Share This Page

Unconvincing 'acumen'

| Friday, March 28, 2014, 8:57 p.m.

The news story “Wolf expects business acumen to give him edge with Pa. voters” was interesting but not very convincing. Maybe I'm skeptical because of the deceptive nature of politics lately, but there are a couple of things that concern me.

First of all, Democrat gubernatorial candidate Tom Wolf emphasizes his “smart business” approach to sharing 20 to 30 percent of his company's profits with employees. Sharing prosperity is a great way to extract the best from your employees in the private sector. It has no purpose or place in government because there, sharing means taking from a productive person to give to a nonproductive person.

Secondly, I can't argue that a moderate natural gas extraction tax is a necessarily bad thing, but it should be used to fund our deteriorating roads and bridges. The Marcellus industry has created many good-paying jobs contributing to the overall economy of the commonwealth. To propose imposing taxes to fund an underperforming public education system and its well-protected jobs doesn't make any sense unless Wolf is pandering to the teachers unions. Teacher salaries will continue to go up and so will our taxes.

The fact that Wolf is a multimillionaire businessman who has “actually made executive decisions” may be something he might want to downplay. That persona didn't work well for Mitt Romney.

Tom Miller

North Huntingdon

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.