ShareThis Page

Midweek briefing...

| Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Arlen Specter is criticizing John Kerry's plan for $900 billion in new government spending as nothing more than "a $900 billion tax hike on all Americans." Of course, should Mr. Kerry win election and Mr. Specter re-election -- and should the Kerry spending plan win approval -- Specter soon would be issuing news releases about how much of that $900 billion he "secured" for Pennsylvania. ... An Associated Press dispatch describes The Heritage Foundation as "conservative." But it offered no ideology modifiers for The Brookings Institution, an Emory University economics professor, the chief economist of or the National Taxpayers Union. It offered that the Urban Institute is "left-leaning." What gives, wire service of "record"• ... The Bush administration is under attack for, apparently, low-balling the cost of the Medicare prescription drug bill by at least $134 billion. The Wall Street Journal reports that "privately, officials admit they saw no reason to air the higher cost numbers, which they feared would only sow confusion and give ammunition to the opponents of the bill." Only in Washington can "the truth" be considered sowing "confusion." ... is running campaign commercials that misrepresent new overtime rules. Contrary to what the George Soros-funded liberal group says, more people are eligible for overtime, not fewer. Mr. Soros should be ashamed of such a deliberate attempt to deceive.

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