All Episodes
Previous Next
June 9, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
June 9, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, no, no, I'm going to get to that.
Look at, I can't do everything at once.
I can't do everything in the first hour.
I can't do everything in 10 minutes.
If you just be patient, I'm going to get to it.
Hey, they want me to talk about Greenspan.
Then they want me to talk about Kerry and stuff.
I'm going to get to all this.
Greetings and welcome back, folks.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am America's anchor man, America's truth detector, play-by-play man of the news, a general overall good guy, harmless, lovable little fuzzbowl.
Alan Greenspan did have something interesting to say.
You ought to see the news slugs for all the wire services about Greenspan's testimony today.
Greenspan says blank.
Greenspan says, there must be about 20 of them in the slug roster for the wires.
Greenspan says, Greenspan says, Greenspan says.
But one thing he said, he did a wonderful piece on competition.
And this is important because we were discussing this yesterday, socialism vis-a-vis via capitalism and so forth.
Greenspan actually said that when he was in business, he hated the competition because it made him work harder.
But now he sees competition as a virtue.
Precisely because it made him work harder.
Exactly right.
All right, let's go to the Patriot Act news.
President Bush today credited the Patriot Act with helping to convict more than 200 terrorists and dismissed accusations that the law has violated civil liberties.
Bush described scary scenarios that he said were thwarted by law enforcement and intelligence officers working together with powers granted by the law that he signed six weeks after the September 11th, 2001 attacks.
Let's go to the audio soundbite.
He was in Columbus, Ohio, gave a speech.
We have soundbites.
Here's number one.
Since September the 11th, federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects.
And more than half of those charged have been convicted.
Federal, state, and local law enforcement have used the Patriot Act to break up terrorist cells in New York and Oregon and Virginia and in Florida.
We prosecuted terrorist operatives and supporters in California, in Texas, in New Jersey, in Illinois, and North Carolina, and Ohio.
These efforts have not always made the headlines, but they've made communities safer.
The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do.
His audience, by the way, was a bunch of policemen, law enforcement people sitting behind him.
And by the way, it was very diverse.
There were some people of color.
There were some women.
There were some women of color.
There were even some white Christians sitting behind the president as he made his speech today.
By the way, do you want John Kerry said about Howard Dean?
You probably haven't heard this.
He said, I approved him before I disapproved him.
So everybody's getting in on the Howard Dean angle.
I also, I asked you in the last hour, I asked Jennifer from Indianapolis, who was the caller who brought this up.
I said, does anybody know, I said, Jennifer, do you know of anybody who's been rounded up that has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism?
Somebody been unfairly, illegally rounded up by the Patriot Act.
And she said, no, I can't think of any, but it's always a possibility.
I got an email note from a guy.
What are you talking about?
You ever heard of the Japanese being interned after World War II?
It wasn't the Patriot Act.
That was a Democrat that did the FDR without the Patriot Act.
There was no Patriot Act and the Japanese were rounded up, and they were innocent.
But don't lay that on Bush or the Patriot for crying out loud.
The Patriot Act's only been in existence for what?
Four years.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother going to the email.
Here's our next soundbite from President Bush's remarks.
At the end of this year, 16 critical provisions of the Patriot Act are scheduled to expire.
Some people call these sunset provisions.
It's a good name because letting those provisions expire would leave law enforcement in the dark.
All 16 provisions are practical, important, and they are constitutional.
Congress needs to renew them all.
And this time, Congress needs to make the provisions permanent.
Yeah, needs to make them permanent.
One more.
President says the threat will not expire at the end of the year, and neither should the Patriot Act.
The House and Senate are moving forward with the process to renew the Patriot Act.
My message to Congress is clear.
The terrorist threats against us will not expire at the end of the year, and neither should the protections of the Patriot Act.
Okay, so being the good journalists they are, CNN went out and got some people who opposed the president on this to talk to today.
One of them was Senator Russ Feingold, half of the disastrous.
You talk about taking away constitutional rights.
How about campaign finance reform?
How about McCain Feingold?
How about the First Amendment?
Congress shall make no law abridging the blah, blah, blah, blah, rights to free speech.
Campaign finance reform clearly says certain people can't say what by virtue of this method at this time.
Political speech has been abridged by the campaign finance law known as McCain-Feingold.
Here's Feingold on CNN upset about the Patriot Act.
The question, as we were speaking, you have a different opinion about what these 16 provisions of the Patriot Act should do.
The President was talking about the very important fight against terrorism and about the provisions of the Patriot Act that we all agree on.
For example, hitting the wall down between the CIA and the FBI.
But frankly, it was just deceptive.
What the President was doing was talking about provisions that nobody objects to, such as the provisions that allow a sneak and peek search of your house that can be indefinite in time without any limitation.
So the president basically was doing a bait and switch.
So the next question, well, I pointed out that you're the only senator back in 2001 that voted against this.
Sounds like you definitely stand by that vote.
It's been, at least here in the U.S., a relatively safe three and a half years since then.
Do you think that you gained company?
Are you still a lone voice there in the Senate?
Not only am I not alone, I think we may even have a majority in the House in some of these provisions.
The president is moving in the wrong direction.
He apparently doesn't understand the need to balance our rights with the need to fight terrorism.
We need to do both, not just have law enforcement be able to do whatever they want without a judge reviewing what's going on.
That's absolutely essential to our system of government and to our freedoms.
That's an interesting reference there because I think that is the one thing that has a lot of people sort of scratching their heads.
Why do you have to take the judge out of the equation?
If you need a warrant to go search somebody's house, you think they're suspected terrorists, go to the judge and get it.
But to be able to allow law enforcement in without a judge, a lot of people are very nervous about that.
And understandably so.
And there's something else, folks, and this is, I remember saying this after 9-11 happened, and before the Patriot Act was even conceived.
And by the way, it's a theory and a strategy that is articulated and has been for much longer than I've even been alive.
And we talk about it in so many subjects, so many different ways, and we have over the course of this program.
It's very simple.
Anytime you start trading liberty for security, you're sunk.
And this is a fine line.
And you know the ramifications of this, or at least the other applications.
We look at people all over the world who say they'd rather live as slaves and be safe than take the risks.
And we always condemn people for giving up their liberty in the name of security and safety.
And this is, you know, it is a fine line to walk.
There's no question about this, and it does have some people concerned.
I got to take a quick time out.
Oh, one more story I think is somewhat relevant before we go to the break.
This is from Bill Goertz today in the Washington Times.
A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new director of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to recognize several key military developments in China in the past decade.
The report was created by several current and former intelligence officials.
It concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar with the report.
The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the failures, but critics, how can we blame them for secrecy?
They're communists.
Of course they keep secrets.
This is nuts.
Well, we couldn't find out because they keep too many secrets.
What do we have intelligence agencies for?
And this, by the way, folks, the last 10 years?
Within the last 10 years, there was an administration that was accepting campaign contributions from the Chikoms.
And in exchange, we were allowing U.S. space companies to help the Chikoms achieve orbit with certain missiles that carry certain weapons.
Within the past 10 years, that happened.
And lo and behold, now we have a highly classified intelligence report concluding that U.S. spy agencies failed to recognize several key military developments in China in the past decade.
Among the failures highlighted in the study, China's deployment of a new long-range cruise missile.
How could we miss that?
We probably helped them.
Ever heard of L'Oral Space?
The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology.
Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the WAN class, that's Y-U-A-N, that was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine appeared on the internet.
Development of precision-guided munitions, including new air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads.
Well, hello, L'Oral Spacing.
I'm not accusing, I'm just asking.
China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for targeting U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups.
And the importation of advanced weaponry, including Russian submarines, warships, and fighter bombers.
So, looks like we have more to add to the Clinton legacy here, ladies and gentlemen.
A former U.S. official said the report should help expose a self-selected group of specialists who fooled the U.S. government on China for 10 years.
Guess we can call them the Panda Huggers.
Back after this, don't go away.
Open line Friday on Thursday, 800-282-2882.
By the way, this is the end of the, well, this marks one week as we started tomorrow.
So this is one week officially of podcasting here on the EIB Network, the hottest thing in podcasting, excellence in podcasting.
You all that are podcasters, we're going to call you ditto pods.
Every afternoon, within one hour of this program being completed, each of you who have logged on and downloaded our software, the Rush 24-7 Media Center, automatically receive a podcast of that day's program.
Today wraps up the first week, and it's phenomenal.
Now, there will not be a, well, we've got a guest host here tomorrow because I'm taking a vacation day.
Dr. Williams will be here.
We're not podcasting the guest hosts, but we will have a package tomorrow of things that will be podcast to all of you ditto pods out there.
We're working on that even now.
Here's Sylvia in Clinton Township, New Jersey.
Hi, Sylvia.
Thanks for the call.
Hi, Rush.
I just wanted to say that I really regret Howard Dean.
I really like him, first of all, and I really regret his pitbull rhetoric because it so gets in the way with the important things that he says.
And I think, you know, you're always beating up on the media.
But yesterday, I mean, I heard nothing about the Today Show interview except what I heard on your show because I was watching Sesame Street with its kids.
But, you know, he had made two great points regarding that there's more than two issues that matter and that put gay rights on states agendas of states that it was already illegal and et cetera, was a very shrewd move.
He's a very shrewd guy and he says things.
But, you know, Matt Lauer, instead of right, I suppose, because you didn't play it, instead of letting him talk about the important points, though, that he makes about pensions and things like that, he, you know, he just re-run through the list of all the stupid things that he has said.
But, you know, everybody says stupid things.
People on the conservative right, yourself, everybody on this radio station spend the entire day 24-7 saying that we have no values, that we're against traditional religion, that we were traitors, extremists on your, you know, you have extremists.
Wait a minute.
Nobody's called you traitors.
Not that I know of.
It's not been said on this program.
It's not allowed.
We don't allow callers.
But hang on here just a second, Sylvia, because you raised some interesting points.
Howard Dean was on the Today Show yesterday precisely because of these incendiary things he's saying.
See, I have a different theory than you because you ask, why is the media keep talking about this?
Why aren't they talking about the other things he's talking about?
I probably have spent more time talking about Howard Dean's suggestions to revitalize the party than the rest of the media have.
Right.
Because I recapitulated what he said last Thursday in Washington.
And I talked about pension reform.
I questioned how valuable it is as an issue that's going to get you guys back to power, but I still mentioned it and the three other things he talked about.
I mean, when people on the right, you know, call people that have abortions murderers or say that the judges who do things that they don't like should be, you know, run out of town.
And, you know, you don't make huge.
Nobody's saying that.
Now, wait a second.
Now you're starting to exaggerate.
Nobody said they should be run out of town.
Well, they said even worse, Rush.
I don't remember.
No, they haven't.
Okay, I'm just saying.
They have not.
They have simply said the judiciary needs to be reined in, that it's out of control, that Congress has a right under Article 3 of the Constitution to deal with it.
But look at, let me finish my point because I want to get your reaction to this.
See, I think the media is focusing on what Dean is saying.
The media is keeping this alive.
I spent an hour on it yesterday, and I'm going to be honest, when that show yesterday was over, I asked Snerdley and a couple other people, do you think I blew it today, spending too much time on Dean?
I had so much good stuff in the stack.
But the Dean stuff came up.
I had a caller about it, which then led us to discuss it for a whole hour, and it bugged me.
And I get up today, and they're still talking about Howard Dean.
My theory is the press loves hearing this stuff about Republicans, and they want it recycled and repeated.
And that's why they're giving it so much attention.
This is what the press thinks of Republicans.
This is what most Democrats thinks of Republicans.
And so they love having Dean say it, and they keep repeating it over and over and over.
And that's why we deal with it here.
But they're ignoring what he's saying about fixing up the party because it's boring.
And they got more enmity for Republicans than they have interest in putting the party back together.
It's clear to me.
But Rush, I mean, I think that's just the way of modern media.
And on conservative talk radio, as much as anything else.
And, you know, being somebody who's voted Democratic last three elections, still a registered Republican, but the most news that I listen to is from you guys.
And when I turn on the internet once in a while to help out my kids, I read that.
So I don't really listen to much of the news.
Well, and I read News Week and Time and those kinds of things.
But, you know, I mean, I think he's got so many, you know, I think this president is so not conservative in his values.
And I think Howard Dean is the person that should run for president because his rhetoric is so frightful.
Well, then do it.
Nominate.
I mean, he did run once.
He didn't get out of the Iowa hawkeye caucus.
Well, no, the reason he couldn't get out of that was because, A, people, you know, the liberal tape.
Can I say it?
Finish?
They dug up that thing that said that he didn't like caucuses in Iowa and he was against farm subsidies.
People forget that.
That buried him in Iowa.
No, but you know who brought that out?
It was a woman in the media from Iowa.
No, the Clintons.
Well, who do you think leaked it to the media with the Clintons that did in Howard Dean?
Well, I don't know that, and I don't think you're in the middle of the day.
Well, I do.
Yes, I do.
Now, Sylvia, look at you say you listen here.
You're going to have to believe what I say.
Wait a second.
I'm going to give you the proof.
Clinton had a letter from Howard Dean when he was governor of Vermont in which Dean supported the war in Kosovo and supported doing something in Iraq in 98 when Clinton was sounding like Bush on Iraq.
And Dean sent him a letter saying we support you.
You've got to deal with this.
It's a terrible problem.
And so there's only one place that letter could have come from.
It's the Clinton's office.
That was released, and it was diametrically opposed to what Dean had been saying throughout the primary.
And it did him in.
The Democrats did Dean in.
We were hoping he'd get the nomination.
But, well, so you say, that's the rhetoric.
The reason you stay on him all the time is because I genuinely believe that you fear him because, I mean, I hate the pitbull part of it, but he's tough, and he's a realist, and he's conservative.
He wants to balance the budget.
And before we went to war, he was just saying that this president is not being candid on the reasons he's not.
Hold on a minute.
Oh, time out.
Time out just a second.
You know, Sylvia, I got so much to ask you.
You say you're registered Republican, but you're voting Democrat all these elections.
You listen to talk radio.
I got to ask you about that.
But before, and I'm going to have to hold you through the break.
Can you hold on through the break?
Yes, I can.
Okay.
And you've got to promise me you'll slow down, too.
You don't have to hurry up.
You'll have all the time in the world.
I'm sorry.
No, it's just appreciate your listening.
I enjoy talking to people like you.
You're obviously a thinker, and you're not some, you know, you haven't insulted me yet.
We've been on the air for four minutes, which is the average Democrat can't go but 30 seconds.
Well, I'm not going to listen to that.
So I'm interested in talking to you, but you have to understand something.
Now, I can only speak for myself and the conservatives.
I know we don't fear on the left.
We don't fear any.
We don't look at things through a prism of fear.
I'm not afraid of Howard Dean.
And if he got the nomination, if he could beat Hillary, it's fine with me.
I don't care who the Democrats bring on.
They can't win.
Not as they are currently constructed and constituted and not as they currently articulate things.
Now, the break is here.
I got to take it.
Sit tight, and we will continue this discussion right after we get back.
Don't go away.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
Great to be back with you, folks.
Open line Friday on Thursday.
We go back now to Clinton Township in New Jersey.
And Sylvia, I have two questions for you.
Why do you think pension reform, pension portability, as Dean is talking about it, is something that's going to launch the Democrats back to power?
Whoa, what is going on over there?
That's the baby didn't want me to come outside to pension.
Yeah, I thought a terrorist attack was going on.
Dora's coming on.
I'm sorry.
Okay, two questions.
Why do you think that pension reform, pension portability, whatever, is something going to launch the Democrats back to power?
And number two, number two, how in the world can you be a registered Republican voting Democrat?
I can understand the other way around, but registered Republican voting Democrat is something I have to hear from you.
Okay, go.
Well, remind me of the second question.
But your first question was about pension reform and whether it's important or not.
It's kind of like, you know, the Democrats, he wasn't going to get elected.
He had a hard time trying to vote.
Sylvia, slow down.
We're not in a hurry here.
Okay, I apologize.
Take a breath.
Okay, Howard Dean went out on a limb, and that's why I admired him so much, because like Democrats and Republicans in Congress, they're just a bunch of pansies, both of them, that just fall in line to whatever is politically expedient.
For him to say that, you know what, we have to pay our way.
We cannot charge our way into the future for our children and bankrupt Social Security, et cetera.
I respected that.
I think that's important.
I think pension reform is very important.
When I see United dissolve their United Airlines, dissolve their pension plan, and I just think that that is so cruel and unreasonable of a thing to do, when our federal budget always respects their pension plans, but we're allowing corporations to not honor their pensions.
I think that's something that is very important to the nation, especially if the president is further going to risk the solvency of Social Security, at least for the next 10, 20 years with his privatization plan.
I just think it's a very important thing.
It's not privatization.
It's not going to risk anything.
It's going to save it.
Well, it may save it down 30 or 40 years, but we're going to go.
Did you hear this?
Well, you've got to start sometime.
It took how many years to get us to where it's bankrupt.
But how do you get it?
It's already bankrupt.
Destroy Social Security.
Social Security is already not fulfilling its promise.
Rush.
The people that are getting benefits now are getting far more than what they put in.
Did you hear the story the other day about a New Jersey madam, 80 years old, conducting a call girl ring to supplement her Social Security because it's not enough for her?
A call girl prostitution at 80 years of age, right where you live in your neighborhood.
Well, Rush, I'll say, you know what?
At least it's about security.
It's not about investments.
If the president wants to make lucrative ways for people to invest money, that's fine.
But this president right now, submitting $400 billion deficits year after year, he has added $2 trillion to the national deficit, to the national debt.
How old are you?
How old are you?
I am, well, you shouldn't ask a lady that.
Okay, give me a range.
I'm just trying to get an idea how long you might have been paying attention to events.
How long I might have what?
Well, I'm in my early 40s.
Okay.
You're relatively young.
I want to take you back.
Were you paying attention during the Reagan years, say, 83 through 88?
Yes, and I was also paying attention when he was such a moral and responsible man that he raised taxes in 1986 because he saw that we couldn't grow out of the debt with tax cuts.
Sylvia, Sylvia, Sylvia, Sylvia, I can't go on here.
You really, we need to have dinner or something.
Sylvia, you're so wrong.
You're just, you're exactly backwards on all of this.
Reagan did not raise taxes in 86.
It depends on how you want to define raising taxes.
He cut rates.
He cut income tax rates.
When Reagan took office in 1981, the top marginal rate was 70%.
When he left office in 89, the top marginal rate was 28%, 70% to 28%.
The take to the Treasury had doubled from $500 billion to almost $1 trillion.
He cut taxes and it raised tax revenue.
Now, as to the deficit, there were deficits back in the Reagan years, and we did grow out of them, and we grew out of them in the 90s.
It takes some time.
Because of his tax cuts, we grew out of these deficits.
And probably also because we had a conservative Congress finally starting in 1995 that made a balanced budget an important thing.
But my point is, I heard all about the deficit monster back in the 80s.
I've heard about deficits for as long as I've been paying attention to politics.
And all I know is no deficit has ever caused one bit of pain, nor has it ever harmed the country in a lasting way.
The national debt, it's, I mean, these things all eventually work.
National debt continues to pile up, but the deficits eventually, you know, there's no evidence that deficits destroy the country.
They just don't.
That's just another talking point.
That is a talking point that either party out of power uses.
Both parties do it.
But the reality is that the deficit monster does not rear back and breathe fire and blow our house down.
It just doesn't.
The deficit monster gets tamed.
The deficit goes up.
The deficit goes down.
The more economic activity we have, the lower the deficit is.
We're also at war.
Now, people say the president has cut taxes.
President has cut taxes.
He's cut tax rates.
Revenue to the treasury has increased just like it did during the Reagan years.
These are provable and demonstrable things.
I guess I have the answer to the question.
Now you're a registered Republican voting Democrat.
Somebody's gotten to you.
And you're believing these clichés and talking points that the left puts out there.
And many of them are not grounded in truth whatsoever.
They're merely spin points designed to persuade people.
And they're working on you.
But it's interesting for all of us to hear this.
No question.
I'm glad you took the time to call.
I'm glad you held on through the break.
I move on to Virginia Beach.
This is Tammy.
Welcome, Tammy.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Rush.
I love you a lot.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Concerning the Patriot Act, what bothers me is that, well, in order to protect us from terrorism, Bush would rather limit the rights and freedoms of American citizens than just secure the borders and crack down on illegal immigrants.
I'm here to tell you I agree with you about one element of this, and I think both parties are on the verge of blowing this big time because this illegal immigration thing has got people all worked up, and it's not just people in the border states.
And if you're going to have these kinds of restrictions on American citizens, but an illegal can get into the country and then get lost and never be suspected again, it's going to anger people to the point they're not going to put up with anymore.
It's going to have a single issue on which people of both parties will vote for change.
Right.
And he really angered me when he called the people in the Minuteman Project vigilantes.
You heard that comment.
Yes, I did.
And I thought it was not.
What would the liberals say?
It was not useful.
Definitely not.
It was not useful.
It was not helpful.
I definitely agree with you on that.
Well, thank you for taking the call.
See, did you see how easy this would be?
Do you see how easy this did?
Wasn't this fun?
I agreed with everything you said.
You probably thought you were going to get your head bitten off, but I agree with pretty much everything.
Thank you.
All right.
Have a good weekend out there.
Who's next on this program?
Bill in Atlanta.
You're next on Open Line Friday on Thursday.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Rush.
How are you today?
Fine.
Never better.
Appreciate your asking.
Outstanding.
I'm calling in reference to the fair tax that's being barranted around a lot about here lately, and I understand it's going to be a 23% tax across the board on all retail items purchased and with a rebate to every American on a monthly basis for the necessities of life and removing the embedded sales tax and all items and things of that nature.
I'm just curious to know what you think.
You've told me some things that I may not be as informed as you are.
A fair tax, 23%, what sounds like a sales tax.
Is that what it is?
Basically, Rush, it's a national retail sales tax.
Like a fat tax.
Okay.
Right.
A tax on everything purchased on the retail level.
Well, you know, the one aspect of that that I like, and I think it's eminently fair.
However, the left, you have to understand, and I hate saying that, because Steve Forbes has a great new book coming out on flat tax.
And I know it's a great new book because I have been asked to write a blurb for the jacket.
I have the galleys right over there.
And his idea is flat tax is fabulous.
It is eminently fair.
Your fair tax, 23%, I think, is too high.
But a consumption tax is basically what this is, is also fair.
You only get taxed on what you spend and you exempt necessities and then you go to town.
However, this is the dirty little secret.
And I have been warning people of this ever since I've had my lofty position here behind this, the golden EIB microphone.
The people in Washington who write tax law, I will believe it when I see it, that they change it to either your fair tax or to a flat tax.
I've heard this come up so many times and I've gotten my hopes up.
Now, when a guy like Forbes says it, don't misunderstand it.
When I hear a member of Congress talking about it, oh, I've heard it before, get my hopes up in the past, but it always goes down to obscurity and nobody brings it back again.
And there's a reason why.
The ability to tax is the single greatest power elected officials in Washington have.
They use it for social architecture.
They use it for economic stimulus or pain.
They use it to exacerbate class envy.
You let Democrats get hold of it.
It becomes one thing.
The Republicans try to cut taxes and make them less punitive, particularly on the successful.
Democrats don't like that.
But for example, just, and I'm not saying whether I'm for this or against it.
I just want to give you an example of what I'm talking about.
The home mortgage interest deduction.
Now, a lot of people, because it's been around for so long, it's so important.
That's one of the reasons that some people buy a house only to get the deduction on the mortgage.
I can save a lot of money because they get a big tax refund at the end of the year.
Think they're screwing the government.
What in truth is it?
It is the government subsidizing home purchases.
Now, it may be well-intentioned.
Okay, we want people to own their own home.
Hi, it's the American dream.
Rush, are you?
No, I'm not against this.
Don't I?
I'm just telling you that deduction, allowing the deduction of home mortgage interest is a way that the tax writers in Washington use the tax code for social architecture.
I want to take you back to 1986, the tax cut that was brought up here by Sylvia in Clinton Township.
Reagan cut taxes, big 86 tax cut, and we got down to the 28 and 15% rates.
And there was a bubble for some people at 31%, but basically it was two rates at 28 and 15%.
But along with that went a whole slew of deductions.
And it wasn't long after that we had the SNL failures because a lot of people who invested in real estate prior to 86 did so for tax reasons.
There was a tax shelter.
If you invest in real estate in certain depressed areas of your community or otherwise, or build real estate for a government-approved reason, you would get a tax break for it.
So people did that.
And there were a lot of buildings that were built with no occupants.
They still got the tax break.
Here comes the Tax Reform Act of 86, and by-by goes that deduction.
A lot of SNLs had been invested.
A lot of SNLs had lent the money to builders to build these buildings to get tax breaks.
Once the tax code was changed and that incentive was removed, that deduction was removed, the people that built the buildings had no way to recoup their investment.
They didn't keep building buildings for that reason.
And the SNLs, a lot of them defaulted because nobody paid them back.
So there are clear examples of what I'm talking about when I say the tax code is used for social architecture.
My point in saying this is not to say it's good or bad in this instance or that.
Just trying to tell you, I don't ever see the day these clowns are going to give up that power.
I just don't see it.
There's no, we don't need a 900-page tax code that nobody can understand.
We have a tax code right now that pretty much every filer is in violation of in one way or another.
And if the IRS wanted to, they could get money, additional money out of everybody, because I'll guarantee you, the vast majority of Americans, even you 1040 EZ filers, are in violation of some sort of tax law out there.
And you can't possibly know them.
There's a whole business of tax lawyers that has sprung up just to handle this.
They're not going to sit by and watch themselves be put out of business with a flat tax or a consumption tax.
Ain't going to happen.
But if you do this flat tax or consumption tax, by definition, you have to get rid of deductions.
You have a flat tax of 15%.
I mean, you can't even have a charitable deduction.
You think the charities are going to sit by for that?
How much charitable funding exists because there's a tax deduction for it?
A lot of it.
Some of it's benevolent, but a lot of it is for people to get a tax deduction.
You take that out.
Charities are going to get hit.
They're going to be heard from when it comes time to change the tax code.
It's so intertwined.
The tentacles of this are woven through every seed of our fabric of our society here that I just don't see these guys ever relinquishing this power.
But in truth, there is no need for a tax code that's any bigger, a tax return that's any bigger than a postcard.
I earned X. Here's my 15%.
I'll see you next year.
It's so simple, it'll never happen.
It makes so much sense it'll never happen.
And that's what that's, I've been around long enough.
I've seen everybody's hopes go up and down and ebb and flow with this stuff.
And I'm not trying to sound pessimistic.
I'm trying to be realistic.
I think it would be fabulous.
And I think it's something worth fighting for.
I'm just telling you the odds here are long in getting something like this actually done.
And you'll note that a lot of this tax talk happens to start at the very beginning of election cycles.
There's a definite ebb and flow to the timing of all this, but you'll note that there never, ever is any real simplification.
They tried.
The Tax Reform Act of 86 was an attempt to simplify it.
Two rates, get rid of the deductions.
And everybody's fear then was, and I was one of them.
I said, I don't like this.
Why not, Rush?
Well, I mean, I like the 28 and I like the 15, but I don't like the no deductions bit because the rates are going to start coming back up.
You just wait.
We get the right administration in there, and these rates are going to go from 28 to whatever, and there will not be any new deductions added.
And voila, it happened.
Hello, Bill Clinton.
From 28 to 39%, retroactive for a couple of years, no deductions.
And it's just, this stuff is so predictable.
It's the largest power Washingtonians have over us, and I just don't see them giving it away.
Back after this, stay with us.
I went long, ladies and gentlemen.
This segment's going to be real short here, but something has just fallen into my lap that makes it worthwhile.
I went long as a valid segment before on the taxes in business, but we got to get the time back somewhere.
So this is it.
Howard Dean, we have a sound bite.
Howard Dean this afternoon on Capitol Hill, a Democratic National Committee chairman, after this big rally with the Senate Democrat leadership where they all supported Howard Dean, who he is and what he says.
This is some of what Dean said.
I think a lot of this is exactly what the Republicans want after conversion.
The truth is that we need to focus on exactly the issues that Harry Reed just talked about, and we're going to.
We hardly had any discussions about what's going on in the media circus and all that stuff in the last two weeks.
What we're focused on is how to have a decent social security system, how to have a strong national defense, how to have jobs in America again, how to deal with incredibly high gas prices and get a decent energy bill, which actually will do something to raft gas prices.
That's what our agenda is.
Come on, that's not your agenda.
Your agenda has been the judges.
You lose on the judges, and now all of a sudden you blame Bush for detailing and derailing everybody on discussing these issues, Howard.
And by the way, I don't hear you discussing them.
I hear about pension portability.
I hear about election day as a holiday.
I hear about voting machines with the paper trail, but I don't hear you talking about any of this.
The media circus, Howard, go to your own guys in the media.
They're the ones keeping it alive.
It's not a diversion.
The problem, Howard, is the media also agrees with you when you rip into Republicans as white Christians the way you have.
They love hearing it said.
That's why they keep regurgitating it.
Try to get onto your agenda.
I'll bet they won't let you.
Back after this, stay with us.
Yeah, Mr. Snerdley, a good observation here.
They must have beat Dean up in that meeting pretty well because he came out of it sounding just like Harry Reid.
Gone was Howard Dean.
Hello, dingy Harry.
At least in the words that Howard Dean used.
We got an hour to go, folks.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection