A "YES" on Measure L will make it easier for public safety groups, police and firefighters, to regain control of the streets. That control was lost last 4th of July when both illegal fireworks and the "Safe and Sane" variety were used unsafely throughout the city.
Police Chief John Finch told the City Council following the last "4th" that the City was "very, very lucky" to have gotten through the holiday without a major fire or serious injury.
Nonetheless, the fireworks interests have financed a costly mailer campaign in an attempt to confuse Downey voters. Fireworks are big business. Their primary interest is their investment and sales numbers.
Don't be confused. If you are one of the many homeowners who stays home on the 4th of July over fear of errant fireworks igniting your house or property, or fear for children getting their hands on dangerous explosive devices (legal or illegal), take time to make yourself heard at the polls Tuesday. If you are tired of the litter and the noise pollution that drives pets to a crazed state of fear, stand up and be counted.
The Downey Firemens Association, Local 3473, has urged a yes vote on Measure L.
Downey was a jungle the last 4th, with alcohol all too often mixed with fireworks resulting in a danger to us all.
Some of the hooligans who fired off fireworks unsafely the last "4th" appear to have surfaced again during the campaign. There have been numerous instances of vandalism both on yard-signs and property of owners who display "YES on Measure L" placards.
The City is planning a public fireworks display that will be far more patriotic and safer than anything staged in a backyard or in the streets.
Make yourself heard!
The French did not start off the opening day ceremonies too well, with the dual language. If anyone believes the IOC president who is French does not speak English, they must also believe in the Easter Bunny. I know he would have scored many more points if he had at least tried speaking in English. Considering the importance of the position, he might even have tried a little language training; it is generally accepted now that English is becoming the world language.
One of the reasons that English is so powerful is its ability to express concepts and technical knowledge. And this is because we have adopted so many foreign words with their subtlety of meaning into our vocabulary. As this process continues, the language gains wider acceptance and perhaps somewhat by default, becomes a universal language. In stark contrast, the French, on the other hand, are trying to purify their language by controlling what words are in print and in their dictionary. And, in fact, they have a panel or board that must approve any new word added - and few are. As language is a dynamic evolution, for the French rigor mortis cannot be far behind.
The French have other reality problems as well. There is this matter of the Concorde airplane crash. The preliminary finding by the French Air Ministry was that a piece of metal fell off a previously departed American jet onto the runway to puncture a tire on the Concorde. This was supposed to have started a chain of events leading to the fatal crash; therefore the American insurance companies are responsible for damages. All is not well with this scenario.
The British and the Americans conducted their own investigations and came up with other probable causes. First of all, photographs of this "L" shaped piece of metal show it was flat like the letter L and would have laid flat on the runway when run over. The American engineers believe the sequence of events started with an axle and wheel repair just before takeoff in which a bushing or spacer was left out during reassembly. This misalignment caused the wheel to drag and during takeoff roll, the plane drifted to the edge of the runway where the tire hit a runway marker light fixture causing the tire to blow and the ultimate death sequence to begin. Now the French don't want to admit any of this for that might suggest their mechanics were less than perfect and thus obligate their insurance companies to pay when it is so easy to blame others, especially foreigners like us.
The French language police will have a hard battle keeping offensive words out of print, but the art of subjective judging and accident investigation will still come under pressure for political results. However, there are two words the French may want to add to their dictionary - "honesty" and "integrity."
In urging renewal of the law, the President noted these successes:
* Since 1996, the number of individuals receiving cash assistance has dropped by an astonishing 56 percent as the number of families trapped in welfare has plummeted.
* Despite the current slowdown in the national economy, welfare caseloads have not risen significantly and appear to have stabilized.
* More single mothers are employed than ever before and child poverty rates are at their lowest level since 1978. The poverty rates for both African-American children and children in female-headed families now are at their lowest levels in history.
* The rate of births to unwed mothers has leveled off.
Those are important measures of success but we also need to build on that record and find new and more effective ways to help families in need - and support their efforts to achieve self-reliance and independence. The President's proposal shares many points in common with plans being developed by key Democrats in the House and Senate. This suggests that we already are close to a bipartisan consensus to move forward.
In the 1996 reforms, Congress ended the welfare entitlement under the old and failing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. That program was replaced with block grants to the states through the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program that was funded at $16.6 billion a year. Under TANF, welfare recipients have been required to work in exchange for time-limited benefits, and states have been given significant flexibility in setting eligibility criteria and benefit rules. Congress also provided bonuses to states for their success in reducing the number of individuals on welfare and the number of births to unwed mothers.
The President's plan would strengthen and improve the TANF program by maintaining the overall funding level at $16.6 billion each year, even though welfare rolls have been halved, and giving the states even greater flexibility to shape programs that make sense for their particular situations and families. And the President would continue to provide nearly $5 billion a year for child care programs for families moving from welfare to work.
Among key proposals in the President's plan are ones to give the states broad new authority to reshape their programs. This would let states develop fully integrated assistance programs that meet the needs of families and children, not the dictates of government regulations and bureaucracy. States would be given greater freedom to provide families with a range of benefits and services including food stamps, childcare, income supplements, and transportation assistance. In short, states could streamline and coordinate essential support programs that now operate under different agencies, different rules, and different reporting requirements.
In return for this flexibility, states would be required to increase existing minimum work requirements so that by the year 2007 up to 70 percent of welfare families would be required to participate in work and other activities designed to help them achieve self-sufficiency. And, welfare recipients would be required to work 40 hours a week either at a job or in programs designed to help them achieve independence. In setting these new requirements, the President's plan recognizes the special needs of parents with infants, and individuals who need substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, or special work-related training.
Although there undoubtedly will be many arguments about details of any welfare reform plan, whether on work requirements or overall funding levels, the basic outline offered by President Bush is a sound starting point for this effort. In fact, in contrast to the long and bitter debates of 1996, there already is good reason to believe that the President and Congress can find bipartisan agreement on a final plan that will meet the needs of our nation's children and their families.