Taxpayers should be ones suing the school district
To the editor:
In Friday’s Review-Journal, Clark County School Board President Carolyn Edwards said she would favor suing the state over reduced funding in the education budget and the unplugging of personal refrigerators (which cost the taxpayers $1 million per year to operate) in the classrooms.
The taxpayers pay between $6,000 and $12,000 per pupil, depending on who is doing the counting. For that money we are producing a high percentage of students who are failing to meet minimum test standards in English and math — and the district continues to have a high dropout rate.
As most educators and the informed public know, there is no correlation between increased funding and improved test scores. So I am surprised that Ms. Edwards is not concentrating on ways to improve how we are educating our students, which may improve the test scores and lower the dropout rate.
Instead, she concentrates on begging for more money. We should think of the children first.
We, the taxpayers, should seriously think about suing the Clark County School District for producing a defective and substandard product. And let’s consider recalling or firing all the members of the School Board, who have failed our children.
Michael O. Kreps
Las Vegas
Final Four
To the editor:
My Final Four for March Madness:
1. Help a steadfast U.S. ally overcome overwhelming devastation.
2. Tackle the $14 trillion national debt.
3. Work with others to defeat a proven terrorist and dictator, Moammar Gadhafi.
4. Improve America’s energy supply domestically.
Unlike the president, at no point does my field of 68 (priorities) include a few rounds of golf or taping one’s college basketball predictions.
Martin Dean Dupalo
Las Vegas
Write-offs
To the editor:
As I was reading the March 20 Review-Journal, I glimpsed the commentary by Bob Fulkerson on Page 4D headlined, “Forget audits: Mining exploits Nevada through tax loopholes.” I almost didn’t read it, but then I remembered that I have been hearing a lot lately about how mining in Nevada is not paying its fair share thanks to a bunch of loopholes in the law, apparently that favor only the mining industry. I figured this might explain their favored status and was expecting to read something about a tax exemption, say, on their first $100 million in profits or something crazy like that.
But as I began reading, Mr. Fulkerson, of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, started naming all of the “sweetheart tax loopholes” that the mining industry receives from the state. These were tax loopholes such as, “extraction costs, transportation, marketing and delivery, repair and maintenance of equipment.” He continues, “Royalties paid to claim holders, accounting, advertising, sales and use tax, travel, leases, medical costs …” In other words, all of the normal costs of doing business that every business gets to write off, as well they should. Why would you pay income tax on money that you haven’t earned?
Later, Mr. Fulkerson goes on to say, “Why should mining get to deduct its production costs?” Are you kidding me? What planet does Mr. Fulkerson live on? If a business has sales of $100,000 a month and its expenses (production costs) are $90,000 a month, they should pay taxes on $10,000 a month, which is profit. Very simple.
I knew this when I was delivering papers at the age of 12.
Nothing could point out the absurdity of how progressives think more than this article by Mr. Fulkerson, and I guess we should thank him for that.
Then he goes on to applaud the fact that in 2009, gaming lost $6.8 billion, “yet still paid $1 billion to the general fund,” as if that’s a good thing. If that was the case every year, we would not have a gaming industry for very long. Following that line of logic, why doesn’t Mr. Fulkerson propose this: Make every Nevadan pay $1 million in taxes each year on the $3 million that they didn’t make.
B. DARLING
HENDERSON
Bad right-wingers
To the editor:
Thomas Mitchell’s March 20 column contains a line reading, “Justice (Clarence) Thomas is being dragged out for another high-tech lynching,” apparently referring to the justice’s own remarks with respect to the hearing on Anita Hill’s objection to his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. He claims that left-leaning groups are reading Mr. Thomas’ mind and finding nefarious dregs of bias.
Mr. Mitchell chooses to ignore the fact that the justice’s wife has received an average of $136,000 per year in compensation from the Heritage Foundation over the past six years.
It’s hardly just a nefarious dreg of bias when the political leanings of the institution in question are taken into consideration.
If Mr. Mitchell would have us believe that Justice Thomas cannot be swayed by the remuneration his wife receives from what can best be described, not as a “conservative” organization, but rather as an extreme right-wing-oriented concern, I have a bridge which I’d like to offer to him at a very reasonable price. If the justice wants to ask what happened to the country that was here when he grew up, why isn’t it here now, and what did you do, the answer to at least the first part of the question is that is was co-opted by the likes of Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
The rights of the people have been usurped in favor of the rights of the corporate entities in this country by them and their right-wing brethren, assisted by the likes of Mr. Mitchell.
MICHAEL F. O’LEARY
Las Vegas
