Rush Limbaugh Program - April 27, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 27, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:26

April 27, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Do you see those ExxonMobil profits?
	See the Conoco profits.
	You haven't seen those?
	I don't think they're as big as they should be.
	Something screwy about these profits.
	They seem rather low to me.
	Anyway, greetings, my friends.
	Sorry, I just can't help myself.
	Four TOPS.
	1965.
	Anyway, greetings, my friends.
	You are tuned to the most listened to radio talk show in America.
	This is the Rush Limbaugh program and a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
	We look forward to speaking with you today.
	800-282-2882 is the number if you'd like to call.
	And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
	And by the way, tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen, is our annual curathon, the Rush Limbaugh Curathon for Leukemia and Lymphoma.
	What year is this going to be, HR, for that?
	This is, yeah, it's like a 15th year that we've been involved in this.
	And you all have contributed mightily and raised a considerable amount of money.
	And just want to prep for you, prepare you for that, because that'll be part of the program tomorrow.
	But one of the great things about it is that we don't go wall-to-wall with it.
	We do our regular Open Line Friday program as well as our annual fundraising for just a great organization with fabulous people, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of America.
	It's our annual curathon.
	So that's coming up tomorrow.
	I also, I haven't decided if I'm going to do it today or tomorrow, but I do have the excerpts from the Limbaugh Letter interview with Paul Greengrass, who was the writer and the director of United 93.
	That premieres tomorrow.
	Wait.
	Yeah, tomorrow, 28th.
	It opens tomorrow in gazillions of screens across the fruited plain.
	He's the interview subject in the next issue of the Limbaugh Letter, which will be out in about three weeks.
	So I'm thinking of enticing you with just a few snippets from the interview.
	So I don't know if they'll do it today or tomorrow sometime.
	In the meantime, ExxonMobil Corporation, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, today reported quarterly profits that surged, driven by rising oil prices.
	Net income in the first quarter, $8.4 billion, or about $1.37 a share, up from $7.86 billion a year earlier.
	Revenue jumped to $88.98 billion from $82.05.
	Crude oil prices have risen steadily from about $20 a barrel in 2002 to over $75 last week.
	As Reuters says, handing oil and gas company is a long-running profit bonanza.
	You know, it's difficult to keep up with all that we have said about this over the course of the past two weeks.
	And one of the things I want to remind you that the oil price seems to jump $3 to $5 a barrel every time that wacko lunatic president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, opens his mouth about sparking a war, wiping out Israel, or whatever.
	And we have some great audio.
	Oh, along the lines of this, by the way, we've been talking to you about the fact that the core inflation rate, despite rising oil prices, has remained the same, that these rising energy prices have not really done a whole lot of damage to the inflation rate.
	Not so fast.
	The Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress today that rising energy prices jeopardize a currently strong economy.
	He left the door open to the possibility of further interest rate increases to keep inflation in check.
	So I'm, well, this is going to kill the stock market today.
	This is going to destroy the stock market.
	Well, it's just the opposite.
	NASDAQ's up about 22.
	The Dow's up 38, almost 39 points today, on record oil profits and the warning from the Fed that some inflationary pressures are being attached here.
	We'll just have to keep a sharp eye.
	Neil Cavuto, kudos to Cavuto.
	He destroyed Senator Turbin yesterday on his program.
	And we have the audio soundbites of this, Your World with Neil Cavuto, and I'll get to those in the next segment.
	In the meantime, ladies and gentlemen, I want to ask you a question.
	And by the way, welcome to all of you watching on the Ditto Cam today.
	As usual, it'll be on for the entire three hours of our busy broadcast.
	Ask you a question.
	Do you want peace and prosperity and negative news accompanying it?
	Or would you prefer the illusion of peace with class warfare and positive news?
	Because the circumstances that we're in now, I think the country is primed for an upbeat fix from El Rushboat.
	We've got a Wall Street Journal poll out there, and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
	Congress's approval rating is 22%.
	We hear all this talk about Bush at 33 or 36 or 39%.
	Congress is at 22.
	And the question is, does Congress deserve a better approval number than 22%?
	Or perhaps does it even deserve 22%?
	Should Congress's approval rating be even lower than that?
	The irony is that at 36%, at least Bush is holding.
	The terrain is this.
	Bush is trying to and will end up, mark my words, upgrading his ratings.
	That'll happen.
	Congress, on the other hand, it's out of control.
	The Republicans are now trying to out Democrat Democrats.
	And there's a great piece today.
	I'm not going to have time to read the whole thing to you.
	But my buddy Bob Tyrrell, which snack did I put this in?
	Bob Tyrrell has a great piece, The American Spectator that has split the stacks.
	Here it is.
	He can't believe what he's looking at.
	He says, do my eyes deceive me?
	Am I reading that President Bush has joined with the Republican leadership to call for investigation of the oil companies in light of soaring oil and gas prices?
	Oil hit $75 a barrel recently, apparently transformed the Republicans into Democrats, Democrats of the Charles Schumer and John Kerry variety.
	I mean, actually, if they're going to haul in the oil executives for investigation, I suggest they get to the root of the matter and haul in the famed economist Milton Friedman.
	Let him bring his Nobel Prize along for display.
	Professor Friedman is the fellow who roughly 50 years ago revived the world's awareness of markets.
	And he's been explicating the consequences of markets ever since.
	First from the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago and more recently from the Hoover Institution on the campus of Stanford.
	The oil industry is a high-risk operation.
	As Boone Pickens, one of the industry's most perceptive entrepreneurs, has been saying for several years now, the production of oil has probably peaked.
	The world can pump 85 million barrels a day.
	The world consumes 30 billion barrels annually and will thirst for more as the years go on.
	That means prices will go up.
	Moreover, with a madman running Iran and a would-be Fidel Castro running Venezuela, it's not clear we can count on the aforementioned daily production of 85 million barrels.
	Now, the politicians may think that the answer is to drag businessmen into investigations, but that's not going to produce oil.
	It may produce votes for the politicians from the electorates economically illiterate, but not much else.
	What's needed is more oil, or at least a steady contribution to Boone Pickens' 85 million barrels.
	That means opening up areas where we know oil exists, for instance, and war.
	It means encouraging the creation of more refiners.
	We haven't built a new refinery in 30 years in this country.
	It means encouraging alternative energy sources, the best being nuclear.
	Unfortunately, these three recourses have all been thwarted by environmentalists.
	One wonders why the Republicans haven't made energy growth their response to the high energy prices that are troubling the electorate.
	Instead of haranguing the oil companies, one would have expected the Republican leadership and the president to unite in blaming Democratic environmentalists while calling for wider oil exploration and more refineries and the development of a real alternative to fossil fuels, namely nuclear.
	Instead, Republicans have continued to forsake their principles.
	What do they expect to get for this abandonment?
	Owing to their excessive spending, there already is fear the Republican vote will stay at home this autumn.
	And now, with the Republicans adopting the economic illiteracy of the Democrats, there's even more pressure for the Republicans to stay home.
	I do know how the president could lower oil prices immediately, just suspend all federal taxes on oil throughout the summer driving period and put a smile on the electorates' faces.
	And it's not nearly as irresponsible as denigrating markets.
	So, Congress's approval is 22%.
	Does it even deserve that?
	That's my question.
	You can talk about the president all you want, but our guys are trying, as Tyrrell points out, our guys are trying to out-Democrat the Democrats in pandering and demagoguing.
	And so, the left has succeeded with phase one, and that is blocking and scaring everyone they can.
	The second shoe is yet to drop phase two.
	And it's this: whether it's a good plan or a bad plan or a very bad plan, there is going to be a plan.
	There's going to be a plan to deal with all this, and we're going to call these oil companies in and we're going to rake them over the calls, and we're going to tell the IRS we want to see their books.
	Not one thing of which of those items is going to produce any more oil or alleviate any of the pressures on the market that caused these price rises.
	None of this is going to make a shred's bit of difference to the real problem, but it may solve the problem of elected officials in an election year.
	And that's what frustrates me about this.
	So, prepare yourselves for a oh, and how about this brilliant scheme, ladies and gentlemen?
	A brilliant scheme of $100 rebates to all of us to accommodate the rising prices of gasoline.
	That is patently absurd.
	It takes me back.
	What was this idiot's name?
	McGovern, back in 1972, who wanted to give everybody $1,000 or $2,000?
	Just for the sake of it.
	So, we create a panic.
	We've got great economic news.
	We've got forging-ahead economy, but we've got negative news all over the place.
	Now, we can have one of two things: we can have a roaring economy and we can have great upside potential and a great future for everybody and our kids, along with bad news because the Democrats control the media, the drive-by media, and all that good news cannot be allowed to stand, particularly in election year.
	So, if you want to go along with all this, you can say, I don't care about the actual good news.
	I don't care about the future opportunity.
	I'm tired of bad news.
	I want good news.
	Okay, elect Democrats, the country will go to hell, and the media will tell you how wonderful things are, and that way you can have what you want.
	I'm not playing that way.
	Back after this, stay with us.
	What are you falling asleep in there, Mr. Snerderly?
	No, he's mad.
	All right, what are you mad about?
	About what?
	Start the oil price stuff?
	Okay, well, you ought to be mad about that.
	Folks, let me run a couple things by you here before we get to Neil Cavuto savaging and destroying Senator Turbin on your world with Neil Cavuto yesterday.
	Let me ask you this: we've got these earnings reports out today on big oil.
	And I just have to ask you: do you think it was a coincidence?
	Did the congressional assault on big oil build to a crescendo time to today's earnings figures?
	Was it a coincidence, folks?
	See, I don't believe in coincidences when it comes to political calendars.
	I mean, if it were planned and if it were timed, I have to ask this question.
	And I have no doubt that it was.
	All of this, the past five days, all this bleating, all this pounding of the chest, all this, I'm going to stand on the side of the little guy.
	We're going to screw big oil.
	We're going to bring him in here.
	How dare they get on this retired exec's retirement package?
	How come it is that all of these brilliant politicians out there can be so far-sighted when it comes to an election?
	They can plan an advance, they can strategize, they can conspire, they can time a calendar for maximum impact to solve their electoral problems.
	Why is it that they become blithering idiots when it comes to real solutions to real problems?
	Because in their lives, the only real problem is their next election.
	And the real solution to that problem is whatever it takes to get them re-elected.
	And then, after they get re-elected, all of a sudden, they become blithering idiots, unable to accomplish anything in the real world and solve any kind of real problem.
	They come up with solutions that will exacerbate and extend the problem, thereby giving themselves something else to solve down the road by the time the next election rolls around.
	I don't believe any of this was coincidental.
	Now, we had, you know, this program has talked on many, many occasions about the greatest generation of that generation being the World War II generation.
	These are people that came out of the Great Depression.
	They came out of the Korean War.
	They fought World War II.
	They had to deal with Khrushchev banging his shoe on the floor in the podium at the United Nations, shouting, We will bury you, we will bury you.
	And they responded to all those challenges.
	They won World War II.
	They had to grow up real fast, and they learned very soon that there was a lot in life much larger than themselves, that life did not revolve around them.
	And because they worked so hard, and because they overcame such challenges, and because they emerged victorious, all the while producing a strong foundation of a burgeoning economy, they then found time to procreate.
	And they had what's called a baby boom generation.
	I'm a member of that worthless generation.
	I'm just kidding about worthless, but the baby boom generation, because their fathers, grandfathers, and mothers and so forth, their parents and grandparents had done so much, they gave them and bequeathed them a world of relative peace.
	And we in the baby boom generation had to create our own syndromes and our own traumas because we needed something to make ourselves feel as though our lives were filled with challenges too.
	But compared to the challenges our parents and grandparents faced, ours have not been all that traumatic, not nearly as such.
	And in fact, we find ourselves in a similar circumstance to our parents and grandparents on the eve of World War II.
	Here we are in the cusp of the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
	And I dare say, half this country doesn't want to get involved.
	Half the country doesn't even want to pull their head out of the sand and admit it, that we even have an enemy.
	To them, the enemy is in the White House.
	In Washington, the enemy is George W. Bush.
	So there are some differences here.
	But it's time to ask ourselves, folks, and I'm including all of you, Gen Xers out there, and you, Gen Weyers, and all the other generations that have not yet been named.
	Is it time for us to become the greatest generation version 2.0?
	Because we have some serious challenges.
	If you can rise above the liberals today, if you can rise above their efforts to unnerve you, to panic you, to scare the hell out of you, to depress you, to ruin your day, if you can think beyond members of Congress making utter fools of themselves, then the news for your children and grandchildren in our country is actually very wonderful.
	But if you want to get caught up in the media bubble of every day, the drive-by media touting some doom and gloom story, gas prices today, war in Iraq tomorrow, war on terror every day, whatever, if you want to latch on and live in that world, feel free.
	But if you choose to get above it, if you choose to move beyond it and not let the media bubble every day determine your mindset and the definition and boundaries of your world, understand that the news for your children and grandchildren is wonderful.
	It always has been in this country.
	You and I, all of us, can be part of the new greatest generation.
	The original greatest generation paid the price of World War II.
	We are paying the price, and it's a far lower price for freedom from OPEC, among other things.
	Now, I know, I know, you're being told the high gasoline prices are gloom and doom.
	It's a cliff that we're all going to fall off of.
	We're dead.
	Oh my gosh, our lives are over as we know it.
	But as usual, the opposite of what you're told with the drive-by media is the truth.
	High oil prices, still higher oil prices, they kick in, they may kick in, they're going to fluctuate.
	Who knows where they're going to end up?
	But one of the things that these high oil prices are going to inspire is American ingenuity.
	And it's not going to happen in a day.
	It won't happen with a government plan, folks.
	It won't happen with a Charles Schumer press conference.
	It won't happen with a Jimmy Carter SynFuel scheme or a solar scheme or a bio-bubble.
	As a matter of fact, I have no shame in saying I don't know where this next batch of American ingenuity will come from.
	Except for one caveat.
	Sooner or later, the Bill Gates of energy will be identified and find a solution.
	The higher prices of oil, higher prices of gasoline will flush out the entrepreneur spirit in this country.
	And somewhere, someday, somebody's going to come along and find a solution.
	To the market, the mother of necessity always creates invention.
	If the OPEC leaders are as wise as we're told they are, they have to be more worried about these high oil prices than anyone because these prices, as they continue to rise, seal their doom.
	We reach a point where we won't pay it.
	We'll find an alternative.
	Screw them.
	Get on board, folks.
	It's not time to start wringing your hands and have your life governed by doom and gloom.
	Back in just a second.
	Screams of joy, folks, at the very mention of my name could be panic.
	If the voice is a liberal, 800-282-2882, guess who's upset that Tony Snow's been hired by the White House?
	ABC News.
	ABC News has a piece here.
	In fact, I'll grab it for you.
	It's from the ABC News website.
	There's just something about Fox News.
	Not only does the cable giant have more than twice as many prime-time viewers as the closest competition, but it's often the network of choice for the White House administration in terms of big-name interviews.
	Now it turns out Fox is the home of the next White House press secretary, Tony Snow.
	And there's a quote here from George Steffi Stephanopoulos.
	Tony Snow will have to watch his back.
	Won't have to watch his back.
	Just keep his eyes in front because he's going to be the victim of a full frontal assault.
	They won't be knifing him in the back.
	They won't have to.
	They're going to come at him from all sides.
	Now, remember, this is coming from the network that, of course, did not hire a Clintonoid, George Stephanopoulos, as in a commentator role.
	No, no, no.
	He's a neutral correspondent and host.
	So it's okay for ABC to go out and raid the Clinton administration.
	It's okay for any number of newspapers and cable networks to get former Clintonoids, but let Fox get somebody placed in the White House as a press secretary.
	And why, why, wait, wait, there's something desperately, terribly wrong with this.
	Here's.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Well, it's a Reuters story.
	Try this.
	This is Reuters, a guy named Steve Gorman.
	They're worried out there, folks.
	Conservative talk radio has gone where it's never gone before to the briefing podium at the White House.
	Some media experts noted that despite some past criticism of Bush, Snow was generally a reliable conservative voice as host of his Fox radio program, though not nearly as popular as pioneering syndicated talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
	It was Limbaugh's radio show launched in 85 during the presidency of Reagan that blazed the trail.
	Now, for the first time, one of Limbaugh's fellow broadcast partisans has been installed as the official public face and voice of a Republican administration.
	And then we go down later in the story and they go talk to news analyst, independent news analyst.
	What the hell is an independent news analyst?
	The guy's name is Andrew Tyndall.
	And he saw Snow's arrival indicating the Bush administration's desire for better relations with the media made necessary by Bush's approval ratings.
	He said, if you want to talk to the swing voters, you have to actually go through the mainstream media, Tyndall said, because the swing voters are not listening to Rush Limbaugh.
	Well, yeah, Ed, go ask Tom Daschell about that.
	Go ask Tom Foley about that.
	Go ask the Democrats who once ran Congress about that, Mr. Tyndall.
	And specifically, seek out Tom Daschell.
	It was after the 2002 midterm elections, and the puffster strolled out and cited me and said they had experts telling them that my audience was not just conservatives, that there were a lot of liberals and moderates and independents that listened to this program, and they were shocked and they were stunned.
	Mr. Tyndall, at your independent news analysis, is found to be lacking here.
	But it's to be expected.
	These people in total denial.
	Totally.
	Can you believe?
	He's the press spokesman.
	He's a press secret for crying out loud.
	You'd think he's just been named president.
	He had to go out and attack a press secretary on the basis of his past work.
	And yet all these ex-Democrat staffers from Russert, who worked with Kumo, you had Chris Matthews, who worked for what's his name, Tip O'Neill, Stephanopoulos.
	Why, that's never even questioned.
	It's never even said to be a problem.
	Folks, I know there's a lot of seductive doom and gloom out there, but I have to tell you, I have to keep reminding you, the mainstream media, the drive-by media is imploding.
	They are simply, you know, they have their ups and downs.
	They have their moments, but it still boils down to the fact that they don't run the show as they used to, and it bothers them.
	All right, now I've been tempting you with this.
	Let's go to the audio soundbites.
	Your world with Neil Cavuto.
	His guest yesterday was Illinois Senator Dick Turbin.
	Cavuto's first question.
	Senator, do you think with your zeal to save the environment, some of these blended fuels that we have to have in order to meet these new environmental requirements, that with the best of intentions, you're the one who is gouging Americans at the pump?
	You know, Neil, what you haven't mentioned in the whole show?
	Oil company profits.
	Why isn't that part of your conversation?
	If ExxonMobil has now broken all records in terms of corporate profits, if their CEO is giving a retirement gift of $400 million, doesn't that bother you a little bit?
	So when crude oil...
	Will you people permit me a brief...
	I have a good friend, personal friend of mine who's his name is Bob Wildrick, and he's the CEO of Joseph A. Bank.
	Sounds just like Durbin.
	When I hear Durbin talk, I think I'm listening to Wildrick.
	I just have to make that observation.
	Okay, next question from Cavuto.
	Well, when crude oil goes up and what they produce is something based on that crude oil, it's not a mystery that their profits go up, right?
	So you're not saying it against the profits they're making, are you?
	I'm not for nationalizing oil, if that's what you're suggesting.
	What are you?
	But there is no correlation between the increase in the price of a barrel of oil and what we're paying at the pump.
	And if you want to know why, take a look at the corporate profits of the oil.
	So would you tax those?
	They're making money hand over hand.
	They're going to fix those profits.
	Absolutely, I would.
	Above and beyond what they should pass.
	Just like Jimmy Carter did in the 1970s.
	But I want to tell you something.
	A windfall profits tax would say to these oil companies, once and for all, you can't rip us off at the pump day in and day out for no good market reason without a penalty.
	And the money should go back directly to consumers who are paying these outrageous prices for gasoline.
	It's not possible.
	We windfall profit taxed the oil companies back in the 80s, and it did not.
	It led to disaster.
	It led to further less exploration, less development, less supply.
	It was a boondoggle.
	John Boehner said it.
	He's the Republican leader in the House the other day.
	Folks are just demagoguing this, and they are pandering to you.
	And this notion, this is pure socialism.
	Tax a company, tax a business, and make them give the money back to you.
	This is nothing.
	Yeah, they're going to give the taxes to the people.
	This is nothing more than big-time pandering.
	It's not going to amount.
	It's like these senators are pushing for $100 gas rebate checks.
	And this is the Republicans doing this.
	This is why we scratch our heads here.
	Every American taxpayer would get a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline under an amendment that Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote today.
	However, the GOP energy pet, no, you could not buy a muffler for this.
	HR shouting in the IFB that you could buy a muffler.
	I know what you're talking about.
	You couldn't.
	I'll get to the $100 here in just a second.
	But the GOP is sabotaging their own proposal.
	And you know why?
	Because they're including in this amendment a proposal, open part of NWAR in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.
	I say bring that up every day.
	I say while these prices are going up, make the Democrats vote against it.
	Any silly moderate Republican wants to vote against it, make them do it every damn day.
	We got a supply problem.
	It's supply and demand.
	The price is going up.
	Okay, let's go drill for some oil.
	We can produce as much in war as we get from the state of Texas.
	Let's go do it.
	It's not going to lead to energy independence.
	It's not going to lead to an independent from any of our foreign suppliers.
	It's going to help with the supply far more than opening the strategic reserve, which is a typical Democrat ploy and suggestion.
	But $100.
	Now, it's not going to happen because of the AND war aspect of this.
	But this is pure vote buying, and it is a crying shame to see Republicans propose this and be a part of it.
	What they're telling us here is that all of these high gas prices is adding up to only $100 more.
	It's only $100 more bucks, folks.
	That's what they're telling us.
	We're going to get $100, but yep, yep, and it'll probably be taxable as income.
	So of the $100, depending on your tax bracket, who knows what you'll get?
	I think this sort of puts the high prices in some better context.
	Are we actually paying just $100 more?
	Why don't you just reduce the tax or get rid of the tax, eliminate the 18.4 cents a gallon federal tax for the summer, and then get some states to reduce their taxes?
	And it add up to a lot more than $100, ladies and gentlemen, a one-time hundred bucks.
	All right, now, let's go to gas taxes.
	Cavuto, he just nails Durbin on this one.
	Question.
	Do you know how much, out of curiosity, Senator, is built into a gallon of gasoline, the profits of the oil companies per gallon?
	Do you know what's the average?
	ExxonMobil, what did they make in three months?
	It was $10 billion if I'm not mistaken.
	Let's just answer my question.
	Senator, maybe you could hit the United States.
	Maybe you could answer my question.
	It's about nine cents.
	Do you know how much taxes are, Senator?
	About 50 cents.
	Let me tell you.
	So don't you think you should be more focused on the tax gouging than necessarily the profit gouging?
	Explain their profits.
	How do you explain their profits after taxes?
	You're ignoring that.
	Are you ignoring the taxes?
	Senator, I'm asking you simply.
	Are you going to get the best?
	Let me tell you what the taxes are.
	I'm going to roll taxes.
	No, I'm telling you that.
	Would you roll back those taxes?
	Would you roll back those taxes?
	No.
	Nailed him.
	Exactly what we've been saying for the past two weeks.
	They will not do with a penny less at the government.
	They won't roll back taxes.
	No, we need that for our roads.
	What roads?
	Nobody's going to be able to afford to drive on them, Senator.
	It's going to fall into disrepair.
	In fact, we might get some of them fixed now with no traffic on them.
	Except that's not happening.
	People are continuing to drive as much as they always have.
	So he didn't know that the per gallon profit is nine cents, or he didn't want to admit to it, when told that the taxes per gallon of gasoline outweigh any profit the oil companies make.
	Why, I didn't want to hear about that either.
	And I loved Cavuto for nailing him on the tax gouging.
	All right, one more.
	And this is, Neil's finally had enough here of turbine and just totally destroys them here.
	Cavuto says, so 50 cents a gallon, those taxes are okay.
	The nine cent profit, that's not okay.
	Oh, stop the nine cents.
	Talk about ExxonMobil's record profits, my friend.
	$400 million for their CEO.
	Aren't you a little embarrassed by that?
	Are you worried, though, Senator, that you're mixing this argument?
	That when people look at what's being paid for a gallon of gasoline, the problem, the oil companies are no saints.
	But you know what, Senator?
	I think you're a bigger sinner because it's the tax gouging that's killing Americans, not necessarily the price of the crude.
	So let me ask you, Senator Richardson.
	Just answer me this.
	Just answer me this.
	To subsidize the oil.
	So Senator, let me answer this.
	No apologies to the oil companies.
	I think you know that.
	But when they were losing money.
	Wait a minute.
	Wait a minute, Senator.
	When they were losing money and they were laying off workers and they were shutting down plants and you were doing nothing to encourage them to build refineries, now that they're making money, they're the evil guys and you're not even acknowledging the problem with taxes and you're saying they're the bad guys.
	So Senator, I just ask you, who's zooming who here?
	Let me just tell you, Neil, if the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
	And from where you're sitting, every problem is about the government.
	The government messed it up again.
	Guess what?
	It's possible the private sector is gouging us.
	It's possible they're price fixing.
	It's possible that they have these rapacious profits at the expense of average businesses and farmers and families, and you've got to accept it.
	It just may not be the government's fault.
	He's not saying it's the government's fault saying we're ignoring your role in this.
	And you're ignoring your role in this.
	And his point about when the oil industry was hurting when oil was $10, $15 a barrel and they were closing and capping wells and laying off people.
	I didn't hear anybody from Washington call the oil guys up, say, hey, there's anything we can do to help you out.
	This is pure election year politics, a quick timeout.
	We'll be back and continue to get to some of your phone calls right after this.
	All right, we've been doing some math here during the commercial break, ladies and gentlemen, with the profit center timeout.
	We make profits too here at the EIB network, and if people knew what they were, they would accuse us of gouging.
	But we get results, so nobody ever complains.
	Now, if the oil company profit is 9 cents a gallon and ExxonMobil in the first quarter, they reported a profit of $8.4 billion.
	All right.
	Now, the federal gasoline tax is a little over 18 cents a gallon.
	So it's twice the profit per gallon of the oil company.
	So if you want to find out what the federal government scored in the first quarter just off ExxonMobil, this is not all the other oil companies combined.
	This is ExxonMobil.
	That would be $16.8 billion.
	Federal government, $16.8 billion from the amount of gasoline sold by ExxonMobil, in which ExxonMobil's profit was $8.4 billion.
	Now, what's the difference?
	Well, the difference is the government doesn't have a thing to do with finding the oil, drilling it, producing it, transporting it, shipping it, refining it, and then distributing it to the pumps.
	The government just sits there with its hands out.
	Now, of course, they build the roads.
	They build the roads, and then they build bridges to nowhere in Alaska, and they do a number of other things, like they build levees in New Orleans and a number of other things they do.
	So in fact, they actually put a crimp in the oil company business because they tell them where they can't drill.
	And they tell them where you can't have a refinery.
	Got to have a wind farm instead.
	But depending on where you put that, Senator Kennedy is going to object.
	I'll tell you something, folks.
	The way we're going after these oil companies and these big oil execs, the way they're being treated in the press, you would think that they all got drunk at a company party, loaded their secretaries into a gas-guzzling SUV, and drove off a bridge and left them for dead.
	These guys are coming across as real hardened criminals, sexual abusers, and everything else.
	Meanwhile, as I've always said, if I were big oil, I'd call my own hearings and I'd bring people like Dick Durbin up to say, why the hell are you standing in the way of us doing business?
	By the way, folks, there was a package on the evil and dreaded Fox News channel today.
	Now, you're on the cutting edge of societal evolution because you listened to this program.
	Told you last week that the CHICOMs are getting in bed with Fidel Castro to drill for oil off the coast of Cuba within 75 miles of Key West.
	And Fox News put a package together on this.
	And guess where President Wu is today?
	Who is in Africa?
	Who is attempting to forge ties in Africa?
	Says he wants a free and democratic and open Africa.
	But Africa has oil.
	And Africa has proximity to Iran and a number of other places.
	The Chikoms know you get in bed with snakes, you're in bed with snakes, and you got to have a way of getting rid of them if the time comes.
	So people are saying, we got Vicente Fox.
	He's announcing this giant oil fine down in the Gulf of Mexico off the shores of his country, Mexico.
	Meanwhile, we can't drill.
	We can't look.
	We can't do diddly squat because we've got the same liberals whining and moaning about the oil price, putting a kibosh on any new exploration or discovery and eventual bringing the market of oil.
	And yet the ChiComs are drilling in the Gulf, and they are starting to notice, people starting to notice, hey, you know, some of our enemies are out there drilling in our hemisphere.
	Whatever happened to Monroe Doctrine?
	Whatever happened to it must not exist anymore.
	We don't have the well, well, if you don't know what the Monroe Doctrine is, it's no big deal because nobody's got the guts to enforce it anyway, so screw it.
	But the bottom line is that people are starting to notice we're not drilling.
	All we're doing is creating a climate of fear and depression and doom and gloom.
	Meanwhile, the Chikoms are in bed with Castro.
	Castro can't drill for oil.
	He doesn't even give toothpicks down there, but the Chikoms can furnish him what he needs.
	On a partnership deal.
	Brief timeout, back with more in a moment.
	You know, if you were really smart, instead of a $100 rebate, you'd demand that the government send you a couple shares of Exxon stock.
	And if you're really smart, you go buy some yourself.
	All right, we got to take a brief time out here, folks.
	The first hour in the can, soon to be an armored courier on the way over to Super Secret Warehouse, holding all the artifacts for the future Limbaugh Broadcast Museum.

▲