The 'greatest fans' deserve a better shot at tickets

As a Steelers season ticket holder since 1972, I read with much dismay the Jan. 24 article about the availability of Super Bowl tickets for some local and state politicians ("Political Football: Steelers Tickets Hard to Get").

I have entered and lost the lottery held by the Steelers in 2001, 2004 and this year, and no one from the Steelers has offered me a ticket. Assuming that the Steelers get only so many tickets, why wouldn't they make most or all of them available to -- as the Steelers organization constantly refers -- "the greatest fans in the NFL"?

We all know Plan B built the stadium and that the season ticket holders' seat licenses financed it. Yet the Steelers may offer Super Bowl tickets to politicians who did not have to participate in the same lottery that all season ticket holders had to.

The Steelers organization should rethink this policy as it applies to favored politicians and put the tickets in the hands of the greatest fans in the NFL.

BOB KERN
West Mifflin

On contributors' tab

I hope that Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and his bodyguards (why does he need bodyguards?) enjoy their time at the Super Bowl ("Ravenstahl's Campaign to Pick Up Travel Expenses," Jan. 29). I also hope that his campaign contributors remember how he uses our money to party with his friends.

LAURA ELLMAN
Squirrel Hill

Simply not fair

As a season ticket holder who must rely on a lottery to try to obtain tickets for the Super Bowl, it makes me mad that my chances are reduced because tickets are sold to politicians. Are the politicians season ticket holders?

I've paid for preseason, season and postseason tickets since 1971 and should have an opportunity to go to the Super Bowl before any politician gets to go.

EUGENE MURPHY
Robinson

Drink tax truth

On Jan. 9, the following is attributed to County Executive Dan Onorato's spokesman, Kevin Evanto, in the Pitt News: "It's a consumer tax. It's no different than if you buy food at Giant Eagle or you buy a sweatshirt at the Pitt Shop." Is Mr. Evanto really ignorant to the fact that we do not pay a tax on our groceries or our clothes in Pennsylvania?

While speaking to the Penn Ag Democratic Luncheon, Dan Onorato responded to a drink tax question by saying that it really was not much of a factor anymore since it has been lowered to 7 percent ("Gubernatorial Hopefuls Seek to Harvest Farmers' Support," Jan. 12). That is not what I would call a truthful answer.

If he were truthful he would have noted a courageous judge had issued an injunction to stop the transfer of $12 million to $17 million collected in drink tax money to the general fund. He might have noted that the county has a date with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in March to battle a citizens referendum and defend his charter-bashing referendum hatched with repeated violations of the Sunshine Law. He might have mentioned that Liquor Control Board licensee purchase figures prove just how devastating this tax has been to Allegheny County small businesses. A truthful answer would have acknowledged that the opposition has not waned but is engaged and focused.

After closely monitoring our county executive these past 19 months I would suggest our county government is not "well run" -- but is certainly "well spun."

KEVIN JOYCE
Proprietor
The Carlton
Downtown

The writer is on the executive board of Friends Against Counterproductive Taxation.

Rooney giveaways

Here's a message for Dan Rooney: You have already given President Barack Obama "our" AFC Championship game ball and his own "personalized" Steelers jersey. (By the way, why didn't you give John McCain one?)

So, please, sir, the Steeler Nation pleads with you: Do not give President Obama our Super Bowl trophy.

DAN FRANCIK
Hazelwood

Keeping the change

Is it not strange that the restaurant and bar owners have quit griping about the drink tax -- lowered from 10 percent to 7 percent -- since County Executive Dan Onorato gave them a 3 percent raise in their drink prices ("Taverns Hiccup on County's Drink Tax Rollback," Jan. 6)?

SEVERO MIGLIORETTI
Plum

Match was reduced

Brian Rampolla wrote ("Bailout for Teachers?" Jan. 15 letters) that poor investments by the Public School Employees' Retirement System is causing the huge jump in taxpayer contributions in the future. In reality, because of good investments made by the management team for retired teachers, the state and school districts discontinued matching the percentage the teachers paid to the fund.

When I started teaching in 1969 (I'm now retired), the teachers, the school district and the state each contributed 5.25 percent of the teacher's salary. As the investment income improved, the state and school districts cut back on their contributions. It was as low as 1.2 percent combined. Teacher contributions went to 6.25 percent and are now 7.25 percent. This year the combined contribution from the state and the school district is less than the 7.25 percent the teachers pay. If the state and school districts had continued to match the teacher contributions or even stay at the 5.25 percent, there wouldn't be a crisis in the near future.

Mr. Rampolla states that because of losses to the fund the financial managers should be replaced. Is there a fund anywhere in the United States today that has not shown losses because of the present economic conditions?

BILL WILSHIRE
North Huntingdon

Obama seems to value 'smart' over 'ethical'

Regarding your Jan. 26 editorial "Ethics and Transparency: The People's Principles Return to the White House": You have to be kidding. The enormous gulf between President Barack Obama's rhetoric on ethics and his actions to date gives new meaning to the word hypocrisy.

Take Mr. Obama's promotion of a tax cheat, Timothy Geithner, to treasury secretary. Even though this guy regularly received notices from the International Monetary Fund informing him that taxes were due, he not only failed to pay the taxes but also cashed the tax reimbursement checks that were sent with the notices.

Then, you have Eric Holder's nomination for attorney general. He engineered the pardon of a notorious fugitive, Marc Rich, who had fled this country with millions of dollars, only to wait out a presidential pardon. So much for respect for the rule of law.

Then, there's Hillary Clinton's blatant conflicts of interest involving millions of dollars in donations to her husband's foundation from foreign governments with whom Mrs. Clinton will be dealing as secretary of state. Such conflicts of interest are the very kind of ethics violations that lawyers get disbarred for in the real world.

So much for the people's principles. I guess the new standard of the Obama administration is it is more important for a Cabinet official to be "smart" than ethical.

So, please don't insult our intelligence by touting the ethical standards of Mr. Obama, who hails from that ethical bastion of Chicago and its notorious street politics. We're not buying it. When is the PG going to hold this president to the same level of scrutiny/accountability that it lavished on our last president? (Oh, that's right, there was an "R" next to his name.)

SANDY LANNIS
Squirrel Hill

What a waste

Welcome to the "do as I say, not as I do" administration. Barack "it's good to spread the wealth" Obama, and his sycophant sidekick, Joe "time to be patriotic and pay more taxes" Biden, had no problem throwing themselves a party of perverse proportions during what they have both termed as the "worst economic time since the Great Depression."

These two hypocrites have shown absolutely no remorse about spending an estimated $170 million, according to ABC News, to celebrate the coronation of the savior. The fact that a large portion of the money was donated or was for security has no relevance. Wouldn't it have been great to see the new president take $150 million of that money and "spread it around" to the Salvation Army or juvenile cancer research or to the less fortunate people he referenced so often during his campaign? I'm referring to the same people he has no problem raising our taxes to support.

If Mr. Obama were truly a man of the people, an extravaganza of such proportions would have appalled him. But he is what those of us who chose not to vote for him knew he was all along -- an arrogant, empty suit with no qualifications to be leader of the free world. God save the republic.

JOE BENZ
North Huntingdon

Doing what's right

In the Jan. 23 letter "Mr. Obama, Without Safety We Have Nothing," a reader worried whether President Barack Obama's plans to close Guantanamo and the CIA's "secret" prisons would weaken security. This question could be argued both ways, but it misses the real point.

Like many Americans, I believe that torture is morally wrong and fundamentally un-American. Recall that more than 200 years ago, the authors of the Bill of Rights forbade "cruel and unusual" punishment and more than 60 years ago, the United States endorsed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

I believe the claim that "enhanced interrogation" methods exist -- methods that are somehow cruel and degrading enough to force information out of hardened terrorists, but not quite brutal enough to be called "torture" -- is just deceptive wordplay.

I know that if an action is morally wrong, it doesn't become right just because it becomes expedient. Nor does it become right just because you are frightened for your own safety -- nor even if you are frightened for the safety of your loved ones, your countrymen or others whom you love and hope to protect.

Someday, the United States has to set aside the fright and terror it fell prey to after 9/11 and return to doing what we all know to be morally right. I applaud our new president for taking the first steps in this direction.

WILLIAM W. COHEN
Point Breeze