The Wall Street Journal says one part of ObamaCare is working exceedingly well: “The law is systematically dismantling the individual (insurance) market, as its architects intended from the start.” The goal, of course, is single-payer, socialized medicine. Consider it a “Stick it in your ear” moment for those who steadfastly scoff at the notion. ... The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has produced its first “annual” report in years. Dinosaurs do funny things when they see those meteors approaching. ... The Obama administration, not content to kill only the domestic coal industry, has effectively announced it hopes to kill the industry worldwide by not supporting new coal-fired power plants financed by the World Bank and similar organizations. Look for the administration to say it has a grand plan to boost foreign employment and generate clean energy at the same time by hiring people to blow at wind turbines. ... In the Public Interest, another one of those “social justice” groups, is out with a report dissing “privatized economic development agencies.” As if economic development should be the purview of “the state” (other than to get out of the way). What really caught our eye is that the group's report highlights, among other things, “the misuse of taxpayer funds ... questionable subsidy awards, exaggerated job-creation claims, lack of public disclosure of key records and resistance to basic oversight.” If we didn't know better, we'd think In the Public Interest was describing the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development — a government agency, of course.
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.