Dysfunction junction: The Pa. GOP at war
There is something inherently wrong with a political party that controls both houses of its state legislature and the governor's mansion (not to mention the courts) yet cannot govern. And that's the rancid pickle in which Republicans find themselves in Harrisburg.
Gov. Tom Corbett, in the throes of a far-behind re-election campaign, signed into law on Thursday the Legislature's $29.1 billion budget, a political document clouded by smoke, distorted by carnival mirrors and fueled by snake oil.
But in the process, the governor, in a spate of bully pulpitry sadly seldom exhibited, also slapped the Legislature and placed his size-Tom shoe squarely in their bums for not addressing the pension crisis. He effectively attached part of a slush fund it should not have, vetoed millions of dollars in discretionary funding and froze self-dealing earmarks.
Senate leadership, all too willing to play with special interest piggies to the detriment of the public's interests (think of its devotion to the liquor status quo), accused the governor of not stooping to its piggie level.
House leadership, playing politics with pension reform, accused Mr. Corbett of playing politics by pushing pension reform, then accused the governor of leading “from behind.”
(Democrats are no better, by the way, exploiting the Corbett-majority internecine war to shill for their usual smorgasbord of liberal nonstarters.)
Reason and judgment are the qualities of leaders, Tacitus reminded us. But they are in woefully short supply in Harrisburg.
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.