All Episodes
Previous Next
June 14, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:40
June 14, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You tell them I'll deal with it when I have time for crying out loud.
I'm in the middle of hosting the most listened-to radio program in the country.
People have expectations of this show, and I can't be sitting around worried about that, right?
You tell them that.
Now, just tell them that.
All right, I'll tell them.
If you want, geez, greetings, my friends, and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
EIB excellence in broadcasting.
A program and host that everybody in media emulates, loves, and in some cases resents, and in a few extreme cases, hates.
And we are known by our enemies, and we thank God for them daily.
Happy to have you with us.
800-282-2882 is a phone number if you want to appear on the program.
And we're going to get to your phone calls i'll quicko here.
I know I had diarrhea of the mouth in the first hour, but I had to put that all together for you.
What with Carrie's flip-flops and Hillary at the Take Back America Convention and his stupid new theme that the Democrats are threatening to unveil on everybody?
But first, ladies and gentlemen, big news here.
John Kerry and Al Gore were in Philadelphia yesterday.
People were driving by Geno's in South Philly yesterday and dropping off money because you know the poor guys get to hire lawyers when the city goes after him on his English-only requirement for ordering.
They've got special language even.
I mean, you can speak English and not know what to do when you go into one of these Philly cheesestake places.
You've got to understand that wid means with.
You want wid or without, wid whiz or without whiz.
You've got to understand it as cheese whiz.
But anyway, just mountains and tons of support for Geno's yesterday.
In fact, Geno, Geno's owner Joey, has just stopped talking.
Did so many interviews yesterday.
All right.
Hastert deals blow to immigration.
Hopes for, this is all AP reporting, Suzanne Gamboa, hopes for a quick compromise on immigration were dealt a blow Tuesday after Denny Hastert said that he wanted to take a long look at a Senate bill offering possible citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants.
Hastert said that hearings on the Senate bill should be held before appointing anybody to a House-Senate committee to negotiate a compromise immigration bill.
Later, he said he was unsure what the House's next move would be.
He says, we're going to take a long look at this, he said late Tuesday, which is good.
It's over 500 pages.
So this is sort of unprecedented.
Boehner agreed, majority leader on the Republican side.
I think we should know clearly what's in the Senate bill.
He added there are lots of ways to understand its contents.
John Cornyn, Republican senator from Texas, also scheduled a hearing from Monday to review provisions in the bill requiring employers to verify that their workers are legal.
Cornyn said he opposes a provision that would allow workers to use up to 20 documents to verify that they are legal workers.
That means they wouldn't have to have a total of 20.
They can use any one of 20 different kinds of documents to prove they are legal.
Also, the Department of Homeland Security has raised concerns about how quickly it must have in place an electronic system that employers will use to verify their workers' legal status.
This will give us a chance to look at it in more detail, Cornyn said, of the House action.
Now, sending a bill that has already passed the Senate to hearings would be a highly unusual move and make completing a final bill before Congress goes on its summer recess in August far less likely.
Disagreement on procedural issues has kept negotiations from starting, but there were hopes it could be resolved this week.
Jim Menley, spokesman for Dingy Harry, said it's an obvious retreat from where they are.
All right, now let me explain this to you.
It's a large bill in the Senate.
There's some things in it that are at present unconstitutional.
The Senate cannot originate spending bills, and they do in this bill by getting into when illegals have to and don't have to and how much they have to pay back taxes.
So that has to be dealt with.
But there are 500 pages here, and it is safe to assume that not every senator has read every page and understands what he voted for or against in this bill.
This happened at lightning speed for the Senate.
So the House, the argument has always been, or yeah, the argument's always been, we got to get a bill.
Well, we've got to get a bill.
If it's a bad bill, we've got to get a bill.
If they don't get a bill, a Republican control Congress.
If they don't get a bill, why would that say to the president?
It'll make him look like a lame duck.
Oh, no, we got to get a bill.
And so the pressure has been on just to prove this thing, and we can say that we've engaged in comprehensive immigration reform.
Well, the House is different in the Senate in a key political sense.
Members of the House have to stand for re-election every two years.
As such, they are required to know where their constituents are.
And the House of Representatives can be used as the best gauge of where Americans are issue by issue by issue.
And on this one, on this issue of immigration, as dealt with by the Senate bill, Republicans in the House have had to weigh two options.
Okay, do we cave on this one like we've caved on a number of things here that we've disagreed with, the Medicare entitlement, the education bill that Ted Kennedy wrote, a number of things that they've had to bite the bullet on in supporting a Republican president.
Do we bite the bullet here and just sign off on this thing and make the president look good?
Or do we listen to our constituents?
A lot of the senators, you know, only one-third of them is up for election every two years.
And the senators that are not up for re-election are the ones who voted in most cases for this particular Senate bill, figuring that voters will forget all about this by the time two or four more years go down the pike and these guys in the Senate run for re-election.
So the House is what's best?
Is it no bill if it's a bad bill, or do we go to conference and try to make chicken salad out of this?
Or do we stall it and make it look like we're working?
And the pressure, you can't believe, folks, the pressure that is on Republicans in the House to vote this thing out and get a bill, go to conference and send something up to the president.
The pressure to get a bill, legislation for legislation's sake.
Well, that's the wrong reason to do anything is for the sake of it.
I don't care if it's legislation or acquiring power.
You have to have purpose, principle guiding you.
And if you're going to do bill just to get a bill, it's obviously going to be bad.
It's going to be a mistake.
And these guys in the House, the Republicans in the House facing reelection is looks like they've made a decision.
Looks like Senator Haster or Speaker Haster has made a decision.
It looks like they're putting pressure on the Senate.
We're going to look at your bill.
If we don't like it, I don't know where there's even grounds for compromise here.
It's very interesting to watch this because the pressure, as I say, on these guys to vote this thing out and give the president something he can sign is incredible.
But I think you're going to see them resist it.
And by the way, just so you know, you can do this anytime.
There's no need to do this now, particularly as this Senate bill is written.
It's horrible.
There's a way to do this right.
And if it takes the next term, if it takes next year, fine.
The pressure to do it now is purely political.
The pressure to get it done now is not based on, oh, God, it's so bad, we've got to fix it, because this doesn't fix it.
This exacerbates the problem of illegal immigration.
Quick timeout, your phone calls are next.
Hang tough.
It's just too bad out there.
The Democrats' culture of corruption took another hit today.
Former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell.
Now, I have read three stories about this.
Excuse me.
I've read three stories about this, and only one of them, and it's the last word of the story do you find out he was a Democrat.
Former mayor, this is LAP, Aaron Hands, former Mayor Bill Campbell, who presided over one of the most prosperous and dynamic periods in Atlanta history, was sentenced on Tuesday to two and a half years in prison and fined $6,300 for tax evasion.
Campbell, 52, was convicted in March.
He was cleared of charges that he lined his pockets with payoffs as he guided Atlanta during the 1990s.
But he was found guilty of failing to pay taxes on what prosecutors said were his ill-gotten gains.
Sentencing guidelines had called for two and a half years to three years and one month in prison.
The judge also ruled that Campbell owed $62,000 in inbacked taxes.
Campbell, the last line of the story, Campbell was once considered a rising star for Democrat.
So the culture of corruption on the Democrat side just like everything else.
If you look at all this objectively and strip the emotion out of it, it's blowing up on him.
Everything's blowing up.
You know how convoluted things are?
Have you heard?
And I swore, folks, if I ever heard this phrase again, I would bleep it.
But now I'm going to use it.
We've heard these august members of the Senate tell us that the purpose of the Senate, they are the saucer that cools heated coffee, tea, water as it spills out of the cup.
And this cooling process is where reasoned analysis takes place.
Take the emotion out of it.
What's happened is a reversal here.
It is the House of Representatives that has become the saucer that is cooling the fevered tensions going on in the Senate.
All right, I promise we go to the phones and start in Malibu.
Rick, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Anytime, sir.
I wanted to make a comment on Hillary's speech the other day regarding troop withdrawal.
And I hear her getting credit for staking out a more moderate position, but I don't hear anybody scrutinizing the substance of what she said.
No, no, you never will.
And what she said was, she's not for setting a timeframe for troop withdrawal, and she's not for leaving it open-ended, which basically means what she's saying is she's not for setting a timeframe, and she's not for not setting a timeframe.
She said it in the same breath.
I mean, you either are for a timeframe or you're not for a timeframe.
There is no third position, is there?
Why are you surprised?
Mrs. Clinton often says nothing while being proclaimed as the smartest woman in America, smartest woman in the world.
She's trying to have it every which way possible.
She knows that she's not going to be analyzed in the drive-by media like you are analyzing her here.
She knows it, so she knows she can get away with it.
Where you have to go with Hillary is to look at her votes in the Senate, and you'll find the vote on the war goes back to the she wants to be president.
One thing the Democrats are just not going to learn.
If you want to be president, you cannot in any way make yourself appear anti-victory, anti-U.S. military.
This she knows.
Carrie, the others are just Russ Feingold.
I mean, they're beating their heads against the brick wall.
But Hillary at least knows this.
So she's, like you've just pointed out, she's trying to have it both ways without saying anything specific.
And it's because of that that she's getting booed, by the way.
It's not because she's saying, I'm against setting a timetable.
It's because this fringe kook base, they want ideology folks as much as we do out of their leaders.
And they're not getting it.
They're getting wishy-washy, namby-pambyism.
They're getting pandering.
They're getting themes.
They're getting never-ending strategies.
They're getting consultants.
They're getting meetings.
They're not getting what they want, and they're going to keep on until they do.
Mrs. Clinton knows that she cannot go over the cliff with them by coming out against the U.S. military.
And that's what you come out.
I don't care who you are.
You'll sound like you're against the military and against victory if you're critical of them and the mission and you want to pull out.
Plus, you'll look like a quitter.
And she at least knows running for president, she can't do that.
Randy in Racine, Wisconsin, you're next.
I'm glad for your patience.
Welcome to the program.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
You bet.
Ditto's from behind the cheddar curtain.
I got an answer to your question.
You asked what the position of the Democrats was on the Iraq war.
My answer to that is, get out before we win.
You know, that's pretty well stated.
Get out before we win.
A friend of mine sent me a note today and said, here's the best way to analyze Democrats.
They will be with you when the first bullets fly.
They will be with you when you want to go to war.
But when the going gets tough and when the first rough spot is hit, they will abandon you faster than they joined you.
Meaning you cannot count on them.
The country can't count on them.
The military can't count on them.
It's like this war in Iraq.
They were right there when they thought it was politically opportune for them to be there.
But when the going got tough, just listen to them now.
Scram, cut and run, get out.
Even such transparent policies as Mirtha's, let's redeploy.
Let's just get our troops out of there and send them to Kuwait and elsewhere.
What's the point?
Well, if we have to send them back in, we have to send them back in.
We do that.
But if they can send them back in, we'll be easier to have them that close.
But if we're not in there, we're not agitating tensions and we're not participating in civil wars.
Get them out of there.
We're not getting our troops killed.
Get them out of there.
Redeploy them.
We're going to Kuwait.
Cut her.
Put them anywhere.
Get them out of there.
And Mirtha's even out there saying, oh, so we could have gotten Zakawi and our troops in there.
Get them out of there.
Absolute sophistry.
Even armchair generals know how idiotic these guys are.
Mike, thanks for the call.
Up next.
Let's go to Louisville.
Amy, welcome to the EIB network.
Glad to have you with us.
Thanks, Rush, for taking my call.
Megadittos to you.
Thanks, Russia.
And Happy Flag Day also.
And I just wanted to say, I'm a military wife, and what you say is absolutely true.
It's kind of my point that I was going to make.
When you make a list of the people that the Democrats stand by, one of them was definitely not the United States soldier.
And, you know, I don't think soldiers want a change from what they have.
They have a commander-in-chief who is steady, who is behind them.
And I don't think they want to change from that.
Sad reality is they can't afford to be seen in solidarity with troops right now.
Their base wouldn't put up with it.
I mean, some Democrats tried on Memorial Day weekend to make a show of, well, remember that memo that went out?
Did that happen?
It did not happen, did it?
Memorial Day, the memo that went out from Dingy Harry and others, you're supposed to go and take over a military base or set up a public appearance at a military base and make sure you got veterans there.
Did we ever see any of that?
I don't remember seeing it.
I don't think they were able to pull it off.
I think because they probably heard from this kook fringe base, you do that and you've really lost us.
They hate the military out there, folks.
Democrats are paranoid of the base.
Let me ask you a little pop quiz.
Who was the first liberal to appear on television and wish for the president's safe return from Iraq?
I don't think any of them did, actually.
That's right.
That's a little bit of a trick question.
Liberals stampede to the TV cameras, but their talking points do not include the word class or the word patriotism or, for that matter, support for the president in a time of war.
Did any five-hour trip ever send more signals to more people?
A, the president is still the president, no matter what the kook blogs in the New York Times think.
Secrets can be kept in Washington as long as you don't tell Congress.
Another truth is the nation is hungry and starved for good news and that we can tear down this wall of doom with a little good leadership.
And we also learned that our troops are four square behind the mission and the president.
But the most important signal, folks, was to the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, even the terrorists.
United States will stay the course.
Don't bet on us cutting and running.
There is no more split screen of Bush and Murthy, Bush and Kerry, because what Kerry and Merthyr say has been relegated to the ash heap of inconsequentiality as a result of the trip to Iraq.
We will be back.
Hi, back we are.
I just consulted the email.
And this is interesting.
I know that there are new arrivals to the program, and I know that this program inspires thought.
That's good.
I love it when people think.
And sometimes people think things through and try to be ahead of the curve, essentially to do what I do here, keep you on the cutting edge.
I understand the inspiration delivered by me and provided by me and this program.
But also, there are some people who just can't get over the fact that the Democrats are still wily coyote, smarter than everybody in the room, and we're just, well, no, they're the roadrunner.
We're wily coyote.
We get bombed by acne every day by the Democrats.
This email, Rush, is it possible that these votes and these boos against Hillary are not all setups to make her look as if she's taking a position counter to the left of her party?
Is it possible these negatives are all for show and to make the Republicans think that she's failing and falling out of favor with the rank-and-file Democrats?
Now, you know, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, this would have been an understandable question, maybe even theory.
But the Democrats are no longer, I don't even really think they were the smartest guys in the room and the greatest tacticians.
They just never left offense.
They were always on offense and with the help of the mainstream media.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton, there's no setup here.
They're not getting people in to boo her as a setup.
The point of that would be, as you say, to try to convince conservatives, oh, look at Hillary losing faith, because there's too much of that going on out there.
Too many drive-by media people are writing pieces about how, oh, my gosh, she can't win.
They'd all have to be in on this conspiracy.
And if that's the length they have to go to try to make us not worry about Hillary in order to let her sneak up on us, the idea Hillary Clinton's going to sneak up on anybody in those pantsuits, especially, is absurd.
So don't be too smart by half on this stuff, folks.
Sometimes and most of the time, things are what they are.
Ward Churchill, the professor who called some of the World Trade Center victims little Eichmans and was defended.
On the basis of academic freedom and intellectual openness and tenure, isn't it amazing the left can't stand it when someone on the right has the audacity to be critical of them or their icons?
But here's this loon out there suggesting that the World Trade Center victims of 9-11 were little Eichmans.
Well, it may be come home to reality time for him.
It has been recommended he be fired now because of repeated and deliberate infractions of scholarship rules.
According to a committee at the University of Colorado, the recommendation came on a 6-3 vote.
Now goes to university officials for a final decision.
Churchill, a wacko-tenured professor of ethnic studies who has vowed to fight his dismissal with a lawsuit, has committed serious, this is a quote now, serious, repeated, and deliberate research misconduct, the school's standing committee on research misconduct said in its final report.
But in what appeared to be an acknowledgement of the political pressure placed on the university to fire Churchill, the report asked scroll officials to reassure other faculty members that Colorado still values academic freedom.
So while they're recommending get rid of this guy, don't anybody else be worried about it.
This guy just took us over the cliff.
We couldn't support.
We tried to support as long as we could, but we just couldn't.
Now, I was on a golf course about, I don't know, three weeks, a month ago, and it was shortly after the city of San Francisco had a voter-approved resolution which banned handgun possession in the city of San Francisco.
And a guy came up to me and said, how can I do that?
I mean, that can't possibly stand up.
Not even in San Francisco.
There's the Second Amendment.
You just can't do this.
You just can't.
And I said, well, unless somebody challenges it, and it's San Francisco, it's going to stand.
They've got other kinds of wacko things.
Somebody's going to have to challenge this.
And then it's going to go to a California judge.
It's entirely possible that this could stand up until somebody takes it much further along than the city of San Francisco level or the state of California.
So imagine my shock and stunned amazement when I saw this story.
A judge indeed struck down San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handgun possession Monday, saying local governments have no such authority under California law.
This is Proposition H.
It passed with a 58% majority last November.
It would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except cops and others who need guns for professional purposes.
It would also have forbidden the manufacture, sale, and distribution of guns and ammo in San Francisco.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren agreed with the NRA, which argued that PrEP H, Prop H, exceeded the powers of local government and intruded into an area regulated entirely by the state.
The NRA sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates, and dealers.
The day after the measure passed, enforcement of the measure was suspended while the suit was pending.
I'm still stunned.
I'm still stunned.
I mean, you could have fooled me that they would found a judge in San Francisco.
I mean, Judges out there went ahead and said, yeah, marriage thing is okay.
Gay marriage, screw the law on that.
So I'm happy to be stunned, but I was stunned.
Nevertheless, Jonathan in Portland, Oregon, you're next, sir, on the EIB network.
Yes, sir.
Rush, it's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
Just wanted to make a quick point.
The clip you played this morning of Gary making the comparison between the Iraq war and the Vietnam War.
I agree with them in the sense that they weren't for the war in Vietnam and they didn't support it then, and they don't support the war now, and they don't support our troops or America.
So I never thought I'd say I agree with them, but I actually agree with them in that one point that your war does the same.
And in a sense, they don't support either of them.
Yep.
Bottom line is they'll be with you when the war starts, but at the first sign of trouble, they're out of there.
They're out of the foxhole.
They're not going to be anywhere around you.
For some reason, they find it okay to support wars when they're starting and when the country's revved up for it.
But for some, well, I know, I was going to say some strange reason.
I don't want to be too redundant with this, but it really is the explanation.
And I don't think it can be stated enough.
You analyze these people like I do.
Remember, my friends, I know these people far better than the back of my hand.
I know them like every square inch of my body.
And they are living in the past.
Let me summarize this very quickly.
For 50 years, they ruled the roost, and they had very little opposition, and they were never challenged.
Whatever the Democrats said, whatever liberals said, whatever they did was applauded, echoed, and amplified by the drive-by media.
And there was no real opposition to them that they had to pay any attention to.
And so they grew fat, dumb, happy, and lazy.
And then they began to make assumptions the whole country is with them.
And even the country that's not, the part of the country that's not, doesn't matter.
It's so small we can bamboozle them, raise their taxes anyway, and punish them for not agreeing with us.
Screw them.
Well, an attitude of that that goes on for so long does not prepare you for the eventual challenges you're going to get in the debates, and that's what's happening to them now.
And they're totally ill-equipped to explain themselves.
They've never had to.
They've just been liberals, and they've gotten away with the notion that liberalism just is what it is.
Liberalism is as natural as the water coming out of the faucet.
And anything other than that is something kooky.
It's an aberration.
Well, we came along.
We gave people an alternative with substantive reasons to explain the philosophy of conservatism, the ideology, and to give people a reason to support it, help people who were already that way validate their own beliefs, be able to explain them to people, and voila, a movement was born.
All this time, the Democrats ignored the effervescing conservative movement because their attitude was born in 50 years.
It's nothing but a bunch of pimples on a pig.
Doesn't matter.
It's never going to amount to anything.
These people are oddballs and kooks.
And so they continued to live in their arrogant condescension world.
Now it's gotten to the point where that arrogance and condescension has secured them minority status with no end in sight, no matter their illusions and dreams.
And so they need to recapture what they think they're on the verge of losing, which they already have lost.
And the only way they can do it is to look backwards.
So this war must become Vietnam.
Because to liberals, 60s liberals, Vietnam represents the coming of age of true power to overcome the power of the big evil U.S., to overcome the power of government, to overcome the power of people, overcome the power of the military.
They successfully turned the American people against that war.
Then they got rid of Richard Nixon.
And that's when many of our drive-by media members came of age as well.
And so when we got the name of what is Mark Felt, who was deep throat, Drive-By Media went orgasmic.
Yes, that was our finest hour.
That was our finest retrospectives of their finest hour.
Well, fine.
If that's their finest hour, they're trying to repeat it.
Just like you throw a great spontaneous party on a Saturday night.
Say, man, that was fun.
Let's do it again Saturday.
Next Saturday.
Problem is you start planning what happens spontaneously.
It's never the same.
It's never as good.
They don't even understand that.
So it used to be that they were trying to recapture the glory days of Clinton.
For some reason, they've abandoned that.
Now they want to recapture the glory days of Vietnam, the glory days.
And imagine that, the glory days of America's defeat.
The glory days for them were when we lost and when we were humiliated as a country.
And they're trying to recapture that.
And that's all Kerry is doing.
And the mainstream media drive-by media support him because what they're attempting to do at the root level is demonstrate to themselves that they are still relevant.
Back in just a sec.
Talent on loan from God.
And back to the phones at Tucson.
This is Pat.
Hello, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hi, Rush.
Just a quick comment on the FEMA fraud to $1.4 billion.
Oh, yes.
It fired me up this morning to see the typical approach from the news media relative to it's all FEMA's fault.
I would just hope someplace we see the other side of that and hanging some skins on the fence for the people who stole my tax dollars under the guise of receiving aid fraudulently.
Come on.
You have unreal expectations.
Well, I have the story here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
I've got two stories.
Some of the things that were done with the money.
I mean, I'm sorry for laughing.
You don't sound too agitated about it because tell me the truth.
You're really not that surprised, are you?
I'm not surprised, but agitated isn't the right description of how I feel.
Oh, okay.
It's even worse than that.
Yes, sir.
All right.
Well, let's go.
Thanks for the call.
Let's go through some of the details here.
As the New York Post writes about it, shocking ripoff of taxpayers.
Federal Hurricane Relief bought Girls Gone Wild videos, Caribbean vacations, and French champagne as thousands of brazen scam artists bilked the government out of $1.4 billion.
Although the aid was intended to shelter and clothe thousands of devastated familias from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the audit to be presented to Congress today shows a widespread criminal splurge of debauchery and excess while the feds were asleep at the switch.
And that's his point.
It's the feds' fault.
It's FEMA's fault.
All right, let's stop there.
Let's just stop there.
So much to say about this.
All this money, anybody with half a brain who's been paying attention to this kind of thing for a short period of time knows and knew full well that when you start throwing gobs of money at people, that they're going to take it and spend it on things unrelated to the intention.
They're not going to go out and get housing.
They're not going to go out and do all.
They're going to go out and buy goodies.
They're going to go out and buy things that all humanity wants.
The way they define enjoying life, improving their life, a girl's gone wild video, a vacation in a Dominican, a bottle of champagne instead of a bottle of ripple.
Maybe Mogan, David, I don't want to be too insulting here, but the bottom line is that this is human nature.
And anybody, but we get so caught up in, well, they're victims.
They're victims.
And we must show compassion here.
Here, take this money.
And we look the other way and we say, we are good people.
Then we hear about the fraud.
We go, outrageous.
How can this possibly be?
How could the government let this heck of the government let it happen?
The government.
Let it if you have that idea, then you ought to be against every spending program that comes down to Pike because this is no different than any of them.
You think this fraud's bad?
Try Medicare fraud.
You think this fraud's bad?
Try welfare fraud.
You think this fraud's bad?
Try one of the aid-to-dependent children.
We had that.
Try that fraud.
You think this fraud's bad?
They're advertising for fraud from the food stamp program.
You think this fraud's bad?
Take a look at any big government spending program and you get serious about the fraud and the waste that's involved and it would make you puke.
It would make you sick.
In a sense, it is the government's fault, folks.
In a sense, it's the government's fault for not realizing what is going to happen when this kind of money in these size piles is thrown at people.
Anybody knows that has a family?
Well, I can't even say that.
Because no, everybody doesn't know it.
But let's say that you have a recalcitrant child and the child is failing and not doing something that the child should be doing that you've instructed the child to do.
And you say, okay, son or daughter, I'm going to give you this, I'm going to give you a thousand bucks, and I want you to go spend this on books and tuition and so forth, whatever.
Just using picking a figure here.
And then you come to find out later, went to Blockbuster, went to some movies.
You spend the money for them if you want to make sure it gets spent right.
If the government's actually going to be in charge of shelter and clothing and so forth, then the government never gives the recipients the money.
The recipients get the money, no control over it after that.
But see, that's not the point of the program.
This is what you have to learn about big government.
The point is not to make sure it's spent wisely.
The point is to spend it.
Because spending it equals compassion.
Spending it equals we're good people.
Spending it equals we care.
Spending it equals they'll vote for us.
There's no intention to be responsible about this.
There never was at any level of all of this.
Back in just a second.
I'm going to run through some of the details of what these evacuees from Hurricane Katrina actually bought when we come back from the break here at the top of the hour.
Lots more, of course, straight ahead, in addition to more excitement behind the blinking lights there on the EIB phone.
▲
Export Selection