Not for 'common citizens'
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, Aug. 25, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
D. Meyers' letter “His kind of senator” (Aug. 11 and TribLIVE.com) about U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., was disturbing to me as one of those “common citizens” he supposedly cares for.
If Toomey did care about us, he would not have voted against the veterans jobs bill last year that would have helped those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan find job training and careers after their service to their country, who now have a 20-percent unemployment rate. Or he wouldn't have voted twice against the Veterans Administration appropriations bill, allowing it to hire more workers when there are more than 900,000 veteran claims in backlog. Most of these veterans have wait times that are longer than their tours of duty were — shameful.
He also forgot us “common citizens” when he voted against Pell Grants for education and when he submitted a bill that directed the U.S. Treasury, if the debt ceiling is reached, to make interest payments to foreign governments before it makes good on domestic obligations such as Social Security for seniors and payments due our servicemen and -women.
Nor did Toomey think about us when he filibustered the bill that would have stopped corporations' tax deductions for the cost of outsourcing jobs overseas. This bill instead would have given corporations a tax deduction for relocating jobs back here to America. And then, adding insult to injury, Toomey voted to cut retraining assistance for our workers and small businesses when they lose jobs to this competition from overseas.
No wonder Meyers did not have one example of how Toomey cares about the “common citizen” — because Toomey doesn't.
The writer is a Marine Corps veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.
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.
- Knives vs. guns II
- Bloomberg & coal
- Knives vs. guns I
- Resurrection? Yes, really
- Sign on to save Springdale
- Weighty issue
- Stop currying Saudis’ favor
- Consequences in space
- Tragedy’s ramifications II
- Resurrection? Really?