Share This Page

Socialist solution?

| Monday, July 22, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Socialist solution?

With regard to the “Latrobe's next step” item in “Greensburg Tuesday takes” (July 2 and TribLIVE.com): It is puzzling that a conservative voice, such as the Trib, has proposed a socialist solution to Latrobe's projected 2016 debt — namely, “cooperative ventures with neighboring Unity” such as “a shared police department.”

Last time I checked, Unity uses the taxes-paid-for services of Pennsylvania State Police. Obviously, if Unity were to attempt to bail out Latrobe by going this route, it would have to increase its budget to accommodate the additional expense this would incur. And if that effort should fall short, as it invariably would, what would be the next neighboring community that Latrobe exploits to cover its debt, and the next, and the next?

If budgets reflect priorities, and if Latrobe's council and mayor are in tune with what is most important to its populace, as they should be, reducing or eliminating nonessential services and/or outsourcing some essential services must be Latrobe's focus. After all, doesn't it make more sense for Latrobe to get its own house in order?

The imposition of Latrobe's budgetary woes onto its neighbors, as the editorial intimates, may prompt them to be less than neighborly in the future.

Tim McGuire

Greensburg

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.