Budget grandstanding seen
In response to Greensburg Councilwoman Kathleen McCormick's letter “Budget ‘no' explained” (Dec. 19 and TribLIVE.com): Ms. McCormick is concerned about including revenue from the sale of property on South Pennsylvania Avenue in Greensburg's 2013 budget. Municipalities routinely include projected revenues, such as anticipated taxes, in their upcoming budgets.
McCormick cites the cost of health care, pension and wage increases. These are all valid concerns and honest discussions can take place. McCormick made no effort to have these discussions and she voted for these same wage increases that concern her. In actuality, the Fraternal Order of Police has, over the last several years, given concessions on pensions, hiring and health care, saving the City of Greensburg a significant amount of taxpayer dollars.
We were surprised by the “no” vote of Councilman Bill Eger, who was part of the budget committee. Mr. Eger cited “new information” as the reason for his last-minute “no” vote. Should the stewards of our tax dollars not elaborate on this information?
No plan for reducing spending was offered. If McCormick has a plan, let her offer it for legitimate discussion.
Councilwoman McCormick, when you were negotiating your wage increases with the Belle Vernon School District, we were the stewards of this great city of Greensburg. If you are a true steward of the taxpayers, then you should lead and not use council as a platform for political grandstanding.
Fraternal Order of Police, General Greene Lodge No. 56
FOP Lodge No. 56 represents Greensburg city police.
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.
- ‘Affordable’? Not for him
- Arnold’s garbage
- PNC: New roles for helpers
- ATI’s broken promises
- Pass GMO label bill
- Protesters not law-abiding
- Right on race
- Incumbents’ edge?
- Dem official wrong
- Cameras not the answer
- Report reactions III