A Pa. Senate lawsuit?: The claptrap of connivers |

A Pa. Senate lawsuit?: The claptrap of connivers

Pennsylvania Senate Republicans, honked off that Republican Gov. Tom Corbett would have the audacity to use his constitutional line-item veto to embarrass them for fiscal malpractice, have retained Steve MacNett, their former general counsel, to consider a lawsuit against Mr. Corbett. Taxpayers are ponying up $375 an hour for this circus.

Senate GOPers insist the governor acted illegally when he struck items from the “fiscal code,” enabling legislation used to enact the state budget. The line-item veto, they claim, applies only to budget appropriations. Never mind that tucked into the fiscal code were appropriations, including one to pay for overly perked legislators’ parking.

And just to drive home his point about fiscal fatuity, Corbett also cut $65 million from the Legislature’s operating budget. That will force it to tap its dubious $150 million-plus “reserve” fund, a slush fund designed to thwart the separation of powers doctrine.

The GOP (and even some Democrats) insist any lawsuit would be about protecting “the institution” and preserving power separation. But that’s the claptrap of connivers looking to score political points and, as per usual, at the public’s expense.

Here’s a novel concept for not just Senate Republicans in Harrisburg but the General Assembly in toto: Try serving the public instead of yourselves for a change.

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.