The State of the State speech; Sen. Chris Dodd’s retirement; the ‘party of no’

On the state of the state

Re “Gov. unveils ambitious wish list,” Jan. 7

Well, it looks like the big guy, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, is finally doing something positive -- using his celebrity status to bring attention to the fact that our state’s budget priorities are completely out of whack.

Bright and talented California high school graduates from middle-class, working-class and poor households should not have to face 20% to 35% tuition increases in the UC and Cal State systems. They should not have to bear the burden of our state government’s total dysfunction. Elected officials, both Democratic and Republican, aren’t doing their job to make this state solvent.

I don’t know if privatizing the prisons is the answer, but at least the governor is finally asking the right questions with regard to our funding priorities. Too bad it took him almost seven years to speak up.

Bart Anderson
Los Angeles

Schwarzenegger’s call for yet another ballot initiative to fix the budget exemplifies the depths to which California governance has descended. He sounds like a drunk on a bender constantly repeating, “Please, just one more drink; I’ll pull myself together after that.” The drunk cannot stop until he hits bottom, and it does not appear that Sacramento will be able to either.

What is the 12-step program that can get Sacramento to stop fooling itself (and the populace) with quick but illusory ballot-box budget fixes?

Christopher Weare
Venice

If I had delivered the State of the State speech, I would have kept it short and simple and limited it to six items:

* I would authorize the National Guard to go to the border and help stop the flow of illegal aliens into California.

* I would turn on the water pumps to help the farmers in our agricultural breadbasket, the Cental Valley.

* I would allow for offshore oil drilling to help increase revenues and decrease the price of oil and our dependence on foreign supplies.

* I would cut income taxes across the board on individuals and corporations to help attract business to California.

* I would freeze spending across the board and make cuts in all unnecessary programs.

* I would give parents choices and incentives to send their children to the best schools possible.

Do all of these things and California could be the envy of the world again -- instead of a laughingstock with its tin cup always held out for federal bailouts.

Geoffrey C. Church
Los Angeles

Re “Governor hits the right note,” Column, Jan. 7

Wow. I still can’t believe my eyes. Reading George Skelton’s revelation that Willie Brown thinks that public employee unions are out of control is like watching aliens landing in the backyard.

Maybe it takes trying to run something small -- like the city of San Francisco, where there is never enough money for all the well-intentioned programs for the needy -- before the dreamy idealists learn about reality?

Do you think maybe there should be some law that politicians need to have actual experience running something before leading a major political entity like the Assembly? Or the state of California? Or the United States? What a concept.

Harry Pope Long Beach Toward a safer world https://https:/ www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-obama-nuclear4-2010jan04%2C0%2C1799502.story “> www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-obama-nuclear4-2010jan04%2C0%2C1799502.story

The Times draws parallels between the Obama administration’s internal debates on the size and purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and past failed efforts to effect a major shift in U.S. policy.

But there is one key difference this time. The Obama White House is pushing back firmly against Pentagon bureaucrats who would like to see the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review propose only a minor variation to the status quo. The president understands that the fewer nuclear weapons there are, the safer we all will be.

The Obama administration is moving toward reducing the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security policy. Efforts toward this end include negotiating a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia and calling for ratification of a global agreement banning all nuclear testing (the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty).

The Nuclear Posture Review should reflect these commitments while setting the stage for further cuts in U.S. and global nuclear arsenals.

William D. Hartung
New York
The writer is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation.

Wasting time testifying

Re “The price of justice,” Editorial, Jan. 7

The Times presents a myopic view in its support of a recent Supreme Court decision that requires forensic technicians to testify in criminal cases.

The Times, with some justification, has bemoaned the fact that Los Angeles law enforcement agencies have a backlog of untested sexual assault kits. Compelling forensic technicians to routinely appear in court will only exacerbate the backlogs. Does The Times really want forensic technicians to spend hours waiting outside some courtroom to testify?

More important, the court’s ruling has had a negative impact on cold case homicide prosecutions. Scientific advances have permitted the prosecution of some murderers years after their offenses. In such cases, the forensic technicians who conducted the original analysis may be long retired or even deceased.

Very often, when called to testify, such technicians have no independent memory of the specific analysis, and can only testify that their name appears on the laboratory report and that the analysis was conducted in accordance with established procedure. The lack of such testimony would hardly seem injurious to a criminal defendant.

Richard A. Longshore
Huntington Beach

Who are you calling ‘grumpy’?

Re “ Dodd’s woes tied to economy,” Jan. 7

Douglas Schwartz, director of the Quinnipiac (Conn.) University Poll, says that “if voters weren’t so grumpy” they might not have been as upset by “missteps” on the part of Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.)

Voters are not grumpy. We are becoming more and more aware of the disdain in which politicians hold us. Those we elect to represent us in Congress look after their own personal and financial interests, and the interests of their corporate contributors, with little regard for the well-being of their constituents. Main Street bears the brunt of our nation’s historic economic demise.

Voters are now demanding that our expectations be heard by those we elect. We are waking up to Congress’ malfeasance. That we can no longer trust legislators to represent our interests does not make for a grumpy electorate but for a wiser one, tired of business as usual.

Gloria McGuire
Artesia

The ‘no’ party

Re “ GOP senators unsure of TSA nominee,” Jan. 7

It is not news that Republicans have reservations about anything that President Obama does. News would be if the GOP finally agreed with the president on something.

If The Times is going to waste space on this kind of story, at least tell the whole truth. How about: “yet again no,” or “following their trend of saying no,” when you write stories about how the GOP has, again, just said no?

Jimmie Robertson
Laguna Niguel

Liver worst

Re “Transplant surgeon is indicted,” Dec. 7

I couldn’t help but connect the article about the liver transplant scandal at St. Vincent Medical Center -- where a liver was given to a Saudi national ahead of another Saudi national on the transplant list -- to accounts of UCLA transplanting livers into members of the Japanese mafia.

These practices are hardly apt to encourage Americans to donate organs. Given the shortage of organs for transplantation, would it be too much to suggest that charity should begin at home . . . and maybe even end there?

Janet Weaver
Huntington Beach