All Episodes
Previous Next
July 29, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
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 Shattuck.
He is the representative to the House of Representatives from Arizona, and he's done wonderful work in Washington.
As I said in the beginning of the 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 haven't seen you.
There's this group that Ron Paul has.
Liberty Caucus.
Yeah, the Liberty Caucus.
Yeah, that's the last time we saw you.
And that's a wonderful group of people that you have there.
It is a group of people that at least understand the founding of the nation and some of the principles that we regrettably forget too often.
That's absolutely right.
What I'd like to start out with is your health insurance choice program.
Would you just kind of explain it to us what that's all about?
I sure would.
I think your listeners know we have 45 million uninsured Americans.
A part of the reason for that, 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 health insurance?
If they work for a large employer, of course, they get employer-based 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 authority as close to the people as possible.
And I believe in the system where state insurance commissioners can intercede on behalf of a consumer who has a problem with his or her insurance company.
But unfortunately, along with state regulation, we have left in place state legislation saying that you cannot today in America buy a health insurance policy in the state you live in 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 50 states has to get licensed in all 50 states.
But worse than that, Walter, that policy must meet every requirement of state law, including every single benefit mandate.
And 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, someone would want, if they bought health insurance, emergency room coverage.
But the benefit mandates in this country have run amok.
Whereas two decades ago, or maybe even less, I think there were 18 mandates or as few as seven mandated by state law.
Now there are more than 1,800.
And they go to, 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.
What's aromatherapy?
You tell me.
Aromatherapy is...
I mean, if I don't smell well...
No, aromatherapy is 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 going to sell insurance in our state, you have to provide coverage so that if somebody wants to go be cured by having an aromatherapist tell them which aromas, which smells, would cure them of their illness, that's got to be a mandated coverage.
And I have no use for that.
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 essentially on the market.
That is, if I want to buy a policy from an insurer in Utah, well, I live in Pennsylvania, I could do so.
That's pretty much it.
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.
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 the most basic one, which is financial solvency.
And the solvency test is a standard across the nation.
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, 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 the bureaucracy of bringing it to market would be lower.
And so it would be a lower cost policy and enable some of the 45 million uninsured to be able to afford coverage.
And some of the mandates are completely ludicrous.
You gave a couple of examples, but one that I find rather strange is that in some states, the mandate is that 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.
But that can really drive the cost.
Well, let me give you some examples.
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, 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, say, $300 a month for their family insurance.
The individual living in New Jersey would have just gotten their bill and it would be $1,200 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.
My goodness.
People would shop with their feet.
Their brother or their cousin, look, I'm going to 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 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 75% of my health insurance.
Oh, my goodness.
Imagine if we applied that 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 that's exactly how it works.
The amazing thing is that in the 10 years since New Jersey enacted a guaranteed issue, a huge number of people that were in their individual market, some two-thirds,
have dropped out of the individual market, gone uninsured, and said, well, I'm not going to pay to buy, I'm not going to 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 70,000 people in New Jersey have dropped out of the individual health insurance market, precisely for the reason you point out.
And that is, if you didn't have to buy fire insurance until your house caught fire, 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 that has other effects.
That is, as more people do that, then the insurance companies have to charge higher premiums.
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.
The notion is that you're setting aside a little bit of money 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 nobody's going to 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, 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 a comparable policy in, say, Chicago, Illinois, or Dallas, Texas is in the range of $400 a month.
The same policy in Maine is $2,600 a month.
Oh, my goodness.
And by the way, if your measure would pass or if the proposal, health insurance choice would pass, then it would put pressure on the various health insurance companies to 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 mandate benefits.
They've adopted a reasonable number and they cover the basic things that people would want.
Some states have let it run wild.
For example, Maryland, down here near D.C., has a very, very high number of mandates.
I believe if 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 are doing a disservice to our residents here in Maryland.
Maybe we ought to look at whether or not we should be mandating aromatherapy or acupuncture or, for example, hair replacement, all kinds of things that are perhaps appropriate if you want to spend the money to buy them, but clearly not necessary.
Yeah.
Can you hold on?
We want to 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 Shattuck from Arizona, and we're talking about his proposal for competition and health insurance.
John.
Yes.
Now, this issue is entirely new to me, at least what you're proposing.
Where can people find out about this?
You have a website or?
I do have a website.
Just maybe just do a Google and they'll come up.
Or just johnshattuk.house.gov.
Okay, well.
John Shattuck is S-H-A-D like the fish, E-G-G.
Okay, great.
Now, what kind of support are you getting with this?
Well, I'm very pleased with the support that we're getting, Walter.
For one thing, the speaker likes the idea.
I mean, I think he kind of summed it up pretty well by saying in the insurance field, it is as though we are saying to people, you must buy a Cadillac, and if you cannot afford a Cadillac, or perhaps even a Rolls-Royce, depending upon the mandates in your state, well, then you get absolutely nothing.
Of course, in that market, we say to people, well, if you can't afford a Rolls-Royce Royce or a Cadillac, well, then you can buy a Chevy or a Kia.
But in the insurance industry, because of these mandates, we are 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, we received just this week a very strong endorsement from the Wall Street Journal.
And I probably should not fail to mention that in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in New York, the President embraced this idea, and we've gotten signals from the White House that they're anxious to help us carry the legislation into law beginning in September.
So we've got a great deal of encouragement.
I got a little hometown editorial support from both 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 you proposed several times.
One of my favorites.
Yeah, one of your favorites, and actually my favorite as well.
And just explain that, just in a few sentences or two, 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.
Unfortunately, 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 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 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 its constitutional authority.
Yes, and I'm reading 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 want to put you on the spot, but that's one of my fun things to do anyway.
Now, if you were around in 1933 when we had the Social Security Act, could you point to where in the Constitution the specific authority for the Social Security Act?
Well, fortunately, I wasn't around in 1933 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.
And I think we would have had some different constitutional or Supreme Court decision of law between now and then, were this in place.
I think many members of Congress think that there is a general powers clause that gives us the authority to basically write anything we want.
But careful reading the Constitution I think says it does not.
But at a minimum, we should be looking at this issue.
By the way, 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, I think, slowed the passage of the bill.
They're not sure.
I think they're smarter than we give them credit for.
They recognize that we're acting outside of our power.
That's right.
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 and states are indefinite and numerous.
Absolutely.
And this is what you're trying to achieve.
Precisely.
Well, thanks, John.
Thanks for coming on the show.
I think what you're doing is some really wonderful things that we need, and particularly this health care measure.
And anything that would introduce competition in almost any area is going to prove beneficial to the consumers.
Well, Walter, I appreciate that.
If I might put in one more quick plug, you raised your business.
You got to do it for 20 seconds.
Oh, okay.
As you know, we in Congress have looked at a bill that would say we should take the Social Security surplus, which Congress is now spending on general revenue things and devote that Social Security surplus to personal accounts and quit spending Social Security taxes on things other than Social Security.
I think that's another step in the right direction.
Well, I agree 100%.
And thanks again, and good luck in trying to sell your colleagues on the Constitution.
We're back.
That was Congressman John Shadduck on with us 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 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.
I think he's at AEI, isn't he?
American Enterprise Institute.
I think so.
Anyway, well, the title of the piece is called Give Grandma a Pass.
And he's talking about politically correct screening at the airports.
And there's another issue in the newspaper today that the Transportation Security Administration is laying off some screeners, the TSA.
Anyway, I'm completely shocked with this first paragraph, and it really has nothing to do with airport screening.
And it says, 6% of British Muslims, more than 100,000 citizens, thought the July 7th 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 Telegraph poll is that these trends are worse among younger Muslims.
I mean, I find that amazing.
But that's probably not true in the United States about Muslims, American Muslims.
They are far more patriotic, I think.
And anyway, later in the article, he talks about how we responded to the bombing in London.
He says it's been reflexive and idiotic.
You know, random bag checks in New York subways.
And random, meaning that people are stopped to be searched randomly, just numerically.
And he says that grandmothers shouldn't be searched at the airports, getting on planes.
You know, what's the probability that a 60-year-old, 80-year-old woman is carrying a bomb or intends to hijack a plane?
But if you ask the TSA, you know what they say?
They would say, it's possible.
Because it's possible that a 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 mine detector to see whether anybody laid some mines on my property and blow me up because it's possible.
Is it probable?
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 column.
It's on my website, walterwilliams.com.
Matter of fact, I did three of them called Stupid Airport Security, one, two, and three.
And 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 standing around.
But anyway, this pilot was telling me that they even take stuff away from pilots.
You know, 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.
A 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 what we need to do, we need to do terrorist profiling.
That is, we need to spend our resources to catch people who look like 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 this search should be confined mostly to those people.
You know, it's almost like, but people say, you know, Norman Mineta says, well, we're not going to do racial profiling.
Well, that has to be, you know, that has to be stupid, I think.
That is, you know, 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 Mineta?
And 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 fighting terrorism in general.
I mean, here you've got the whole country or the whole world up in arms about how we're treating cutthroats at Abu Gharib prison or at Gitmo.
Worrying about how we're treating cutthroats, these people who want to kill us.
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 a time when there was sanity in America.
But during World War II, the U.S. soldiers in Germany, 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, 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 the United States was enough to put a bullet through his head.
And I think we might want to reconsider 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, Brian Hunter.
Yes, hello, good afternoon, Mr. Williams.
Yes.
As 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.
This is to try to go along with 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 there may not be an exact article, but the opening to the Constitution states that to promote the general welfare of the nation, Congress, I mean, we enacted the Constitution of the United States of America.
So 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 run something up by you.
Would you agree that James Madison is the father of the Constitution?
All right.
You know, and let me just give you a quotation by James Madison, and I won't read all of it.
Yes, sir.
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 metamorphosis 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 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 enumerated, it means only those things that are listed in the Constitution.
So the general welfare, matter of fact, I believe it was Madison who said that that's the most dangerous clause in the Constitution and it will lead to a lot of mischief because people will say anything's a general welfare.
So the framers of the Constitution say that, again, you know what the enumerated powers of Congress are?
Pick up your Constitution and read Article 1, Section 8.
Those consist of the enumerated powers of Congress.
Anything not there, Congress cannot do.
And matter of fact, let's just one more lesson before we're up against a little time break here.
With respect to the Bill of Rights, both Madison and Hamilton did not want the Bill of Rights.
And you know why they didn't want the Bill of Rights?
Not because they're against people.
But here's what Hamilton said, and you can read this 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 framers of the Constitution, they wanted a very limited government.
Now, states can do all these things.
There could be a state of New York Social Security program, but Congress has no authority, and the general welfare clause does not give them that authority.
But the Constitution, I believe, Mr. Williams, does give the President a certain discretion of the use of power.
And of course, I would only use it.
I only hope he uses it for good now.
I know, but he can only use the power to what's in the Constitution.
Yes, well, I agree with that.
But I'm saying, again, since we do give him, he does have a certain discretionary power, if it is for the good and proven to be for the good of the nation.
That's the only thing I would say.
Okay, what do you think of this, Honor?
All right.
Now, I can think of something that's good for the nation.
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 to exercise every morning to get up and do jumping jacks?
I mean, it's for the good of the nation.
No, I would say it's for the good of the nation because guess what, Mr. Williams?
A lot of people have a heart attack.
But see, if you weren't sitting around watching TV, you wouldn't, and exercise, you wouldn't have a heart attack.
All right.
Okay.
Okay, so what I'm saying, you don't want the government saying, forcing us to do what's in our interest.
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 10 o'clock?
Well, you see, though, Mr. Williams, here's something.
Well, actually, when you get into the Social Security Act, I may understand, you may understand that several of us may be okay.
But again, I will, you know what?
You're really in the right here.
But I'm still political.
I'll tell you one thing.
Thank you for calling, but whenever you call this show, we are in the right.
We are definitely in the right.
Let's go to Jill.
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 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 perhaps some things he could get for me.
Well, let me first ask you, are you an obedient and respectful wife?
Absolutely.
I try very hard to be faithful to the good housewife guy.
Oh, you saw that.
Well, let me just ask you, how do you address your husband?
Usually honey or something affectionate.
I don't allow Mrs. Williams to do that.
Oh, dear.
Oh, you know, 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 told her, I said, look, Mrs. Williams, it's okay if you call me by my first name, but my first name is Professor.
It's Professor Williams.
That's what Mrs. Williams addresses me.
And I don't, you know, yeah, you don't hear people calling, you know, Norman.
You know, they call him General Schwarzkopf.
You don't hear people calling 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 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 for her gift this time.
And I have to be very quick because I'm up against the clock.
I bought her for an anniversary and ice cream mixer because I got tired of her seeing her arms, little arms and getting tired, you know, whipping my ice cream for me.
And it's a nice Cuisinart automatic ice cream maker.
She just puts the juice in and sits down, watches Jerry Springer.
Right.
And then the ice cream's made.
That's great.
And so I recommend to your husband that he buy you an ice cream maker.
I appreciate that.
I would use the ice cream maker.
Okay, we'll be back after this.
Segment, but it was fun.
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.
▲
Export Selection