You're automatically assuming Ms. Irey's presumed intervention does not involve private enterprise. Why?
It may involve private enterprise, but knowing how Congress works and every Congressman except Ron Paul works (and I may be wrong about him), bringing "every resource available to me" always means federal funding. Always.
It would be churlish to fault Mrs. Irey for understanding how the system works, though.
Actually, Coop, I am not. It was her omission of stating that she thinks the private sector should determine the fate of the Rolling Rock building that prompted my response, (as did her omission of stating that she advocated privatization of social security).
I would think she definitely would favor this as her posts previously have defined her as very much against big government and taxes. I was thrilled to see her state that she would like to see the property tax eliminated*. (She'll get another campaign contribution from me just for this alone).
Coop...What I seek is clarification on these points. Let's not forget that Diana Irey is running to be a representative to the U.S. Congress. No matter how bright, how conservative, or even how pretty, a candidate should be expected to provide unambiguous and in-depth answers to his/her position on all of the various issues.
Come November, when PA district 12 elects Diana Irey it is my sincere opinion that those good people will have put a congresslady in Washington who will be of immense benefit to all Americans.
* I am wondering how she meant this remark. Was it just an ideological descriptive of herself? Does she think property tax eradication to be the jurisdiction of the individual states or federal domain too?
I personally think property taxes are anathema to the American ideal. 'Taxation' needs to be again dealt with on a Constitutional scale. And property taxes being made null 'n void would be a terrific XXVIII amendment.