"A Question" from: Ann
Ann's question "If you lived outside of America, what would you think of America?" is a fantasy question for most Americans because most Americas don't have a clue about what it is like to live in a foreign land. Most of us have never left our borders, let alone this continent.
I have been fortunate enough to have seen a bit of this big world. From what I have seen, and what I know, I would feel the same about America if I lived in the Middle East, or Europe, or in the USA.
I feel sad for America. We deserve better. For example, we deserve better homeland security.
Big City Cops and Fire-Fighters are getting laid off all over America. Is this because we are safer and we don't need them any more? Dream on. Clinton provided federal funding for cops on the street. Bush has diverted resources - including the National Guard - to fight an elective war in Iraq and build the bloated Homeland Security Dept. bureaucracy.
What the hell is going on? Our cops, firefighters, and National Guard are supposed to be the first responders in the event of a man-made or natural disasters. What happens if we call and there is no one there to answer the phone?
I guess then we will know how someone in Iraq feels today. Maybe Ann's question for tomorrow should be. "If you were an average Iraqi in Iraq, what do you think of America now?"
QuestionItNow Blogs
I have been fortunate enough to have seen a bit of this big world. From what I have seen, and what I know, I would feel the same about America if I lived in the Middle East, or Europe, or in the USA.
I feel sad for America. We deserve better. For example, we deserve better homeland security.
Big City Cops and Fire-Fighters are getting laid off all over America. Is this because we are safer and we don't need them any more? Dream on. Clinton provided federal funding for cops on the street. Bush has diverted resources - including the National Guard - to fight an elective war in Iraq and build the bloated Homeland Security Dept. bureaucracy.
What the hell is going on? Our cops, firefighters, and National Guard are supposed to be the first responders in the event of a man-made or natural disasters. What happens if we call and there is no one there to answer the phone?
I guess then we will know how someone in Iraq feels today. Maybe Ann's question for tomorrow should be. "If you were an average Iraqi in Iraq, what do you think of America now?"
QuestionItNow Blogs
posted by REB 84 at
10/14/2006 02:14:00 AM
8 Comments:
Yes, we deserve better homeland security.
Why are big city cops and firefighters getting laid off? I don't believe it's because of the so-called lack of federal funding. Maybe it's because big city politicians siphon off the tax revenue they do receive to fund crap. The Chicago City Council passed an ordinance against foie gras in city restaurants in order to eliminate trans-fat from food they serve. And they tried to pass the "big-box" store minimum wage ordinance (for Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, and the like) to get them to pay $13/hour in wages and benefits. All of this requires tax dollars to keep up with the regulations (Daley vetoed the latter, thankfully), tax dollars that would be better served for more law enforcement and firefighting. This is a local issue, not federal. Providing these federal funds allows city governments to hand off their problems so that they can concentrate on their own little fiefdoms and bloat their own bureaucracies.
The real problem is that federal funds allows city governments to act irresponsible with regards to the citizens who they govern, and avoid their own responsibilities in providing basic services. To blame the federal government is denying the responsibility of the local elected officials.
By
Steve, at 9:27 AM, October 16, 2006
Steve,
In all fairness, the blame goes all the way up and down the food-chain. Yes, too many big-city governments are machines that suck the life-blood out of their tax-base. A good freind of mine calls them the 'den of theives.' However, what they steal is peanuts compared to the missing billions in Iraq.
By
REB 84, at 12:39 AM, October 17, 2006
Not when you add it all up. New York, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Francisco, Boston, Detroit, New Orleans (pre-Katrina), Seattle, and on and on and on. Big cities with big-city politicians from one party (even NYC, despite Bloomberg claiming to be a "Republican"; he's a big government liberal, regardless of party affiliation), sucking money from both state and federal governments to pay for their essentials, while they spend their own tax revenue on crap. Chicago and New York, at least, have enough sense to make their cities attractive to business (which hire the workers), even though the money vacuum is always running. But most of those cities (and others not mentioned) are dumps, and show no signs of improving. How many hundreds of billions, and even trillions, have been sucked into the political abyss by these city governments, made up of politicians who have more in common with feudal lords, doling out just enough to get re-elected, aided by a media more interested in getting a quote than in exposing all of this.
When you look at it, the financial problems in Iraq are peanuts compared to the professional thieves that have infected these city governments, usually for decades. Those that keep voting for them seem more interested in "circuses" (in the Roman manner) than in substance.
By
Steve, at 8:26 AM, October 17, 2006
Let us agree there is corruption all the way up the political food chain. Corruption does not only happen in the big city and in Washington DC. How many subdivisions have you seen planted on top of old landfills? City councils are too often good place to make land deals with developers.
Getting into petty arguments about who steals the most will get us nowhere. I know you don't believe in strengthening whistleblower laws will not help this problem.
I strongly disagree! People who tell the truth and protect the common good should be rewarded in America. They should also be paid for doing the right thing.
There is no way we will ever eliminate corruption. We can only help to contain it. Too many people are just plain greedy by nature. Unfortunately, just like child molesters working with children, greedy politicians screw us all.
By
REB 84, at 11:31 PM, October 18, 2006
Entrenched one-party rule, whether it be in a city, state or nation is almost always an invitation to corruption, bad government and political game-playing with the citizen's money, which of course is what taxes are.
I also think that city politics dominated by ward heelers is an invitation to dirty politics. Politics by neighborhood has the advantage of getting a particular neighborhood's message heard at City Hall, but it has the disadvantage of the creation of log-rolling coalitions that have the effect of directing dollars for no good reason than the adding massive pork to a city budget.
We see this in Chicago (Steve's town) and Cleveland, and I am sure in many other cities.
I live in Columbus, and we have a dynamic city by rust belt standards. Our metro growth nearly matches the national growth in population. Our city government is a Council/Weak Mayor arrangement. The mayor is considered weak because the council can override a veto by a simple majority. Our approach to the ward heeler problem is to not have ward heelers.
Our city council has seven members elected to staggered four year terms. That is four stand for election on year and two years later the other three stand for election. None of the council represents a district, they are all elected at large.
This has produced a very stable government here, and by most accounts, it is quite clean. Our bond rating is AAA, the only city in the Northeast, and one of the only cities in America to have that rating. We get the lowest interest rating on our bonded indebtedness, which is primarily used to fund highway and sewer projects.
We balance the budget each year (required by charter). Our City Auditor has held the position for over 30 years, and he NEVER lets the city overspend. He is a Democrat. No one has run against him in about 20 years, and no one ever says a bad thing about his financial management.
We generally elect mayors for about 12 years. Jack Sensenbrenner, 12 years, Democrat. Tom Moody, 12 years, Republican. Greg Lashutka, 8 years, Republican. Buck Rinehart, 8 years Republican. Mike Coleman, going on 12 years Democrat. We have vigilant oversight, and generally two party government, but the pendulum is in the Democrat camp right now.
Not to say that this is a perfect system by any means, but a Charter amendment to go to a ward system of representation was soundly defeated by the voters several years ago. I do not expect that it will appear again anytime soon.
My recommendation, go for two party government, no matter where you live, no matter which form of local government you may have. Checks and balances only work if you have someone in the balance position with the power to institute checks.
OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 5:26 PM, October 19, 2006
I agree OD1. The two party system must be in place in order for our system to work. Here in Maryland we've had one party rule for 50 years...all Democrats. We actually elected a Republican Governor 3 years ago and now he's up for re-election. You should see the lies from the machine. Sometimes we have 3 commercials in a row claiming one thing or another...
When the powerful are threatened...
they will do anything to deter that threat.
By
Cal Trask, at 6:39 PM, October 19, 2006
Nice to see you back OhioDem. Your comment reminds me of one of your previous posts Delegitimizing Our Government.
Keep fighting for freedom in Ohio!
By
REB 84, at 8:14 PM, October 19, 2006
I agree with everyone regarding two-party government, but I would caution that it is the will of the voters that matter. If they choose to elect members of one party over another, then they get what they vote for. I'll complain about it (especially regarding Chicago), but at least I get to.
I'm somewhat of a pie-in-the-sky person sometimes. I'm a believer in the no-party state (as advocated by the original Federalists, like Hamilton), and do think it could still happen, although not anytime in the near future. The unfortunate reality with a two-party state is that members end up doing and saying things for party before nation, and that is wrong.
Welcome back OD1.
By
Steve, at 7:57 AM, October 20, 2006
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home