standards and twice-a-week pickup for trash.

Now company officials want to change to once-a-week trash pickup but still charge us the same $40.02 every three months. If they are cutting service by half, should they also not cut my bill by half?

I generally agree with Mr. Sisolak on the issues facing the county. Republic Services, however, got a sweet deal in this contract, and now the company should be made to adhere to the terms till 2035.

Al Wartman Jr.

Las Vegas

Vouch for vouchers

To the editor:

In his letter to the editor on Wednesday, Frank Sutherland criticized school vouchers. He wrote that they “will take money out of the public school system, and the level of education will go down” and, “No poor kid is going to benefit from the voucher system.”

Time and time again this has been shown to be false. A properly designed voucher system will always result in more money per student for those who remain in the public system. As long as the voucher is less than the current cost per student, every student will be better off, whether they stay in public school or take the voucher.

Let’s run the numbers in a simple example.

Imagine a school district with 100,000 students and a budget of $10,000 per student, for a total budget of $1 billion. Now institute a voucher system that gives parents $5,000 to help pay for their child’s education outside of the public system. Assume 50 percent of the students take the offer. The vouchers cost the school system $250 million (50,000 students at $5,000 each).

It is true that of the original $1 billion only $750 million remains, but there are only 50,000 students left in the public system to educate. Thus, there is now $15,000 per student available – a 50 percent increase per student. You can run the example with any number of vouchers taken and the results are always more money per remaining student.

If you take the example to an absurd extreme, imagine all but one poor student takes the voucher. That will cost our imaginary school district half a billion dollars, but there is still another half-billion dollars left to educate the sole remaining child.

Don’t tell me that one poor child won’t be better off – unless of course, you take the position that the amount of money spent per student has nothing to do with a quality education.

John M. McGrail

Las Vegas

Drink up

To the editor:

I found your article on the Idaho State Liquor Division’s banning the sale of Five Wives Vodka at state-run liquor stores most entertaining (“Five Wives Vodka won’t be poured in Idaho,” Wednesday). The article quotes Idaho regulators saying the product was banned because the concept is “offensive to a prominent segment of our population, and will not be carried.”

Mormons make up approximately a quarter of Idaho’s population.

State Liquor Division administrator Jeff Anderson is then quoted as saying, “The bottom line is, we represent everybody.” Was he laughing when he said that? Perhaps his nose was growing. I’m wondering if he, and the Liquor Division, would react the same way if the product were called Four Wives Vodka, and the women on the label were wearing veils.

Terry Cox

Henderson

No jackpot

To the editor:

In response to your Wednesday front page subhead, “GOP presidential hopeful hits jackpot as Trump, Adelson, Wynn stand by his side at fundraiser”:

So, appearing with the de facto leader of the “birther” loonies, the guy who – until now – backed the fourth-place finisher in the GOP nomination process, and the guy who made his dealers give their tips to people who didn’t earn them is hitting the jackpot? Maybe jackpot doesn’t mean what the dictionary says it means.

Dan Sanchez

Las Vegas

Too much compromise

To the editor:

Within the past few weeks I have heard former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson, Colin Powell and other so-called Republicans on various cable shows complaining about “Tea Party” types who refuse to “compromise.” Well, over the past eight decades these same men – along with other Republicans In Name Only – have compromised away our capitalist society.

Half of the population doesn’t pay any income tax. Half of the population is receiving some type of government assistance. At this point, we are literally teetering between capitalism and socialism.

Would these same men continue to compromise until our society is 100 percent socialist? Would that make these RINOs happy to know they have “compromised” in good faith?

No Mr. Simpson, Mr. Powell and others, we are through compromising. It’s past time we put these RINOs out to pasture.

Robert Naber

Henderson