Failure in Harrisburg: A 'fiercer hell'
One would think that with a Republican governor and Republicans controlling the state Legislature, commonsense and long-overdue reforms — think liquor, think pensions — would be an automatic. One would think.
The GOP-controlled House and Senate failed — failed miserably — to end (or even dent) the state's Soviet-style liquor monopoly or defuse the state's pensions time bomb in the first quarter of the session.
And while there's lots of happy talk from lots of those who failed to deliver that there's plenty of time left in the two-year session to get the job done, history more than suggests that liquor and pension reforms are dead, dead, dead.
As might be the political careers of the failed deliverers.
Not only are some prominent Republican Party stalwarts losing their patience — think Fred Anton, president of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association — GOP legislators are being exposed as being more concerned with the demands of special interests than those of the people.
Or as Matthew Brouillette, president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation think tank, sees it, Republicans have yielded to the “Big Government Party — the coalition of interests that profit from higher taxes, more spending, cumbersome regulations, state contracts and special privileges.”
Reminded 19th-century English poet John Keats, “There is not a fiercer hell than the failure in a great object.”
For pol and public alike, we would add.
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.