Letters to the editor, April 6

Americans' spending priorities are wrong

I wonder how many other voters are out there like the person who wrote to your opinion column March 11 saying their vote is determined by certain freebies.

What is wrong with this novel idea? We take responsibility for our own contraceptives, pills, condoms, etc. These things are not that expensive, and probably free at clinics.

And what gives this Obama crew the right to insist insurance companies cover these things? People are voting themselves freebies even though our country is broke, as is Europe. The U.S. is $16 trillion in debt and counting, with $4 billion to $7 billion further in debt every day.

It's all about the freebies. Which party promotes freebies? How can we afford TVs and cell phones but not pills and condoms?

Dave Heiner

Carson City

Drivers still using cell phones

I was very pleased when the new cell phone law went into effect. I thought - finally, a little safer on the road.

I was totally wrong. I am less safe than before. Horse Pucky you say. How could that be? Allow me to enlighten you.

In case you haven't noticed, people are still talking and texting while they drive. The only difference is that now they are very creative in ways to hide the acts. And their efforts to hide what they are doing makes them less attentive.

The net effect of the new law is a few tickets, and a more dangerous road. It's an unintended consequence. The issue needs to be revisited.

As for myself I have become hyper-alert out there. It has become frightening.

Robert Coop

Carson City

Probe against Berkley an election year ploy

Regarding the House ethics panel probe of Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, the Nevada GOP complains Ms. Berkley's husband is a doctor specializing in kidney care, so she acted improperly in joining with Nevada House Republicans Jon Porter and Dean Heller to save health programs in her husband's field, even though these programs benefit numerous Nevadans.

What about other programs Republican legislators supported even though a family member might tangentially benefit? For example, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000, which also had bi-partisan support, removed financial needs testing for seniors receiving Social Security benefits. It allowed seniors to work and receive Social Security benefits regardless of earned income.

Under the Nevada GOP's reasoning, legislators with family members aged 65 or older should have recused themselves. Not so. Republican co-sponsors Spencer Bachus, Mary Bono Mack, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, to name a few, each had a parent eligible to simultaneously work and receive Social Security benefits under this law.

Where were the Republicans then? A close family member could substantially benefit from this law. Why were they not up in arms? Simple, Ms. Berkley, a Democrat, is in a close race against Dean Heller, a Republican, for the Senate. What better way to besmirch an opposing candidate's character than accusing her of trying to get a personal benefit for her husband?

This is nothing more than a specious attempt to blacken Ms. Berkley's reputation in order to help Mr. Heller win the election. Don't be taken in.

Ilene Zusi

Minden