Sheriff Mark Lamb

Take homelessness.

You take a guy in San Francisco, gets a job.

His job pays him $250,000 a year to deal with homelessness.

And he goes out and he tells the government, hey, I can fix this with $2 billion.

We can fix all the homelessness problems.

What incentive does he really have to fix the problem?

He doesn't because he loses his $250,000 a year job if he does, plus all the funding that comes in.

So a lot of these government people, they're incentivized by just keeping the program going or the problem going because they make good salaries dealing with the problem.

Second of all, the government takes it and they use those funds for different programs within their states, within their communities, within their counties.

So the funding goes towards fixing drug addiction problems,

but you can mop the bathroom floor all day long until you turn the tub water off, your efforts are futile.

So my point is, stop spending the money on trying to fix Band-Aid, put Band-Aids on the problem and actually take the money and apply it to the source of the problem.

If we would actually take money and put it towards fixing the border problem,

then we would spend less money, and then we could eliminate a lot of this backend nonsense that goes on.

But everybody has got a piece of the pie, and everybody, whether it's an NGO that wants more funding, and they've got their, when Tucson was gonna lose their funding, a bunch of the NGOs, because they hadn't passed the government budget yet, a lot of these NGOs were getting in the media and crying about how they were gonna lose their funding, and now we're gonna have to kick people on the street, and this and that.

The second they signed that bill, I haven't heard a thing from those NGOs about funding anymore.

Why?

Because they got their money.

And they were, the city of Tucson was actually contemplating allocating some of the money to deal with the back end issues of it.

From taxpayer dollars.