The word "stimulus" has such negative connotations that the Obama administration chose to send a letter late Saturday to Congress urging it to pass a second such program but didn't use the word "stimulus," reports The Washington Times. Instead, the letter used the word "transition." Whatever the word, the premise is the same -- that government can spend us back to prosperity. That, of course, is a shibboleth. ... Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich says the problem with the economy isn't consumers living beyond their means but that their "means didn't keep up with what the growing economy was capable of producing at or near full-employment." Translation: Pay no attention to the growing national and personal debt. Spend! Spend! Spend! Mr. Reich, you're nuts. ... It's pretty astounding that the federal government hasn't driven a stake through the heart of the proposed Pittsburgh-to-Greensburg high-speed magnetic-levitation train, better known as maglev. But this boondoggle, estimated to cost $5.4 billion -- that's billion with a "b" -- now has moved into the "public comment stage." To give you an idea how ludicrous the project is, planners say maglev will attract more than 40,000 riders per day if completed by 2014. It's waaay past time to stop spending money on this nonsense.
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.