Public vs. private
Published: Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013, 8:43 p.m.
Public vs. private
I admire and share Robert Jedrzejewski's concern for fairness to the middle class in his letter, “Tax the Rich,” (Dec. 13). And I believe most Americans agree in their hope that President Obama can “establish fairness in taxation ... a level playing field ... and a government that's honest and efficient.”
The letter writer misrepresented my Dec. 3 letter “Less spending, more jobs,” stating that I felt taxes, government and regulations are bad and everything private is good.
What I did say was that further tax increases will slow an already weak economy, that excessive government control of our lives will reduce our personal choices and freedoms and that unnecessary regulations will preclude business from producing more jobs.
Certainly, the economic excesses of the private sector should be controlled by meaningful government regulations — that's a vital role of government But it is not government's role to replace the functions of the private sector in our very successful free-enterprise economy.
The only real question is what are the best economic actions President Obama should take for the long term of our country.
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.
- Christians must vote
- More overreach
- Legacy: All lose
- Delinquents often the working poor
- Prevailing wage misunderstood
- Obits interesting
- Praise undeserved
- Immigration a local issue
- Arbitrary & chaotic
- Ferlo & Natrona
- Lobster-tail tale