Some thoughts on a few things you might have missed in Harrisburg, the comedy capital of Pennsylvania, during this busy news period:
• Not long after word came down of a House proposal to merge the scandal-riddled Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission into PennDOT, the commission released a statement recognizing “the need for reform in response to the serious allegations in the grand jury presentment” and went on to defend all the great things going on in this alleged cesspool of corruption. Funny, there was no mention that the turnpike is drowning in debt or that it keeps jacking up tolls.
• Shale gas is one of Pennsylvania's great success stories. There's so much of the stuff that flooded markets and led to depressed prices. (They're now on the rise.) But have no fear, the state House wants to offer a multimillion-dollar package of tax credits to identify new natural gas markets. Sorry, but that's not a role for taxpayers. And as the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center notes, the law lording over the industry already mandates that a multimillion-dollar fund be established — by the industry — for such purposes. Tax credits? No.
• A House committee voted out two bills that would nibble around the edges of the Commonwealth of Corruption's onerous prevailing wage law. Road maintenance projects would be exempt and the threshold for the union-coddling measure to be applied to other projects would increase from $25,000 to $75,000. It's small comfort for a law that raises the costs of public projects anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent. The prevailing wage law should be axed.
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.