Letter to the editor: Bills would harm Pa. economy | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Bills would harm Pa. economy

Pennsylvania’s historic strengths in energy and manufacturing rely in part on a federal system of laws and regulation that promote innovation and individual energy choices. Too often, policymakers in Washington respond to the debate on energy and sustainability with proposals that either mandate or ban particular energy resources.

Several bills up for consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives this week would ban exploration and production of natural resources on certain federal lands and offshore regions — areas which have long seen energy extraction take place safely and without a negative impact to tourism, the environment or the local quality of life.

On behalf of the membership of the state’s largest business advocacy organization, we encourage Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation to oppose House Resolutions 205, 1941 and 1146, as these bills, which do not have bipartisan support, would increase costs to businesses and consumers while unnecessarily inhibiting economic growth and our nation’s economy. Instead, we encourage their support for legislation that bolsters America’s historic leadership in innovation and manufacturing.

Gene Barr

Harrisburg

The writer is president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry.


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.