ShareThis Page
Sounding off: Stop tantrums, politicians |
Letters to the Editor

Sounding off: Stop tantrums, politicians


The attitude of our elected representatives, on both the state and federal level, is talk-talk-talk while digging their heels in and throwing a tantrum to get their own way. Solutions addressing critical problems never get beyond the talking stage. These do-nothingrepresentatives who consider themselves privileged need an incentive to finding middle ground, accomplishing required tasks and addressing issues critical to the state and country.

The best incentive is to make representation in state and federal government a part-time job. Our Founding Fathers never intended representation to be a full-time job. The cushy benefits, for what little is accomplished, are not justified.

An alternative incentive is to structure representatives’ salaries based on the average income of all constituents in their areas. They would be in the Social Security pool and health-care programs of the working class. They would be free to create their own supplementalretirement accounts.

Time is long overdue to send a message to those who think and act privileged that they are our employees — that we expect them to stop the childish bickering and address the serious issues facing our state and country and find solutions that are in the best interest ofthe majority. In other words, be productive.

Claude Frantz


Legalized pot will cost Pa.

The February 2019 issue of the AAA Motorist newsletter had a great article titled “Driving while high can double your risk of a crash.” States that have legalized marijuana are experiencing many more fatal crashes. It is a proven fact that marijuana affects balance,coordination and judgment, thus impairing a person’s ability to safely operate a vehicle.

Now both our governor and lieutenant governor want to legalize marijuana. In their quest for more revenue, they are turning a blind eye to how this will create a multitude of needless unsafe conditions, costing the taxpayers more money and lives. Where are theirpriorities and what do the state police think about this?

Arlene Pasinski

North Huntingdon

Compromise on the border wall

While President Trump reopened the government and a committee is trying to broker an agreement, it is critical that compromise is reached. But current reports state that Trump still wants $5.7 billion for the wall. Speaker Nancy Pelosi still says there will be no wall. Thisreflects the very extremes of the political spectrum.

However, our Constitution was founded on compromise because the people who wrote it were just as passionate and just as bull-headed as Trump and Pelosi are. Pelosi should allow the wall to be built in critical areas, while Trump should agree to spend $3 billion on allmeasures dealing with border security and not just a wall.

If neither are open to compromise, then bad things will happen. Trump can shut down the government or declare a national emergency. Pelosi will undoubtedly ask the courts to intervene and overturn either action. The White House will have to prove an emergency existswith facts and not just rhetoric.

Meanwhile, what is Congress doing? They should unveil a comprehensive immigration plan to deal with current events and situations. If not, the voting public should be prepared to vote out every member up for re-election, including the president.

Richard Patton

Franklin Township, Beaver County

Humans behind the guns are the problem

Regarding the editorial “Voices heard at gun control hearing?”: I know Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto and other Democrats would like to rid Pittsburgh of guns. A gun is worthless without a human “behind it.” I have yet to see a gun kill anyone withoutsomeone pulling the trigger or accidentally dropping it, causing it to go off.

Guns are not Peduto’s problem, but “sanctuary city” might be “behind it.” The more illegals and criminals, the more guns — but a gun can’t kill without a human “behind it.” Peduto, why don’t you outlaw humans? Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? So does saying worthless gunscan kill. No humans, no killing.

Most killings in Pittsburgh are done by doctors with knives in their hands — a human “behind it.” Peduto, if you really want to save lives, outlaw Roe v. Wade. But like the gun, the knife is worthless without you and the Democrats “behind it.”

Joseph Tubbs


Say ‘no’ to Sunday hunting

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, hunters only represent 4 percent of the national population. So why should a single-digit minority control how the majority enjoy the outdoors (“Sunday hunting clears first hurdle in state Senate,”?

Traditionally, Sundays are a time for families to be together, relax at home, attend religious/spiritual services, go hiking, jogging, biking. Some people like to watch and photograph wildlife and connect with nature. I have several friends who have posted no-huntingsigns, yet find hunters trespassing and killing deer on their property.

We, the majority deserve one day a week when we can enjoy the outdoors uninterrupted by gunshots or hunters seeking to track/retrieve wounded or dead animals that crossed posted property lines, and worry about our safety.

There is no reason to disrupt this custom to appease a single-digit minority recreational group. Don’t animals need a day off, too?

Please let your state officials know you are opposed to Sunday hunting.

Silvie Pomicter

Chinchilla, Lackawanna County

Consumers want clarity on hospital costs

I read the article “Hospital price lists go public online” on new hospital price transparency requirements with great interest. As a board member of Consumers for Quality Care (CQC), a coalition dedicated to patients and their right to affordable, high-quality health care, I champion any efforts to provide more clarity and help patients better understand their health care costs. Unfortunately, hospitals’ efforts to comply with the new federal mandate doesn’t go far in providing consumers with the clarity and transparency on hospital costs that recent CQC research reveals 76 percent of Americans want, nor is it likely to provide any information to help ease their frustration about hospital fees and unexpected bills.

Consumers looking for tools they can use to take health care into their own hands should visit, a campaign recently launched by CQC to encourage higher-quality, lower-cost consumer health care, while hospitals should take a shot at providing information consumers can actually use.

Jason Resendez

Catharpin, Va.

No comparison with the Berlin Wall

The letter “Reagan, Trump — one great, one a disgrace” requires a response.

To compare the Berlin Wall to the proposed “Trump Wall” is absolutely ludicrous. The Berlin Wall was a political division of a sovereign country. The only comparison would be a wall extending from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, splitting the USA, That’s what happened in Germany. The Berlin Wall was not a “border wall,” as claimed by the author.

It is the right and duty of any sovereign nation to protect its borders from illegal entry. The Trump wall is part of that duty to protect our borders. Past administrations have failed to protect our borders for reasons that require a whole different conversation. We know why the left wants open borders — for the same reason they want voting rights for anyone and everyone.

I remind you that a U.S. citizen cannot enter Canada, Mexico, UK, Ireland, EU, Japan, China or anyplace else I can think of without going through a port of entry. We do have open borders in the USA. Any citizen can travel freely between the 50 states.

Robert Hawk

Donegal Township

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.