Detour a no-go

Editor: Regarding the Jan. 26 letter about the new Taylor bridge, I agree it would have been helpful to leave the detour route in place for truck traffic, but Lackawanna County could not allow it for a number of reasons.

At-grade rail crossings are a major public safety concern and a liability to the county. The detour route contains an at-grade rail crossing that has heavy rail usage by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Public Utility Commission, Federal Highway Administration and PennDOT discourage any new at-grade crossings and all of these agencies would need to approve a new permanent at-grade crossing on the detour route. It is highly doubtful that any of these agencies would permit the temporary crossing as a permanent crossing due to current engineering standards and public safety concerns.

The Taylor temporary detour route and the bridge replacement were fully reimbursable by state and federal funding. If Lackawanna County left the detour in place, it would be responsible for the $1.04 million that it cost to build the detour route and would be liable for any accidents at the crossing.

At the request of Taylor borough, the county, with PennDOT'S permission, left the majority of the road in place to allow for future access to Taylor borough's property. The at-grade rail crossing was demolished and barriers were set on both sides to remove any liability from the county.

For those reasons it was not in the best interests of the residents of Lackawanna County to leave the temporary detour road in place for truck traffic to Stauffer Industrial Park.



Forced error

Editor: As a registered Democrat I am deeply disturbed by the war our party has declared on America's youth with their repeated coercions to sign up for Obamacare.

Common sense dictates that the subgroup of young healthy Americans without insurance are unemployed or underemployed in non-benefit jobs. Asking them to part with their limited income to support a poorly crafted law that most won't have any direct benefit from is beyond abusive.

This is especially heinous when these appeals are directed at minority youth who have not caught up to their white peers with income creation. Further reductions in their take-home pay will only put them farther behind in wealth equality.

Let's encourage our legislators to focus on job creation so our young people can access health care through employer-based sources rather than sacrifice a generation for the cause of a failed social welfare experiment.



Cleanup costly

Editor: I confess to being an unabashed supporter of President Obama, but what is it that Ed Ryan (Your Opinion, Jan. 17) confesses to?

When he refers to himself as the "'wildly flailing' pundit from Plains," he uses a literary device that few writers are worthy of. Mark Twain, perhaps, would refer to himself in the third person. And maybe Charles Krauthammer, whom I would question. The price paid by such pundits of today is very cheap, indeed.

One can often read in a column by Krauthammer or George Will an error of premise in the first two or three sentences. If you read beyond that point and allow them to convolute their message, then you're hooked. They are clever, but not wise.

Facts require verification; views, validation and truth, honesty. Strongly-stated opinions will work only if founded on legitimate evidence, and I don't see that in Ryan's "ad hominem" broadsides.

As to John Hollenback (Jan. 9), similarly guided, he can't seem to understand that when the Bush presidency ended, we had to continue paying for his wars, his tax cuts for the wealthy, his pharmaceutical program and his broken economy. It wasn't once and done.

Somehow Hollenback attributes $4.9 trillion in indebtedness to Bush and $7 trillion to Barack Obama. Cleaning up after George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't be toted up on Obama's ledger. To do so distorts and is a very convenient dishonesty.

Then for Ryan to mention dogma and not take responsibility for his own, is true mendacity. How much is overlooked and shielded when this president's Republican opposition is the most intractable, intransigent and obstructionist since the Democrats opposed Abraham Lincoln 150 years ago?



Can't impose beliefs

Editor: I respect Barbara Yanchek's pro-life stance (Your Opinion, Jan. 15) but there are other things to consider.

Not everyone comes from our culture or has the same religious beliefs. Forcing those on others is wrong. It can and has resulted in tragedies and needless loss of life. One occurred not long ago in Ireland when a woman from India started to miscarry and was admitted to a hospital. Because of Irish law they would not do a D&C until there was no fetal heartbeat. Because of the delay not only did the fetus die, so did the mother.

There will always be abortion. If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, they will just return to back-alley abortions.

I know Ms. Yanchek objects to pro-choice Democrats, but it is the Republicans who want to do away with the very programs that are needed to discourage abortions. These include the WIC program, the SNAP program, affordable health care, counseling and birth control.

If a woman or girl knows there is help available for her and the baby, she may decide against abortion.



Coming to terms

Editor: We constantly hear discussions how negative media coverage tends to be. Maybe it's not always based on the reader's own perspective but that of the writer's, or in some cases, the person writing the headline.

I was struck by the headline for Jim Lockwood's article in The Sunday Times about the Pennsylvanians for Human Life's annual prayer breakfast ("For anti-abortion group, it's a matter of respect").

Clearly this group does not favor abortion, but I'm sure if you asked members in attendance at that breakfast they would not consider themselves anti-abortion, but rather pro-life.