ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: We need solutions, not blame

| Sunday, Feb. 10, 2019, 10:03 a.m.

The Tribune-Review wasted an editorial with “Whose shutdown is it?” (Jan. 20, TribLIVE). The question is not who is responsible/owns the shutdown. The question should have been, what should be done to get us out of the impasse?

Politicians and the media talk about who is to blame, not solutions. I did not see or hear suggestions for a pathway out of the situation by anyone. The Tribune-Review had a chance to do that, but instead joined the chorus in asking who is to blame (owns it).

Before the shutdown, it was agreed that the legislative leaders from both parties, and the president, would come up with a proposal. Congress would then vote on it. The five people refused to come together and develop a proposal. Since they did not do it, responsibility fell to Congress to get it done. They did not work on it. Unlike other government workers who were not working, Congress was getting paid.

I am also disappointed in the editorial “Everyone counts in census” (Jan. 15, TribLIVE) against asking about citizenship in the census. Just because something is bad, or good, for Pennsylvania doesn’t make it right, or wrong. Your argument is weak. The purpose is to count everyone, and obtain an accurate picture of our population. Don’t you think it is important to know how many citizens we have? Who knows how many people will/will not respond to that question, or any other? Who knows how many will lie, or not count an individual? Isn’t there a penalty if people don’t respond in a census?

Tom Cerra


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me