The Thursday wrap
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2014, 9:00 p.m.
Turns out those nasty conservative (but libertarian-leaning) Koch brothers, the regular object of “progressive” ire for their political speech (i.e., donating money to political causes), barely cracked the top 60 between 1989 and 2014. They were 59th with $18 million in donations, reports The Examiner of Washington. But six of the top 10 donors were — drum roll, please — organized labor. “In other words, the six biggest union donors in American politics gave 15 times more to mostly Democrats than the Evil Koch Bros.,” writes Mark Tapscott. We just thought you'd like to know. ... Democrat Pennsylvania gubernatorial hopeful Tom Wolf is out with a new TV ad pushing for an “extraction tax” on oil and natural gas. Reasonable people can debate the proposal. But, unfortunately, Mr. Wolf exploits a group of kids in a classroom in an attempt to make his case. On cue, the just-indoctrinated innocents applaud the proposal to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs. Tacky, tacky, tacky. ... Republique, the tony Los Angeles restaurant, is tacking on a 3 percent surcharge to every bill to pay for employee health care. It's the latest example of how “progressives” save us money.
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.
- The big sting: To what end?
- Sunday pops
- THE BOX
- Saturday essay: Resurrection
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Keystone caper: Pipeline politics
- Easter 2014: Churches’ vital role
- Liquor privatization: Now’s the time