PennDOT will lower weight restrictions or impose new ones on more than a thousand bridges across Pennsylvania over the next four to five months. Transportation Secretary Barry Schoch says the state Legislature's failure to pass a funding bill necessitated the move.
Question: Had the Legislature passed such a bill, and given the time frame required to fix “deteriorating” bridges, would PennDOT still have announced the new restrictions? If the answer is “no,” you'll know the announcement was politically motivated.
Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl thinks it's “half-assed” for this newspaper to document the taxpayer subsidies in a Downtown development and, apparently, to give the developer and his supporters ample space to defend what they say is the “need” for those subsidies.
Question: Does the mayor believe we should have given equal space to those who disagree with such winner- and loser-picking subsidies? Or is he merely embarrassed that his policies have perpetuated a development welfare state that has perverted market forces?
President Obama has outlined a series of proposals to, supposedly, make colleges more accountable and more affordable.
Question: Given government's record of making colleges exactly the opposite — tuition-raising tuition subsidies, discrimination-perpetuating affirmative action, a proposed payment cap on student loans that will result in fewer loans — why would anyone think that more government intervention would do so?
Colin McNickle is Trib Total Media's director of editorial pages (412-320-7836 or email@example.com).
More Colin McNickle columns
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 â 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.