Published: Friday, Oct. 5 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
The Matheson ads are accurate.
Re: Furry1993: The Matheson ads border on outright lies, because they are
deliberately so deceptive about Mia Love's record and her statements.
Headline reads: Mia Love has a wise approach to keep our money local’Should read Mia Love has a naive idea that appeals to other simple
minded folks!PeanutGallery said: "The Matheson ads border on
outright lies,"So you admit that although you don't like them,
they are still true, right?
Mia Love, just like Sen. Hatch and Gov. Herbert are ahead in the polls. The
Democrats shouldn't crow over Jim Matheson until after November 6th.
Do you oppose having the Federal Government paying for body armour for the
Military as well? Police officers are out there daily "providing for the
common defense." The price of a vest, which is considerable for a young
officer, seems to be a small price to pay.
Is she really against having the police with body armour? Or is she against
sending a whole bunch of money to Washington, having them buy the body armour
whether you want it or not, and attach a whole bunch of strings to that action
when it would be much simpler to keep the money and spend it locally instead?Maybe that way the local police department can decide if body armour,
better computers, additional training, or some other thing is the best way to
spend the money to protect the officers and fight crime.
Interesting...She's against taking federal dollars for police.
While she's asking for federal handouts to aid her town's
fires and mudslides? You're either for or against federal
handouts. Stop sitting on the fence.
People were crying about a police fee. So I can't imagine they would be
happy when property taxes go up to pay for police vest.
@GZE"Do you oppose having the Federal Government paying for body
armor for the Military as well? Police officers are out there daily
"providing for the common defense." The price of a vest, which is
considerable for a young officer, seems to be a small price to pay."Your comment makes no sense because they are different organizations
being ran/funded by different governments: federal, state and local.Last time I read the Constitution, which I have on my iPod, by LAW, the
federal government was NOT responsible for state police so states shouldn't
be expecting money from the federal government in the first place for police
gear. The state and cities are responsible for that and should budget
accordingly, so if the police aren't equipped properly then the local
governments are failing the departments, not the federal government. The
military on the other hand, which according to the Constitution was never
supposed to be standing, except for its Navy, is a federally funded department
so the federal government IS responsible for their protective gear and required
to provide that.
Mia Love's underlying premise, like that of most conservatives, is that
local government is more efficient, more competent, more responsive, less
influenced by lobbyists and political donations, and less corrupt than the
federal government, and thus would better manage the expenditure of tax
revenues. I'm not so sure. One can find corruption, inefficiency,
incompetence, and crony capitalism in local government as easily as in federal
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments