Wrong & illogical |

Wrong & illogical

Dimitri Vassilaros was way off the mark (“See who’s behind the mask of merger,” Sept. 21).

Your columnist is, of course, perfectly entitled to disagree with any and all proposals to consolidate Pittsburgh and Allegheny County government — even though virtually all of our elected officials see the logic of combining many of their services.

But Vassilaros’ attempt to somehow link these proposals to past “consolidation” of Internal Revenue Service processing centers is both factually wrong and illogical.

The fact is that the IRS added 10 privately run processing centers when it started outsourcing the processing of some tax returns in 1984; it did not consolidate or close any existing IRS centers, much less close one “in each state,” as your columnist asserts. So his basic premise is flawed.

And the attempt to somehow link this flawed premise to Mellon’s 2001 tax-processing incident, for which we’ve taken full responsibility for the unauthorized acts of a few former employees, is bewildering, if not malicious.

The IRS has successfully privatized the processing of returns that contain payments. This is done to speed the collection of tax payments. There is a higher level of automation in the private sector, which must invest heavily in technology because it also processes payments for many thousands of private-sector companies. These contracts are competitively bid to ensure the best possible pricing for the U.S. government.

Ken Herz
Squirrel Hill

The writer is director of corporate communications for Mellon Financial Corp.

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.