Democrat gubernatorial nominee Tom Wolf says he won't “kick the can down the road” on pensions. But neither will he detail his plan for dealing with the state pension crisis. Some might call that politically expedient. We call it opportunistically weasely. ... The IRS now says, by gosh, that it has the “backup tapes” of Lois Lerner's “lost” emails dealing with targeting conservative groups. The agency says it's reviewing them to see if there's anything on them. We know how this one's going to turn out. ... The Washington Times reports that the Justice Department prosecuted 25 percent fewer gun violation cases referred to it by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in 2013 than in the last year of George W. Bush's presidency. And the number is 42 percent fewer than in 2004. Yet the Obama administration continues to push for more restrictive gun laws? ... The good news for New York is that when the “Late Show with David Letterman” becomes the “Late Show with Stephen Colbert” next year, it will remain in New York. The bad news for New Yorkers is that it will cost taxpayers at least $11 million in tax credits and $5 million in state grants. New York doesn't have a better way to spend $16 million?
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.
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- Shenango shakedown: Public money at risk
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The Thursday wrap
- A hunting question: A Pennsylvania proposal to limit the game that mentored youth hunters can take appears to be a solution in search of a problem
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes