Share This Page

Control real issue

| Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2014, 9:01 p.m.

I am in agreement with the editorial “Universal pre-K? It would be a huge waste that would dwarf Head Start's failure”. However, I think its analysis is flawed.

As a defense for its position, the editorial offers what is logically the opposite of what the Obama administration proffers in regard to pre-K education, which is not the reason for the program. What is the reason?

In my opinion, the reason is power and control: the motivating factor of radical left-wing liberals for everything, all the time. Do you think ObamaCare is about health care or that the GM bailout was about saving GM? If so, maybe I can interest you in some stock in Monsour Medical Center.

Follow the money. Billions of tax dollars to fund universal pre-K would go to hire and pay thousands of new teachers, which translates into new union members whose dues are then funneled into the campaign coffers of Democrats, all funded by taxpayers. Is that control or what?

As a subtopic: Either ban public-employee unions from making political campaign donations or require that they donate to each party equally. Even though tax dollars come from the same pool, we are not all of the same political persuasion.

Rudolph Puchan

Latrobe

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.