| Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page |
|
| March 17, 2008 |
|
 |
|
Story #1: Dallas Removes Red Light Cams to Raise Revenue
RUSH: All right, a couple stories here I want to get to before we get into the continuation of the Democrat Party chaos, and there are mounds of evidence about this today. This is the second and third such examples of this. Remember in California, there was a push on for people to go out and buy smaller cars to get more gas mileage, and of course the government was urging this. So, dutifully, California liberals responded, and they went out and they bought smaller cars and they started buying less gasoline. The state then realized that they were taking in less tax revenue because there was less gasoline, so they had to go out and raise gas taxes, they were talking about it, which of course wipes out the whole premise, destroys the whole premise of having people conserve. In Dallas, they are thinking of shutting off all of their video cameras they have at intersections to nab people who run red lights. The reason they're going to shut down the cameras, they're thinking about it, is that too many people are obeying the law, and there aren't that many tickets being issued. It costs about $3,800 a month per online camera. They are $7.6 million short in fines and tickets and so forth, so they're thinking of shutting down some of these cameras.
No, I'm not kidding. This is in the Dallas Morning News: "Dallas City Hall has idled more than one-fourth of the 62 cameras that monitor busy intersections because many of them are failing to generate enough red-light-running fines to justify their operational costs, according to city documents. Initial gross revenue estimates--" They weren't concerned with safety. It was just another end run to get tax revenue. "Initial gross revenue estimates for the red light camera system during Dallas' 2007-08 fiscal year were $14.8 million, according to city records." That's how much they estimated that the cameras would bring in. "The latest estimate? About $6.2 million." So they are short $7.6 million. "That leaves Dallas government with a conundrum. Its red-light camera system has been an effective deterrent to motorists running red lights -- some monitored intersections have experienced a more than 50 percent reduction. But decreased revenue from red light-running violations means significantly less revenue to maintain the camera program and otherwise fuel the city's general fund."
So they may have to shut these down. Yes, Mr. Snerdley? There probably will be a lawsuit. If somebody runs a red light, gets in an accident, because they've taken the cameras out. You've got a tort lawyer out there that will bring a case like that. Probably have somebody purposely run a red light and purposely clip another car just to say, "See, the city is responsible." What? No, liberals don't ever count on things working. They never do a dynamic analysis of anything. Ostensibly what were these red light cameras for? To reduce crime, to make it safer to drive. Right? It worked. Now it's a problem. It worked! Of course, they never factor, "You know, if this works, fewer fines, there are going to be less tax dollars." So now they're going to shut down the cameras and promote more accidents in Dallas.
Story #2: Water Conservation Leads to Higher Water Rates
RUSH: I read this sometime over the weekend, and I think I was reading one of the local rags. You know, we have a drought, and water usage is down. People are using less water, and the city, whoever, is not generating enough revenue, selling enough water, because they told everybody, "Conserve." Down here we can only water the lawn once a week. People are using less water. Now they're going to raise rates. They're thinking of raising water rates because people are using less. These governments, I tell you, the idea that they are doing things for some benevolent reason to help people out, conserve water and so forth, or have you conserving gasoline, it goes up in smoke every time these big liberal bureaucrats get in gear and start doing things. Grab your back pocket, because that's always going to be the end result because whatever they suggest, whatever they propose, even if it works, is going to be a problem for them. And most of the time these things just don't work. Anyway, I find it hilarious.
Story #3: Another Example of the Sick Sex Lives of Democrats
RUSH: Did you hear this little guy come out and say, "Hey, I was the third guy in the trio?" Meaning with the McGreeveys? Which means that Mrs. McGreevey had to know that... well, we don't know whether the guy is being truthful or not. Anyway, these Democrats at the top and their sex lives and proclivities and so forth... sick!
Story #4: Obama to Give Major Speech on Race in Philadelphia
RUSH: Now, Obama is planning a major race speech tomorrow, according to Ben Smith at Politico.com. "Barack Obama will give a major speech on 'the larger issue of race in this campaign,' he told reporters in Monaca, PA just now. He was pressed there, as he has been at recent appearances, on statements by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. 'I am going to be talking about not just Reverend Wright, but the larger issue of race in this campaign,' he said. He added that he would 'talk about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church issue for example,' he said. He also briefly defended Wright from the image that has come through in a handful of repeatedly televised clips... 'The caricature that's being painted of him is not accurate,'" Obama is saying. Now, this is also going to be very interesting to hear this speech tomorrow. I don't know what time it's going to be. Let's see. Well, if he does this, he's going to be in Philadelphia tomorrow, so this would be a... Obama, you have no idea what they got planned for you in Philadelphia, by the way.
I'm just talking about on election, on the 22nd and the primary. You have no idea what "Fast Eddie" Rendell is going to do to you. Don't forget what Fast Eddie said: "I don't think Pennsylvanians are ready to elect a black guy," and they're going to get all these blue-collar Philadelphia guys all worked up into a lather between now and April 22nd. But if Obama is going to give this speech, I have advised him for two days in a row on how to handle this Jeremiah Wright sit'uation. What I have told him to do is to go out and say: "It's tragic so many Americans believe what Reverend Wright is preaching. It's tragic that there are so many Americans who do blame their country first. It's tragic that there are people in this country who have been made to feel and think these things," and then, you know, bash Bush a little bit because that will go over well, and then say you want to be president to end this. You want to be president to stop this!
You want to tell people that we can all come together and unite once again, even though you've not shown anybody how you can do it. They don't care right now. They just love hearing you say you're going to do it. What happens if he does something like that in this speech tomorrow? I think he's going to, because he says, ""I'm going to be talking about not just Reverend Wright but the larger issue of race in this campaign." He also said he's going to talk about some of these issues and "how they are perceived from within the black church," for example. So this is going to be interesting, ladies and gentlemen. Obama's race speech tomorrow. Let's see if my advice finds its way in to the speech tomorrow. I mean, if he's going to go out there and counter what I'm doing with Hillary -- what we are all doing with Republicans registering to vote for Hillary -- obviously they're out there listening, they're paying attention. He thinks I'm up to something, thinks it's pretty smart. Why not take my advice on this?
It doesn't have be a long speech on race, but if it's traditional Obama speech, people are going to love it. If he does his hope and future and all that sort of stuff and makes race the central theme of it. Snerdley? What, you think you can't win making it...? Okay. Well, now, that's a good point. That's a good point. That's an excellent point, in fact, Snerdley. Snerdley just said to me... This is well worth considering, even though it's from Snerdley. One of the things about the Obama campaign was that he was not a "black" candidate. He'd "transcended race." His candidacy was not about race. It was not about how we have overcome, none of those usual things. He was larger than that. Now, when he goes out to make a speech about race, he then thus becomes the Democrat racial candidate. We'll see. He might be able to do this. Given whoever writes his speeches and how charismatic he can deliver them when they're on the 'PromTer, we'll see if he can pull this off.
Story #5: Bill Nelson Makes Trouble for Florida Democrats
RUSH: New York Times: "Delegate Battles Embroil Two States," Michigan and Florida. Now, I think Michigan's decided to do a mail-in, June 3rd, I think Michigan is going to do a redo. But in Florida down here the Democrats are fit to be tied over Bill Nelson. Senator Bill Nelson, a former astronaut, he's out there urging a mail-in thing, and none of the Democrats in the Florida legislature want to do this, very few in the Florida congressional delegation want to do it, and they're upset with Nelson because he's out there trying to play a front-and-center role on this, get his name on television, face on television, name in the papers all over the place. So they're in a mess down here as to what to do. Most people, particularly in south Florida, don't know how to vote whether it's a simple ballot or a mail-in ballot or whatever, and then when it comes to counting them, they don't know how to do that, either. So this is ripe for fraud.
Story #6: Dems Look to White Male Voters to Solve Chaos
RUSH: Washington Post, Dan Balz today: "White Male Vote Especially Critical." Isn't it amazing how this keeps popping up? All this time during the primaries we hear about, "Well, you gotta go out and get the women's vote, the soccer moms," or whatever the current year iteration of women happens to be. Then we worry about getting the minority vote and we worry about getting the Hispanic vote. When it comes down to it, the white male vote is especially critical, as though it never is. It's always news to the people in the Drive-Bys that the white male vote is especially critical. Why is it especially critical? Because Barack Obama is losing support among white males. It started, interestingly enough, in the last couple of weeks, and it intensified last week.
This is Dan Balz writing in the Washington Post: "The competition for the support of white men, particularly those defined as working class, will shape the showdown between Clinton and Obama in Pennsylvania's Democratic presidential primary on April 22. Obama (Ill.) won majorities among those voters in what appeared to be breakthrough victories in Wisconsin and Virginia last month. But he badly lost working-class white men to Clinton (NY) in Ohio and Texas two weeks ago, keeping the outcome of the Democratic race in doubt indefinitely." Chaos. Chaos. And who are they looking to to solve their chaos in the Democrat Party? White male voters.
Story #7: Study: Hostility Harder on Hearts of Black People
RUSH: From USA Today: "'Hostility Harder on Hearts of Blacks' -- A cynical and mistrustful personality apparently leads to greater blood pressure fluctuations for blacks than whites, which could help explain blacks' higher heart disease rates, a Duke University researcher reported Friday at the American Psychosomatic Society meeting in Baltimore." When I hear this, hostility is harder on black hearts, I'm thinking of poor Reverend J. Wright. If there's ever a guy -- I mean, hostility doesn't even begin to describe him.
|
|
|
|
|
| *Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time. |
|
|
