Letters to the editor 03/31

Student loans might cause great hardship:

Reading the complaints of Jim Rogers, Barbara Buckley, Steven Horsford and student demonstrators, it seems the taxpayer is responsible to fund a college education for anybody who wants one.

Parents look back to that wondrous moment of childbirth knowing that in 17 years, they can ignore their liability and drop their little treasure on the wage-earner to put them through college. A student loan would be repugnant because it might mean giving up some toys.

Working your way through college provides the bonus of being made aware of where a dollar comes from. Another viable alternative would be the Nevada Prepaid Tuition Program.

GUY WOOLEY

Dayton

Amen for term limits:

Was I the only person outraged when reading John McKenna's recent letter? The tone of his letter was venomous and obviously biased, but why?

Why is Fremont the target of his disdain? If he hadn't noticed, Fremont has not been a school of choice for a decade. The school's demographics have changed dramatically. It educates those students who either walk to school or are bused there because of the screwy rezoning that occurred years ago.

I question Mr. McKenna's motives, specifically in his closing statement, "Even if the budget problems go away tomorrow, Fremont must be closed in the next two years." What was his motivation of such a scathing letter?

I hope that the current school board trustees condemn this vicious attack on Fremont and support all of our schools.

Amen for term limits.

RHONDA ALLISON

Carson City

Financial mess can't be solved with slew of temps:

It is amazing the furor over the $160 million in bonuses paid to AIG executives, which is a tenth of a percent of the bailout given to the company.

Admittedly, it was bad politics and bad public relations to give million-dollar bonuses to the people who created the mess at AIG, but the anger doesn't take into account the facts. These employment contracts that triggered the payments are for money earned already. If the payments were made in strict accordance with the these contracts then it's old business.

Some say we should ignore those contracts but these same people apparently don't know that the U.S. constitution clearly prevents the U.S. government from interfering with private contracts. There is also state and federal employment law that protects the rights under those contracts. 

Another factor to be considered is that AIG needs these same folks to unwind the credit default swaps and other contracts. You can't just bring in a slew of temps to do this. This is the same logic that causes the government to bargain down the sentences of financial criminals on condition they help untangle the mess they made. 

A way around all of this would have been to have these financial giants go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy with the U.S. government as debtor in possession. The feds would have still infused AIG with cash, but under bankruptcy all contracts are subject to the bankruptcy judge's review.

If the judge deemed these contracts to be out of line, he could have modified them or voided them altogether. The judge might have let the employment contracts stand and ordered the same payout. It is a matter of following the rule of law, not emotions.

RONALD H. ADAMS

Dayton

Will there ever be universal health care?

Will the United States ever adopt a universal health care system?

Since the days of Harry Truman there have been efforts by Democrats to implement such a universal health insurance plan in this country. The opposition has always been mounted by Republicans who view this step as another attempt at socialization of our government.

The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not utilize such a system for its citizens. The arguments continually bantered about against such a plan is that it is: 1) big government at its worst; 2) it will invade and destroy private medical practices; 3) it will result in rationing of medical care; 4) costs will continually grow and bankrupt our country; and 5) health care is best left to private enterprise as it currently exists.

The counter arguments are summarized by the current system where private insurance companies already ration health care by continually increasing premiums by failing to cover certain pre-existing medical conditions. Millions of American citizens are currently without any coverage or left with insurmountable medical bills that financially ruin families.

The American people have reached the breaking point with patience that insurance companies will implement plans that are affordable for all. The Republicans had chances to implement whatever ideas or privatization plans they thought would work, but have done nothing except maintain the status quo.

Under Obama they will have their opportunity for input to produce a system that will work for all, or continue as obstructionists and spend millions of propaganda dollars in attempts to continually discredit universal medical health care.

VIRGIL A. SESTINI

Las Vegas