Quick Hits.

Here we are again with another in our series of “Quick Hits” where we try to shed some light on items of interest as well as have a “Rule 5” lass for the graphic.

We are sure that you remember the idea that there is no issue with voter fraud, or problems with the voter registration rolls, right? The Democrats have tried to say there is no voter fraud and have actively attacked any attempt to have voters be verified at voting polls. The site PJ Media sheds some light on this subject.

I have learned that Florida election officials are set to announce that the secretary of state has discovered and purged up to 53,000 dead voters from the voter rolls in Florida.

But surely people aren’t voting in the names of dead voters, the voter fraud deniers argue. Wrong.

Consider the case of Lafayette Keaton. Keaton not only voted for a dead person in Oregon, he voted for his dead son. Making Keaton’s fraud easier was Oregon’s vote by mail scheme, which has opened up gaping holes in the integrity of elections. The incident in Oregon just scratches the surface of the problem. Massachusetts and Mississippi are but two other examples of the dead rising on election day.

Remember: according to the Democrats, there is nothing to see here….just go about your business….

This next story is one that is just ripe for all sorts of puns. We will try and stay above them, but we can’t promise.

As part of the stimulus package, the Federal government gave grants to the University of California in the amount of $1.5 million dollars. Of the $1.5 million dollars, $1.2 went to study how to increase the truthfulness of study participants when they are asked about their sexual history.

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit discovered that for $1.2 million, taxpayers funded a study that included 200 videotaped interviews at $6000 per interview. Kovaleski asked Sheehy to justify the spending. “I think the average person is going to look at $1.2 million dollars to interview 200 people and say Wow!” Sheehy defended the study. “I understand people could look at it and have issues but this is research,” he said.

If it is important research, let the University of California pay for it. Let their students decide how much they want their tuition to rise because of studies like this. However, this study was funded within the stimulus package – the package that was supposed to “stimulate” the economy.” How did that work out?

Kovaleski then asked about jobs. “How many jobs did this $1.26 million create?” “Well I can’t really say,” Sheehy said. “There were eleven researchers hired on the job, two consultants. Well I can’t say. This has not been evaluated for job creation.”

The number Sheehy quoted during an interview with NBC Bay Area did not match information on, the government’s website for stimulus funds. According to the site, the grant produced 0.85 jobs. “It does make you scratch your head and wonder,” Amey said, “Wait a second taxpayer dollars went to a sex study that barely funded less than one person.”

The remaining part of the grant went toward studying erectile dysfunction in obese men.

We kid you not.

This is the type of thing that angers the American taxpayer. In an economy where there isn’t money to be wasted, the government continues to do so.

Actually, maybe this money was spent appropriately as it shows just how badly Americans are being screwed.

From the “its not about the money but it is” department, two more cities in California have decided to dump red light cameras. The reason? It is costing too much.

The tale of one of the cities, Emeryville, explains the problem:

Two hours to the south in Emeryville, the city council came to a similar — and unanimous — conclusion. Officials found it did not make sense to continue operating the cameras at a net financial loss to the city. A 22-month cost accounting showed Emeryville collected a $547,541 share of the proceeds from the near $500 citations. From this amount, Redflex took a $533,204 cut.

“The city received only $14,366 in revenue after paying for Redflex’s services from the funding received from red light camera violations,” a city cost accounting memo explained. “However, if you take staff’s time into account, the city actually expended $166,968 over these 22 months with no financial return.”

While the city only gained an average of $56 from each near-$500 citation issued, Alameda County and the state government each pocketed a far more substantial share.

Once again, we see that while the cameras are installed under the pretense of “safety,” they are nothing more than revenue generators. While greedy politicians and cities see the cameras as a revenue source for their towns, the vast majority of revenue is going to the companies that own the cameras. That fact is highlighted by a recent decision in Texas where a judge ruled voters could not vote on the continued use of red light cameras as the city charter did not allow referendums on issues within the city budget that were designed to raise money.

A Calhoun County, Texas judge on Monday ruled that voters were prohibited from having a say in whether a foreign company can issue red light camera tickets in the city of Port Lavaca because the photo enforcement program’s primary purpose is revenue generation.

“Because city of Port Lavaca Ordinance S-1-08… implicates and involves the city’s budget and appropriates money for capital expenditures, it is not subject to the power of referendum as set forth in Article 5 Section 5.03 of the Port Lavaca City Charter,” Judge Joseph D. Kelly ruled. “Because [the ordinance] is not subject to the power of initiative or referendum, any petition for referendum seeking to repeal such ordinance is invalid, and the city council of the city of Port Lavaca is without legal authority to place it before the electorate for consideration.”

In filings with the Texas Secretary of State, the Texas Traffic Safety Coalition reported it was run by David Goldenberg, Gregory Goldner and David Smolensky. All three are senior staff for Resolute Consulting, a public relations firm based in Chicago, Illinois that was hired by Redflex to create the appearance that the program had “grassroots” support. The front group’s lawyers argued to Judge Kelly that the red light camera ordinance clearly implicated money.

“Because repeal of the ordinance would greatly affect the city’s budget, it is not the proper subject of referendum,” attorney Matthew R. Beatty wrote on behalf of the Redflex-funded group. “In the event the ordinance was repealed as directed by the petition (either by reconsideration of the city council or by ballot), the city would be forced to breach its contract with Redflex resulting in significant legal liability greatly exceeding $1,000,000. Funding for that liability… would come directly from the city’s budget handcuffing its ability to meet other budgetary obligations and putting the city in a perilous financial condition.”

Just remember….. red light cameras are all about safety – not revenue.

In other news, pigs fly.

See ya next time with more “Quick Hits.”

Comments are closed.