All Episodes
Previous Next
May 11, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
May 11, 2006, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you and welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Roger Hedgecock in here from KOGO Radio in San Diego for today.
Tomorrow Rush is back from his rush to excellence in Dallas, Texas.
In the meantime, of course you can keep up with everything at Rush Limbaugh.com.
I want to talk about the economy because there's been a remarkable admission that tax cuts have produced prosperity beyond the prediction of anyone.
And I want to get back to that.
But the big uh item today of liberal angst is the national security agency collecting phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, data provided by ATT, Verizon, Bell South, et cetera.
Now, all of those folks, ATT Verizon, Bell South and others, have come forward now and have said we haven't provided anything that isn't provided in the law to provide.
In other words, our lawyers didn't allow us to provide anything that wasn't required by law.
Now I don't know whether you can help me here connect this dot, because a couple of weeks ago it became clear that Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and others were cooperating with the Chinese government, complying with Chinese law to shut down access to sites that mentioned the word freedom,
or Golangfang, that uh exercise group uh they have there, or uh or any of these other things the Chinese government doesn't want its citizens to have access to.
And their defense was, well, yeah, uh we know this isn't the kind of thing we like, but we have to comply with the laws of China.
Now, all of a sudden, the laws of the United States, and by the way, the compiling of this records specifically, specifically approved by the United States Supreme Court uh in 1997.
Um it's a big brouhaha here that somehow or other the NSA applying their algorithms, applying their equations to the records of who called who, not what was said.
There is no recording of what was said.
There is no snooping, there is no listening in, there is no privacy violation.
I particularly like the uh Brooklyn call we got in the previous segment saying, what do you mean privacy?
I can't get on the subway, I can't get in.
And I walk down the street, I hear half the conversation bellowed out from everybody standing next to me on their cell phones.
Um, there is nothing in this NSA story, even though USA Today went out of its way to leave that implication that there's anything uh to do with recording conversations.
It's the record of the phone calls made.
Like comes on your bill.
So uh that's number one.
And then number two, it is obvious, I guess it's more than obvious to the advanced students in this class at the Limbaugh Institute that uh this isn't the target is not the NSA.
The target is the NSA's former director.
Air Force General Michael Hayden, nominated last Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA.
First it was the phony, well, wait a minute, a military man at the head of the CIA.
Oh, yeah, uh more than half of our CIA directors have been military men, including cuckoo guys like Stansfield Turner.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you know, guys like that who were in the military and who went on to be uh CIA directors.
So Michael Hayden is not out of the mainstream in that regard at all.
And they finally, when somebody, you know, I mean, that's what I love about conservatives, we actually have memories.
Liberals have no memory.
It's trained out of them in the public education system.
Memory is bad, memorizing is evil, uh, it hurts uh free expression and all that other stuff, and finally they forget that just a couple of years ago they were on the other side.
It's like all these people who voted for the war and now they're anti-war.
Well, wait a minute, what happened back then?
Well, uh uh when was that?
So now you have people saying, well, wait a minute.
What is this NSA thing?
They're snooping on our phone conversation.
No, no, they're not.
They're trying to figure out who's calling whom.
And if you are calling Osama bin Laden, you know, on a satellite phone, hey Osama, what's up?
You know, if you're doing that kind of stuff, Then I want somebody listening to that conversation, okay?
Let me be perfectly clear here.
In a time of war against people like this president of Iran, uh threatening to nuke everybody in sight in the name of God.
I want the President of the United States, whoever that person is, to be listening in to make sure we intercept to make sure we stop those people from killing Americans.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, when the nuke goes off, when the dirty bomb, when the biotoxin, whatever it is, goes off in the mall or the elementary school or whatever, because we didn't listen in on those conversations.
You know what John Kerry, the bloviating senator from Massachusetts, will say.
You know what Leakey Leahy will say, you know what these folks will say.
It's Bush's fault.
See, he couldn't protect you.
He doesn't deserve to be president.
You know they will, because they don't remember what they said the last time.
They don't want to remember.
Being inconsistent as long as your heart is in the right place.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, you see.
When you're liberal, consistency and logic and facts and memory have no place.
They are not as important as feeling that moment that you're right.
It's a wonderful thing to be a liberal.
Now, uh, because I think there are still Americans who are logical and rational and do have a memory, let me uh regale you with this latest, because it is actually an apology from the Congressional Budget Office that consistently applies the static analysis to tax cuts.
If you cut the rate of taxation, they will always say, and they've said for the last uh 40 years that I know about, we're going to cut government revenues.
If we reduce the tax rate, it reduces tax revenues.
Everyone knows, since Art Laffer sketched sketched this out on a cocktail napkin for George Schultz some years ago.
Everyone knows that exactly the opposite happens.
If you reduce tax rates, the revenue actually goes up.
The wonderful thing, and I wish George Bush would put it this way.
The wonderful thing about the Bush tax cuts in 2000, what was it, one and three, there were several waves of them.
The wonderful thing about those tax cuts is that they've soaked the rich.
Let me just give you an example.
Corporate income tax.
Corporate income tax in one year from 2005 to 2006, corporate income tax went up 29.5% in dollars collected by the federal government.
Twenty-nine point five percent increase in dollars collected on corporate income tax in one year, a twenty-nine percent increase.
Soak the rich.
That's the way we ought to do this.
What we ought to really tell people is we're going to reduce the rates on taxation in order to soak the rich, because the rich are going to pay so much more tax when the capital gain goes down to 15% from 20%.
Yeah.
About 14% more revenue came in to the federal government than the year before when the rate was at 20%.
This is what people of rational ability to think through facts and connect the dots, understand about the Democrat opposition to tax cuts.
They're not talking about new revenues to the government, else they'd be supporting tax cuts.
They're not talking about uh what they are trying to do is replay the totally discredited class envy placard from the discredited socialist communist movement.
Envy is the emotion they're trying to envy is the emotion of the left.
They constantly say greed is the emotion of the right of capitalism, greed is the emotion, it's the evil and so forth.
Well, let me just tell you something.
I'll take that over envy, the idea that nobody should have more than I do, or let's take it away From them.
Because we know what happens there.
You can go live in Cuba and find out what happens, or North Korea, where everyone is poor except the leader, who has hundreds of millions of dollars.
So let's talk about what has happened.
The tax cut has reduced.
Here's the latest evidence from the Treasury Department, the monthly budget report for May.
Tax receipts were up 11.2% for the first seven months of the fiscal year.
By the way, the 11.2 doesn't sound like a big number.
You know what the number was?
Do you know what the number of new dollars because of the lower tax rates was?
A hundred and thirty-seven billion dollars that the Congressional Budget Office didn't think was coming in.
So they've apologized.
Now I'm going to read their apology and you will say to yourself, it doesn't sound like an apology.
And believe me, in bureaucratic terms, this is an apology.
Here is the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, quote.
Various types of personal income not automatically subject to tax withholding may have increased faster than expected in 2005.
Sources of such income could include capital gains, noncorporate business income, interest, and dividends.
In addition, growth in incomes in 2005 may have been concentrated more than expected among higher income taxpayers who face the highest tax rates, unquote.
That's as close as they're going to come, folks.
That's as close as they're going to come to saying, oops, when you lower the rates, these high income folks pay more.
So I think the Bush administration ought to recast this whole thing.
Cut taxes, soak the rich.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh.
Back after this.
Roger Hedgecock hidden for Rush and back with your calls at 1-800-282-2882.
Now here's CNN, of course, putting up the tax cut uh chart, in which if you make between 15 and 20,000, it's only worth $9.
And if you make $50 to $75,000, it's only $110.
This cut is insignificant for those who are working hard.
It's just the wealthy people.
A guy making a million makes a $42,000 cut.
CNN, of course, lying about this because they know, and I hope you know, that the reason there's a $42,000 cut from someone making the million bucks, is because that person making the million bucks is paying, and all the people like that person are paying 90% of the income tax as it is.
Nobody even pay making $15,000 is paying income tax.
Well, there's only a $9 cut.
You can't cut past zero.
Oh no, that's right, you can cut past zero.
Now there's the earned income uh tax uh earned income tax uh credit.
So if you make below a certain amount, and uh we take uh pity on you by sending you a check.
So, this is what all the illegals do, by the way.
They file uh for this this is and this is so well known here, it's amazing.
You file the income tax return, and you show so many dependents that you never have any withholding.
And then at the end of the year you show only a certain amount of money, and therefore you get the earned income.
And these guys get uh checks, two, three, four thousand dollar checks from the Treasury for people who are illegally in this country.
Out of your paycheck.
See, they've mastered better than CNN, the real dynamics of our tax system, better than the New York Times, whose editorial today said, one way or the other, tax increases are coming.
Well, that may be true.
Actually, that sentence may be true.
If the Democrats take over, the House of Representatives this coming fall, as their plan is, if they have time other than impeachment of George Bush, they will raise taxes.
There's no question about that.
So maybe this is a prediction with regard to the direction of the uh elections.
Could be.
Can you imagine it?
Uh Pelosi.
Now, see the problem we we don't I know the rest of you in the country have a problem with Pelosi's politics and the left wing thing and all that.
Out here in California, we're just wondering who her surgeon is.
I mean, that's a terrible job.
She can't blink anymore for crying out loud.
I mean, that's you know, out here in California we worry about stuff like that.
Anyway, so here's the uh New York Times.
The nation's budget deficits, they declare, are too big to outgrow.
And the latest tax cuts, which Congress is likely to sign off on today, will dig the hole deeper.
See, they haven't read the CBO report.
The deficit is way smaller than projected, because the revenues are way up.
Now, what is also up, and conservatives cannot stomach on the Bush administration, is this laxity of discipline with regard to spending.
And these crazy uh Congress critters who are repo so called Republicans who want to keep in the earmarked perks.
Uh uh Jerry Lewis, I'm talking about you, Bill Thomas, I'm talking about you.
Uh, you know, let's name the names.
I agree with this earlier caller.
Let's name the names of people who are so-called Republicans who uh uh think it's their right to spend billions of dollars they don't have on perks to keep them re-elected.
We don't, we the people don't think that's their right.
So let's make that clear too.
But it goes on, the New York Times goes on to uh say that the idea of opening up the Roth IRA to everyone making more than a hundred thousand, it's currently limited to that.
If you make under 100,000, you can put away tax-free money that grows tax-free in a so-called Roth IRA.
Why shouldn't that be applicable to everybody?
Because you know what's going into that?
What's that is, the Roth IRA is the savings that is no longer in the savings rate, you know, because the crazies our savings rate is zero.
No, it isn't.
They don't count the IRAs.
They don't count all these pension plans which have mushroomed over the years as savings.
It's not in the savings account, it isn't savings.
Well, yeah, it is.
And you know where all that money goes?
Back into the economy to create jobs, to give us the 4.7% unemployment rate lower than it has been in ten years.
See, people who do know about the economy do know what's going on.
And so when they see junk like the CNN report, you're only going to save nine dollars if you make twenty thousand a year.
You're only paying twelve dollars in tax.
Okay.
Here's Lewis in uh Raleigh, North Carolina.
Hi.
Hello, a great job you're doing, Roger.
Really doing a fine job filling in for Rush.
I would just like to comment on this so-called surveillance of Americans on their telephone systems in contrast that with the way the press characterize it with what was going on before World War II even started.
Uh regularly we had the Pan American Clippers going through Bermuda, and the whole airplane mail was offloaded, censored, read, and then forwarded on to Europe.
The same thing happened coming back from Europe.
And this is just one of many, many examples of uh surveillance that was going on even before we declared war.
Yeah, this is really worth uh spending just a moment, Lewis, because many, many people, uh including myself, were not around when all this happened.
And and and yet, when I read about it, I say to myself, wow, here was a nation that was at war and actually understood what was at stake.
Namely, our very existence as a people, our very existence individually was threatened by the fascists, by Hitler, by Mussolini, by Tojo, by the Axis uh powers who were intent on destroying Western civilization.
This happened in the 1940 to 1945 era, just you know, sixty some years ago.
Uh here we've almost forgotten that Franklin Roosevelt, the the guiding light of liberalism and the Democratic Party to this day, was not only the one who rounded up all the Japanese and put them in concentration camps to protect protect us from the few among that number who were agents of the of the uh Japanese government,
but who also uh uh when they caught uh German spies landing on the beaches of Florida or wherever it was, uh had them lynched uh with secret courts uh coming to the conclusion that they were in fact Nazi spies, they were executed.
And now you bring up this other issue that look, we weren't gonna give uh ordinary mail any kind of sacred pass, uh, which normally Americans would expect, uh, that, you know, you send a letter, nobody's gonna open that up from the government, except when you're in war, you open it up because you don't want something said, you're not just reading your mom, it's not a mom's day card, uh it has mom's day card and a nuclear reactor uh uh diagram in it.
You want to take the nuclear reactor diagram out and let the card go forward.
So, you know, an absolutely important point.
When this nation was at war and knew it was at war and knew what was at stake and was determined to win over a Determined foe, we knew what to do.
And it didn't have to do with uh debating the constitutional rights of our enemies.
That's right.
They don't have any.
They don't have any constitutional rights.
Not when they send an 18-page letter, a la the unabomber kind of letter from the president, so-called president of Iran, giving us one last chance to convert to Islam.
Well, guess what?
We're not converting to Islam.
We're not going to give up Western civilization.
And I guess once again we have to prove it to the Islamic world.
They're not going to behead all of us before we get them.
I'm Roger Hedgecock.
Back with more after this.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, filling in for Rush today.
He'll be back tomorrow.
All the details at Rush Limbaugh.com.
I needed to get to the Al Gore Emerging Presidency run, if you haven't caught on to this.
Al Gore is out with a documentary entitled, quote, An Inconvenient Truth, unquote.
It is a um the heart of it is basically a slideshow.
Uh proving the unassailable reality of global warming and the dangers for humanity of the continuing addiction to fossil fuels.
The atmosphere of greenhouse gases emitted from the burning of coal, oil, and gas.
He has launched a new educational group, quote unquote.
That's code word for don't you dare tax us, called the quote, Alliance for Climate Protection.
And again, the ABC News reporting that the climate protection alliance, quote, will look like a political campaign, unquote, seeking to convince Americans that global warming is the urgent problem of the day, and by implication, not the war on terror, or Islamofascism's war against us.
Now, this would all be laughable and easy to ignore, except for this prediction I'll make right now.
This documentary will be nominated for an Academy Award.
It will be Al Gore's credibility, his cred to get back into the race.
It will be his way of reintroducing Al Gore to on a separate subject, away from the normal uh debate about issues that we've talked about all day all day today, the economy and the war and all the rest of it, the border, uh, in his own issue.
So he's creating his own playpen.
And uh he's gonna have his own rules.
And he's got his own money.
This is the new, this is something new.
New York Post reporting that Al Gore's faith in the Internet, he may not have invented it, but he certainly has benefited from it.
Here's how.
Gore became a senior advisor to Google in February of 2001.
Years before its stock went public, by the way, in August of 2004.
So Gore, as a senior advisor and close pal of CEO Dr. Eric Schmidt of Google.
Gore becomes a uh an insider at Google.
Now you know what happened in August of 2004 when the shares went public.
Google soared from uh what was it, the opening price was about 85 bucks to more than 400 bucks.
And uh Gore, according to the New York Post, quote, owns a ton of Google stock.
A well-placed Democrat, unnamed uh by the New York Post, is quoted as saying, Gore, quote, owns a ton of Google, and he's made enough money that he could wait until a month before and just drop 50 million bucks into launch a race.
That is a race for the presidency.
So stand by for more from uh Mr. Al Gore.
I will again have to resurrect, I guess, uh the Al Goreisms from uh Earth in the Balance, his book about this subject, and the Unibomber uh treatise, which was published in the New York Times.
I once had a Democrat congressman on the air, Bob Filner from our area, and I gave him quotes, and I said, now I'm gonna give you quotes that are either the vice president at that time, Al Gore, or the unibomber.
Uh you tell me which one it is.
He couldn't get I just went through six of them.
He couldn't get one right.
When I quoted from the unabomber, it was gore.
When I quoted from Gore was the unibomber, it was the funniest bit we ever did.
All right, here's Tim in Martinsburg.
Uh hello there, Tim.
Welcome to the Rush program.
Hi, Roger.
How are you doing today?
I'm doing well.
I really appreciate you taking my call.
Thank you.
I have a uh uh a question with regard to the uh economics uh uh uh that you were discussing earlier.
Uh and that is you mentioned the laffer curve, and I'm a full believer in the laffer curve.
I mean it's pretty much irrefutable.
But has anybody ever done a study or or something like that with regard to where the act where the laffer curve actually starts to tail off?
Because I mean, obviously you can't have uh uh zero percent task because zero percent of anything is zero, and that would be no revenue.
So has anybody actually uh done a study to see where it tails off?
No, because as a practical matter, we've never gotten close, Tim, right?
I mean, we've reduced the capital gains from twenty to fifteen, uh unleashing a tsunami of capital gain revenues to the federal government.
Now, if it went to ten, if it went to zero, as you're pointing out, it went to zero, then there'd be no no money coming in.
Does it get more money going down to ten?
My guess would be yes.
If we ever get to a point where lowering tax rates actually lowers uh tax revenue, then we can say we've gone too far.
We're so far from that, Tim, that uh there's no sense discussing it.
Exactly.
But uh I I would I would have I I would like to to make a comment.
Yeah.
And that would be I I would I would suggest that uh and I can't remember his name, he's one of the guys who sits in for Rush like you.
He's the uh he's the uh the the dean of the the uh dean of uh the Department of Economics for George Mason University.
Yeah, Dr. uh Dr. Walter Williams.
Yeah, Walter Williams.
That's it.
Uh I would I would suggest that a study like that would make a great senior project for for any any economics department that's because you know what I'd like to ask in that study, and I think it's a great idea, Tim, is that uh we talk about how low can we go and still get more revenues.
In other words, how much can we soak the rich?
I think we ought to have this discussion.
Can we soak the rich more at 10% capital gains tax than we are at fifteen?
Because we clearly we clearly soaked them more uh when we went to fifteen than we did at twenty.
We got more money out of the rich people than ever.
So if we went down to ten, would it be even more money out of the rich people?
You know, it it it does, you know, Tim beg the question, what is the tax code for?
Is it to punish people for success?
Is it to subsidize people for failure or being in the country illegally?
Uh i what is it for exactly?
I thought originally it was only for getting enough revenue to allow the government to uh function in its constitutional responsibilities.
So, you know, I now sound like uh what?
Um Teddy Roosevelt or something.
I'm going back a hundred years here.
Why would we ever want to get beyond the notion of simply trying to collect the money necessary to have the government carry out its constitutional responsibilities?
How did we ever get so sidetracked onto the issue that somehow or other getting that money has also something to do with punishing people who are rich?
And how did we allow a major party of the two party system in the United States of America to be captured by what is essentially a communist notion?
I don't know, those questions need to be asked too.
Here's Paul in Jensen Beach, Florida.
Hi Paul, welcome to the Rush Program.
Hey, Roger, how are you doing, buddy?
Good.
Nice uh listening to you again after the many years I used to listen to you when I lived in a little place called Solana Beach.
Oh, good for you, Paul.
And next to a little place called Del Mar.
I understand you know a little bit about Del Mar.
I used to be the city attorney there.
I know that.
I know that.
That was back in 72 when I lived there or somewhere thereabouts.
Yep, that's right.
Anyway, I made the mistake of turn on national TV last night, and the guy was coming on, and the first thing he was making a remark about is uh how the uh economy, while it looks like it might be good, we have rising interest rate and rising gas prices and rising gold prices, and everything's really not as rosy as it seems uh seems, and and we must be heading for doom and gloom again.
And it just made me think that the whole press, as I listen to them now and have listened to them over the years, are just the masters of deceit.
They're more interested in reporting their opinion of the news as to oppose the news and the facts.
And I think it's even worse than that, Paul.
Actually, uh the m uh too much of the mainstream media is interested in reporting uh bad news about the war, about uh about Bush, about Katrina, and there's plenty of bad news there about uh the economy when there's no bad news there.
Uh and and that the because bad news means Bush is doing a terrible job, and maybe Gore will uh will finally become the president he should have been in the first place.
That's kind of their attitude.
And Paul, all I can say about your point about the gold prices and gas let's take up the gas prices.
Um if you don't understand by now that government ca government, not only our government, but the governments that control OPEC and control most of the oil supplies, and the government of China and India, which by the way, are growing their economies and oil demand is going up, that these governments are the main reason why gasoline has become more expensive.
When you haven't built a gas refiner, gasoline refinery in the United States since the 1970s, when you won't allow any drilling to go on here when demand is going up, I'm sorry, economics 101.
If demand is going up and supply is not increasing to meet that demand, the price will go up too.
Now, those of you who want me to go slower on that, we'll have a separate tutorial later on on that uh issue.
Mike, uh we're gonna get to you in a second.
Let me take my break so we've got plenty of time.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, info Russian, back right after this.
High gas prices, I don't like them either, and um, you know, it isn't it it doesn't help me when people point out to me another rational fact, which is that uh adjusted for inflation, these prices aren't as high as they were during Jimmy Cart, but so what?
They're still very high.
So why are they very high?
Well, here's one reason.
Everybody on the left is all extolling the virtues of Brazil, which recently announced it was free of dependence on foreign oil.
And uh we've done it because we grew sugarcane like crazy, we're making sugarcane into ethanol, we're putting ethanol into our Volkswagens, and we're driving like crazy in Brazil and we're having a great time and doing the samba, and uh we don't have to uh uh bring in any oil, right?
Well, sort of.
They are uh clearing a lot of jungle, a lot of rainforest, and the environmentals haven't said anything about that to grow sugar cane.
I've been in Brazil, I've seen the sugar cane, they make the sugar cane and ethanol, they put the ethanol into special pumps at the gas station.
The guys do drive up in their Volkswagen and fill it up with the ethanol, and it seems to run great.
Perfect.
But it isn't really the story.
They became in Brazil, independent of foreign oil input only when they opened up their latest offshore drilling rig, which brought in a bonanza of new oil.
That's when they became independent of imported oil.
We could do the same, of course, in the United States with uh sitting on top of a at least Venezuela size pool of oil in Alaska, and one of these days, we're going to protect the caribou, we're going to go for caribou reproduction uh rates never before seen by putting in the drilling and putting in another pipeline that gets warm so that just like the pipeline we have now in Alaska, the caribou will nest near it, they'll get uh uh amorous, uh, and as caribou do, they will thrash around uh uh a bit, and then uh there's more caribou.
I can't go into it any more than that.
That's all I know.
1800 282-2882.
But here's what the Bush administration could do today, and I'm I'm back to Brazil now.
I know this ADD thing's getting to me too.
Um I'm back to Brazil now.
Because Brazil has more of the sugar cane than they can actually use.
They would be happy to export it to the United States.
Ethanol that we could have now.
We have ethanol from corn, we don't have enough of it.
The Congress wave a magic wand and said, okay, now you're gonna have 10% ethanol and all the gas in the country, and we weren't prepared for that, and that's why gasoline got short, and that's why the price jumped up.
The government caused it to jump up, okay?
Uh we needed to have enough ethanol to meet the magic wand demand.
We could have had it had we allowed the Brazilians to import into the United States uh to export from Brazil their excess capacity.
Except that the free trade administration of the Bush administration has a fifty-four cent a gallon tariff on imported ethanol.
To protect who?
The local sugar cane growers in the United States.
Multimillionaires who are protected six ways from Sunday by the uh crazy uh n patchwork of subsidies and regulations and so forth out of the Federal Government, this being one of them.
You cannot bring in sugarcane-based ethanol into the United States without paying fifty-four cents a gallon tariff.
In other words, you're not going to bring it in.
If they waived the tariff, which Bush could do, we'd have plenty of ethanol.
We could be like Brazil.
Mike and Raleigh, North Carolina's next time.
Mike, you're on the rush program.
Go ahead.
Hey, Roger.
Great job today.
Thanks.
Mike, as you said, from uh Raleigh, North Carolina, probably one of the highest tax rates of on fuel anywhere in the country here.
How much is it?
Uh it's uh it's in the it's in the high thirties.
Uh for state.
Pardon me?
For state taxes you're talking about?
No, I think overall.
Overall, man, we're fifty-six cents in uh California.
It's sixty in New York.
All right, go ahead.
Go ahead.
It's high for us.
Uh I understand.
The question I have for you is that if we reduce the taxes, does that not accomplish what the left has been telling us all about, and that is that we need to reallocate all the money uh to some of the poorer individuals, meaning that if we reduce our taxes,
we're gonna hold more of it, and then this way we're gonna be spending it in the local areas where we live, the communities uh in the states, and that's actually going to increase the amount of money that each state has because they're collecting more uh taxes for the goods and services that we are consuming.
Does that not meet their objective?
Uh yeah, but Mike, uh, because they're redistribute uh redistributing kind of people on the left, they can't buy that argument.
They can't understand by lowering taxes you actually increase tax paying by rich people because rich people do more with that money.
They pay more, they're likely to pay more.
Uh if you raise uh capital gains and dividend taxes and all that, you simply have less of that.
They can't acknowledge that fact, even though it's been proven over and over and over again, because their rhetoric, the leftist rhetoric left over from uh, I don't know, left over from uh uh Stalin or somebody, is uh you you you've got to uh soak the rich by raising the taxes on wealth and income and rich people.
We need to punish them for their success and make sure that some of their success is redistributed to those in need uh who are poor.
When the reality, the actual truth in the real world is that when you lower the tax rates, the rich actually pay more.
So I've been I've been urging all day long the Bush administration ought to take this tax.
Soak the rich, lower the tax rates, and increase the tax revenues.
All right.
Casey in Seattle next been waiting a long time.
Casey, go ahead.
Good morning, Roger.
How are you doing?
Good.
First of all, I think Sheriff Joe ought to be head of Homeland Security, but what I wanted to give you here was a 15-second immigration plan.
You don't have to put in a new fence post, you don't have to change any laws, you don't have to do anything.
What you do is any employer that is caught hiring an illegal, you pull his federal tax identification number, you pull his state resale certificate, and you pull a city business license and suspend that for a period of five years, and that all the illegals will end up the border patrol will be patting them on the back and directing traffic as they head back across the border.
Now all those agencies and resources are already in place through Social Security, Department of Treasury, and the Federal uh the Internal Revenue Service.
Thank you again, Casey.
Thank you.
You are absolutely right.
Another caller so far ahead of the curve here, and I hope the Bush administration is listening to the program.
You have the laws now in place, the bureaucracy's now in place to stop illegal immigrants coming into this country by removing the magnet of the jobs.
Uh put a couple of employers in jail.
You know what the rest of them would do?
Absolutely.
Give them a way to check for sure that uh the Social Security number uh matches that particular name.
Uh get a foolproof uh way of doing that.
And Casey, they're gonna be you're absolutely right.
There would be such a rush for the border because there'd be nothing left up here for people who are illegally in the country.
Now, do we need legal immigration?
I think we do.
Uh I don't think you can have twenty-five abor uh million abortions since nineteen seventy-three and not need new people uh to work in your growing economy.
That's one issue that maybe we won't have time to get into.
But you're also uh not going to have twenty million illegals, you know, so-called doing the j you know, doing the drugs, doing the crime that Americans just won't do.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush, back after this.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh, who will be back, of course, uh tomorrow.
And I want to say thanks to Rush and the entire crew, uh Kit and uh and the rest.
Uh thank you very much for the opportunity for me to be here today.
I appreciate it.
Hope we have some uh had some uh thoughts out there.
More thoughts at RushLimbaugh.com.
▲
Export Selection