All Episodes
Previous Next
July 29, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
July 29, 2005, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, we're fortunate this hour to have on with us.
John Chaddock, he is the uh representative to the House of Representatives from Arizona, and he's done wonderful work in Washington, as I said in the beginning of the uh last hour or the hour that preceded.
He's one of the handful of congressmen, in my opinion, that the framers would truly respect.
Welcome to the show, John.
Walter, glad to be with you.
Thank you for those kind remarks.
And I I haven't seen you uh the there's this uh group that uh Ron Paul has uh what's it uh Liberty Caucus.
Yeah, the Liberty Caucus, yeah.
That's the last time we seen.
And that's what that's a wonderful group of people that you have there.
It is a group of people that uh at least understand the founding of the nation and some of the principles that uh uh we uh regrettably forget too often.
That's absolutely right.
What I'd like to start out with is uh your health insurance choice program.
Would you just kind of explain it to us what that what that's all about?
I sure would.
Um I think your listeners know we have 45 million uninsured Americans.
Uh a part of the reason for that, uh indeed the major reason for that for many of them is that they cannot afford health insurance.
So you say to yourself, well, why is it that they cannot afford in health insurance?
If they work for uh a large employer, of course they get employer-based uh health insurance.
But if they work for a small employer, they're out in the market trying to buy health insurance on their own.
That individual market is still regulated by the states.
And in some ways I think that's good because I like having uh authority as close to the people as possible, and I believe in the system where state insurance commissioners can intercede on the beha on behalf of a consumer uh who has a problem with his or her insurance company.
But unfortunately, uh along with uh state regulation, we have left in place uh state legislation saying that you cannot s today in America uh buy a health insurance policy in the state you live in uh unless that license policy, that health insurance policy has first the company has been licensed in your state.
That means that somebody that wants to sell insurance in all fifty states has to get licensed in all fifty states.
But worse than that, Walter, that policy must meet every requirement of state law, including every single benefit mandate.
And uh your listeners probably know what a benefit mandate is.
It's a requirement that if you want to sell insurance in a given state, you must cover and then fill in the blank.
And there are some of those that make sense.
For example, you uh someone would want if they bought health insurance emergency room coverage.
But the benefit mandates in this country have run amok.
Uh whereas two decades ago, or maybe even less, I think there were eighteen mandates uh or as few as seven mandated by state law.
Now there are more than eighteen hundred and they go to uh you won't believe this, but in some states, in a number of states, acupuncture is a mandated benefit.
Aromatherapy is a mandated benefit.
What that means is if you live in one of those states and you want to buy a policy and you don't have a lot of money, you are nonetheless forced to buy a policy that covers acupuncture and aromatherapy.
Wait, hold it.
Uh what's aromatherapy?
You tell me.
Aromatherapy is if I don't smell well, uh aromatherapy is uh the treatment of your condition, your illness, whatever it is, by smelling different aromas.
And so the legislature in a number of states has said, look, if you're gonna sell insurance in our state, you have to provide coverage so that if somebody wants to go be cured by having an aroma therapist tell them which which aromas, which smells would cure them of their illness.
That's got to be a mandated coverage.
And and and I have no use for that.
You well, I have no use for it.
But you have to pay for it.
But you have to pay for it.
This piece of legislation would say that if you want to continue to buy a policy that covers aromatherapy, you can do that.
But if you want to buy a policy that doesn't cover aromatherapy, and you live in a state that mandates that benefit, you could still buy such a policy by looking at other policies on essentially on the market.
That that is if I want to buy uh uh a policy from an insurer in in Utah, well, I live in Pennsylvania, I could do so.
That's pretty much it.
Uh, I it bothers me a little bit when people say that if you live in Pennsylvania, you'd buy it from a policy, you'd buy a policy in Utah.
What the way the bill is structured is that an insurance company gets licensed in one state, has to meet every requirement of their law, including uh the most basic one, which is financial solvency.
And the solvency test is a standard across the nation.
It is what the it is called the gold standard for solvency.
Solvency meaning it's got to be financially stable and able to pay any claims made against it.
Then once it gets licensed in that state, it files an insurance policy, and that policy meets every single requirement of that state's law.
So let's take Utah.
An insurance company could go to Utah, qualify to do business, get their insurance policy licensed, and then they could bring that policy to Pennsylvania, file with the Pennsylvania insurance commissioner and say, look, we've met all of the laws of Utah for this policy.
Now we are going to begin to sell it in Pennsylvania.
So you could buy it from an insurance salesman in Pennsylvania, or you could buy it over the internet, um, and it would meet the laws of Utah, it would not necessarily meet every requirement of the laws of Pennsylvania.
Yes.
And by being able to do that, it would have theoretically far fewer mandates and uh the bureaucracy of bringing it to market would be lower, and so it would be uh a lower cost policy and enable some of the forty-five million uninsured uh to be able to afford coverage.
And and and some of the mandates are completely uh ludicrous.
Now you gave a couple of examples, but one that I find rather strange is that for in some states uh the mandate is that uh you don't have to buy insurance.
Let's say you don't own insurance, but you get sick, then you can buy a policy.
That's exactly right.
That's called guaranteed issue.
There are four states that have it, and what that really says to consumers, five states that have it, what that says to consumers is you can wait until you become ill and then buy health insurance, and the insurance companies in your state must sell to you.
And that's incredible.
That that that no, but that can really drive the cost.
Well, let me give you some examples.
In that is the law, for example, in New Jersey.
And one of the ways that this bill came to our attention is that people in New Jersey, uh, we discovered anecdotally, are in fact shopping with their feet, a concept that conservatives understand.
They live in New Jersey, they would encounter a cousin or a friend or a sister or a brother who lives just across the line in, say, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, the individual living in Pennsylvania would be paying uh, say, three hundred dollars a month for their family insurance, the individual living in New Jersey would have just gotten their bill and it would be twelve hundred dollars a month.
And they'd say, Oh my gosh, how can that be?
The answer is New Jersey is a guaranteed issue state, and so insurance in New Jersey is roughly four times as high as for someone, the same family living in Pennsylvania.
So people would shop with their feet.
Their brother or their cousin.
Look, I'm gonna list on my insurance application that I live at your house in Pennsylvania.
All I'm asking you to do is when the bill comes, uh or when the policy comes in the mail or when the renewal notice comes, just forward it on to me in New Jersey, and I'll save uh 75% of my health insurance.
Oh my goodness.
Imagine if we applied that to to fire insurance for your house.
I mean, you call the fire, you don't have any insurance.
The fire engines are there, you call the insurance company and you have your house insured.
Well, and it that's exactly how it works.
The the amazing thing is that uh in the ten years since New Jersey enacted um uh guaranteed issue, uh a huge number of people that were in their individual market, some two-thirds uh have dropped out of the individual market,
gone uninsured, uh, and said, Well, I'm not gonna pay to buy I'm not gonna pay these outrageously high health insurance prices to buy health insurance, which I can't afford, four times as high as, for example, in neighboring Pennsylvania, when under New Jersey law, I can wait until I get sick and then buy a policy.
So uh seventy thousand people in New Jersey have dropped out uh of the uh um uh of the individual health insurance market, precisely for the reason you point out, and that is if you didn't have to buy f fire insurance uh until your house caught fire, uh you'd wait until it caught fire and then pick up the phone and call the fire insurance company and say, Well, I want a policy now.
It's kind of crazy.
And and that has other effects.
That is, as more people do that, then the insurance companies have to charge higher premiums and more and as they charge higher premiums, more people are going to do that.
Absolutely.
It violates the entire concept of insurance.
I mean, the concept of insurance, I buy fire insurance, you buy fire insurance, everybody buys it.
Uh the notion is that you're setting aside a little bit of money uh in the off chance that tragically your house might catch fire.
But you're essentially building a reservoir over time in case it ever does happen to you.
Well, if, as in a guaranteed issue like New Jersey, you don't have to pay in or set aside any money or contribute to the overall insurance pool in the state until you get sick, well, you can imagine uh nobody's gonna do that until they get sick, and then of course when they get sick, their costs are much higher, and that explains why health insurance in New Jersey and in the other four guaranteed issue states is dramatically higher.
During the hearing on this bill, uh one of the congressmen on the committee was from Maine.
And he said, Gosh, why are you going to authorize people in Maine in my state to go somewhere else and buy a policy from somewhere outside of Maine, even if it does just let them buy a policy that meets their needs, a policy more suited to what they want, why would you do that, Congressman?
And I pointed out to him that uh a comparable policy in uh uh say Chicago, Illinois or Dallas, Texas, is in the range of four hundred dollars a month, the same policy in Maine is twenty-six hundred dollars a month.
Oh my goodness.
Yeah.
And and by the way, if your measure would pass or if your s your uh the proposal health insurance choice would pass, then it would put pressure on the various health insurance companies to uh try to fight against these mandated benefits.
Absolutely.
And I think it will actually even cause some of the states, some states have relatively reasonable uh mand mandate benefits.
They've adopted a reasonable number and they cover the basic things that people would want.
Some states have uh let it run uh wild.
For example, uh Maryland, down here near DC uh has a very, very high number of mandates.
I believe if uh this kind of legislation were to pass, the legislature in Maryland would stop and say, Wait a minute, we have more mandates than most states, maybe more mandates than any state.
Perhaps we're doing a disservice to our uh residents here in Maryland.
Maybe we ought to look at whether or not we should be mandating aromatherapy or acupuncture uh or for example hair replacement, uh all kinds of things that are uh uh perhaps appropriate if you want to spend the money to buy them.
Uh but not clearly not necessary.
Yeah.
Can you hold on?
We want to uh make some money and we'll be back with you.
We'll be back after this.
We're back, ladies and gentlemen, and we're talking to Congressman John Shatdock from Arizona, and we're talking about his uh uh proposal for competition and health insurance.
Uh uh John.
Yes.
Now, if if uh this this was uh this is this issue is entirely new to me, at least uh you know what you're proposing.
Where can people find out about this?
Uh you have website or I do have a website.
Um just uh just maybe just do a Google and they'll come up.
Or just John Shadig dot house dot gov. Okay.
Well, Shaddig is S-H-A-D, like the fish E G G. Okay, great.
Now what kind of support are you getting with this?
Well, uh I'm very pleased with the support that we're getting, Walter.
For one thing, the speaker likes the idea.
Um I mean, I think he kind of summed it up pretty well by saying i in the insurance field, it is as though we're saying to people uh you must buy a Cadillac, and if you cannot afford a Cadillac, or or perhaps even a Rolls-Royce, depending upon the mandates in your state, well then you get absolutely nothing.
Yeah, that's uh uh you know in the of course in that market we say to people, well, if you can't afford a Rolls Royce or Royce or a Cadillac, well then you can buy a Chevy or a Kia.
But in the insurance industry, because of these uh in these mandates, we're saying you must buy the Cadillac, and if you can't afford the Cadillac, you get absolutely nothing.
And we have 45 million uninsured Americans with no coverage whatsoever.
But in addition to the speaker's support, uh we have uh we got we received just this week a very strong uh endorsement from the Wall Street Journal, and I I I probably should not uh fail to mention that uh in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in New York, the President embraced this idea uh and we've gotten signals from the White House that they're anxious to help us carry the legislation uh into law uh beginning uh in September.
So we've got a great deal of encouragement.
I got a little hometown editorial support from uh both uh of my papers there.
Oh, good, great.
I would like to change focus a little bit.
Sure.
And I would like to talk about your enumerated powers act that uh that you propose several times.
One of my favorites.
Yeah, one of your favorites, and actually my favorite as well.
And uh and and just explain that just in uh in a few sentences or two, what uh uh what what you propose.
Well, as you know, Walter, the United States Constitution lists a series of specific powers that are granted to the Federal Government, and then it provides that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people respectively.
Um unfortunately, uh Congress has totally forgotten that provision of the Constitution, and we enact laws, at least I would argue, on a regular basis, which are completely outside of our constitutional authority.
My piece of legislation uh would not strip the ability of Congress to continue to ignore the Constitution, but it would say that before any member of Congress may introduce a piece of legislation in the first title of the bill, they would have to, that member of Congress would have to recite the provision of the U.S. Constitution, which they believe authorizes Congress to act in that area.
My argument is many members would wake up and realize wait a minute, we don't have the authority to legislate here.
This is a state matter, or this is a matter that's not given to government at all.
But in addition, it would force the United States Supreme Court to look again at the enumerated uh clause, enumerated powers clause, and at the issue of whether or not the Federal Government is involved in legislating in areas which are way beyond uh its constitutional authority.
Yes, and and I'm I'm I'm reading your your press release here.
And it says the legislation requires all bills introduced in Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.
Now, I don't I don't want to put you on the spot, but that's one of my fun things to do anyway.
Now if if you were around in 1933, uh when we were uh when when we had the Social Security Act.
Uh could you point to where in the Constitution uh the specific authority for the Social Security Act?
Well, uh fortunately I wasn't around in nineteen thirty-three because if I were, I probably wouldn't be around today, at least not in this job.
But I think you raise a very, very interesting point.
Um and I think we would have had some different constitutional or uh Supreme Court uh uh decisional law between now and then were this in place.
Uh I think many members of Congress think that there is a general powers clause that uh gives us the authority to basically write anything we want.
Careful reading of the Constitution I says I think says it does not.
But at a minimum we should be looking at this issue.
And and and by the way, by the way, it is it is the fact that some of the more intelligent members of Congress, including some on the Judiciary Committee, are afraid we couldn't answer that question that has uh I think slowed the passage of the bill.
They're not sure.
I think they're they're smarter than we give them credit for.
They recognize that we're acting outside of our power.
That's right.
And and as James Madison said, I think in Federalist Paper 45, he said the powers we gave Congress are few and well defined and mostly restricted to external affairs, and those left with the people in states are indefinite and numerous.
Absolutely and this is what you're trying to achieve.
Well, thanks.
Uh uh uh John, thanks for coming on the show.
I think uh uh I think what you're doing uh is some really wonderful things That we need, and particularly this uh health care measure and anything that would introduce uh competition uh in almost any area is going to prove uh beneficial to the consumers.
Well, Walter, I appreciate that.
If I might put in one more quick plug, you raised social security.
Oh, okay.
Uh uh as you know, we in Congress have looked at a bill that would say we should take the Social Security surplus.
Right.
Which Congress is now spending on general revenue things and devote that social security surplus to personal accounts uh and quit spending Social Security taxes on things other than Social Security.
I think that's another step in the right direction.
Well, uh I I agree one hundred percent.
And thanks again, and good luck in trying to sell your colleagues on the Constitution.
We're back.
Uh that was Congressman John Shadek on with us uh talking about health care insurance and also his enumerated powers act, and you should check out this health care insurance bill.
I think it's uh going to be good for the nation.
Let me switch focus a little bit.
There's an article in the Washington Post by Charles Krautheimer.
Uh I think he's at AEI, isn't he?
American Enterprise Institute.
Um I think so.
Anyway, it well, it's the title of the piece is called Give Give Grandma a Pass.
And he's talking about politically correct screening at the airports.
And uh there's another issue in the newspaper today that the uh Transportations uh Security Administration is laying off uh some screeners, the TSA.
Anyway, the I'm completely shocked with this first paragraph, and it really has nothing to do with airport screening.
And it says six percent of British Muslims, more than a hundred thousand citizens, thought the July 7th London London terror attacks were justified.
And a quarter of British Muslims merely sympathize with the bombers.
And even more shocking, I'm virtually reading Krautheimer's column, is that nearly one-fifth of British Muslims say they feel little or no loyalty to Britain.
And yet most disturbing news from the July 23rd London bomb uh tell uh London telegraph poll is that these trends are worse among younger Muslims.
I mean, I find that amazing.
Uh but that's probably not true in the United States about Muslims, uh uh American Muslims, they are far more uh patriotic, I think.
And anyway, later in the article, he talks about how we responded to the bombing in London.
He says has been reflexive and idiotic.
You know, random bag checks in New York subways, and random meaning that people are stopped choke uh are stopped to be searched randomly, uh just numerically.
And uh and he says that grandmothers shouldn't be searched at the airports or getting on planes.
You know, what's the probability that a 60-year-old 80-year-old woman is carrying a bomb uh uh or or intends to hijack a plane.
But if you ask the TSA, you know what they'd say?
They would say it's possible.
Because uh uh it's possible that a terrorist terrorist would give a granny a bomb.
Well, we shouldn't protect ourselves against what's possible.
We should protect ourselves against what's probable.
That is how probable is it for a 86-year-old woman to be carrying a bomb on a plane.
I mean, if we for example, if Walter Williams protected himself against what's possible, well, after the show, I would when I go home, I would get a my uh a mine detector to see whether anybody laid some mines on my property and blow me up because it's possible.
Is it probable?
Or or if I try to protect myself against the possible, I would build a steel roof on my house because it is possible that a meteor would fall on my house.
But would it be probable?
And matter of fact, I did a uh column, it's on my website, Walter E. Williams.com.
Matter of fact, I did three of them called Airport uh Stupid Airport Security.
One, two, and three.
And while I was when I wrote the column, I got all kinds of email.
I got calls, matter of fact, from some pilots.
And they were talking about some of the stupid policy of the TSA.
Matter of fact, a lot of pilots call the TSA, they call them thugs hanging around.
But anyway, this pilot was telling me that they even take uh stuff away from pilots, you know, uh fingernail clippers, files, or some sharp objects.
And this particular pilot, he was telling me how stupid that was to take a fingernail file from a pilot and in his cockpit he has a crash axe.
You know, great big axe that they use to, you know, if they if the plane crashes to chop the way out of it.
Now you tell me which is more dangerous, a fingernail file or a crash axe.
But uh but we're what we need to do, we need to do terrorist profiling.
That is, we need to spend our resources and to catch people who look like terrorists, terrorists.
Granny, an 86-year-old woman, she does not look like a terrorist, and she probably is not.
And it turns out that the majority of terrorism done, at least in recent years, has been done by radical Muslim males, 18 to 40.
And so the search should be uh confined mostly to those people.
You know, it's almost like, but people say, you know, Norman Manetta says, well, we're not gonna do racial profiling.
Well, that has to be that you know, that has to be stupid, I think.
That is uh, you know, and let's go back to profiling in general.
Let me ask you a question.
Suppose you're a sheriff and a woman reports to you that she was raped.
Now, in order to avoid being charged with sexual profiling, would you investigate women as well as men?
So that you wouldn't get in trouble with Norman Manetta.
And as a matter of fact, if I were a terrorist, I would love the fact that the TSA is spending resources searching people who have virtually a zero probability of being a security threat.
Why?
Because they would have fewer resources to spend looking for me.
So I don't know how we're going to whether we're going to get some intelligence about inter uh fighting terrorism in general.
I mean, yeah, you got the whole country or the whole world up in arms about how we're treating cutthroats at Arab uh Abu Ghraib prison or at Getmo.
Worrying about how we're treating cutthroats, these people who want to kill us.
Uh I don't understand it.
And you know, matter of fact, let me just give you an idea, because many of you weren't born at the time when there was sanity in America.
But during World War II, uh the U.S. soldiers in Germany, when they, or in France, when they caught German officers out of uniform, out of their own uniform, they were shot.
Matter of fact, History Channel a few weeks ago, a few months ago, uh, carried a story about it.
And then also during World War II, a German submarine landed eight saboteurs in Florida and New York.
They were caught.
They hadn't bombed or killed anybody.
They were caught.
President Roosevelt held a military tribunal.
Two months later, they were executed.
Now, can you imagine you know if Nancy Pelosi or Dick Durbin was around, they'd be worrying about how we're treating the Germans.
But during that time, to have an enemy on the shores of United States was enough to put a bullet through his head.
And I think we might want to reconsider uh our policy in light of that.
We're going to come back with your calls after this.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have ignorance on the run.
We're pushing back the frontiers of ignorance.
And let's welcome to the show Hunter from Brooklyn, New York.
Welcome to the show, Bruh Hunter.
Yes, hello, good afternoon, Mr. Williams.
Yes.
I think a gentleman said earlier, I enjoyed your guest hosting.
Well, thank you.
And of course, this is not to zap you, of course, not.
Uh this is to try to go along with the a question that you stated, and this is just for the information of the country.
I believe you said the gentleman that was on with you a moment ago yesterday, I think, which article, and uh there may not be an exact article, but the opening to the Constitution states that for the uh to promote the general welfare of the nation.
Uh Congress, I mean, we enacted the Constitution of the United States of America.
So uh in answer to that 1933 question, I think then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had authority to enact the Social Security Act.
See the Social Security Act is for the entire nation.
It's not just for a particular group of people, it's for the entire nation.
Well, let me let me run something up by you.
Um would you agree that James Madison is the father of the Constitution.
All right.
Yeah, and uh let me just give you a quotation by James Madison, and I won't read all of it.
Yes, sir.
Uh he said, with respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphos of the Constitution into a character which there's a host of proofs not contemplated by its creators.
Now that was James Madison.
Now let's go to uh Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to Albert Gallatin in 1817, he says, quote, Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare.
I agree with that.
But only those specifically enumerated.
Now that means only when he says specifically enumer enumerated, it means only those things that are listed in the Constitution.
So the the general welfare, uh matter of fact, I believe it was Madison, uh, who said that that's the most dangerous clause in the con in uh uh having in the Constitution and it will lead to a lot of mischief because people will say anything's a general welfare.
So so the the the framers of the Constitution say that again the the you know what the enumerated powers of Congress are?
Those uh pick up your Constitution and read Article I Section Eight.
Those consist of the enumerated powers of Congress.
Anything not there, Congress cannot do.
And matter of fact, let's just one one more lesson before we uh we're up against a little uh time break here.
Um with respect to the Bill of Rights, both Madison and Hamilton did not want the Bill of Rights.
And know why they didn't want the Bill of Rights?
Not because they're against people, but here's Hamilton Hamilton said, and you can read this in uh in one of the Federalist papers, I forget which one.
He said, Why should we have a Bill of Rights saying that, and he used the example of free speech, saying that Congress cannot limit free speech, because he says that Congress can only do what we in fact say that they can do.
Now, if you he said it is impossible to list all the freedoms that people have as human beings.
And if you had a list and those things that were not on the list would be presumed Not to exist.
And so the the frames of the Constitution, they wanted a very limited government.
Now states can do all these things.
There could be a state of New York uh Social Security program, but Congress has no authority and the general welfare clause does not give them that authority.
But the co the Constitution, I believe, Mr. Williams does give the president a certain discretion of the use of power.
And of course I would only do I only hope you've used it for good now.
I know, but he can only use the power to w what's in the Constitution.
Yes.
Well, I I agree with that.
But I'm saying again, since we do give him uh he does have a sweet discretionary power, if it is for the good and proven to be for the good of the nation.
That's one thing I was saying.
Okay, what do you what do you think of this honor?
All right.
That now I can think of something that's good for the nation.
Uh there have been numerous studies that show that a sedentary lifestyle and eating a lot of burgers are not very good.
Would you support the president mandating for the good of the nation?
Oh, wait a minute.
Exercise every morning.
Dude to get up and do jumping jacks.
I mean, it it's for the good of the nation.
No, I would say it's for good of the nation because guess what, Mr. Williams?
A lot of people would have a heart attack.
I I well no, but but see, if you weren't sitting around watching T V, you wouldn't you you and exercise, you wouldn't have a heart attack.
All right.
Okay, so so what what am I what I'm saying?
It's uh you don't want the government saying uh forcing us to do what's in our interest.
I mean, for example, yeah, I can think of a lot of things.
I think eight hours, seven, eight hours sleep is good.
Would you like the president to come on using his discretionary power, saying everybody had to be in bed by by ten o'clock?
Well, you see though, Mr. Williams, here's something.
Well, actually, when you get into the Social Security Act, we we uh I I may understand you may understand that several of us may be okay.
But again, I will we it's you know what?
You're really in the right here.
But I'm still political.
Well look, look, yeah, I tell you one thing.
Uh thank you for calling, but but uh whenever you call this show, we are in the right.
We are definitely in the right.
Let's go to let's go to Jill.
Uh the my first lady calling today.
Welcome to the show, Jill.
Oh, hi, Dr. Williams.
You're my favorite guest host.
Well, thank you.
Yeah, I've enjoyed your show today.
I always learned something.
But I listen, I'm calling today because tomorrow is my anniversary, and I think that you always have the most thoughtful gifts for the lovely Mrs. Williams.
Yes.
So I was kind of hoping you could make some suggestions for my lovely husband of uh perhaps some things he could uh get for me.
Well, let me first ask you.
Are you an obedient and respectful wife?
Absolutely.
I I try very hard to be faithful to the uh good housewife guide.
Oh, yeah, you saw you saw that.
Well well, let me just ask you how do you address your husband?
Um I uh usually honey or or something affectionate.
I don't allow Mrs. Williams to do that.
Oh dear.
Oh, you know, f first of all, when we first got married, she called you know, she just called me Walter.
Oh, really?
Yeah, by my first name.
Did she scream it?
No, no, she said it very nicely.
And I t I told her, I said, look, Mrs. Williams, it's okay if you call me by my first name, but my first name is Professor.
Oh it's Professor Williams.
That's Mrs. Williams who addresses me, and I don't uh, you know, yeah, you don't hear people calling uh, you know, Norman, you know, they call him General Swartzkoff.
You don't hear people calling uh Bushy or they call him President Bush.
Right.
And so I think maybe a good start to redeem yourself with your spouse is to address him as Mr. Okay.
He he might not have a doctorate, does he?
Does he have a PhD?
No, he does not.
Okay, well, you just have to call him Mr. Now here's what I got Mrs. Williams for uh for her gift this time.
And I'd be very quick because I'm up against the clock.
I bought her uh for an anniversary and ice cream mixer because I got tired of her seeing, you know, her arms, little arms are getting tired, you know, uh whipping my ice cream for me.
And it's a nice queas and art uh automatic ice cream maker.
She just puts the juice in and uh and sits down, watches uh Jerry Springer.
Right and then uh the ice cream's made.
That's great.
That's and so I am recommend to your husband that he buy you an ice cream maker.
That I would I would use the ice cream maker.
Okay, we'll be back after this.
Segment uh but it was fun.
Uh folks, for the next time I come to your show, I want you to prepare.
Read the Constitution of the United States, it's the rules of the game.
I carry one in my briefcase all the time.
▲
Export Selection