The federal bailout: Digging a deeper hole |

The federal bailout: Digging a deeper hole

A couple up to their necks in debt solicits help from a credit counselor. But instead of cutting up their credit cards, the counselor gives them $1 million and tells them to have a nice day.

Ridiculous• No more so than the federal government’s $20 billion bailout of the states. The feds haven’t provided a hand up. Rather, Big Government has supplied a steam shovel.

Under the tutelage of Gov. Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania goes to the head of the class in backward economics. Rather than erase his 34 percent income tax hike — and show some real economic chops by reducing state taxes on individuals and businesses — Fast Eddie already has tagged the expected $897 million federal windfall. He plans to use it to restore cuts in human service programs; approximately $392 million will be used in the fiscal year beginning July 1, and the remainder will be applied next year.

Rendell says the federal funds should be used in “a responsible manner” to bridge the budget gap. How• By returning the commonwealth to the same levels of spending and fiscal ineptitude•

Lawmakers and Rendell will negotiate to determine which state programs are worthy of resumption. Don’t be surprised if cash is found to stoke Pennsylvania’s runaway locomotive: Community Revitalization Program grants — millions of dollars loosely designated to curry political favor.

The governor is right on one point: The federal infusion doesn’t solve the state’s fiscal problems. By the same token, a person looking up from a deep hole should have the sense to stop digging.

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.