More sequester lies: Teachers & illegals
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Nowhere are the lies and gutter politics of the Democrats' anti-sequestration campaign laid more bare than with their claims about coming massive teacher layoffs and the release, already, of detained illegal aliens.
• Teachers were at the top of the billing when the Obama administration released, last weekend, its state-by-state propaganda list of what the Republicans' failure to raise taxes yet again would bring.
“Oh, the children!” you could almost hear them say in an Aunt Bee falsetto.
But the simple fact of the matter is that an extraordinarily small percentage of teachers would be affected (if at all). To wit, the “carnage” in Pennsylvania would be just under one-quarter of 1 percent over 10 years.
• Then came word Tuesday that in advance of Friday's sequestration deadline, the Department of Homeland Security, citing “the current fiscal climate,” has released hundreds of illegal aliens.
The local gendarmes in Arizona say their understanding is that DHS plans to release 10,000 illegals.
It's a trumped-up action, purely in pursuit of fueling public outrage, all the while blaming Republicans for refusing to allow the federal government to dive deeper into taxpayers' pockets. Again, it's spurious action taken in advance of 10 years of phased-in cuts.
Obama & Co. keep redefining the word “despicable.”
Show commenting policy
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.
- Sunday pops
- The new SAT: Rigor gets a pass
- THE BOX
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist
- Saturday essay: The gardeners’ etiquette
- Fixing Ford City’s water leaks: Time is money