All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 8, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
August 8, 2005, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I probably shouldn't do the segment I'm about to do.
I probably should not do this because I know I'm going to be misinterpreted and I'm probably going to be misunderstood.
But I'm going to do it anyway.
Doing it in the third hour for a reason.
I can only destroy one hour of the program if indeed this does turn out to be a disaster.
First two hours are in the bag, and nothing I do from here on can ruin what has already happened.
I want you to understand, I do support repeal of the estate tax, or as it's called, the death tax.
Every argument that has been made for repeal makes sense to me.
Intellectually, I support it.
Ideologically, I certainly support it because I don't support any taxes ideologically.
But I've got a hang up here, and it's the same hang up that liberals have when you try to discuss issues with them.
As those of you who are conservative know, it can be very frustrating arguing an issue with a liberal because after five or ten seconds of substance, they immediately change the subject, they will not engage, and they instead get into some sort of dumb emotional argument that you can't respond to.
You try to argue logic and they'll try to argue emotion.
In hosting my own local radio program, you hear this all the time.
If you're talking about anything pertaining to President Bush or any issue dealing with Bush, they'll just go back and they'll take a cheap shot about the 2000 election.
They will not stay on the subject and they will not engage on the topic.
Here's my deal on the estate tax.
We've got a real problem in the United States.
Congress did lower the estate tax gradually every year up through 2010, the amount of money that is exempt from being taxed when you die goes up.
In other words, you get a higher amount of untaxed money that you can pass on to your heirs, and the rate goes down.
But at the end of 2010, the law just expires and everything reverts back to what it was.
Now obviously this is a disaster.
If you have a tax that in 2010 is substantially lower than it will be in 2011, you know what's going to happen.
Every elderly person is going to be looked at by their will by their family member.
Well, you hurry up and die, we're going to lose all the money if you don't kick it now.
That's what's going to happen.
We can't have that kind of radical change in taxation policy in which the tax on death goes way up from the end of 2010 to early 2011.
It's somewhat humorous, but it's also true.
If you're someone who is sick and old and two or three weeks before that deadline, you're going to take that into consideration because for people who have decent sized estates, big ones, this is a lot of money.
Congress, Republicans in Congress, most of them at least, want to pass a permanent reduction or elimination in the estate tax.
They've given up on an elimination.
They just don't have the votes.
The moderate Republicans in the Senate and the House don't want to go for a total elimination.
Senator Kyle, uh John Kyle, uh conservative Republican senator from Arizona, is now proposing a significant reduction in the estate tax that would not eliminate it.
Kyle's plan would free up the first three and a half million dollars.
In other words, if the estate is less than $3.5 million, there would be no tax on it at all.
After that, after the $3.5 million, under the Kyle plan, the tax would kick in at a reduced rate, lower than it is right now, 15%.
That's a huge reduction.
Under the law that was passed by Congress several years ago, in 2010, the estate rent tax goes down to getting the first three and a half million free, just as Kyle is proposing, but then everything over the top taxed at a rate of 45%.
Kyle would take it down to 15.
Now I'll give you a little bit of basis for where we are under current law.
It started with only the first $1 million being free from taxation.
That's gone up gradually.
Right now it's $1.5 million.
Starting in 2006, it's $2 million.
And by 2009, the first $3.5 million are free from taxation.
So they're gradually phasing in this reduction in taxes in the estate tax by increasing the amount of money that is exempt from taxation.
In addition, the rate goes down.
In 2003, the top tax rate for estate taxes was 49%.
It's 48% last year.
It's 47% this year.
And by 2007, it goes down to 45%.
So that's where we are right now.
Looking at freeing up $3.5 million and then taxing it at 45%.
Kyle wants to take that all the way down to 15%.
Now, every good argument that I can make argues for eliminating the tax.
First of all, morally, it is the ultimate sign of overtaxation.
After some poor soul has paid taxes all his or her life in every possible fashion.
To then nail them again for committing the terrible sin of dying is just wrong.
It's the government literally grave robbing.
person has worked all of his or her life has built up this money and is choosing to give it to whomever he or she wants whether it's their relatives or charity or the brother in law or the Moonies or whomever they want to give the money to someone it was their money and for the government to come in at that point and just snatch it when nothing has happened to the money other than the person who owned that money died is just wrong.
People should be able to take that money and pass it along in addition to that when government does take that money it is taking it out of the private economy wherever it would have gone be it to heirs or somewhere else that money would have been put into the pri into the private capital markets and would be turning over which is another reason why the estate tax should be eliminated entirely or at the very least dramatically reduced.
So I know all of this.
I know all of this.
But I've got a problem.
And it's completely unjustifiable.
I can't defend it.
There's nothing ideologically sound about it.
It's all based on emotionalism and class envy and every other terrible character trait of the left.
I keep coming back to Paris Hilton.
I keep...
it is there is something wrong with a country that allows her to run around with how many millions of dollars to live whatever kind of a lifestyle she has when she has not done one productive thing in her life I have worked my entire life most of you work your life we have developed what we have because of hard work there is a reason that we have it.
Will you explain to me the reason that Paris Hilton has all of this money?
It wasn't even her father.
It was her grandfather or her great-grandfather.
And it isn't just her.
Although the fact that you cannot pick up a daily newspaper in America every single day without seeing her adds to this.
What about the Kennedys?
The whole crowd of the idol rich, usually not even second generation.
The second generation types tend to work pretty hard and try to build on what the first generation has given them.
it's the third and fourth generation they never do anything productive furthermore have you noticed anything about third and fourth generation liberals rather for third and fourth generation heirs they're all liberals.
They are all lefties there is a reason for that while they have all of these assets they really don't have a lot of income because they're not working instead they have these huge huge huge trust funds that they draw money off of to pay for their exorbitant living expenses but they don't have massive income that is coming in.
So they aren't taxed in the same fashion that the so-called rich are being taxed.
That's the great fallacy about the Democratic arguments for having high marginal tax rates on people of high income saying we're trying to soak the rich.
Many of the rich don't have a lot of income.
They have assets, they have wealth that we are not taxing.
By taxing the income by taxing income you are taxing people who are trying to get rich.
You're taxing people who actually are working.
You're taxing people who actually are putting money into the economy.
But these third and fourth generation trust fund brats have done absolutely nothing to earn that money.
They aren't paying that much in taxes but then they love to prattle around about oh well you know I think we should have a tax increase on the rich because I'm rich and I'm willing to pay my fair share.
Well first of all you never did anything to get all of that money and secondly you're not being paid you're not paying at the same rate as someone who owns a business or somebody who is working but I admit that most of this is just that I resent the fact that they're rich and they haven't done anything to really deserve it which puts me in the same category as all of these lefties.
So I want you to understand I know I'm wrong with those feelings.
I know there should be no estate tax the notion that by eliminating the estate tax you are giving a free taxation ride to people who do not deserve it.
So what I need from Russia's audience is some bucking up here.
You got to tell me why the estate tax has to go or at the very least why it has to be dramatically lowered why it's just wrong.
Because I'm wobbly and I'm shaky on this one eight hundred two eight two eight eight two is the telephone number my name is Mark Belling and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Schizoid, conflicted a little irrational I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh only on this issue though, the estate tax I believe it should be repealed.
I believe it's wrong but there are reasons why I wouldn't be all that upset if we kept it and I need to be uh I need to have those reasons taken away from me.
Uh to the audience we go St. Louis Scott Scott you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Yeah, Mark, I enjoy your hosting of the show.
Thank you.
And I want to say emphatically I agree with you about the immorality of the death tax.
Now, as to the issue about Paris Hilton and the trust fund, baby, I say this.
As frustrating as it is to watch such people want the wealth that perhaps they did not earn, I think what you have to do is take a focus off of that particular person and reroute it to the hardworking person that created and generated the wealth in the first place.
And if you respect the individual's right to make their own wealth and do with it as they please, we can defer to them that they wanted to give it to Paris Hilton or their heirs and as frustrating as it may be.
I know I I I know well you're you're you're obviously absolutely right about that because that hardworking person that estate that that person has that's what they've been able to to keep after being taxed all of their lives too it's not like the government hasn't had their crack at whoever the person was who originated all of the wealth in the first place because the government taxed that person literally to death and then when they do die they come in and they grab it again.
But whomever it was, whichever Hilton created all of the wealth, Conrad or whomever it was, who was the first Hilton, whichever Hilton created all of the wealth probably doesn't want Paris spending it the way that Paris is spending it.
You can't disconnect it from who it is that receives it because while you are right, the person who created the wealth is the individual who earned that money and ought to have the right to determine where it goes.
The fact of the matter is that person actually isn't here anymore to be taxed, but you are really determined.
doing is taxing the recipients and getting the money out of them the one and only time you're probably ever going to be able to tax them because this is the one time they are actually getting it as income themselves.
Well what if the recipient is responsible uh you know not like a Paris Silvia I mean then do you say it's fair to tax them?
Well I'll tell you how we can make that work.
If someone who is incredibly wealthy wants to put me in their estate so I then receives all of receive all of that I'm sure I'll be much more okay with the notion of getting rid of the estate tax.
If I actually got it yes I'm sure self-interest would dominate you are right About this, because the money was created by someone who has the absolute right to direct it to his or her family and whomever he or she chooses.
And the government's take has been obscene.
I mean, you're talking here about right, even at the reduced rates that we're going to, forty-five percent of everything over three and a half million dollars.
The argument that you can make for keeping it in place is that the vast majority of estates are less than three and a half million dollars.
That's going to change for a lot of reasons, including inflation, the baby boom, able to build up all of these estates with real estate and so on, that's going to change.
But most people are getting it tax-free anyway.
You're only talking about taxing those who have fairly sizable estates anyhow.
So I mean, I I really am torn on the issue because I do think that everybody has some obligation to feel the pain that those of us who are working are uh you know are feeling.
And if you don't hit them with an inheritance tax, you're really not hitting them any other time that they're gaining that income.
Well, I I I'm in agreement.
I it's just I have friends that are trust fund babies, and some of them live a little carelessly, frankly, but and sometimes it can be frustrating, but I just choose to defer because I in some cases I know their parents are grandparents, and even if I don't, I just choose to respect uh the hard work that they did,
and again, if their money trickles down to someone that may be a little care less, uh I think it's I would still I think you only got two choices, either you can respect individual property rights in in this case particularly wealth, um, or you can start meddling, which I agree with you is the moral, and I'd rather suffer the Paris Hilton than tamper with people's uh private property and wealth.
You know, you're absolutely right.
Uh you are absolutely right about that.
Logically, there's no response that I can give on the other hand, can you imagine how puny the W-2 statements that the Kennedys get at the end of every year?
Yet they're swimming in cash.
They are swimming, they are swimming in cash, and as I said, find a press fund baby who is not a left-winger.
They all are, because they do not appreciate the fact that this money is being taken from them because they never did anything to earn it.
Thank you for the call.
Uh appreciate it, Scott.
Scott is absolutely right.
I have no real response to it.
Steve on a cell phone in Corona, California.
Steve, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark.
Here's where I think you might be going wrong a little bit.
The Paris Hiltons of the world really are not the ones affected by the estate tax, because I can almost wager that within six months of the birth of the next little Hilton or Rockefeller that comes into this world, they have millions of dollars of life insurance.
The trust attorneys are working, and while they can't avoid the estate tax, they just have to spend a little money to buy enough insurance, get the trust in order so that they can pay the estate tax without actually affecting their estate.
You're actually talking about the trickle-down effect of the uh of the reduction of the estate attacks.
Everyone remember when Reagan first brought that up and he was ridiculed, and of course he's been proven correct, that whenever you do re uh reduce taxes, there is a trickle-down effect.
You are right about that.
If, and I'll use Paris Hilton again because we are I am trying to personalize the issue.
She is one example of a person who would benefit from this sort of thing.
If we use Paris Hilton as an example of someone like that, if she were to get a bigger bundle than she would otherwise get because of a reduction or elimination of the estate of tax, we certainly know this based on what we've seen so far.
She'd put that money into the marketplace somewhere, it would be spent.
On the other hand, where is it going to be spent?
Whole lot of masseurs are probably going to get money, and Gucci's going to see an increase in their in their market share.
But you're right, the money is going to be put to use.
It's going to be spent in all sorts of ways, life insurance policies, estate planning, and so on, when money is not taken by the government and is kept in the hands of private individuals, it goes to work in ways that benefit all of the rest of us.
You're absolutely right about that, Steve.
People who really get hurt by it are the first generational wealth who build a little business of ten, twenty million, but they don't build it until they're already in their sixties and possibly uninsurable with maybe some cancer or diabetes or something in their life.
And they never get to enjoy it.
And the and neither do their heirs.
And they should be able to leave that to their heirs.
So the super rich multi-generational Wealth really aren't the ones that are seeing their wealth significantly reduced by the estate tax, it's killing the first generational wealth.
Yeah, I agree.
I agree with you.
And if out of this nonsensical commentary I'm making about Paris Hilton comes a s comes a serious point, it ought to be this one.
The absolute wrongness of these high confiscatory tax rates on people who are actually earning income now, because you're right, in the cases of many of them, they don't get a chance to enjoy that wealth until they've actually they've actually retired because they've been spending all these years working to earn that money as the government's been cobbing its 35 and 40 and 45% from them all the way as they go along.
I'm Mark Bellings sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Belling's sitting in for Rush.
He'll be back tomorrow.
Rush Limbaugh.com up and running, podcast, club getmo material, everything else there.
Don't let word of this wobbliness on the estate tax get back to Rush, though.
I'm not explaining it well enough myself.
I don't need you guys explaining to me.
I am philosophically, ideologically, and intellectually opposed to the estate tax, but I do understand why some people advocate for it.
And I have a sense myself that we'd be better off in this country lowering income tax income tax race rates by keeping at least some semblance of an estate tax because the estate tax elimination, if it happens, or reduction is largely going to benefit people who haven't done really anything to earn their earn their money.
Having said that, I realize those emotional arguments are stupid, and I'm soliciting a little bit of intellectual support from the audience.
And so far, very, very good comments as to why the estate tax needs to go.
Long Island and Mark, Mark, you're on EIB.
You hear me?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Okay.
Uh no, I think the estate tax is is a very good idea.
It's not really a death tax because if you die and you want to be buried with your money, you know, you're not going to be taxed with that.
It's only when you pass it to people who didn't do anything at all to earn it that you get taxed on it.
And uh this was set up by the founding fathers to uh prevent, you know, people like the Kennedys from being an aristocracy.
It's a very those are the very kind of people was meant to uh to tax.
Actually, you're wrong about that.
I am.
I have, thanks to the crack EIB staff, a history of the estate tax or the death tax.
It was first enacted in July 16th of 1797.
I think that would have been the presidency of John Adams.
You know why they created it?
When it gives you a build for a naval rearmament against a feared war with France.
Once again, another problem that we have in this country that has some sort of a French connection.
They created the estate tax in 1797 because they tried to they were trying to build up revenue to reinforce the Navy for fear of a war with France.
If they only knew they had nothing to fear, this whole concept never would have started.
It actually was phased out after four years when they raised as much money as was necessary to deal with the terrible French threat.
It was brought back in 1862 to help pay for the Civil War.
And then was eliminated again, returned in 1898 to help pay for the Spanish American War.
So each time this thing, and eventually it was made permanent, but each time they brought the estate tax back, it was to pay for a war.
Maybe a compromise here is we should use this thing to pay for the war in Iraq.
That way none of the lefties are going to be able to complain about the cost because we're gonna get all out of the supposedly filthy rich.
Maybe that's the answer.
With regard to the point that you make that it's not a tax on death, yeah, but it really is.
While you're you're right that it isn't paid in the lifetime of the individual who earned the money, the occasion for the taxation is death.
Our tax policies in this country are crazy because we keep taxing people for doing things that are not bad.
We tax them at greater rates when they are productive and successful in earning an income.
We tax them for owning a home, and now we tax them for committing the unpardonable sin of dying.
And while you're right, the individual who earned the money isn't paying it.
That person does have intents and does have purposes for the tax, Be it their relatives or a charity they want to help out or whatever, and they ought to have that right.
The other point that can be made while I'm prattling on about Paris Hilton, a lot of people use a big portion of their estates to give money to charity.
They give money to their church or to a cause that they care about.
Many people who suffer from an illness during their lifetime appreciate the support that they get and want to help in attempts to combat that illness, and they donate money to those pr to those causes.
The estate tax takes away some of that money as well.
So there's a lot of good that can be done by eliminating it depending on how the money is directed.
If only the original Hilton heirs had put the money into fighting cancer or heart disease or something like that instead of leaving it all for Paris, I wouldn't have the hang up that I have.
Thank you for the call, Mark.
Appreciate it.
Fremont, New Hampshire, Lisa, Lisa, you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark.
Um, it seems to me that you clearly believe in um behavior modification through taxation.
Because when you bring up uh Paris Hilton and the fact that clearly her great grandparents or whoever it was that left the money would never have intended it to be used the way she does, um you're leaving it up to the government to decide that um you know her behavior doesn't uh you know isn't acceptable and therefore warrants taxation of the money when um you know if the her great great grandparents um you know chose to set up the trust to say,
you know, like they used to do to say uh you will only inherit this money if you do such and such.
They have the right to behavior modify because they are obviously Paris isn't under any of those restrictions.
No, you cannot use the money to make a sex video which will turn you into an international superstar, which is by the way, why she's a huge star.
When that sex video came out to you, that is the thing that turned her from being one more celebrity bimbo into being a big deal.
And now she gets all of this money.
She didn't even make any money off of that.
It just made her famous.
So now before she was rich, now she's rich and she's famous.
You are right.
By having an ass you're you're right.
By having an estate tax in, you're actually calling for some sort of behavior modification.
But we do that with taxation policy all the time, and usually the behavior that we're modifying is proper, it's good behavior.
We're trying to deter people from earning earning money.
That's what the income tax does.
We are trying to deter them from owning property, which is what the property tax says.
We are trying to deter them from putting money into the economy through purchasing, which is what sales taxes do.
Every time we enact a tax that has a behavior modification component, it's to stop a good behavior.
That's that's fascism.
If you're if you're gonna, you know, use taxes to design people's behavior, that's basically what fascism is.
I know I'm just saying that the tax policy we have right now is aimed at stopping behavior that we ought to be encouraging.
That's how upside down uh that it is.
I well, I agree, but I don't think that we should use taxes to either encourage or discourage behavior.
It should purely be for the needs of the nation, such as what you suggested, you know, the fact that the uh uh inheritance tax was originally enacted for war.
And um, you know, that uh that generally people I think in this country that um believe in um you know our national defense as the most important um reason for the government to exist in the first place would agree with um you know donating.
You know, maybe there's an answer here.
Maybe there's an answer here.
If we took the money out of the inheritance tax now and dedicated it solely for support of the troops and of the war on Iraq, you'd actually have Teddy Kennedy and the rest of the Kennedys having to pay for this war that they've been demagoguing against as long as they have.
Thank you for the call, Lisa, to uh Pompano Beach, Florida, Dan.
Dan, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark, how are you doing?
I'm great, thank you.
As as in the uh individual income tax when the rates were cut, um they generated more revenues, so would happen with the estate taxes.
This is gonna appear better than it is when you eliminate the estate taxes uh because also the stepped up basis for the assets that the heirs received will be eliminated.
So for right now, grandpa gives you uh leaves you a a million dollars worth of General Motors stock that he paid a hundred thousand dollars.
This is obviously a hypothetical example in my case.
Okay, that's uh that's um uh he there's right now there's no tax on it.
Right.
But if we repeal the estate taxes, then the heirs are gonna have a basis of a hundred thousand dollars, and at some point in time they're gonna have to pay the capital gains on the difference between the fact that Kyle is using the John Kyle, who is the Senator from Arizona who is proposing this dramatic reduction is saying it makes sense his rate would be fifteen percent with the first three and a half million tax-free.
He's saying that the estate tax should be at the same rate as the long-term capital gains tax, which is fifteen percent, for precisely the reason that you state.
That does make some sense to me, since it looks like they're not going to be able to get rid of it entirely.
There just isn't enough support in Congress.
If you did lower the tax so that it equaled the tax on capital gains, it would make that transaction that you describe, leaving of the stock or leaving of the investment to the individual treated exactly the same way tax-wise.
So if it was the same rate as Kyle was suggesting, that would make at least some sense.
Thank you for the call, Dan.
Appreciate it.
Let's go to uh Jerry in Roseberg, Oregon.
Jerry, you're on Rush's program with Mark Belling.
Hello, Mark, how are you?
I'm great, thanks.
Hey, Mark, I think I can help you.
The problem is that uh you're trying to change your emotional reaction with logic and reason.
What we need is uh purely emotional argument against the estate tax.
Good, I'm all ears.
Uh the estate tax is no different in kind than picking the pockets of a dead man or robbing a grave.
If you visualize that image of Democrats in Congress getting into your grave to uh take the rings off your fingers, that might help you to uh have a uh an emotional negative reaction to the estate tax.
Hey, in my case, as a guy who didn't start with a lot and has gotten to be fairly successful doing what I'm doing.
They've been in my pockets all my life.
I would be surprised if they weren't in the grave with me.
I'd be surprised if there isn't an IRS agent who decides to get right down into the coffin with me.
The problem with that argument is as I visualize it, I'm not picking the pockets of the dead person.
I'm getting at least something out of the dead person's ungrateful relatives and granddaughters and grandsons who are simply gonna run around and give the money to move on.org and a bunch of other lefty causes, and then claim and then you know make themselves feel good because they're helping the underclass, they're helping people who have less money than them.
See, the problem I see with that argument, Mark, is that at the point that I die, it is up to me in my final instructions to distribute my wealth according to my wishes because I have earned it.
Do you think there should be it's not really my errors you're robbing?
It's you're taking away my personal freedom to do with my wealth as I see fit.
To do the wealth that you have left over after you've been taxed all your life on it.
Do you see any argument for having uh for having a uh the present policy of the cap of three and a half million and then you tax some of it after that?
In other words, you're only targeting the extremely wealthy estates.
No, I think any time we get into a situation where we are making our tax policy based on people's ability to pay or any time it's a graduated tax of any kind, we're essentially penalizing someone for succeeding.
You are I think that's a very dangerous crazy.
You are, and I want to make it clear to the audience that I think the estate tax is wrong, and I think it should be not just reduced, but eliminated.
And I'm just telling you the hang up that I have personally about it.
In terms of the impact on the real world society, the vast majority of us who are not part of three and a half million dollar estates, the real reason to get rid of it, aside from the moral argument, is that this money would go into the private economy.
Whatever money is not taxed and is therefore received by the beneficiaries is money that is going to be spent, and it does trickle down, as we've seen again and again and again.
It turns over, it's invested, whether it's Paris Hilton or just some guy who's the son of somebody who did well in life, or the daughter of someone who was a successful person or a granddaughter, if they can go out and buy another boat or buy a vacation home or do something with it, that money contributes to the overall economy as well, rather than going to Washington to be spent on more gunk that's going that's going to be uh you know spent if Congress gets its hands on it.
Thank you for the call.
I I think I've purged myself of this, and I appreciate the help from the audience.
It wasn't quite a twelve-step program, but it was close.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Can someone say a positive word about Bob Novak?
Yeah, he's the uh columnist for the Chicago Sun Times.
He is probably the only member of the mainstream media who is avowedly conservative.
And he is in the mainstream media.
Novak is a creature of the mainstream American media.
His column appears in mainstream newspapers.
He's been on mainstream television.
He's the one conservative who seems to have been allowed in there.
He's the guy that broke the story about Valerie Playm being in the CIA and directing her husband, Joe Wilson, to go to Niger to look into whether or not Saddam Hussein was trying to get enriched uranium in.
Novak was the guy who reported that, in fact, it was his CIA wife and not Dick Cheney that wanted him to go over there and do that mission.
No, I don't think Novak broke any laws.
I don't think that anybody else broke any laws.
I think exactly as Novak wrote last week, that somebody in the administration say, uh, you know, you know who's sending Joe Wilson over there, it's just his wife, and left it at that.
And Novak did, as he implied in his column, looking to got who's who out, looked up Joe Wilson, saw his wife's name, Valerie Plame, listed right in there.
It said Valerie Plame.
She now goes by Valerie Wilson.
He wrote Valerie Plame because he got it out of who's who, and that's all there's been to this stupid story all along.
Yet Novak has had his integrity challenged, he's had his repertorial credentials challenged.
There's been a suggestion that he somehow has ratted out whomever his source was to the United States attorney, whereas Jodith Miller is willing to go to jail.
Anyway, he's on CNN last week with uh Carville, and they were talking about Catherine Harris and her chances of being elected to the Senate in Florida, and Carville was cutting him off, and Novak apparently had enough of it, and he said, an obscenity.
You think, well, I think that's bleep bleep, and I hate that.
Just let it go.
And shortly after that, he stormed off the set.
CNN has suspended him, and Bob Novak's being mocked and ridiculed.
Do you I empathize with the guy?
CNN's celebrating its 25th anniversary.
You see this 25, they've got it on the screen all the time.
Do you realize how many times I have said to my television set the exact same thing when I'm watching CNN?
That the same thing he said.
Novak actually works for the network.
Imagine how often it had to occur to him.
He deserves a medal for not saying this every single time he's on the air.
Look what he's had to put up with.
When he's on that show, The Capitol Gang, everybody else seems to be a liberal.
They're mocking him, they ridiculous the Prince of Darkness.
He has to go through all of this stuff.
Finally, he blows up one single time, and he's treated as though he's a pariah.
If he's fortunate, they'll just fire him from CNN.
He'll liberate himself from being over there and go to Fox or go somewhere else where he isn't treated the way that they treat him because he happens to have committed the sin having uh right-wing uh right-wing beliefs.
Bob Novak has spent his entire year, entire career being the best political reporter in Washington.
He broke an important story.
The left has tried to scandalize that story.
Now he says one thing on a program, and it's supposed to be some sort of terrible black mark on his career.
I say all the more power to him.
And Bob, you should have said it earlier.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Uh Hillary has an opponent in a re-election campaign in 2006.
Janine Piero announced today she's going to run.
She's a prosecutor from, I believe, Long Island.
That's perfect.
She can not only Westchester, actually, I believe she uh that's great.
She can not only run against Hillary, she can maybe indict her at the same time.
I hope you had an opportunity to see the uh Pro Football Hall of Fame ceremony yesterday in Canton, Ohio.
Two things struck me.
Dan Marino, who was part of that great quarterback class of 1983, all the great ones came out of it.
Uh, he was asked, did it ever bother him that he was the 26th person, 27th person chosen in the draft that year?
And he said, I always said no, but I lied.
Today I want to thank the 26 teams for passing on me.
I think everybody in life who's ever succeeded in anything has fed off the rejection that they had faced at some other time in their lives.
And finally they inducted an older player from the past uh Benny Friedman who threw 29 touchdown passes uh for the uh New York Giants 20 touchdown passes for the New York Giants in 1929.
▲
Export Selection