Jan 31, 2008 2 min read

It is with astonishment that I note the content of Gov. Edward Rendell’s January 23interview with KDKA (1020 AM) Pittsburgh radio’s Marty Griffin. As the conversation turned to the alcoholic beverage tax levied in Allegheny County and in Philadelphia, the governor volunteered that in Philadelphia, “We have selective enforcement.” He went on to say that “we don’t quite enforce in the neighborhood taverns as well as we do in the big hotels and restaurants.”

Mr. Griffin asked the governor if he “looks the other way,” to which he responded after momentary hemming and hawing, “You can say that.”

I am not sure whether it is more disturbing that the governor endorses the nullification of a law, or that he would be so brazen as to announce the disparity to tens of thousands of radio listeners.

State constitutions and our federal constitution prominently mandate equal protection under the law and uniform enforcement of laws: that no group or individual will enjoy favoritism.

It is obvious that the governor believes that some are “more equal” than others.

It is now reasonable to ask what other laws are being “selectively enforced” with the knowledge and endorsement of the governor, and how one can be expected to have confidence in our institutions.

Can an alcoholic beverage tax survive a court challenge when the state’s governor has publicly acknowledged that only certain businesses are being targeted to remit it?

How would the government differentiate such favoritism from the operation of a corrupt government

Oren M. Spiegler

Upper Saint Clair