Why is Los Angeles broke?  Why do liberals destroy cities and waste their tax revenues on programs that are not part of a governmental function?

As of May 10 the city of Los Angeles will no longer be able to meet its payroll.  As of June 30, every dime in the reserves will be gone.  Los Angeles is dead broke.  "With the city facing the possibility of running out of money by next month, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today called on the city to shut down non-revenue-generating services -- such as parks, street-sweeping and libraries -- for two days a week.  These are the government services that should be provided--not health clinics for illegals.

The Mayor said that the police and fire departments would not be affected by the closures, which he said would take effect Monday."  This is because the DWP would not give $73 million to prop up the city budget--they wanted a 24% rate increase in exchange.  For years tax payers have had their rates jacked up in order to cover the out of control spending of the city of Los Angeles.

The city of Los Angeles is going to have a fiscal collapse.  What will be interesting to see is if the people of LA even care of government is closed 40% of the time--will it be missed?

What influence has illegal immigration had on the city finances?  LA wastes hundreds of millions of dollars on illegal immigrants due to their open-door policy.  Also, the unions' demands are out of control and since they support these liberal Democrats, they get rewarded with retirement plans and other perks paid for by the tax payers. 

We have the same issue in Maryland and Montgomery County where elected liberal politicians waste tax payer funds on illegals, more social welfare policies, and programs that have nothing to do with good government services.  Our liberal elected officials are not fiscally responsible and they do not look at real cut backs that would balance their budget.

People across the US are mad and are tired of these liberal politicians wasting their money on programs that support illegals, unions or bad policies.

Once again, the citizens of the United States witness a liberal President who uses the military as a back-drop just for political purposes.  We have witnessed this over our history from the Vietnam war to Bill Clinton's nation building to today's fight against radical Muslims.  Today, liberals are using Multiculturalism to target our military history.

Recent examples are the President not being able to make a decision on the war in Afghanistan, the terrorists at Gitmo being tried in a civilian court, and Navy selas who will be tried for the capture and rough treatment of a killer, Mr. Ahmed Abed.

The President will use the military as a back-drop at West Point to attempt to persuade the American public this week that more time, troops and money will be required for a corrupt government.  However, he will not allow the military to take the "golves off" and use all necessary methods to kill the Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan.  How can the US shut down the poppy growing and drug distribution, while at the same time stop government graft?

"The significance of the Afghanistan decision cannot be understated," said Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who assisted Gen. David H. Petraeus with strategic planning for the U.S. war effort in Iraq and now teaches military history at Ohio State University.  "The president's decision, coming after so many weeks of study and commentary, will set the strategic direction of the conflict in Afghanistan," Mr. Mansoor said.

The strategic direction of the eight-year conflict has been the focus of an intensive internal debate at the White House that began over the summer and has since consumed ninelengthy meetings in the Situation Room.  There, Mr. Obama has allowed his top generals, his senior foreign-policy advisers, his national-security team and his political aides to debate whether the country should invest more resources in the hopes of bringing security and stability to a lawless place, or whether the military should begin a drawdown that would leave a more limited and surgical force in place to suppress al Qaeda.

The nation's top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, presented the president and his team with a range of options that included troop commitments reported to have ranged from 10,000 to 40,000 on top of the 68,000 already there.  But resource commitments were only part of the equation.   There was the larger question of what the U.S. wanted to accomplish in Afghanistan, and whether those goals are essential to American security, or even achievable.

Nathaniel C. Fick, a Marine veteran who heads the Center for a New American Security, said the president appears to be prepared to endorse Gen. McChrystal's plan for a broad counterinsurgency strategy aimed at stabilizing populated areas in Afghanistan, and eventually training a home-grown force to maintain that security. That effort is likely to take 30,000 to 35,000 additional American troops, and a further 5,000 troops from NATO allies.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown confirmed Wednesday that several NATO countries will send the additional 5,000 troops.  NATO is not doing its job and many European countries are not living up to their NATO functions and obligations.

A recent Washington Post poll found that 52 percent of Americans see the war in Afghanistan as not worth its costs - only 45 percent approve of how he is dealing with it, while 48 percent disapprove. That support is even worse, at 39 percent, among independents, a key constituency for the White House. 

Either the US must use all methods to defeat the terrorists, or just pull out and let the country go back to being a terrorist camp.  The choice is very clear.