ShareThis Page
Rendell’s quackery |

Rendell’s quackery

Valley Independent
| Friday, October 15, 2010 12:00 a.m

If you could use a good laugh — and who couldn’t these days• — here’s one for you: Spendthrift Gov. Ed Rendell claims he’s a cost-cutter.

We’ve yet to see white flakes fly this season — thank goodness! — but Fast Eddie’s portion of a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece headlined “Four Governors on How to Cut Spending” sure is one heck of a snow job.

In it, Gov. Rendell touts “procurement redesign that is saving taxpayers nearly $30 million a year” and state employees contributing toward their health insurance premiums for the first time. And get this: He also claims “taxpayers stood with us.”

Apparently a victim of selective amnesia, the lame-duck governor didn’t mention state spending on his watch skyrocketing by about 33 percent, nearly twice the rate of inflation. Or state debt that’s 78 percent higher than it was eight years ago. Or the $5 billion budget gap he’ll leave his successor.

Were he more honest, Rendell would have written that taxpayers have had to withstand — not that they have “stood with” — his big-spending ways.

Ed Rendell might be able to fool Journal readers elsewhere — who don’t have the regrettable context provided by his eight long years of tax-and-spend profligacy — but he can’t fool Pennsylvanians with his quack-quackery.

Rendell a cost-cutter• As if!

Categories: News
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.