RUSH: Los Angeles. This is the LA Times: “LA to Declare ‘State of Emergency’ on Homelessness, Commit $100 Million — Los Angeles elected leaders,” as opposed to the unelected leaders, “announced yesterday that they would declare a ‘state of emergency’ and devote up to $100 million” toward housing and other services for homeless people. I know. I mean, there’s all kinds of lines here just waiting. Why don’t they disguise themselves as immigrants? Why don’t they go pitch their tent or their shopping cart, whatever, near the border like they’re immigrants.

“The proposal, which was presented at the City Hall press conference attended by city council members and Mayor Eric Garcetti’s coincides with a Garcetti proposal late Monday that aims to free up nearly $13 million in newly anticipated excess tax revenue for short-term housing initiative.” What is this excess tax revenue? Newly anticipated. That tells me they don’t have it yet. That tells me they are anticipating collecting more tax revenue than they thought, but that they don’t have it yet, but it doesn’t matter because they’re gonna commit this.

Now, what stuns me about this are two things. How does this happen in a city that is run by compassionate, caring, concerned, and high taxing leftists? Furthermore, not just the city, in a state run by compassionate, concerned, big spender, high-taxing leftists, how does this happen? Why isn’t California a utopia? You can’t blame the Republicans. They aren’t even a factor. The Republicans can’t mount enough votes to even get noticed on anything, much less stop something. No, no, no, folks, I’m not asking a rhetorical question. I’m damn serious here.

How does this happen? You’ve got a perfectly run city by liberals, you’ve got a liberal Hollywood, you’ve got liberalism running that town and all the supposed benefits of it — compassion and caring and concern and anti-discrimination, whatever it is that comes under that umbrella — how in the hell can you have a record number of homeless? See, I only thought homelessness happened with Republican presidents, and furthermore, I thought it only got reported with Republican presidents. What’s the LA Times even doing reporting this? I know, I know, it’s a rhetorical question. It’s so bad, they can’t ignore it.

It is bad. It’s causing the closure of emergency rooms along with illegal immigration. The hospitals can’t stay in business. You know, federal law, you gotta be treated when you show up in the emergency room. You know how many hospitals have closed in southern California alone in the last number of years because of illegal immigrants and nonpayers visiting the emergency room? They can’t afford it anymore.

Liberalism can’t be afforded, period, but it doesn’t mean they don’t give up trying, but how can this situation even exist? How can there be a record number of homeless? Why is a hundred million dollars needed when you’ve got people that believe in utopia running the place? And why are they doing this now? Seriously. Why now? Why all of a sudden do they profess this massive concern about the homeless?

Well, if you read deeply enough into this story, you will find the answer to that question. And it is a quote from a man named Cedillo. That’s his first name? Cedillo. Cedillo. Councilman Gilbert Cedillo says it’s not a skid row problem. It’s a problem that’s proliferated throughout the city. “If we want to be a great city that hosts the Olympics and shows itself off to the world, we shouldn’t have 50,000 homeless people sleeping on the streets.” And there is your answer.

They’re gonna bid for an upcoming Olympics, and they know they’re not gonna get it if there are 50,000 homeless people on the streets. You know, you people don’t need to do all this. You need to take lessons from New York City in 1992. They had the same problem. I was there. I saw it happen. You know what they did? They simply bused the homeless down to the Battery Park area for the week the Democrat convention was in town. There’s no way the homeless were gonna be able to walk back up to Madison Square Garden in that period of time.

They didn’t have to spend any more money. They didn’t build any more housing. They just shifted ’em. They just moved ’em from the Garden down to the Battery Park area, Wall Street and so forth, right? (interruption) That’s right. That’s right. That’s right. General Dinkins, Mayor Dinkins, general, the mayor for life, David Dinkins, just swept ’em up. ‘Cause they knew that C-SPAN cameras and network cameras were gonna be there. But seriously now, folks, with all attempt at humor aside. How does this happen? How do you have, during the Obama administration, a Democrat-run city, a Democrat-run state for decades, how do you have this homeless problem? Aren’t they the ones that know how to solve these things? Record tax revenues collected in California. Why do they have this problem still?

Now, conservatism is the answer to this, and conservatism can answer the questions I’m asking. They’re not addressing the problem and never have addressed the problem and they’re incapable of addressing the problem. You know why? Because the problem, the actual solution to poverty and homelessness is not found in liberalism. It’s found in conservatism. It’s found in economic growth. It’s found in capitalism. It’s found in self-reliance. It’s found in self-help.

You’re gonna have a much greater success rate if you teach people how to get out of poverty, if you motivate them to get out of it rather than promise you’re gonna take care of ’em, ’cause you can’t, and you end up with empty promises and circumstances like this. At the end of it all, you still have the homeless and you still have the problems but liberals get all the credit for having great intentions and big hearts. And the people you’re trying to help are worse off than ever, but you’re not supposed to point that out.