Corbett's budget: Liberal lies
What stands out the most about Gov. Tom Corbett's $29.4 billion state budget?
No new taxes to eliminate a $1.2 billion deficit? No. A block grant program that would channel $241 million to school districts? No. The renewed push to expanded gambling with keno? Expanded natural gas drilling in state forests and parks? Mr. Corbett's crapshoot on pension reform? No, no and no.
What stands out the most, unfortunately, are the liberal lies about the budget, particularly that education grant program.
Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Allegheny, said Keystone State schools “are still struggling to deal with the governor's previous $1 billion cut to education.” That's a lie. Temporary federal stimulus money that too many school districts foolishly budgeted as permanent dried up. The Corbett administration has increased funding.
State Sen. Vincent Hughes, D-Philadelphia/Montgomery, repeated the lie. So, too, did Democrat gubernatorial wannabe John Hanger. It's the slanderous liberal talking point that has the half-life of nuclear waste.
Then there's that proposal to end the three-year ban on natural gas drilling. The Sierra Club was quick to condemn Corbett's plan “to sacrifice lands.” It's a lie by omission. State director Joanne Kilgour forgot to mention that because horizontal drilling from outside sites will be employed, there won't be any surface disturbances on those state lands.
Yes, there's plenty to debate in the governor's new budget. But “politics” should not be cover for lying about it.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
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.