Share This Page

The New Year's wrap

The New York Times is shilling for a "living wage" bill that would compel private developers who receive $1 million or more in taxpayer subsidies to pay, for a decade, $10 an hour plus benefits for full-time workers and $11.50 an hour for those without benefits. Here's a better idea — stop subsidizing private developers with public dollars. ... More bad news for the crowd that believes government should determine what light bulbs you can buy. London's Daily Mail reports that when compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) can no longer produce light, "the electronics in the base will still try to function, sometimes leading to overheating, smoke and fire." How comforting. ... The average cost to attend a public university in the United States rose by 8.3 percent in 2011 and by an astounding 72 percent over the last decade, reports The Washington Times. And it notes that part of the problem might just be the fact that some instructors earning an average of $70,000 annually teach only one or two classes per semester. Gee, ya think • ... Former U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, Confused, Pa., expresses shock — shock, we say — in his new book that Democrats stripped him of his seniority when he switched parties in an attempt to keep his job. Arlen, Arlen, Arlen. You better than most should know that those who live by the political machination usually die by the political machination.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.