All Episodes
Previous Next
June 1, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
June 1, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You see, where a Batwoman's coming back in a cartoon of comic books as a lesbo coming back as a lipstick lesbian, Batwoman, or is it Batman?
It's Batwoman.
Batwoman's coming in.
Batman's not coming back as a lesbian, right?
No, good.
Thank God.
Well, it'll happen eventually anyway.
Batman is a lesbian.
Anyway, greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
El Rushbo here, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Your highly trained broadcast specialist at 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Little immigration news.
Senator John McCain called on Orange County Latino leaders yesterday to support his immigration bill, saying that it was time for them to speak for people who cannot speak for themselves.
You are the role model.
You, you are the role models.
Gee, McCain said to a mostly Latino audience of 340 gathered at the Hyatt Regency Irvine.
McCain came to Orange County to garner support for the Hispanic 100, a three-year-old organization that has organized events with President Bush, Governor Schwarzenegger, and the gubernatorial candidates.
McCain later attended a fundraiser for his PAC in Los Angeles, canceled an appearance, as we told you yesterday in San Diego for GOP congressional candidate Brian Bilbray, apparently over their differences on illegal immigration.
In Orange County, McCain said Latino leaders must press Congress to approve a final measure that mirrored legislation he co-wrote with Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
The Senate approved a version that increases, well, I need to get in details.
At any rate, Senator McCain out pandering now to this group.
And it reminds me, folks, of the way Senator McCain was pandering to sell his campaign finance reform legislation.
See, a lot of parallels here, loaded with platitudes for the group that he's speaking to.
You're the backbone of America in the future.
We'll cease to exist without you.
Dire predictions of what will happen if his bill doesn't become law.
And of course, if you look at campaign finance reform, what had screwed everything up?
Why does anybody listen to the guy?
He's got a terrible track record on these kinds of big pieces of legislation.
And yet, you know what?
People just seem to get in the line and follow this guy wherever he goes.
And I'll tell you why.
It's because he gets favorable coverage in the drive-by media.
And that's what his Republican colleagues would love to also get and benefit from.
And so that's why.
But it's astounding.
Now, the Senate immigration bill that's being talked about here makes the same mistake as the 86 Amnesty by restricting the ability of citizenship and immigration services to share information on illegal alien guest worker applicants who are criminals and terrorists.
You know who said this?
Emilio T. Gonzalez, whose agency would have to administer a guest worker program.
He said not allowing the U.S. citizenship and immigration services to share information on someone who applies mean they can't begin the process of removing criminals and national security threats even after they're rejected from the guest worker program.
Well, Shosia, this is precisely what I told you.
There's no enforcement in this bill anyway.
Not only is there no enforcement, there are obstacles to accomplishing what the bill supporters promise us will happen.
I mean, this has echoes of the gorilla wall prior to 9-11, where CIA and FBI couldn't share information because of basically grand jury secrecy.
We were fighting terrorism in the courts.
Mr. Gonzalez said it's important for us to be able to act on what we get when we run a background check on somebody.
He said this in a briefing with reporters in which he weighed in on the Senate immigration bill, which would offer a chance for citizenship to millions of illegal aliens.
You have to understand who this guy is.
This guy's part of the executive branch.
This guy is, he's the, he runs it, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. CIS.
And he's out there ripping the bill.
Mr. Gonzalez says he hasn't seen any deal breakers in the bill, but he said moving forward, policymakers are going to have to answer key questions about eligibility, types of acceptable documents, information sharing, and limits to judicial appeals.
He says, we don't ask those hard national security questions.
Shame on me.
And he's being told he can't on the basis of what's in the bill.
On the issue of information sharing and confidentiality of applications, Mr. Gonzalez said the law usually allows his agency to share information when its employees come across an application that raises questions.
But he said the 1986 amnesty included confidentiality provisions that prohibited sharing information from those applications.
And he said the Senate bill makes same mistake.
We ought not to be kept from using that information.
Well, the bigger question is, I told you this is just a rehash of the Simpson-Missouli bill.
It's just a rehash.
And Ed Meese did a whole column of the New York Times about how the wording is, in many cases, identical.
This is not an immigration bill.
It's anything but.
Senator Kennedy, key backer of the bill, said that the underlying bill struck a balance that still allows law enforcement to go after cheaters, while at the same time not discouraging illegal aliens from coming forward.
Senator Kennedy said our bill removes criminals and those trying to game the system, but it also, my gosh, they're not enforcing anything now.
This is such an asinine premise that all of a sudden there's going to be all this enforcement in this bill.
Kennedy said his main worry was that sharing information would discourage some aliens from coming forward because they would fear making a mistake, an innocent mistake that would hurt them later.
So we can't share any information.
We can't allow these agencies to cross-check applications to find out if, because the bill says, if you're a felon or whatever, you got to go.
They want to deport you.
You can't come.
But now they can't check to find out because the same provision that's in the 86 bill is in this bill.
Well, Kennedy says, well, we got to discourage, can't discourage aliens from coming forward.
They might fear making an innocent mistake, and that would hurt them later.
So you can clearly see that the Senate has a totally different agenda on this than the vast, vast majority of American people.
I got to take a brief time out here.
We'll be back and continue in mere moments on the EIB network.
Stay with us.
All right.
People have been patiently waiting on the phones, and so we will reward the patience.
And we'll go to Amy in Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
Your first today.
Nice to have you, Amy, and welcome to the program.
Thank you so much, Mr. Limbaugh, for taking my call.
You bet.
I apologize if this is a poor connection because I'm on my cell.
No, no, it sounds very good.
Oh, good.
This is such an emotional issue for me, so I will try very hard to be objective and lucid for you and for your audience.
My husband is a soldier with almost 18 years in the U.S. Army, serving his second tour in Iraq in three years.
I think you are so right when you say that the answer is not to send in more troops because these troops, the strength isn't even there to send them.
There are soldiers serving their second, third, and fourth tours of Iraq and Afghanistan.
And I really believe that you're going to see a mass exodus of people leaving military service in the next two years.
Is that it?
I'm sorry?
Is that the conclusion of your comment?
Yes, sir.
I believe that.
I just think that a lot of people like my husband who could serve beyond 20 years or more, they're just not going to do it.
Well, I mean, I wouldn't be surprised, but the reason I'm confused is because you said you couldn't agree with me more.
And I missed what you're agreeing with me about because I'm not.
I'm sorry, sir.
You were saying earlier that sending more troops was not the answer to solving the problems in the Middle East right now with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh, okay.
That's true, but that was in the context of there are people calling for more troops now.
And the time, you know, if we had used the full force of our power at the outset, we could send in the ground troops a little bit later after more of the country was secured rather than just Baghdad.
If we're going to go to war, we're going to go to war.
And this is hindsight, and it's very dangerous to do this.
And I'm not trying to be critical.
It's just, to me, the context in all of this, Amy, is that the U.S. doesn't fight wars the way we used to.
We have constraints that we've placed on ourselves that are, I mean, they're right out of the new age psychobabble Bible, if you ask me, worried about what people are going to think of us and maintaining our image around the world and so forth.
If this stuff is really about our national security, then it's not a question of do we win it?
It's a question of when.
The possibility of losing can't really exist.
We're the United States of America.
Now, what the future status of the U.S. military is going to be, I wouldn't be surprised if people have been in 18, 20 years.
Don't go.
These people in the military, as you know, you're married to one, are special, different, unique people.
And I don't think we're ever going to have a problem fielding a fighting force as long as the nation remains at risk in a dangerous world.
This is Eugene in Pittsburgh.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Pittsburgh Steeler and Army veteran Dittos, Russia.
Picking up on the topic of Jack Murtha and his lurid political grandstanding, wouldn't you think that as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, he would have a similar responsibility to not exert undue command influence on the outcome of an investigation?
Well, legally, no.
It doesn't apply to him.
That's the point.
I just want to prepare you.
I've got a whole stack of stuff about Haditha, and I'm going to get to it here in a minute.
And I'm going to show you exactly what I'm talking about.
The media, everybody has already got this the worst event ever.
It's going to redefine U.S. military policy.
It's going to redefine U.S. military X, Y, and Z. We're now sending the military to values training.
We have to send soldiers to values training as a result of this episode.
But Murtha, he's not bound by the, because he's not in the Pentagon and he's not part of the military.
He's retired.
But he's not constrained in what he can say.
I'm just telling you, he's just going to be one voice of countless thousands.
You better brace yourself for it.
Are you still there?
Yes.
I mean, I know that he's not in the chain of command, but as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, he has a moral obligation to uphold the trust.
Come on, we're talking about a Democrat here.
You've got to get your expectation.
What do you mean, moral obligation?
This isn't the 1940s.
But this is a war, and it's surprising how easily President Bush is getting rolled on this.
But they don't think it's a war.
You have to understand, if you really nail some of these Democrats down, they don't think this is a war.
They don't think 9-11 was an act of war.
It was a crime, they think.
It was a random terrorist event, but it didn't represent a war.
It wasn't an attack by one country against us.
So they don't look at it as a war.
And they think the immorality is all on Bush's side on our side.
You know this.
You know that they think the true threat in all this is George W. Bush.
Right.
And to pick up what you've been saying for more than 18 years, the obligation of leadership is the obligation to continue to educate.
Yeah.
You know, I think Bush has been criticized for not explaining what this Iraq thing is all about.
Frankly, I got tired of hearing him explain about it.
He was doing it all over the place, especially before we went in.
It's flying to Cincinnati.
He's flying all over the place.
Speeches in the morning and the afternoon, speeches at night that haven't been as frequent in the last couple of years.
But when you say it's the obligation of a leader to educate, couldn't agree with you more.
But again, we don't have a president who is an ideologue, and therefore he's not leading a movement.
So there's not, he'll explain policy now and then, but in terms of the ideological underpinnings that form the policy, we're not going to get that because they're not there.
I'm not being critical.
You know, there are Republicans, there are Democrats, there are liberals, there are conservatives.
And you can be a Republican and not be a conservative.
You can be a conservative on some things, moderate on others, country club blue-blooded on others, and liberal Republican on others.
And the president is conservative on a lot of things, but he's not what you would call an ideologue.
And no, I'm not sitting around pining and moaning and wishing there were a Reagan.
It'd be great if there were, but I'm just grounded in reality.
I don't sit around wishing things were different than they are.
What does that get you?
Unless you have the power to change them yourself.
And right now, I don't have the power to change elected leadership in Washington or anywhere else.
I don't, not now.
It's June 1st.
There's not an election here today, Mr. Snurdle.
There's no power to make any significant changes here.
So you deal with what you have, and you understand it in that context.
You say Bush is getting rolled on this.
I know that's the popular perception.
But if you, I'm telling you, and you're probably judging that on his approval numbers, if you dig deep into the internals of these approval numbers, you will find that the people that disapprove of the president's job performance run the gamut, and they cross the political spectrum.
And many of them are Republicans and conservatives who are upset because we're not using shock and awe, upset because we're not doing this and not doing that.
Some of it's gasoline prices.
Some of it is a fear over the economy.
Some of it is just that people have been conditioned to think negatively about everything regardless of reality because their daily absorption would drive-by media.
But I don't think the American people have given up on Iraq.
And I don't think this Saditha thing, whatever it is, is going to cause the vast majority of the American people to turn on the U.S. military and adopt the liberal idea of the U.S. military, that being that it is the focus of evil in the modern world.
That is not going to happen.
Murtha is not going to carry the day.
John Kerry's not going to carry the day.
These guys are not going to carry the day, but they're going to cause you a lot of heartburn in the meantime.
Justin in Fresno, California.
Hi, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Thank you.
Rush, you'll forgive me while I rant.
I'm just so angry.
I'm a 34-year-old son of a Naval Air Force man.
My uncle Emil was shot down over China in World War II, and I am just sick and tired of people like Jack Murthy categorizing all of our men and women in the armed forces as killers.
And I tell you what, the mentality of these left-wing nuts is now being taught in our school system where my children are going.
And these liberals have hijacked the school systems.
And we need good people like you and my father to teach the principles of freedom and that our men in the armed forces are doing the right thing.
And I just, you know, I can't emphasize enough how much these people are tearing down this country by the rhetoric they're using.
And make no mistake, that's their objective.
The people you're talking about are trying to change the fabric of this country.
There is a Blame America crowd.
There's a hate America crowd.
And they're mostly leftists.
They're a combination of socialists and quasi-communists, multiculturalists.
And they're just, they're losers in life.
They're lost souls.
They're looking for meaning.
And they've got themselves into certain positions of power, such as education.
Predominantly, most of them reside now, still some in the courts.
But we're making big progress, but I couldn't agree with you more about Mirtha.
Let me ask you a question.
Have you ever heard Jack Murtha criticize any of our enemies with the language that he uses to describe our own military?
You know, it's absolutely amazing to me.
Well, it's not because I understand the mentality of the left thanks to education that I get from your show every day.
But we hear just garbage about everything that our men do, and there's not one thing that talks about.
No, but look at you.
Look at you, Justin.
You don't believe it.
So I'm telling you, there are far more people like you out there than you know.
You don't believe it.
It makes you mad.
These people, like I brilliantly pointed out yesterday, people like Mirtha not only act like they're so, so concerned about innocent Iraqis and the horrors of their lives.
They didn't give a rat's rear end about the lives of the Iraqis when Saddam was torturing them, when Saddam was raping them.
They didn't care about what was going in Rwanda when a genocide wiped out 400,000 people.
After the fact they apologized, they got platitudes Clinton did for apologizing.
I should have done more.
I just, I missed.
Oh, he's such a great man.
If they cared about the lives of average Iraqis, then they would have been on this case, as Saddam Hussein, a lot sooner than they are.
The idea they want to blame U.S. troops for this is ridiculous, and it's not persuasive.
As I say, it's going to cause your heartburn, but don't panic about it.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
El Rushball, talent on loan from God.
Colleen in Rutherford, New Jersey.
Is it Rutherford or is it East Rutherford?
No, it is Rutherford, New Jersey.
East Rutherford is east of Rutherford.
Well, I gathered that idea.
I didn't mean to insult you.
No, I'm joking.
I'm joking.
Well, Rutherford's a really, really beautiful town.
We have New York City as our backdrop.
We're seven miles from New York City.
Oh, I know exactly where it is.
I've been there.
Oh, have you been to Giant Stadium?
Yes, absolutely.
Oh, okay.
All right, that's it.
And at Teterboro Airport, and there's a couple of good restaurants over there that you sneak in and out of.
Yeah.
Oh, all right.
What restaurant have you?
Do you want to mention one or you don't want to mention one?
No, no, no, no.
I'm just trying to let you know of my familiarity with where you live.
Oh, good.
All right.
All right.
Now, have you gone to any of the football games here or no?
Oh, many.
All right.
All right.
Now, my husband is an ex-player.
Oh, is he?
Yes, for the Giants.
For the Giants, really?
Now you got me curious.
He was an offensive lineman.
They just did a story in the local Rutherford paper today, actually, on him living.
It's called A Giant Living Amongst Us in Rutherford.
It's Doug Van Horn.
I don't know if you know the name.
Of course, I know Doug Van Horn.
Good, okay.
Absolutely, I know Doug Van Horn.
I mean, I don't know him, but I know the name.
Absolutely.
You are Colleen Van Horn?
Yes.
Oh, my God, Rosh.
It's not that.
Oh, well, you are Rush Linda.
Oh, my God.
He's a Russ Linda.
You have no idea.
Well, anyway, it's nice to meet you, Colleen Van Horn.
And you tell Doug that he was a great player.
He was a great player.
Oh, well, he had a long, he played for 13 years.
So I definitely can understand that.
He's very, very, very humble.
He's a very humble person.
Well, just so you know, he was great.
Now, Colleen, what was it that you called about?
Okay.
Well, first of all, I just can really, I'm just at the breaking point here right now because I'm just so upset with this country.
And I have been watching for the last past week of Memorial Day footage on, you know, documentaries coming from Iraq.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And it is just very disheartening.
They have just decided to cut 40% of Homeland Security to New York City.
Yes.
And I believe that they have given the citizens of this area a death sentence.
I mean, if that's not telling us the towers aren't there anymore, and if you're not, that is telling the American people that we forget you as fast as we possibly can.
And when all these young men come back, and I have a nephew who is very brave, and he enlisted two years ago because of that.
Colleen, I'm losing a train of thought here.
You're equating the 40% reduction in funding from Homeland Security for the New York area to troop cuts in Iraq?
No, no, no.
Meaning that when these troops, we're fighting the war still right now.
And we are fighting a war still right now in Manhattan, in New York City.
And you're telling us right now that you would cut the funds, if you can cut the funds to New York City, then you're basically cutting the funds to Iraq.
Because the reason why we're over there fighting is because of what happened here in 9-11.
Well, look, I know this has people in New York up in arms.
Peter King, Chuck Schumer, what did King say?
He said, I think I'll have to paraphrase this, but I think I read where he actually called this a declaration of war against New York or some such thing.
That may be a little extra.
I'm not sure he said it that way, but they're livid.
And they're really upset because some of the money from Homeland Security is going to places that New Yorkers think is the hiss to sticks, Kentucky and Wyoming.
And so you can understand the anger, but here we go again.
I'm back to the basics of conservatism here.
The idea that a certain amount of funding is somehow going to lead to disaster, I guess it's a reality of American life today because so many years people have been inculcated with the notion that government spending makes something better.
Spending on this, spending on that, makes it better or insures us or protects us or some such thing.
And I'm, you know, I'm not, I don't make that association.
The idea that a 40% reduction in spending somehow makes New York more vulnerable than it already is is a disconnect to me.
You telling me that if we had fully funded, the terrorists would be less motivated to attack.
And with they now find out that New York's getting 40% less than they were going to get from Homeland Security, that terrorists are going to be more motivated.
Oh, man, they're going to give them as much money as they were going to get.
Why, we're going to have a much better chance of hitting them.
Yeah, Peter King, as far as I'm concerned, Department of Homeland Security and the administration have declared war on New York City.
Those are very, very strong words.
Well, it is.
I'm trying to be reserved here.
You know, Peter King is, he's been all over the reservation lately on a whole bunch of things.
The Port Deal accused me of being a hack for Bush, a flack for Bush on that issue.
And now this declaration of war on New York City by the administration.
Well, there was, I do remember that.
Snurdley's got a good point.
What was the initial alum at 20 was it?
Was it 20 billion that we gave the first time?
And a lot of it went unspent.
It was 20 million, 20 billion, whatever.
A lot of it went unspent, so forth.
I'm not trying to get New Yorkers all riled up here, but the idea that this is a declaration of war, that the federal government, the administration, are saying that New York drop dead is, you know, it's just extreme.
And it's a bit over the edge.
Colleen, great to talk to you.
Nice to have you on the program.
Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Bo, welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush, Megan Meadows.
You bet.
I'm calling, I just seem to have a problem, and I'm truly humbled because you are always right.
Yes.
Not rarely, always.
Thank you.
And I just can't seem to understand how or who or what is motivating John McCain when 80, 70, 80% of Americans are against that piece of bogus legislation on immigration.
Who's he pandering to?
I mean, is he sitting back looking at how George Bush, Mr. Compassionate Conservative, worked with Kennedy on some of those other bills?
What's motivating him?
Well, let me try to explain this to you, Bo.
We've taken several stabs at this over the course of things.
In the first place, you have so many things, I think.
I don't mean to overwork this theme, but I do believe that it is salient, and that is guilt.
I think that there are a number of people, particularly in the Republican Party, who will not do anything if it can be portrayed as discriminatory or Any type of mistreatment against any people of color.
I just don't think, especially a presidential candidate, a guy who aspires to the high office.
The second thing is, McCain is not up for re-election anytime soon, so he doesn't have to face the voters on this other than when he gets to the primaries, and he will face the voters on this.
In a political sense, one of the things that's amazing to me about this, just in terms of politics, we all know that McCain has been trying over the past number of months to make inroads with conservatives who cast him sod in the 2000 primaries.
He's gone and met with Jerry Falwell.
He appeared on the 700 club with Pat Robertson.
He's done a number of things to try to re-engratiate himself with the conservative base.
Then this issue comes along, and if he did make any inroads with the conservative base, which I doubt, but if he did, he says, wiped that slate clean with this because there is no way the conservative base is going to reward John McCain for something like this.
There's also arrogance.
Those people, this disconnect is profound, and they really look at Bo.
You and I, we're just a bunch of rubes.
We're just a bunch of hicks.
We don't know what's good for the country.
You know, we're unsophisticated.
We don't know enough.
We're not.
They're looking at us like liberals look at everybody.
Unsophisticated, incapable, incompetent.
In addition to that, all of these people represent voters, potential voters down the road.
And there are Republicans who think they can get some of these newly arrived immigrants, legal and illegal, by acting like Democrats.
And why would you do it?
Why would any Republican try to out-Democrat a Democrat?
It makes no sense.
It would be as stupid as if a liberal came along and started trying to be a conservative like Hillary did.
Nobody bought it, didn't buy her anything but a bunch of angst in her own party and a bunch of disrespect that she's paying the price for now.
In addition to all of that, there are special interests that are contributing mightily to these people.
And many of them are from big business.
You don't see big business types marching on the street and doing protests and all that, but they do contribute a lot of money.
So there are a lot of reasons to try to explain this.
None of them are going to make any sense to you, but they all, taken separately or added together, will help you to understand it a little bit more.
But at the end of the day, the bottom line is they're doing it because they think they can get away with it.
They're doing it, Bo, because they think you'll forget it.
That something else will come along, some issue by the next election will come along, and you'll have forgotten all of this.
Passions will be roiled on other things because senators, only a third of them, are up every two years.
That is why you look at the House of Representatives.
Everybody in the House goes for re-election every two years.
And so when you find out what the American people's pulse is, the pulse of the nation will be represented by the House of Representatives because those people have to face their constituents every two years.
And it's a specific group of constituents.
It's districts.
It's not whole states like senators deal with.
So we'll see.
This conference committee is going to get started sometime this month, and it'll be interesting to see what actually happens.
We have some audio soundbites from the president who spoke to the Chamber of Commerce today, and I haven't read the transcript of them yet.
I haven't had time.
But some people are telling me he took a little bit tougher stand on some of these things.
We'll maybe listen to a couple of them and see if that's true.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
I did a little research here, ladies and gentlemen, about this New York City funding business from Homeland Security.
I have a question, by the way, for those of you in New York who are listening to this program on our magnificent flagship there, WABC.
Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, just pointed out that New York is getting, still getting the largest amount of money of any city, state, what have you, from Homeland Security in spite of these cuts.
And he made the point that a lot of what New York has been getting is for capital improvements and that many of those have been completed.
And so the same level of funding is not necessary, that they're still getting a significant amount of funding for protection and first responders and this kind of thing.
But here's my question.
For all of you in New York, whether you're the liberals in New York, now I know that we have countless, many liberals listening to this program in New York.
Now, I have a very simple question.
Are we at war or not?
You all think that Bush is lying, lied us into war.
It isn't necessary.
There wasn't, going to Iraq and all the war on terrorism.
It's sort of crazy.
You know, Bush made a mountain out of a molehill here.
And it's clear that many liberals believe that Bush is a real threat to our security.
Bush made the world hate us and Bush equals Hitler.
I mean, you liberals in New York know who you are.
So what the hell?
If there's no war and if Bush lied about it, made it all up, then who cares how much money you don't get from Homeland Security?
Well, see, the answer is you'll catch him with the question because there are no more World Trade Center towers there.
Something happened there, whether they want to call it a war or not.
Something happened there.
There was an attack, and they think it could happen again, and they don't want any less protection from the federal government via Homeland Security.
So it must be that deep in their souls and deep in their hearts, even the liberals in New York admit we are at risk.
And I don't think they're really afraid that Bush is going to attack.
I don't think Bush is going to order a bunch of stealth bombers to fly over Manhattan and start dropping ordinance.
So obviously, all of this blowhard pontificating about Bush overreacting, Bush lied, this, that, and the other thing.
Apparently, the outcry in this city is sufficient enough to make me believe that there are a lot of liberal New Yorkers who think we're in a war or that we might get hit again.
And they're worried that there's not enough protection coming from the federal government.
And I can't have it both ways on this.
We're either in a war or we're not.
Now, you New Yorkers, you have, and I'm one of you, there are some.
But I've lived there enough to know that they have a unique way of covering shortfalls in funding.
Raise cigarette taxes.
Raise taxes on public transportation.
Again, raise the gasoline tax.
I mean, liberals love tax increases.
Tax yourselves into security, New York.
You're going to sit around and actually just let Bush make you more vulnerable?
So Bush has cut your funding by 40%.
You're more vulnerable.
Oh, no, we're greater.
Fix it.
Tax yourselves into security.
Tax increases solve a myriad problems, do they not?
I mean, you're trying to stamp out smoking anyway in that town.
Raise liquor taxes.
Raise restaurant taxes.
Raise a hotel tax.
There's any number of taxes.
Raise the freelancer tax.
Raise the income tax.
Raise taxes, period, and you'll recoup and pay it yourselves.
That might be a problem.
All right, we have gone to work here at the EIB Network, folks.
We care about New York and its vulnerability to future terrorism because of this drastic draconian 40% cut in funding from Homeland Security.
The clear path, New York, you can't sit around anymore and wait for somebody else to protect you.
You're going to have to do it yourselves.
If Homeland Security is going to screw you out of 40% of what you were going to get, you got to rescue yourselves.
You got to protect yourselves.
Defend on yourselves.
And the way to do that is tax yourself to security.
And we are working on various activities because you tax activities and what you do.
Liberals tax behavior that they don't like, tax behavior they do like.
We're working on a list of potential tax increases for New York that would ride to the rescue, save the day, and come close to replacing the 40% security funding you just got screwed out of by Michael Cherdoff at Homeland Security.
▲
Export Selection