Posts Tagged ‘negative ads’

Matheson attacking Love for wanting to restrain government

October 11, 2012

Matheson’s latest negative attack ad against Mayor Mia Love goes after her for wanting to rein in out-of-control spending and limit the federal government‘s involvement in education. Isn’t Jim a limited government fiscal conservative? That’s how he has always campaigned…. I guess when the polls put him down 6 points or more – and still falling – his true colors start showing.

Matheson produced an ad that says (and I’m paraphrasing) that Mia hates kids and hates education. He also parrots his ridiculous line that she’s “Not Ready”

Jim, that’s bull-pucky and you know it.

Mayor Love is advocating LOCAL CONTROL of not only educational decisions, but educational dollars. Our dollars in Utah always go farther when we don’t have to send them to DC for laundering, then get them back with strings attached. (No Child Left Behind, anyone? How about Race to the Top?)

So let’s talk about the Department of Education. It became a Cabinet-level department in 1980, after being created and signed into law by Jimmy Carter in late 1979. Republicans at the time protested its creation, saying that education was a LOCAL function and not one for the federal government to control.

Democrats used the Commerce Clause (there’s that pesky thing again) to say that indeed the nation needed a new bureacratic agency, one that would be funded under the Taxing and Spending Clause. At its creation, the Dept of Ed had 3000 employees, with an annual budget of $12 billion. Today, it has a budget of $71 billion – an increase of almost 600%. Employee numbers have risen by the thousands as well.

Returning education to the states is not a new idea. During the 1980 presidential debates – the same year the Dept of Ed sprang into existence – Ronald Reagan advocated eliminating it. With the House under Democrat control, he was unsuccessful. In his 1982 State of the Union address, he talked about it again, saying: “The budget plan I submit to you will realize major savings by dismantling the Department of Education.”

In 1996, the Republican party made getting rid of the Dept of Ed a cornerstone of their campaign promises and a key part of their platform. Bob Dole, who ran for president that year, said “We’re going to cut out the Department of Education.”

With the explosive growth of yet another government agency, when we have $16 trillion in debt and a trillion in deficit each year, it’s about time we have an adult conversation about the proper role of government. (And I must point out yet again that LIMITED government does not equal NO government…..)

Utah is ready to manage its own educational programs. Educational decisions belong in the hands of families, first and foremost, with government oversight being done at the most local level possible.

Matheson could learn something from Mia by asking these simple questions:

*Is it affordable?
*Is it sustainable?
*Is it our job?

Jim’s answer is always MORE GOVERNMENT and now he’s on the attack when his opponent says we need to get government off our backs and out of our wallets. How is Matheson’s big government view one of “Utah’s values?”


%d bloggers like this: