Thursday, April 21, 2005 | 9:19 a.m.
Your April 15 editorial, headlined "Beers' plan spells trouble," was one of the most ridiculous pieces of drivel I have ever read.
The untruths began right in the opening paragraph. A dictionary defines "modest" as "not large, extreme or excessive." You define the increase in taxes two years ago as "modest." In fact, however, the $833 million increase was the largest in the history of Nevada.
Referring to state Sen. Bob Beers' plan to limit spending, you said, "A cold mathematical calculation will be used." I view that as a significant step forward. It would take out all the emotion and lawyers and lobbyists from the equation to develop spending for the sate.
A huge percentage of people coming here need services, you wrote. In my view, these are not the kind of people we would desire moving here. Could these people be illegal immigrants? You mention running government on a "shoestring budget." The state has so much money to spend today that it doesn't know where to spend it. The Democrats, of course, are still looking for more money. They (and you) will never have enough.
Also, we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to other states. There will always be a situation where someone else has more, be it a state, a group of teachers, a school superintendent, etc. Beers' measure to limit spending would hardly be suffocating except to tax-and-spend folks. There has to be a stop to this runaway spending. When the question of how much money is needed is asked of liberals, the answer will always be: "More."
RICHARD J. MUELLER
archive
