There is a cacophony of outrage reverberating throughout the Mon Valley over the PG's choice for governor ("Corbett for Governor," Oct. 24 editorial). How could a balanced and thoughtful publication like the PG endorse someone who:
• Embraces right-wing extremist states like South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi in challenging basic health care reform?
• Is more extremist than the ruby-red state of Wyoming in refusing to impose a tax on Marcellus Shale gas extraction?
• Believes unemployed and struggling people in our commonwealth are "lazy"?
Dan Onorato has shepherded this region through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and Allegheny County is now one of the most "livable" places in America.
Mr. Onorato has delivered on vital infrastructure projects, reduced government waste, saved thousands of jobs, rehabilitated bridges and balanced every budget -- all without ever raising property taxes one penny in seven years.
From a community playground, all the way up to a massive 150-acre brownfield redevelopment site, Mr. Onorato finds a way to make it happen while being fiscally accountable.
Tom Corbett hasn't even set foot in my community in years, let alone done something to help. In fact, all he has ever done for the Mon Valley in the last five years is call us "lazy."
Dan Onorato puts principles over ideology and results over rhetoric, and he works in the mainstream, not the right-wing extreme.
We believe Pennsylvania will join the Mon Valley in choosing Dan Onorato for governor.
The letter was signed also by mayors Betty Esper of Homestead, Michael Evanovich of Glassport, Ray Bodnar of Munhall, Tom Wheyl of North Braddock and Adam Forgie of Turtle Creek.
By endorsing Tom Corbett for governor, the PG has embraced a man who is determined to deny health care benefits to thousands of Pennsylvanians. Consistent with Republican fealty to corporations, Mr. Corbett also opposes a severance tax on Marcellus Shale gas drilling. This will assure that corporations reap all the profits while we look elsewhere for money to fix our roads, clean our water and enforce our regulations.
Like all self-righteous conservatives, Mr. Corbett opposes civil and human rights for Pennsylvania's gay and lesbian citizens. It's OK with Mr. Corbett, and apparently the PG by its endorsement, that gays remain second-class citizens for the foreseeable future.
Your endorsement of Tom Corbett is a major disappointment to those of us who would like to see Pennsylvania advocate for humans rather than corporations, but at least it should put to rest to the incessant whining of conservatives who claim that the PG has a liberal bias.
This isn't leadership
Regarding the Post-Gazette's endorsement of Tom Corbett for governor: Mr. Corbett and the Republicans have successfully stonewalled all attempts to pass a Marcellus Shale gas severance tax. Every adjacent state that allows drilling has a severance tax. Taxing the gas will not force gas producers to go elsewhere; the gas will remain here, if they want it. (And they will.)
You take seriously Mr. Corbett's promise to prosecute the inevitable polluters, forgetting the example of the Superfund -- the money from which was mainly spent on lawyers, not on remediation. The real cleanup will be paid by us, the taxpayers of Pennsylvania.
Not taxing the gas will save Pennsylvania consumers nothing. Producers will simply pocket the difference as increased profits.
Taxing Marcellus gas is a fairly painless way to help ease the state's worst budget crisis in decades. But no matter: Mr. Corbett has drawn a line in the sand on taxes -- another example of what passes today for "leadership."
Your endorsement of Tom Corbett is an endorsement of the same irresponsible, class-driven governance that is wrecking this country.
I think your reasons for endorsing Tom Corbett are weak. You point out that he is against the gas tax and plans to challenge the health care bill, positions that are completely wrong, I think.
Dan Onorato's record while serving as Allegheny County executive, recounted in your editorial, is very impressive and gives us reason to feel confident in his ability to lead the state. I am very disappointed in the Post-Gazette's choice for governor.
The PG is right
It comes as little shock that just a handful of days after the Post-Gazette properly endorsed Tom Corbett for governor, the liberal readers of this liberal paper decry the paper's decision. Mr. Corbett, although not the perfect candidate, is the right choice with his stance on a shale severance tax and not raising taxes. He has his priorities where a governor's should be: on keeping taxes smaller and creating jobs.
The same can't be said of Dan Onorato. His only claim on lowering taxes lies strictly with property taxes, which, since it was merely shifted to his new drink tax, didn't really lower taxes at all. Wait a minute ... maybe too much hasn't been made of this tax.
My only complaint with the Post-Gazette's endorsement of Tom Corbett was that it was far too obsequious. The editorial board should have been bold and not tried so hard to placate its like-minded readers by watering down its endorsement of Mr. Corbett with a list of all of Mr. Onorato's "accomplishments."
The Post-Gazette is terribly misguided in its endorsement of Joe Sestak for U.S. Senate (Oct. 17).
Take the PG's approach on spending, for example. Average Americans do not think that supporting lower taxes is "spending," as the endorsement alleges. "Spending" is Mr. Sestak's two votes for the Wall Street bailouts, his support for President Obama's $3.6 trillion budget and his broken promise to swear off earmarks for for-profit entities. Joe Sestak is the big spender in the this race.
The endorsement also claims that Mr. Sestak's vote for Mr. Obama's health care "reform" bill will improve health care in our country, failing to mention the $610 billion job-killing tax hikes in the bill, the fact that the Congressional Budget Office states that the bill will raise premiums or that the bill cuts more than $520 billion from growth in Medicare, affecting Medicare Advantage participants.
When addressing Social Security, the PG forgot to mention that Joe Sestak's "do-nothing" approach means that Pennsylvania seniors will face painful benefit cuts around 2037 when Social Security goes bankrupt.
These are just three areas where the Post-Gazette went terribly wrong in its support for liberal Joe Sestak, but there are many more.
Yes to moderation
I applaud the Post-Gazette's Oct. 17 editorial endorsing U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak for the U.S. Senate. I also appreciate the Post-Gazette's recognition of Mr. Sestak's "voice of moderation." At least the Post-Gazette's editorial writers know the meaning of the word "moderation."
The same cannot be said for Pat Toomey, who is now labeling himself a "moderate." Moderate, yes, but only in a universe where truth and meaning are sacrificed at the altar of demagoguery and obfuscation. Pat Toomey may have a moderate demeanor, as you noted in your editorial. But "moderate" can never apply to the policies espoused by this ex-congressman, ex-Wall Street apologist, ex-Hong Kong-based consultant and ex-head of the libertarian Club for Growth -- known by critical observers as the Club for Greed.
Mr. Toomey should read the meaning of "moderate" in his Webster's, then flip to the "R's." There he'll find the good, old-fashioned English word that describes him and his policies. It's spelled "r-a-d-i-c-a-l." A synonym is "extreme." That's the true measure of the Republican candidate.
It's come to this
Regarding Dan Simpson's column "Mulling over the Midterms" (Oct. 27): As voting day approaches, I am still mulling. The political ads, which need no verification, would have us believe the pickin's are poor. Candidates are spending millions to make their opponents seem unworthy of being elected a civil "servant." Facts, responsibility and integrity aren't a factor. Candidates want the power, prestige, pensions and benefits to which these offices would entitle them and will sanction anything to get elected.
Because these politicians, if elected, are going to be making decisions that have to do with me and taking and spending my money, I will hold my nose and vote. But, only after I decide who is the least worst.