Letters to the editor, May 6
Solar deal is costing taxpayers
I read the story about the solar panels at the National Guard Armory, and it only scratched the surface of the problems with the panels.
First, almost half of the system is turned off when a solar system is installed, it can only produce a certain amount of power compared to the power that NV Energy provides, and they knowingly installed a system double the amount they are allowed to.
Second, they installed a 1 megawatt system that is a 1 million watt system, and they received $5 a watt in rebates, that is, they got back $5 million and they installed the system for $3 million, so they made $2 million in net profit, and we still pay them every month.
Third, they are allowed to raise the rates that they charge us even more every few years.
Whoever at the state agreed to this either knew nothing about solar or there was some shady dealing going on that cost the taxpayers big bucks.
Farmer needs to get off his soapbox
Guy Farmer misstates the status quo ante in claiming the “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision gave corporations and unions undue political influence (Appeal, April 8).
In his 2008 election columns, Farmer never mentioned the cash and armies of campaign volunteers organized labor steered to Obama and other Democrats. Farmer’s overarching theme back then seemed to be that the color of his presidential candidate’s skin said something important about himself.
“Citizens United” didn’t give unions anything they didn’t already have. Farmer’s real objection is that the court recognized the free speech rights of taxpaying American corporations to defend themselves against Obama’s war on business.
That war has produced three years of unemployment above 8 percent, doubled gasoline prices, record foreclosures, zero bank savings interest and inflated consumer prices. It’s the perfect policy formula to kill economic growth and prosperity.
Farmer is moralizing from a mighty shaky soapbox in his effort to shut his party’s critics up, but he has some help.
Democrat Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, currently being investigated for ethics violations, wants to fire Rush Limbaugh for calling a woman unflattering names. But with the recent revelation that JFK had a 19-year-old plaything, the history of the Democrat party’s war on women spans at least 60 years, through Chappaquiddick, Bill Clinton’s (sexual escapades), John Edwards and the Ann Romney smears.
Democrats have zero moral authority on women’s issues.
Funny how liberals get very illiberal when other peoples’ First Amendment rights threaten their self-made reality.
Obama seeking to raise taxes on oil, gas firms
Almost all the so-called subsidies to oil and natural gas are business tax deductions available to other industries – deductions from taxes that cover the cost of doing business and earning income to tax in the first place.
Efforts to reduce these subsidies by President Obama and his cronies are really an attempt to raise taxes on an industry that is trying to increase economic growth and job creation.
One of the main targets of the administration is to eliminate the expensing of intangible drilling costs, which has been part of the tax code since inception.
From the Wall Street Journal, “This immediate deduction – rather than amortizing the cost of development over a longer period – provides the capital and cash flow necessary in an industry where the risks are huge and returns are realized over many years, if not decades.”
Some people cry that the industry doesn’t pay its fair share. To the contrary, the tax foundation estimates that between 1981 and 2001, oil and gas companies sent more dollars to Washington and state capitals than they earned in profits for shareholders.
Also, the industry accounted for more than $1 trillion of the U.S. economy in 2009, or about 7.7 percent of the gross domestic product. It also contributes an estimated $470 billion/year in spending, wages and benefits alone.
My point is that people should not listen to the deceitful and misleading political pandering of this administration.
Changes needed for breed-specific regulations
Quite a few people think that the best way to handle any animal is to have a person in charge of it all the time. Breed-specific regulations are unsatisfactory.
What about those under 55 years of age?
This is in response to the letter from Dave Campbell on April 13.
The Ryan Plan changes nothing for anyone older than 55 years of age, is correct.
However, my question is, what if you’re 53 or 54? What happens to you then, after you have contributed for 30-plus years and trusted your government to abide by the contract they have made with you?
Anybody have an answer to that question?