ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Commonwealth Foundation's motivations

| Wednesday, June 13, 2018, 8:53 p.m.

Regarding Nathan Benefield's letter “Union dues can and do pay for politics” : Why does an organization like the Commonwealth Foundation care so much how cops, teachers, firefighters and nurses pay their union dues? And why do they spend millions lobbying to silence the voices of ordinary people like me?

It turns out I didn't need to wonder at all. The Commonwealth Foundation explained exactly why in a fundraising letter seeking $10,000 contributions from its wealthy and powerful benefactors. Here's what it said: “Like David of the Bible now is the time to come forward and slay Pennsylvania's Big Labor Goliath .... But the overriding key to our whole plan will be our ability to starve the giant.”

If we listen to the Commonwealth Foundation's own words it becomes clear its goals are not dues deductions, but to tilt the playing field even further in favor of the few at the expense of ordinary people.

The unions that represent us give us the ability to fight for funding for our schools, for lower staffing ratios for nurses and for grants for our first responders. Benefield is free to argue against these policies, but it is shameful to try to “obliterate” anyone who disagrees with him to help his donors get yet another special tax break.

Now that we know the true motivations of the Commonwealth Foundation, I think we can all take its opinions and “facts” with a grain of salt.

Patsy J. Tallarico

Lower Burrell

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.

click me