Disappointed in Sen. White
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, Dec. 14, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
I wrote a letter in June to my state senator, Don White, R-Indiana, expressing my concern about the price of fuel if the new transportation-funding package was approved. The good folks of Armstrong County already have a hard time paying for fuel, especially since our per capita income, according to census.gov, is 14 percent lower than the rest of the state.
His response stated that “the flat tax on gas paid by consumers would be lowered 17 percent over the next two years.” The headlines from our news outlets are much different. WPXI said, “Sheetz ... said bluntly it will pass along the higher wholesale tax.” And PennDOT reports a 9.5-cent-per-gallon tax increase on unleaded fuel.
That means we will see a 17 percent increase at the pump on Jan. 1 because of the bill White favored. And what will happen in 2015?
Instead of passing a budget with no tax increase, our elected officials in Harrisburg have again attacked the empty pockets of rural Pennsylvania.
For Armstrong County residents, this is essentially a wage cut. It means less money to spend at local small businesses and less money to feed our families.
As a fellow Republican, I'm disappointed. This is not the Christmas present we were hoping for.
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.
- Medicaid’s future
- Slots & property taxes
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Putin’s actions I
- Lebo’s coyotes
- We pay to keep poor warm
- Conspicuous by absence
- Guzzardi for guv
- Funding priorities questioned