With the beginning of a new year Los Angeles government needs to identify and address the issues for 2008। Crime is always the number one issue but there are many other problems to tackle.
Here are my issues:
1. The number of police is too low compared to Chicago and NYC. We need to change the ratio.
2. LAUSD needs to be broken apart.
3. Illegal immigrants are over running our city. Our society is being affected both socially and financially by their presence. If Congress won’t pass legislation to make them legal we need to start returning them to their native countries.
4. There is a lack of affordable housing.
5. The city must become business friendly. There is a lack of decent paying jobs. There are plenty of jobs available at $10 per hour or less. No one can live here on that pay except students still living with their parents.
6. The traffic makes getting to work a nightmare for many people. We need better roads and an improved public transportation system. The “subway to the sea” is a good start.
7. We need to spend more money on our infrastructure. Paving streets and sidewalks, cleaning streets, cutting trees, replacing dead trees, improving and repairing parks and other public facilities.
8. Neighborhood councils need to be given direct control over the monies spent in their communities. An advisory roll is insufficient. Leadership of the councils should be elected on regular ballots not by a select few.
9. Oversight committees should be given the ability to stop payment when bond monies are misappropriated.
10. Planning commission meetings must be required to meet in the community that is affected by their decisions.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
Oh, This Hurts!
How many people are following the debates (really forums) put on by each political party? Many commentators have said the numbers are small. I have not found any data on the internet to support or contradict those statements.
Although most of the candidates tend to mimic each others opinion in each political party there are some differences. Watching the news and listening to the candidates has slowly helped to define my positions. I am disappointed that none of the candidates have a vision of the future.
Here are my views on some of the leading candidates.
-Mitt Romney has changed most of his positions from the time he was governor of Massachusetts to when he became a candidate for president. His views as governor were relatively liberal and mostly aligned with the Democrats in that state. Now as a past governor and a man trying to win support in his conservative party he has espoused views that support very conservative positions. Romney is a flip flopper. He bows to opinion and has not taken any stand on any issue even if it is unpopular. His speech on his Mormon religion was excellent but does not changes his flip फ्लोप्पिंग ways on issues that really matter. He has not said anything that makes him a standout in the crowd.
-Mike Huckabee has declared himself the Christian candidate. He does not believe in evolution. He has implied that there is something wrong with Mitt Romney’s Mormon religion. There is no religious qualification for this job. As to Huckabee’s position on issues he seems to have mimicked Mitt Romney when he was governor of Arkansas. To Huckabee’s credit he does defend his action when he was governor. Defining himself as the Christian candidate eliminates him as someone I would support.
-Hillary Clinton has defined herself as the candidate with the experience that will enable her to walk into the White House and capably go to work because she was there before. She voted for the war in Iraq and does not regret it. Recently Mrs. Clinton voted to declare a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization. In light of the NIE report that Iran stopped developing nuclear weapons in 2003 it appears her decision was wrong. Her contention that experience trumps new ideas is hard to swallow. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney came to the current administration with significant experience and their assessment of Iraq was entirely wrong. Still she is smart, wise, and seems most likely to be the candidate most likely to succeed as president.
-Barak Obama calls himself the man with hope (his book “The Audacity of Hope”) and the man with new ideas. He points out that he would not have voted for the war in Iraq. He would directly personally negotiate with the leaders of other countries to avoid war. He does have some issues that he has not resolved or cannot resolve. He is young and in his first term as a Senator. His experience in government is small. Mr. Obama was not present to cast his ballot on the resolution to declare a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization (the one that Hilary Clinton voted yes). He then proceeded to criticize Mrs. Clinton’s decision to vote yes. In the Philadelphia debate in October Mr. Obama criticized Mrs. Clinton’s equivocation on driver’s licenses for illegal aliens but he too gave a long answer to the yes or no question (Should illegal aliens be issued driver’s licenses?
-John Edwards has a clear vision of where he stands on most issues. Like Barak Obama he has limited experience in government. He did vote for the Iraq war but has regretted that decision. His positions have been strongly in support of unions and working class people. He is wealthy and that has been held against him because he earned the money as a lawyer. I have not found any significant contradictions in his positions although he has become more strident with the passing of time.
Although most of the candidates tend to mimic each others opinion in each political party there are some differences. Watching the news and listening to the candidates has slowly helped to define my positions. I am disappointed that none of the candidates have a vision of the future.
Here are my views on some of the leading candidates.
-Mitt Romney has changed most of his positions from the time he was governor of Massachusetts to when he became a candidate for president. His views as governor were relatively liberal and mostly aligned with the Democrats in that state. Now as a past governor and a man trying to win support in his conservative party he has espoused views that support very conservative positions. Romney is a flip flopper. He bows to opinion and has not taken any stand on any issue even if it is unpopular. His speech on his Mormon religion was excellent but does not changes his flip फ्लोप्पिंग ways on issues that really matter. He has not said anything that makes him a standout in the crowd.
-Mike Huckabee has declared himself the Christian candidate. He does not believe in evolution. He has implied that there is something wrong with Mitt Romney’s Mormon religion. There is no religious qualification for this job. As to Huckabee’s position on issues he seems to have mimicked Mitt Romney when he was governor of Arkansas. To Huckabee’s credit he does defend his action when he was governor. Defining himself as the Christian candidate eliminates him as someone I would support.
-Hillary Clinton has defined herself as the candidate with the experience that will enable her to walk into the White House and capably go to work because she was there before. She voted for the war in Iraq and does not regret it. Recently Mrs. Clinton voted to declare a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization. In light of the NIE report that Iran stopped developing nuclear weapons in 2003 it appears her decision was wrong. Her contention that experience trumps new ideas is hard to swallow. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney came to the current administration with significant experience and their assessment of Iraq was entirely wrong. Still she is smart, wise, and seems most likely to be the candidate most likely to succeed as president.
-Barak Obama calls himself the man with hope (his book “The Audacity of Hope”) and the man with new ideas. He points out that he would not have voted for the war in Iraq. He would directly personally negotiate with the leaders of other countries to avoid war. He does have some issues that he has not resolved or cannot resolve. He is young and in his first term as a Senator. His experience in government is small. Mr. Obama was not present to cast his ballot on the resolution to declare a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization (the one that Hilary Clinton voted yes). He then proceeded to criticize Mrs. Clinton’s decision to vote yes. In the Philadelphia debate in October Mr. Obama criticized Mrs. Clinton’s equivocation on driver’s licenses for illegal aliens but he too gave a long answer to the yes or no question (Should illegal aliens be issued driver’s licenses?
-John Edwards has a clear vision of where he stands on most issues. Like Barak Obama he has limited experience in government. He did vote for the Iraq war but has regretted that decision. His positions have been strongly in support of unions and working class people. He is wealthy and that has been held against him because he earned the money as a lawyer. I have not found any significant contradictions in his positions although he has become more strident with the passing of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
