I have received in the last two weeks about six different mailings opposing Michael Roberson for the NV State Senate. Usually I just use these circulars as a quick way to know who the worst candidates are, since the ones who sling the most mud are the ones who are dirtiest. Sometimes, the charges are valid and severe enough that I change my mind. This time, they made me mad enough to call out this campaign.
According to the mailing, Roberson 'wants to slash essential law enforcement dollars, forcing thousands of police officers to be fired.' Wow, that sounds bad. The truth however is worse.
Roberson wants to cut the bureaucracy, I suspect, which includes police, fire, and education. I include those because other circulars accuse Republican candidates of being opposed to firemen, police officers and teachers. Now, anyone who actually buys that argument needs to think again. Even if some of those people are cut, it would hardly be 'thousands', because if we cut that many, there might not be any police at all left over. No politician wants the state to be left defenseless. That is not in their interest. Yet, the Obama administration regularly mandates reduction in active duty military personnel, which is a recorded fact. Nobody gets upset about reductions in the infantry. This is a red herring argument.
I have previously addressed the situation in letters to the State governor. Half of our state budget goes to wages and benefits for state employees, and I told him that we have too many people on the payroll then. There are police officers, teachers, and firemen with whom we could dispense who are not good value for the money. Someone who is paid $100,000 but doesn't actually earn it could be 'fired' and replaced with someone to whom we pay half who actually does his job. No services are reduced, and yet we save money on wages. I am not in favor of cutting people just for their wage, but if they are not giving the same value, then why not pave the way for people who appreciate the opportunity and give their 100%?
Roberson probably doesn't want to do whatever he has proposed (there are no actual quotes in the mailings) because it will cut these services. These services will probably take few cuts if at all, and the cuts they take will be the people with whom the bureaucrats decide they can most easily dispense. That's how they have explained it to me every year when they put my name on the layoff list. I can be terminated because I'm not vested, but they will dispense with other people first.
In another circular, they quote a policeman (who is a fake because the uniform is not authentic and he is not identified by name) who 'doesn't want to lose his job.' As a public servant, he does what best serves the public. A public servant who is unwilling to sacrifice his job is not actually a servant of the public. Besides, in that ideal world liberals always say they will create, we won't need poicemen. We'll all get along. In my letters to the governor about personnel, I said what I said and confessed that I said it knowing that I stood to lose my job. Naturally, I hope to keep my job, but if that's what's best, then I will go work somewhere else.
Educate your own vote. Anyone who votes based on what they are mailed without asking does the bidding of someone else. Anyone who votes based on what they see on the news does the bidding of someone else. Make your own choices. That is your right, as long as you can keep it.
According to the mailing, Roberson 'wants to slash essential law enforcement dollars, forcing thousands of police officers to be fired.' Wow, that sounds bad. The truth however is worse.
Roberson wants to cut the bureaucracy, I suspect, which includes police, fire, and education. I include those because other circulars accuse Republican candidates of being opposed to firemen, police officers and teachers. Now, anyone who actually buys that argument needs to think again. Even if some of those people are cut, it would hardly be 'thousands', because if we cut that many, there might not be any police at all left over. No politician wants the state to be left defenseless. That is not in their interest. Yet, the Obama administration regularly mandates reduction in active duty military personnel, which is a recorded fact. Nobody gets upset about reductions in the infantry. This is a red herring argument.
I have previously addressed the situation in letters to the State governor. Half of our state budget goes to wages and benefits for state employees, and I told him that we have too many people on the payroll then. There are police officers, teachers, and firemen with whom we could dispense who are not good value for the money. Someone who is paid $100,000 but doesn't actually earn it could be 'fired' and replaced with someone to whom we pay half who actually does his job. No services are reduced, and yet we save money on wages. I am not in favor of cutting people just for their wage, but if they are not giving the same value, then why not pave the way for people who appreciate the opportunity and give their 100%?
Roberson probably doesn't want to do whatever he has proposed (there are no actual quotes in the mailings) because it will cut these services. These services will probably take few cuts if at all, and the cuts they take will be the people with whom the bureaucrats decide they can most easily dispense. That's how they have explained it to me every year when they put my name on the layoff list. I can be terminated because I'm not vested, but they will dispense with other people first.
In another circular, they quote a policeman (who is a fake because the uniform is not authentic and he is not identified by name) who 'doesn't want to lose his job.' As a public servant, he does what best serves the public. A public servant who is unwilling to sacrifice his job is not actually a servant of the public. Besides, in that ideal world liberals always say they will create, we won't need poicemen. We'll all get along. In my letters to the governor about personnel, I said what I said and confessed that I said it knowing that I stood to lose my job. Naturally, I hope to keep my job, but if that's what's best, then I will go work somewhere else.
Educate your own vote. Anyone who votes based on what they are mailed without asking does the bidding of someone else. Anyone who votes based on what they see on the news does the bidding of someone else. Make your own choices. That is your right, as long as you can keep it.
No comments:
Post a Comment