ShareThis Page
Pittsburgh Tuesday takes |
Featured Commentary

Pittsburgh Tuesday takes

No defense I: The Butler County Tourism and Convention Bureau and the University of Pittsburgh, each taxpayer supported organizations, are defending their respective $2,500 and $25,000 donations to Tom Wolf’s gubernatorial inauguration today. They claim no tax dollars were used. That’s a laugh considering that money is fungible. Surely, that money could have been spent more wisely. Remember this the next time either organization goes begging for more public dollars.

No defense II: Allegheny County’s new Airport Authority boss has some pricey perks to go with her $295,000 annual salary. There’s $62,000 for moving-related expenses for Christina Cassotis (who’s never run an airport). That even includes money to cover her utility bills for six months. And if she’s canned without “just cause,” she’ll get an 18-month, nearly half-million-dollar golden parachute. It’s another outrageous example of what’s wrong with government.

No defense III: Mum’s still the word from Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto on that list of supposedly private donors paying for CBS-ordered rewards for city employees featured on last month’s “Undercover Boss.” Inquiring minds want to know if even more tax dollars (in addition to the up to $50,000 given by taxpayer-funded VisitPittsburgh) will end up in the mix. That, after Mr. Peduto promised no public money was involved. Perhaps the mayor could sell lemonade and cookies outside his office to raise the cash.

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.