GOP lawmakers disappoint
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, Jan. 6, 2013, 9:03 p.m.
The voters have the right to be dissatisfied with the performance of Pennsylvania's elected officials as a group. Because of widespread dissatisfaction with the Rendell administration, the voters elected Republican legislative majorities in Pennsylvania. The expectation was that they would put forward a more responsible spending program and eliminate activities that are not proper functions of state government. They have failed to enact legislation desired by their constituents.
These items include but are not limited to privatization of the booze stores, updating the prevailing-wage legislation, limits on unionization of public employees (that includes right-to-work legislation) and control of pension funding shortfalls.
We clearly have a spending problem at the federal level ($16.3 trillion debt) and this problem also exists at the state and local levels.
Our educational system is failing to properly instruct students in basic economics and therefore, the public does not understand the deleterious effect on our country associated with deficit spending. Spending at all levels of government needs to be set at the minimum for the necessities and severely limited for the niceties.
The writer, a Republican, is a Bethel Park councilman.
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.
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Saved her life
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- He has no excuse
- Putin for Prez II
- Conspicuous by absence
- Drought answer?
- Stalin, Hitler, now Putin