Mitt Romney is running for President. Most voters want to vote for a person who they believe stands with them on their values and opinions on important matters such as the economy, party health care and a woman’s right to choose. There is only one problem with Mitt: No one knows where he stands (or sits, for that matter) on anything. The previous Mitt Romney was a moderate Republican as governor of a largely Democratic state. Here are some of the statements that Mitt Romney made on issues that are very important in the upcoming Presidential election (all quotes courtesy of romneyfacts.com, a site sponsored by Massachussetts Democrats):

Minimum wage

“I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation.”

Republican Ideology

“I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

Woman’s Right to choose/ Roe v Wade

"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."

Now after reading those quotes you would think, "here is a man who, although he is a Republican, stands for many of the things that are the core of the Democratic Party." But that Romney is not running for the nomination. The Romney that is now running for President as a Republican has “modified” or “changed” his views on those same issues.

Minimum wage

“There's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs.”

Republican Ideology

“Ronald Reagan is ... my hero.”

Women’s Right to choose/Roe v Wade

"Roe v. Wade continues to work its destructive logic throughout our society."

A top adviser of Romney's seems to think that in a general election, he'll be able to hit a reset button and back away from his statements.

But which ones will he back away from? I, for one, look forward to the fall campaign and to see which Mitt Romney will be running.

WE the people began talking about property taxes by taking an anonymous survey of our board. Each member who owns property wrote down the market values of our homes, and what we pay in property taxes.

One owner of a $100,000 home pays $5,000 in taxes, while the owner of a $300,000 home pays $3,000; an owner of a $350,000 home pays $6,700.

Our experiment confirmed that Philly's property-tax system is a joke. How much you pay in taxes is based on the city's estimated "value" of your property, but those values are have been set over the years by a dysfunctional, often politically motivated system out of touch with reality. Which is why the Nutter administration is reassessing all the properties in the city, in order to tax the full correct value. This will make all of our property taxes fairer.

We support this effort. Better to have a system built on actual value than arbitrary value. We do have a few serious concerns.

INFORMATION. Since some people will pay less in property taxes and some will pay more, there is high anxiety about this change. The city can reduce this anxiety by creating more ways for people to get answers - like how to appeal assessments.

TIMING. To ease the transition for those whose taxes go up, the city wants tools that would lessen the impact for certain taxpayers. But it needs the state's permission to do this.

Until that happens, we believe it would be irresponsible for the city to start using the new values. It will not be enough for city officials to simply blame the state for the problem.

TAX HIKE. This year, the city will collect about $1 billion total from us residents. After the re-assessment, the Nutter administration projects, it will collect about $1.1 billion. Ninety million of the additional dollars will go to the school district.

Critics have called this a back-door tax hike. The Nutter administration says it's just capturing an increase in value in the city's property.

The majority of our board thinks the mayor should have the guts to call this a tax hike.

And all of our board thinks the city should answer a few questions before taking more from taxpayers. Why does the city need more money? What would be lost without it? Is property-tax reassessment the best way to get it? And how does an increase in property-tax collection fit into the city's long-term tax policy?

The administration seems to be hiding behind the argument that property taxes ought to be fair. But we could make taxes fair while making them lower - or much higher

How fair a tax is and how much we pay are separate issues, and we as a city should have conversations about both.

Recently, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed New Jersey’s new same-sex marriage legislation. I approve of the veto, but I feel the Governor missed a chance to make history. Gov. Christie could have changed the whole marriage debate by offering legislation that would be equally fair to all of New Jersey’s citizens, placate the supporters of same-sex marriage and evangelicals, and offer an original idea that all states could adopt.

First, let me say that I’m not against “Gay Marriage”! If two people love each other then they should be allowed to spend the rest of their lives together in love. The state shouldn’t tell anyone who to marry or not marry. But we first must admit there’s more to this debate than “marriage-equality.” We must admit that there are financial implications, fairness issues, a whole bunch of misinformation and a downright denial of any societal effects of extending the privilege of marriage beyond the traditional.

In the future, same-sex couples, and probably other groups, WILL be granted the privilege of marriage at the federal level. I’m fairly sure about that. It’s clearly unfair to deny certain alternative lifestyles the benefits of marriage. Furthermore, let’s also acknowledge that other people who choose an alternative lifestyle will come forward to say that they were “born” to have 5 spouses. Others will complain that single citizens are paying far too high a cost for the resources they utilize. So we need to address our antiquated marriage laws today, and I have a plan to do so.

Let’s address the financial aspect of same-sex marriage. The “cost” of expanding the definition of marriage isn’t mentioned much, if ever, but allowing same-sex marriage will be a financial drain. Don’t think so? According to “PolitickerNJ” the homosexual population of New Jersey is 2.8%, about 240,000 people. If the definition of marriage is changed, many of those single individuals could become married couples, and enjoy the tax and (in some cases) insurance benefits married couples get. Thus there will be fewer resources going to the state and into the insurance system. Who will make up that difference? I will, you will, we will, with higher taxes and premiums. Would it be a significant cost? Probably not, but an increase is an increase.

There is also an issue of fairness. Is the current system fair to same-sex couples? Probably not! But it’s also not fair to me as a single man or others who choose an unorthodox lifestyle. As a single man I pay an exorbitant amount of money in taxes, but I use very few public resources. I also pay a great deal of money for my healthcare and motor vehicle insurance. I pay more for my standard of living than a man of my age and status who is married. Is the current system fair to single citizens? The answer is the same, probably not!

I’m already forced to supplement my married co-workers’ families with my monthly healthcare premium since, at my place of employment, the cost is the same whether you’re a single man or a man with 10 dependents. So when I hear the argument that it’s unfair to deny a same-sex couple the privilege of marriage, I’m less inclined to have much sympathy, because those benefits aren’t extended to me. The benefits of marriage are not a “human right,” they are a privilege extended to traditional couples for child-rearing, to lessen the financial burden of raising a family. It’s not based on fairness.

If we put aside the religious argument about same-sex marriage, all that’s left are the debates about fairness and money.

My suggestion is, let’s be truly fair about the money. I think everyone should partake and benefit equally when it comes to taxes, regardless of marital status.

So how did Gov. Christie miss his place in history? He missed an opportunity to cast aside the normal argument about “marriage-equality” and focus on “human” equality. Now that would be revolutionary, treating everyone the same, giving everyone the same choices. The solution is so simple! Remove the financial incentives tied to marriage, or offer them to every citizen regardless of marital status. The plan would be to allow every citizen who contributes to society to choose for themselves one person they’d like to share health insurance, vehicle insurance, taxes and all commonly and similarly shared incentives normally only given to traditional married couples. I, the human, not the government, would determine what fits best for me; I would decide who is my dependent. Seems fair doesn’t it? Seems doable too!

I guess some traditionally married couples might object to this plan since they would be on the losing end. No doubt it would be a tough sell. But placing freedom of choice into the hands of the citizen and not the government is progress the founding fathers would be proud of.

There is one caveat. This plan would highlight the notion, promoted by opponents of same-sex marriage, that allowing it would destroy the age-old idea of marriage as only between a man and a woman. Well, no plan is perfect.

Tom Sexton is a member of the People's Editorial Board.

The People's Board recently hosted Bryan Miller of Heeding God’s Call, a gun violence prevention group, and Bob Viden, Sr., owner of Bob’s Little Sport Shop in Glassboro, NJ and an NRA board member, for a discussion of this question:

Can we reduce the violence in Philadelphia by changing gun laws? If so, what changes would help?

Here's video of our discussion.

After watching President Obama’s State of the Union speech, I really wanted to see what the Republican response would be. I expected the obligatory “Obama wants to spend” remarks. What I found fascinating was the coordinated effort by the GOP and its affiliated communications arm Fox News to state that Obama is promoting “Class Warfare.” The fact that the GOP thinks this argument will be a winner is dumbfounding. I am sure it will play well with those well-off Americans who believe President Obama is trying to be a modern day “Robin Hood” and steal from the rich and give to the poor. The rest of the country, the other 98% of Americans who are not rich, will see a conflict between one party that believes giving millionaires tax relief will create new jobs, and one that believes the middle class is being ignored and needs to be better protected.

The 2012 Presidential race will come down to which candidate has tangible solutions for what ails America, and how he plans to implement them. The middle class and poor form the largest voting block and their votes will be crucial to electing the next President. President Obama and whomever the Republicans choose to run will have one thing in common: they are both rich. But one of those rich guys believes in providing mortgage help to Americans who can’t afford to pay, and the other believes we should allow all those with mortgage problems to be foreclosed on.

Since the Republicans have chosen “Class Warfare” as a mantra, I can confidently predict that the Republican candidate will lose to President Obama. He will surely get the votes of the 2% percent of Americans who have made millions, yet pay a lower tax percentage than the Americans who have make thousands. They will also surely lose the votes of those Americans who have recently become unemployed. The rich received tax cuts under President Bush, and look where that got us. 98% of us understand that. And the last time I checked, 98% is greater than 2%.

As a child and teen, I did a lot of dumb things that children and teens do – and that was quite a few years ago. Our problem today is not that our children aren’t perfect. They never were. Our problem today is the collective disengagement of neighborhoods and communities that should be looking out for kids.

I am 40 years old and part of the last generation of kids whose community collectively watched out for each other. There were things that if you did or said, you not only had to worry if your parents saw it or heard about it, you also worried if a neighbor saw it or heard about it. In those days there was an unwritten rule that parents and neighbors lived by:

“If you see my child doing anything unbecoming you have the authorization to properly dispense a just and immediate verdict.”

Armed with this rule, community members actively participated in keeping each other’s children on a straight path. Now, this did not always work, and there were exceptions to the rule. But generally, if we did something wrong and Mrs. Johnson witnessed it, she would voice her displeasure, and there was a 97.8% chance that when we got home our parents would know.

That rule doesn’t exist anymore. But as I watch children get wilder and more reckless, I wonder whether bringing back the old rule would help stem some of the misbehavior of our youth.

In today’s society there is a collective mentality of, “I don’t care what he/she did, leave my child alone.” In the past it was, “Mrs. Johnson screamed at you? Well what were you doing that caused her to yell”? I have a 13-year-old and an 11-year-old (boys), and I remember that if I did something wrong in front of a neighbor at that age, I would get at least one strong reprimand and a “laying of hands” – and sometimes maybe even two “layings of hands.” 

I like that my next door neighbors keep a watchful eye on my sons when my wife and I are not around. I have also advised my sons that misbehavior witnessed by a neighbor will be dealt with first by adjudication, then the penalty phase. Although our communities now live by a new rule which states, “I am not going to get involved if I see anything that is not my concern,” I would just ask anyone who is my age or older, Do you believe that our communities would be in such a state if a village were still raising our children?

This is an opinion of the Daily News People's Editorial Board.

WE THE PEOPLE deserve more of a voice about where our money goes.

Over the next few months, our elected leaders will make decisions about the city budget - which means they'll make decisions about city priorities. They'll decide whether we should raise taxes or cut them, invest more in police or spend less on libraries. We want a say in those priorities.

Unfortunately, when the budget process kicks off in March, it won't include many big plans to get the public involved. Three years ago, the city was involved in workshops sponsored by WHYY and the Penn Project for Civic Engagement, that helped inform the public and collect our feedback. But since then, it has retreated to choreographed events. Nor are Council's public comment sessions, where people yell at a few bored-looking Council members, the kind of engagement we're talking about.

Here are four easy steps for building a healthier democracy:

1: Be More Transparent. How many trucks does the Department of Sanitation have? We should be able to find this out easily. Right now, the city publishes spending by department, broken down by certain categories, like contracts and supplies. We need more detail, published online, and searchable.

The budget can't be transparent just for wonks. It also needs to be simplified for those of us who don't have the time or expertise to comb through it.

2: Build A Friendlier Guide. Each year, the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority publishes a "Citizen's Guide" to the budget. Its 57 pages are packed with useful information, but and not exactly written in an accessible tone. Plus, it's a guide to understanding the budget, not participating in it. We want a user-friendly guide that shows citizens how to make our voices heard.

Of course any guide that shows citizens how to get involved with the budget would be painfully short - there's not much to say.

3: Introduce "Budget Month." The 2009 workshops educated citizens about where our money goes, and were structured in a way that solicited useful feedback for officials: Citizens worked in groups on that year's budget by choosing between revenue options and service cuts.

The city should make this an annual event. Every February, as the mayor prepares his budget, his senior staff should hold structured meetings with citizens. Over time, this will help build a more informed electorate, and develop leaders more responsive to the public.

Assuming, of course, those leaders follow Step 4.

4: Make it Count. An inevitable complaint about public meetings is that they're a dog-andpony show: Officials sit politely while citizens talk, then do what they want anyway. When this happens, it's a waste of time for citizens to get involved. This doesn't mean elected leaders have to take orders from people who attend budget workshops. That's not how democracy works. But we do want our leaders to consider citizens' advice, and, if they disagree, make a case for why. Basically, show citizens they're actually listening. If the city follows these four steps, residents will be better educated about the budget - and start to have more trust in our government.

Although I usually vote Democrat, I think of myself as an Independent, and the political games being played in Washington over the payroll tax hike incense me. I believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid when he says he negotiated and struck a deal with Mitch McConnell at the request of House Speaker John Boehner. But once Boehner went to his rank-and-file, he was told in no uncertain terms that the House would not back a two-month extension of the tax cut. Now Boehner, trying not to look like a fool (too late) wants to appoint a committee to negotiate a compromise. Meanwhile, the Democrats are giddy to have a new campaign issue: Republicans protecting the rich. During all this, who suffers? The middle class.

I find it laughable when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says, "Families, employers, and workers can't live their lives month to month,” when in reality most are living week-to-week and have been doing so since President Obama’s predecessor was in office. 

Republicans have decided the number one priority is ensuring that Barack Obama doesn’t win a second term. Democrats seem content to let tax relief expire on December 31st because it gives them ammunition for the coming elections. I just don't see how you can look at this mess and not be fed up with BOTH parties.

People's board member Jamira Burley at Global Grind, in response to a recent Forbes.com article entitled, "If I were a poor black kid." Her article is called, "As A Poor Black Kid I Watched My Brothers Go On Trial For Murder." Read it!