Pittsburgh in crisis: They still don't get it
What is it that supposedly educated people don't get about Pittsburgh's continuing financial mess?
To much fanfare, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl announced on Monday that he had dropped his plan for a 1 percent tax on college and university tuitions designed to bolster a badly underfunded pension kitty. Predictably, an academic community that already contributes so much to the local economy -- but one that also sucks up much public money -- lobbied hard against the measure.
By just about every indicator, Mr. Ravenstahl didn't just blink; he squeezed his eyes tightly and is hoping that when he opens them, manna from heaven will bail out the erstwhile Steel City long in state receivership.
Indeed, Hizzhoner obtained a promise of increased financial support from academia, nonprofits and the corporate community. But no specific numbers are mentioned. That's supposedly to be hashed out early in the year by another one of those largely useless "blue ribbon" panels that also will lobby Harrisburg for more state revenues.
But as the ever astute Jake Haulk of the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy again reminds, Pittsburgh's problems "stem from too much spending and irresponsible financial management. More money will not fix the city's ills."
You don't help an alcoholic by giving him a bottle of gin, the obese by delivering a truckload of cheesecakes, or a financially reckless city with lip service and weasel words. It's time to stop the enabling.
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.