Once upon a time, 20 percent down payments were required for home loans. It showed financial discipline on a number of levels. Eschewing the commonsense guideline led to the housing bubble that burst and nearly destroyed the U.S. economy. Now, some once again are arguing against requiring any down payment; rules limiting foreclosures make the practice “superfluous,” they argue. Translation: Easy money? No worries. Taxpayers will bail everybody out — again. ... The true magnitude of the multibillion-dollar boondoggle-in-the-making that is California's high-speed rail project is put into perfect perspective by a new Reason Foundation study: It “cannot be delivered at the cost promised to taxpayers, is based upon a business model incapable of delivering on its legal requirements and is justified by proponents based upon unachievable benefits.” Other than that, it's a great idea. ... The number of unaccountable slush fund checking accounts used by Pennsylvania House leaders has been reduced from 100 to 36. Out in that foreign country known as Harrisburg — you know, the place where the folks think taxpayers are imbeciles — a spokesman has the audacity to ask, “What's the problem?” Defending the reduction of something that shouldn't even exist is like a bank robber defending the fact that he's cut down on the number of banks he's robbing. Yet another reason to keep referring to Pennsylvania by its all-but-official nickname — the Commonwealth of Corruption.
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.