All Episodes
Previous Next
May 16, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
May 16, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I want to share a headline here with you.
And I just, I mean, when you hear this, dig deep to find your gut reaction.
Democrats plan to inject spirituality into agenda.
Now, what's the first thing?
What's the first thing that crosses your mind when you hear, or if you have a chance to read it, Democrats plan to inject spirituality into agenda, greetings?
Ladies and gentlemen, we're back.
Broadcast excellence rolls right on.
At 1.33, in about a half hour from now, a little bit more than a half hour, we will have Vice President Cheney on the program for a few minutes to discuss the immigration reform proposal the president made last night in his speech and what's going on in Congress as it affects that.
And I tell you, if you missed the first hour of the program, let me sum it up for you very quickly.
There's one place, and I know that there are a lot of you out there who just you're so angry at the Republicans, you're going to throw the bums out, or you're not going to vote, or you're not going to send them money and all that.
I understand all that.
But I'm going to tell you something.
Based on this, this is frightening stuff, what is happening in the Senate with their so-called compromise bills on immigration.
And it is apparent to me that we cannot surrender control of the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives is where right now the conservative movement, such that it is, exists in Washington.
That's the one place where the Senate and whoever else in the White House down the road can be checked.
The House immigration proposals make sense.
They've got the sense of reason about them, a sense of reality.
I mean, folks, look at this.
We're talking about 117 to 217 million new legal immigrants.
And some of that will be comprised of illegals being made legal during the period in 20 years.
Two-thirds of the population added to the current population in 20 years.
Now, this is not the 1800s.
In the 1800s, we didn't have massive welfare programs.
We didn't have a lot of these things that are going to, this number of people put pressure on.
We had a lot of territory that was not developed in this country.
We had a lot of wide open spaces.
We could handle all of this, that kind of immigration.
It's a different ball of wax now.
And you can't simply treat immigration today as it was treated in the 1800s or even in the early 1900s, because back then people had sponsors.
There was a system, the acculturation, the assimilation was a part of it, so the old melting pot would be met.
This is just adding workers.
And the Democrats are just standing around acting as spectators.
They are not proposing anything at all.
They're sort of like, I was going to make some of you mad.
Colin Powell.
You remember back the days Colin Powell had 70% approval ratings?
Well, it was understandable.
He'd hadn't even chosen a party at that point.
They were talking about Colin Powell for president.
And I was not on the bandwagon.
Larry King giving me all kinds of grief for not being on the Powell bandwagon.
I'm never on the conventional wisdom because there was a problem.
He hadn't even told us what party he was a member of or going to join.
And then he hadn't taken a position on any issues.
And I said, once he does that, once he tells us what his view on his abortion, on abortion is, once he identifies a party, that 70% is going to get smaller.
It's going to get a lot smaller.
Well, the Democrats almost have the same circumstance now on immigration.
They're bystanders.
They're simply bystanders and spectators.
And they're sitting out there throwing bricks and rocks at Bush.
And they're thinking that the Republican base is going to split apart on this.
The Republican Party is going to split apart on this.
And so they're implementing the cardinal rule when your enemy is in the process of what you think is destroying himself, get out of the way and let it happen.
And I'm telling you, this cannot be allowed to happen in the House of Representatives.
Whatever anger you have, it's imperative because that's where the conservative movement now is.
And the Democrats simply, they're looking at all this as a bunch of new voters.
Well, yeah, I mean, they are.
They're as excited as they can be.
But I'm telling you, a lot of these nitwits out there think this is 1880.
We didn't have entitlement programs.
We didn't have free medical care.
We had large land areas to settle.
There was a requirement that people come here legally, have sponsors, have skills, be clean of all medical afflictions and all that.
You know the number of people who didn't get in here because they are sick of some kind?
It used to be much different than it is now.
And, you know, a lot of people say, oh, well, we have this romantic attachment to an immigration system because after all, Mr. Limbaugh, we are a nation of immigrants.
Yeah, well, what we're talking about now in this stupid Senate bill is rejecting the immigrant system that we have had through most of our history.
We are not copying it.
We are bastardizing it.
What, Mr. Snurderly?
What?
I don't care.
The House doesn't have provisions for the guest worker program.
They're going to work that up.
It doesn't matter.
The House is not proposing 200 million new immigrants over 20 years.
Folks, I don't have any against humanity.
You know me.
I'm the servant of humanity.
I mean, I love humanity, but none of this has anything to do with ethnicity or anything else.
Don't confuse it here.
Our social welfare system is already stretched.
I'm telling you, Barron's magazine has come out and they have said that this is the first year now that the Social Security surplus does not cover Medicare payments.
Everything we've heard about these programs coming due down the road is true.
They are going to happen at some point.
Look at some people say, but rush, but rush all these new people.
Why, that's great because it's going to add to people.
We've had people call say this.
It's going to add to the Social Security contributor roles.
All these new workers, we make them legal.
They're going to be paying into Social Security.
And I'm going to get my benefits.
You're forgetting the drain.
They're all going to have children.
They're all going to be, they're going to be minimum wage or not very much above it.
The drain on the social security and other safety net programs is going to far outweigh whatever contributions these people end up making via payroll taxes.
Look, folks, if these people, let's say this is the people coming from Mexico illegally, if they were a net plus to the Mexican government in the same way you think they're going to be a net plus to us, Mexico would be building the wall to keep them in.
Now, you're going to have to get your head screwed on right about this.
Some of you people out there, and I know you've called here, you've talked about it.
Wait a minute, my daughter did the kidney right there.
Yeah, well, you're right to be worried about it, but the solution you've got, legalizing illegal immigrants, is only going to put a strain on it like you can't believe.
Garrett.
What do you mean we must have a civil debate?
I'm being civil.
Actually, we're not having a debate.
I am monologuing.
There is no debate here.
I am a benevolent dictator.
We'll have debates when we go to the phones and so forth.
I got to go to the audio sound bites very quickly.
In fact, number seven first.
After the State of the Union address on January 31st, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer revealed the latest flash poll numbers on President Bush's remarks.
Now, remember, this does not necessarily reflect the feelings of the country because traditionally, we found out in recent years, more Republicans watch when a Republican makes the speech, more Democrats watch when a Democrat makes the speech.
But did our viewers tonight approve of President Bush's proposals?
77% approved.
23% did not.
So we said at the time, Bob, why even do the poll?
If you're going to trash the credibility of the poll before you release the results, why are you going to give us the results?
And by the way, I don't remember them ever saying after a Clinton State of the Union address, and by the way, we really hate to tell you this because the Republicans don't watch Clinton, only Democrats do.
No, they just ran the poll as though it was a honest reflection of the American people at large watching a Clinton speech.
Well, here's Bill Schneider on CNN's Anderson Cooper last night.
They did a flash poll on the president's immigration speech.
We interviewed people both before and right after he spoke.
Keep in mind that those who watched the speech were more Republican than the country as a whole.
A lot of Democrats just do not watch President Bush speak.
Now, the overall reaction was 40% very positive, 39% somewhat positive, only 18% negative.
When we looked among people interviewed before the speech, 42% said they had a positive reaction to the president's immigration proposals.
After the speech, that jumped to 67%.
But don't listen to our poll because, as we told you, Democrats hate Bush and they don't watch him speak.
This is only Republicans.
Bill, why even put the results out if you're going to discredit and trash your own poll?
You and she for both.
Note the technique.
Note the similarity from network to network.
Drive-by to drive-by.
Just basically telling us their poll is worthless, telling us not to believe what the poll says.
But they see they committed beforehand.
They promoted the poll, so they had to give us the results.
Now, drive-by print media, as I mentioned in the first hour, just give you some headlines here.
New York Times, president's middle path disappoints both sides of sharply divisive immigration issue.
As I said last hour, you know, we hear from these political professionals that this is a nation made up of moderates and independents.
They're great unwashed, the great undecideds.
Yeah, we got the Democratic base, we got the Republican base, but they cancel each other out.
And everybody that knows what's going on running for president, they know they got to go out and get the big middle.
We are a nation, and the independents and the moderates are celebrated as the people that are not partisan.
They're smarter than everybody else in the room.
They decide things issue by issue by issue.
Well, let's just check now.
If New York Times could praise Bush as a great moderate here, struck the right balance, then his approval numbers ought to skyrocket if this is a nation of moderates, right?
We'll wait and see.
Keep a sharp eye on the future results.
John Pedoritz, J-Pod, New York Post, middle ground is the theme of his piece.
Los Angeles Times, Bush, his critics overreach on immigration.
Well, that's a columnist.
Never mind.
Elizabeth Buehmiller, New York Times, behind Bush's address lies a deep history.
This is a sympathetic piece about Bush and how he still believes in the power of immigration to invigorate the nation.
And all the way back when he was governor of Texas, he's been very consistent about this.
And he's actually a very compassionate, thoughtful guy on this.
One of the things that worried me, and the New York Times starts liking you, you might be doing something wrong.
Washington Post liked the speech too.
One nation.
We're unified.
Bush seeks middle ground on immigration.
It seems like in the drive-by media today, the phrase it pays is middle ground.
So they liked it.
Bill Schneider's flash poll, 67% of you apparently like the president's speech.
I'm telling you, all eyes on the Senate, because that's where the real danger in immigration reform is lurking.
I remember Vice President Cheney here at 1.33 Eastern as we start the first break at the bottom of the hour.
Back after this, don't go away.
America's anchorman serving humanity simply by being here, simply by showing up on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
All right.
This headline, Democrats plan to inject spirituality into agenda.
Folks, if you have to inject it, it ain't real.
If you have to go out and put your spirituality in a syringe and go and shoot up, which is what injected means, then it's not there in the first place.
And the headline says it all, but the story is even better.
A conference geared to help Democrats infuse God into their politics begins tomorrow at All Souls Unitarian Church in D.C. with the unveiling of a spiritual covenant with America.
The Spiritual Activism Conference aims to equip liberals to operate in a political arena where religion has played a more prominent role since 2000, says Rabbi Michael Lerner, big former buddy of Hillary's, founder of the Jewish magazine Tikun, and a chief conference organizer.
While we support the liberal agenda, we're going to a much deeper level with this spiritual critique.
We want to bring in non-utilitarian frameworks that seize other human beings as embodiments of the sacred.
After some 1,200 conferees receive copies of the covenant, which is an alternative to Newt's contract with America, they're expected to discuss it Thursday in meetings with members of Congress.
Rabbi Lerner said, we're not taking a liberal agenda and sticking on some Bible quotes.
It's a whole rethinking on how to do liberal and progressive politics in a whole different language.
A guest list for the conference includes anti-war activists like Cindy Sheehan, who will help lead a pray-in for peace outside the White House on Thursday afternoon, a pray-in.
That's not what it's called.
So the Democrats want to inject spirituality into their agenda.
All right, to the phones, people patiently waiting here.
David in Charleston, West Virginia, I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome.
Oh, thank you, Rush.
It's an honor to be on your show.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, I call because in your opening monologue, you said that you thought the president was a sincere leader giving a sincere speech, and I found that just to be the opposite.
I mean, he blamed all the problems, essentially, as you said, threw them back on Congress when he Congress has appropriated money for additional border guards.
He refused to spend part of it, 500 he didn't hire.
They've appropriated money for additional beds for detention of even terrorist suspects that they catch.
For two years, he's refused to spend the money.
Enforcement against businesses.
Now, listen to this.
It's dropped from $5,000 a year under his administration to less than 10.
Less than 10 businesses a year.
They can't find them when they had to shut down because of this immigrant march.
But the federal government can't find them.
They can't enforce the law when one social security number is being used 10,000 times.
He says this is a country of laws.
It's only a country of laws for us, the American people.
Okay, hold it.
Hold it.
I get your point.
I get your drift.
Let me just ask you a question, very simply.
What did you want to hear last night?
I wanted to hear that he was going to build a double wall across that border to close the border and give us border security.
And then, after that, he could deal with the illegal immigrants that we have and the future.
That's what I want.
I wanted the House built.
And right now, I'm not represented anymore except by Shelly Moore Capito.
Because it seems like the president and the Republicans in the Senate, they represent Mexico.
They don't represent me.
Well, I agree with you by the Republicans in the Senate.
These guys are a bunch of compromisers and moderates.
Way too many of them there.
I think you are being represented in the House.
We all are.
That's, to me, the imperative here as all this goes forward.
All right, so you didn't get what you wanted.
You didn't get your double wall.
And I don't know if you had an honest expectation that did you actually expect the president was going to offer that last night?
Well, I thought if he listened to the people, to the 70, 80% of the people who want that border closed, yeah, he might actually think about that.
Instead, he gives us smoke and mirrors and kind of spits in our face providing for it.
Yeah, but he's never indicated that he's going to build a wall.
And the leaks that the government, the White House, put out yesterday about the speech didn't get anywhere near the fact there's going to be a wall.
We knew about the National Guard.
We knew some of the other elements of the speech.
I think the leaks were not all that accurate.
But nevertheless, the things that you want, I mean, you know that you weren't going to get in this speech last night.
So it does raise questions.
I raised the question yesterday.
What is going on?
You talk about 70, 80% of the people who want the border closed, and yet, CNN's flash poll last night, 67% said they liked the proposal, liked the speech.
I'd be interested to see if there's a poll that we think we can trust down the road about this speech last night, what people actually think of it.
That's why I think the speech last night was sort of not really the point anymore.
What's going on in the Senate is the point with this compromise bill.
And look, a break is coming up.
We'll ask Vice President Cheney some of these questions because he's next when we get back.
And then we'll get back to your calls, 800-282-2882.
Don't go away.
And welcome back, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And once again, we are thrilled and honored to have with us the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney.
Mr. Vice President, welcome back.
As always, great to have you here.
Well, good afternoon, Rush.
All right, question.
Is the president, are you and the president, the administration, aware of the dissatisfaction on the whole issue of illegal immigration that exists, not just within the Republican base, but within the country at large?
Yes, we are, I think, Rush.
In my travels out around the country, I've found for a long time now immigration, illegal immigration in particular to be a big issue.
And it's true no matter what part of the country you go to.
Of course, you find it down along the border, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico.
But I also was out in the Seattle area the other day and talked to several folks out there, and it was a significant issue up there, too.
It takes different forms different places around the country, but it is a tough issue.
It's complicated.
It's important.
And so there are, I think, legitimate concerns out there on the part of a lot of folks.
Why do you think so many people, and I'm just judging from telephone calls I've had, and when I make trips to California, like you just mentioned, I can't get away from the subject.
It's all anybody wants to talk about, particularly in Southern California.
Why is it that so many people don't think that the steps the President is outlining and has outlined over the years will address the seriousness of the problem?
Well, I think part of it is that a lot of folks aren't aware of what's already being done.
I mean, the President pointed out in his speech, for example, that since we got to office, we have arrested, turned back, sent back across the border some 6 million illegals.
That's a huge number.
There's a huge amount of effort that's gone into that.
We've had a very significant increase in resources.
It's just that the problem is so big, there's still a lot more to be done.
And to date, we've not yet been successful at getting a comprehensive approach out of the Congress that would allow us to address some of these issues.
So we've been doing what we could administratively.
We've been doing what we could with appropriations bills.
But in terms of basic legislation, we've still got a ways to go.
The House has acted.
Senate has not yet acted.
And then, of course, we'll have to get something out of the conference.
And what the President did last night was lay out a fairly precise program in terms of what he'd like to see.
Well, let's talk about what's going on in the Senate.
There are a number of bills there.
The compromise bill, we're being told, is Hegel Martinez, two Republicans proposing this bill, Robert Rector at Heritage and Senator Sessions, who I know you respect, both did joint analyses of this bill.
And what they project, using conservative estimates, is anywhere from, over the next 20 years, 110 to 217 million legal immigrants entering the country and illegals as part of that number being granted legal status.
What is the public policy purpose for doing that in these kinds of numbers?
Well, I haven't seen their analysis rush.
And at this point, of course, what you have in the House bill is specifically a border enforcement bill, which you've got in the Senate bill is a bill that goes after border enforcement, but also, and you've got Hegel Martinez, and there's Kennedy-McCain.
There are a lot of proposals kicking around.
The Senate has not finalized its package yet, so we don't know what's going to come out of the conference.
Obviously, we're going to want to look at it very carefully to make sure it does achieve the objectives the president's talked about.
Well, just if you haven't seen it, let me give you the bare essentials.
Senator Sessions did his own analysis.
It's a 614-page bill.
I know it's got to be conferenced, but this is a pretty radical starting point.
They have anywhere from 117 to 217 million legal Americans.
That's two-thirds of the population over the next 20 years if this bill were to become law and if the president signed it as is.
Now, hopefully...
These are people who would attain legal status?
No, this is a combination of both.
This is an increase in the number of legal immigrants as well as added to illegals who would then be made legal over that 20-year timeframe.
And it also allows for exponential growth because these people would be allowed to bring in their family members as well.
And one of the big concerns here is the strain this would put on an already stretched social safety welfare net and this sort of thing.
And so these numbers are just striking to me.
Add two-thirds of the country's population in 20 years.
I don't think we can handle that financially and certainly not in an assimilation way.
Right.
Well, if that's the case, I would hope that would inform the debate and that Congress will consider those kinds of impacts very carefully before they finally pass them.
It will certainly weigh in on them.
Well, Senator Sessions is I think the floor debate today has spent some time really working the numbers, and he thinks most senators aren't even aware of these numbers, and he's going to do his best to make them aware during the debate.
So hopefully that's true.
Now, let's talk about the National Guard.
6,000 Guardsmen, what's the length of time that it is expected they will be needed?
Well, the total proposal is to run for one year in terms of using the National Guard.
And over that period of time, we've added some 3,000 Border Patrols since we got here.
We're going to increase that by an additional 6,000.
That's a 50% increase in the Border Patrol over where we are today.
And the National Guard would be, in effect, to supplement what's there already in terms of the Border Patrol during that period of time while you recruit and train additional Border Patrol officers.
Guardsmen is a temporary measure.
Units, it is expected, would go down as part of their regular training rotation.
And this would be for up to 6,000 at any one time, the way they'd handle their annual training exercise.
It would go down in support of the Border Patrol themselves.
Let me ask you this on behalf of my audience simply because of a number of emails.
People don't think that this number of 6,000, which probably will add up to 2,000 or 3,000 on duty at any given time, is actually going to make much of an impact.
What would you say to them?
Well, I'd say it's not just about the National Guard.
You've already got a large number of folks working down there under the auspices of the Border Patrol.
We've got big investments going in now in terms of additional technology, in terms of sensors and aerial vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles and so forth, as well as fences.
One of the very useful things the Guard can do is what they did there in San Diego a few years ago when they installed a section of fence there that's turned out to be a very effective that particular section has been very effective.
Basically was built by Guard troops.
So there are a lot of things they can do to support the efforts and to beef up the effort that's already underway.
And I think that's the intention with respect to the Guard.
It's not a be-all and end-all of the operation.
I think a lot of our folks who sign up for military service don't sign up to go stand on the border for two or three years of active duty.
But this is a way to use the resources of the National Guard to support the professionals who are otherwise involved in that activity.
We think it makes sense.
It's been done before to some extent in the counter-narcotics area.
It's not a new concept to have the Guard working the border in support of federal officials.
As all of you in the administration discuss the issue and formulate a plan, do you ever, has it ever, has a wall, an actual wall, ever been given serious consideration?
It is given serious consideration, not a wall, for example, from ocean to ocean.
There are a lot of places out there where it doesn't make sense.
There are other places where it does.
I'm told, I'm not an expert in this by any means, but that when you get into built-up urban areas, fences, security barriers might be a better word for it, are, in fact, an important part of the overall plan and need to be part of it.
There are other areas where you've got vast spaces out there where you need other kinds of arrangements.
You need roads to be able to patrol.
You can use remote cameras.
You can use unmanned aerial vehicles.
It's partly a matter of getting technology to it as well, too.
But it is a very complicated problem.
We're talking just about one piece of it, just the border security part of it.
But you've also got to address, I think, some of the basic economic incentives that attract people in the first place.
All those folks who want to come here for the jobs that they can find working in the United States for a lot more than they can make in Mexico or someplace in Central America.
We think you've got to address all those aspects and facets of the problem.
And where appropriate, fences or security barriers make good sense.
But I think the experts got to go through and figure out what's the best technique or procedure for each part of the border.
Let me ask you a quick political question, two prongs to it.
The Dubai Ports Deal, American people spoke out loudly against it.
We don't want any part of it.
It got killed.
The illegal immigration deal is generating just as much negative response, but the American people are not getting the reaction, the same reaction from government to that they got on the Dubai Ports Deal.
A little confused asking questions.
What's different here?
We're still talking security.
The second thing is, Democrats, Mr. Vice President, frankly, getting away with being total bystanders and spectators on this.
They offer no solution themselves, yet they continue to sit around and criticize the administration and the Republicans over this.
Is there a plan to deal with them politically on this?
Well, it is a very tough issue.
There's no question about it.
You mentioned the Dubai Ports deal, Rush.
That created a firestorm of controversy.
And so Congress quickly backed provisions that would have made it impossible to go forward.
And of course, the folks at Dubai Ports withdrew their proposal.
The fact is that from the perspective of United Arab Emirates and so forth, I've worked closely with those folks.
They've been very good allies of ours.
And I don't want to go back and redo the whole Dubai ports operation.
But the fact of the matter is, I thought there was a very strong emotional reaction there.
I can understand the emotional reaction, but it didn't bear much resemblance to the basic fundamental facts.
What we have here, I mean, I suppose there's a difference between trying to govern and solve a major problem, which is what the president and those of us who work for him are trying to do, versus the Democrats in this case, who don't have any responsibilities or at least aren't willing to take any responsibilities and want to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots.
This is an important problem for us to deal with.
We've got some 11 or 12 million illegals in the country.
It is a national security problem.
It's also an economic problem.
If you could round all those folks up tomorrow and put them back over the border, you'd have a big hole in your workforce.
It is not an easy, simple proposition.
If it was, it would have been solved a long time ago.
It's one of those tough, intractable problems where you're going to make progress three yards in a cloud of dust.
We need to get started.
We need to get the border secured.
That's our top priority.
But then we need to also deal with these other aspects of the problem.
Mr. Vice President, thanks for your time.
I wish we had a little bit more, but I know you're on a tight schedule.
And it's thrilled with whatever time we have work with you whenever.
So thanks very much for being with us now, and we look forward to the next time.
All right.
It's good to talk to you, Rush.
You render great service out there by hosting these debates.
Thank you, sir, very much.
We'll be back.
We'll continue in just a moment here on the EIB network.
CNN just put the latest results of their poll up on their website.
79% of those who watched had a very favorable or favorable view of the president's speech last night.
Those who support the president's policies increased from 42 to 67 percent after that speech last night.
That's on CNN.
Beth in Acton, Massachusetts.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine.
Thank you very much.
Oh, boy, it's raining here, but I'll tell you, talking to you makes the sun come out.
You know, speaking of that, I've been watching.
I feel so bad for you.
I'm watching videotape of all this flooding up there, and I'm wondering why is there no criticism of Bush and FEMA on this?
How long has it been raining and the flooding been going on up there?
About a week.
And we got it last spring, too.
It's really, you know, we can cope with it.
So this is New England.
If we can't cope with the weather, we should leave.
I know, but it's, well, hurricanes are weather.
And this is a disaster up there.
There's flooding, people being evacuated.
And I just, I'm wondering where FEMA is and where the criticism of Bush is on this.
Well, don't say anything.
No, I'm just.
Obviously, I'm making a facetious point.
That's not why you called, but you reminded me I was going to make that point.
So now get back to what it was that you called about.
Well, I know exactly how to deal with the illegal immigrant problem.
And thank you so much for letting me talk, by the way.
One thing is the IRS does a very good job of going after people who don't pay their taxes.
Then why can't we set up a similar system to go after businesses that hire illegal aliens?
And it's very easy for businesses not to hire them because you just go online and go to something called the Basic Pilot Program and put their Social Security number in it.
And the Basic Pilot Program will tell you whether or not the person is legal.
And then don't hire them if they're not.
But if there's a business hiring people who aren't legal, fine them in such a way that the fine pays for the cost of dealing with the businesses in the first place.
Now, this is an interesting comparison that you've made.
If the IRS can do it, then why can't we do it with finding illegals?
Here's the relevant facts about the IRS.
Number one, they don't catch every tax cheat.
Yet, this country has one of the, I mean, we probably set the record in voluntary compliance, and we do so out of nothing but pure fear.
Because when the IRS does audit you, they put you through hell.
And when somebody has been audited, they tell everybody what it's like, and nobody wants to go through an audit because there's a possibility that even if they don't owe any more money, the government's going to tell them they do.
And then what do you do?
But they're not catching every tax cheat.
They are limiting.
They don't have enough agents to run around and monitor everybody either.
They can't possibly.
It would be physically impossible.
So they have used fear.
Now, and it's taken years and years and years for them to affect this level of fear on the part of every taxpayer out there.
But they're more effective than the nothing that would be going on if they weren't there.
And it would be more effective to do that than to do nothing.
And then the second thing that I think would really work is to get rid of all entitlements for anyone who is not a citizen and to make the punishment for carrying a false ID and pretending to be a citizen very serious.
Not just getting fined everything you own, but getting shifted right out of the country in a big hurry and sent somewhere you don't want to go.
Well, look, I'm all for that, but I'll tell you it's never going to happen.
And I don't mean to be the Democratic Party is never going to let that happen.
The Democratic Party is trying to recruit the very people that you've just described.
Please, Russian, all due respect, I am not a Democrat.
I may live in Massachusetts, and that's because my husband's job is here, and I'm a nurse, so I can work anywhere.
I didn't choose to live here.
I grew up here, and my family were ardent liberals, and my husband is a decent conservative man, and my oldest son bought a book you wrote.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
That's great.
I appreciate that.
But I didn't accuse you of anything.
No, no, I know you didn't, but you converted me.
And you're my only news source.
And so my feeling is you make me hopeful that things like this can happen because you're out there informing people.
If you go online and you go to numbersusa.com, they have a report card for all the politicians for who is hard on illegal immigration and who isn't.
And you can decide who you want to vote for.
Well, we're going to deal with that too.
I've got to run because I'm out of time here.
But I appreciate you noticing that we are optimistic and hopeful and filled with good cheer on this program.
And there's nothing that's going to change that either.
I'm bombarded with negativism all day, but it just bounces off.
Back after this.
All right, we're going to move on to other things when we get to the next hour.
I know you have those of you on the phone still want to talk about this, and that's fine.
I am going to introduce other items out there as we canvass the country.
▲
Export Selection