Your Feb. 24 editorial "Real Dollars: The Stimulus Program Bolstered Pennsylvania" claims that "Pennsylvania and the nation would be in a deeper stew if this recovery program had not happened." You report how much was spent, and where it was spent in very general terms. But how do you know it was well spent?

A stated purpose of the "stimulus" was to create jobs. You say that $26.8 billion spent "translated" into 12,000 jobs. That means that it took more than $2.2 million to create one of these jobs!

The $2.2 million per job spending figure accepts at face value your claim that 12,000 jobs were in fact created. You don't say where you found your numbers, but the U.S. Labor Department estimates that Pennsylvania really lost 147,583 jobs in 2009. Your own figures show that the stimulus money was not well spent; it was thrown down a black hole as feared by the opponents of the stimulus.

You claim that the nation's "top economists," who remain nameless, agreed on the need for the "stimulus" along with President Barack Obama and "most" congressional Democrats. It looks like they were all wrong. You will recall the heated debate a year ago when opponents of the stimulus plan argued that it involved too much spending and not enough tax relief, and that the plan was in reality the mother of all pork spending bills.

Your gushing editorial and all those "top economists" notwithstanding, it looks like the stimulus opponents were right, again. Big government simply is not the answer. Will you ever learn?

DENNIS M. SHEEDY
Fox Chapel

Where are the jobs?

If the $862 billion stimulus bill specifically touted as designed to immediately create jobs for the millions of the unemployed failed to do so, why should we think that going into debt for an additional $15 billion for a second "jobs" bill will have different results?

Depending on whom you believe, the stimulus bill created or saved very few or as many as 2 million jobs. The numbers that really mean anything are the 7.6 percent unemployment rate before the "jobs" bill and the 10 percent rate after the "jobs" bill.

The only new jobs created or saved are in the public (government) not the private (business) sector. Where are the jobs in the business sector that are required to continue supporting public employees in the manner in which they expect and have become accustomed to?

The Obama administration would have us believe that only a portion of the stimulus monies has been spent thus far; the rest will be spent this year on infrastructure projects that will create millions of new jobs!

If that's the case, why do we need a second jobs bill when the money from the first jobs bill hasn't been spent?

Or is Mr. Obama afraid of telling us that his stimulus jobs bill has been a complete failure and billions of our tax dollars are going down a rat hole?

DAVID R. BUSANG
Aliquippa

On Clinton's watch

In response to Sal Cassandro's Feb. 23 letter ("Remember the Eight Years of Ineffective Response to 9/11"): Yes, George W. Bush was in office for eight months when 9/11 happened in 2001.

However, the previous president, Bill Clinton, did nothing, I repeat, nothing in 1993 when the World Trade Center was hit with a truck in the basement and killed several people. Mr. Clinton did nothing. Then in 2000 the U.S.S. Cole was attacked, killing 17 sailors and again, Mr. Clinton did nothing.

So our enemies assumed that America was weak and would not respond to another attack, just like Bill Clinton.

What Mr. Cassandro does not understand is we, the United States of America, were not attacked in Mr. Bush's seven years after 9/11.

As Vice President Joe Biden said, we would be attacked in Barack Obama's first year, thus the underwear Christmas bomber.

I hope and pray that it is the only attack we will see in Mr. Obama's next seven years. But, please, don't blame George W. Bush for the next seven years. Mr. Bush did not blame Mr. Clinton for not keeping America safe.

ROBERT BANKERT
Stowe

Great American

My letter is in response to the Feb. 22 letter by Greg Barnhisel ("Gen. Hayden Doesn't Deserve Such an Honor"). I was born and raised on Pittsburgh's North Side and have been a resident my entire life. To bash Gen. Michael Hayden for serving our country for 40 years is a disgrace. To erect a street sign in his honor is the least that our city should do.

The ideas presented by Mr. Barnhisel that the National Security Agency was spying on innocent Americans is ludicrous. The terrorist surveillance program operated by the agency intercepted the calls of known members of al-Qaida and their affiliates, and these intercepts were specifically targeted. The program has been proved to be lawful, effective and necessary to the security of America.

I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but one should know what he or she is talking about before exercising that right.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Gen. Hayden for keeping our great country as safe as it can be while operating within the parameters of the law. A simple street sign is an honor that he deserves more than any sports figure.

It makes me proud to know that I grew up in the same neighborhood as such a great American as Gen. Michael Hayden.

ERIC PATTERSON
North Side

More apropos

I am writing in response to the letter by Paul W. Zeak and Jude C. Pohl in Thursday's paper ("A Greater Honor"), advocating that a statue of Gen. Michael Hayden be erected outside of Heinz Field.

May I suggest we go one step further and turn it into a fountain? The sculpture could depict Gen. Hayden leaning over a bound figure on an inclined table, and the fountain's water could be pouring into the figure's nose and mouth.

That would be a fitting reminder of the type of leadership our great country received from this despicable man and his ilk.

PHILIP WINTERS
Churchill

Re: beer sales

I am a member of several social, service and fraternal organizations that have Pennsylvania liquor licenses to purchase and sell beer and spirits. If selling beer (six-packs) at grocery stores, etc., is being considered for a new law or amendment, social, service and fraternal organizations with a Pennsylvania liquor license should be included.

Over the years the laws have been amended or revised to extend the privilege of being open Sundays, Election Day, etc., for bars, taverns and restaurants with liquor licenses. This had a profound negative financial effect on social, service and fraternal organizations.

Any new law changes to permit beer (six-packs) purchases at grocery stores and convenience stores should also apply to social, service and fraternal organizations. What's fair is fair.

C.H. SHARPLESS JR.
Swissvale

Weather and climate aren't the same thing

In "Blinded by Science" (Feb. 22), columnist George F. Will argues that climate change alarmists have established a religion of global warming that flourishes in the face of scientific evidence. The majority of his article revels in the recent travails of various political groups involved in the issue. While amusing, this has nothing to do with whether global warming exists.

He makes his case in the last two paragraphs: The planet has not been warming for 15 years, it may have been warm during the "Medieval Warm Period," and there was a "historic blizzard" this winter.

Mr. Will has confused short-term weather with long-term climate. There will always be weather and snowstorms. Our recent blizzard was weather and indicates nothing about long-term global warming. Come to think of it, despite the snow, it has been an abnormally warm winter in Pittsburgh.

Mr. Will references Phil Jones, former director of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, as saying there has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years. He does not mention the next words out of Mr. Jones' mouth: "This is a blip, rather than a long-term trend." In fact a few moments of Web searching will reveal many graphs of average global temperature; the line may bounce around (hence Mr. Jones' statement) but over the decades it rises steadily.

Again, this is the difference between weather and climate.

It may have been warmer in the past, but so what? The Earth was a molten ball of lava once. What does this have to do with whether we are causing the Earth to warm now by pumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere? Absolutely nothing.

A few minutes on Google reveals careful, scientifically supported refutations of every argument Mr. Will made.

Surely Mr. Will is aware of this. The real religion here is evident in Mr. Will's stubborn willful ignorance that compels him to spread his nonsense.

ERIC SWANSON
Associate Professor of Physics
University of Pittsburgh
Oakland

Town Talk, a discussion forum on issues of the day, is featured exclusively in the Opinion section on PG+, a members-only web site from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.