Logical, rational manner
I fail to see the point of the June 2 story. Is the Record-Eagle suggesting that because Mrs. Lautner is an advocate of less government, she should refuse to accept the salary and benefits of a government position to which she was elected?
Is he suggesting that, as farmers, the Lautners should not accept farm subsidies available to other farmers?
Is the paper equally incensed by the fact that Warren Buffett, who advocates higher taxes for the rich (presumably), pays only the amount of tax he is legally required to pay?
I don’t know Melinda Lautner, and I don’t know Warren Buffet, but I think both are acting and advocating in a logical and rational manner.
That’s what lobbyists do
Concerning the (May 26) front page headline “Lobbyist knew of Schmidt’s traffic camera legislation,” apparently Sheriff Bensley found it “curious” that a lobbyist representing American Traffic Solutions should contact him about legislation, not yet introduced, that would allow traffic cameras in Michigan.
The report said “The story of how a lobbyist would know the particulars about Schmidt’s legislation nearly four weeks prior to its introduction — and why that lobbyist would contact a local sheriff about camera technology before the legislation’s introduction — isn’t clear.” Sounds sinister!
It should have been clear because that’s what lobbyists do. Lobbyists representing special interest groups such as AARP, the Sierra Club, the United Auto Workers, the Newspaper Association of America, and I’d even bet CNHI, owners of the Record-Eagle, all work with state and federal legislatures to craft, and in many cases even help write, legislation favorable to their organizations.
Then there was the revelation by an individual opposed to cameras at intersections stating “ATS is trying to get the cameras in Michigan to make money.” Do you think?
The article was informative but the innuendo that something was going on out of the ordinary was not “new” news.
Gordie La Pointe