A bipartisan group of senators and the White House have reached agreement on an immigration bill to provide quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.
That's the only detail I have now, but that's pretty much all we need now.
It has to go over to the House.
And remember, it was the House that killed this in August.
But we don't control the House anymore, folks.
Elections have consequences.
The Democrats run the House of Representatives, and who knows what will happen there.
They might rubber stamp this bill, or they might have their own version, go to conference or what have you.
But the Senate wanted to get this done before their Memorial Day recess.
I don't know when the House is going to take it up.
President wants it on his table, on his desk to sign by August or some such thing.
So everybody's hoping that we'll forget about this in November of 2008.
I just have to, if anybody that ends up supporting this, it's going to be very, very difficult for me to support.
This is a bad deal.
It's unfortunate.
We'll just have to see what the next stage of this is now develops.
Greetings and welcome back.
It's a Rush Limbaugh program.
This is the EIB network.
Great to have you with us.
A telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Tony Blair and the president had a joint presser today in a rose garden, and Blair was just superb on Iraq and on terrorism.
We have three bites.
Here's the first.
Thank you also for the strength of your leadership over the past few years.
You have been a strong leader at a time when the world needed strong leadership.
You've been unyielding and unflinching and determined in the fight that we face together, and I thank you for that.
And I also would take this opportunity of saying that I believe that the relationship between the United States of America and Britain is a relationship that is in the interests of our two countries, in the interests of the peace and stability of the wider world.
And sometimes it's a controversial relationship, at least over my country.
But I've never doubted its importance.
I've never doubted that it's based on principle, on shared values, and on a shared purpose, which is to make our world a better, more free, more just place in which people of all nations and all faiths can live.
A reporter said, Mr. Prime Minister, will Britain in the coming months and years be as staunch an ally in Iraq for the United States as it has been under your leadership?
This is a montage of Blair's response.
Yes.
The forces that we are fighting in Iraq, al-Qaeda on the one hand, Iranian-backed elements on the other, are the same forces we're fighting everywhere.
And over these past few weeks, you can see in different parts of the world, Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia recently, where this extremism is rearing its head, is trying to dislodge the prospects of stability and progress in so many different countries.
There is no alternative for us but to fight it wherever it exists.
And that is true whether it's in our own countries, which have both suffered from terrorism, or in Iraq or Afghanistan.
A Sky News reporter then said, Mr. Prime Minister, President Bush once said he hoped you would be in office through the duration of his presidency.
Do you think he is partly to blame for that?
I've admired him as a president, and I regard him as a friend.
I have taken the view that Britain should stand shoulder to shoulder with America after September the 11th.
I have never deviated from that view.
I do not regret that view.
I am proud of the relationship we have had.
I'm proud of the relationship between our two countries.
And I think that sometimes in politics, there are all sorts of issues where you've got to negotiate and compromise.
But when it comes to the fundamental questions that affect our security in the future of the world, you should do what is right.
I have tried to do that.
And I believe that is what he has done as well.
And I would take the same position of alliance with America again.
Yes, I would.
And the Prime Minister spelled out in strong terms just what a dangerous enemy al-Qaeda is, how serious it is, how important Iraq is and Afghanistan.
And it was, you know, he's leaving.
He's leaving office.
He's got, in a way, he's totally free to say whatever he wants.
He's not going to suffer political consequences for it in terms of a future election that he might have.
Wants to go into private practice and speechmaking be on boards or so.
But it was really powerful.
And there are parts of it almost wish he'd be hired as our spokesman on this stuff because it was really, really well done.
And if we get some more bites of this, we'll pass them on to you as soon as we get them.
Just add a news story sent to me.
This is from San Antonio.
WOAI Radio is reporting.
Now, this just, and this is one example, and this is going to be happening all over the place.
Hundreds of illegal immigrants have registered to vote in Bear County.
Bexar is how it's spelled.
It's Bear County.
In recent years, dozens of them have actually cast ballots canceling out the votes of U.S. citizens.
Figures obtained by the radio station in San Antonio show that 303 illegals successfully registered to vote.
At least 41 cast ballots in various elections.
This is just one county.
This is more than enough to impact an election or throw it.
And see, the thing is, the Democrats know, and this is something you need to remain confident in, that Democrats cannot win in the arena of ideas.
That's why they want the fairness doctrine to silence people like me.
That is why there's political correctness.
That's why there's censorship all over the place.
They can't win.
They don't even want to debate in the arena of ideas.
They don't know how.
They've not been forced to defend their positions.
They suffer from a terminal rage.
Tom Soule has a great piece about this.
I read it on townhall.com.
He says, it's inexplicable, as I myself have said previous occasions.
All you got to do is mention tax cuts for the rich, and these people go ballistic.
They literally lose their minds.
Mention George W. Bush.
They literally lose their minds.
And Bush is one of the nicest guys you could ever meet.
He's never done or said anything to them.
They hated Ronald Reagan.
They just, they have this never-ending rage.
And so since they can't win in the arena of ideas, that's why they need as many new quote-unquote citizens as they can get, because they know they're going to end up registering as Democrats.
The unions are going to make beelines for these people.
And we've joked here, but I've often thought that already illegals are out there registering to vote.
We know there's all kinds of vote fraud going on.
And by the way, speaking of that, U.S. attorney Imbroglio, that whole controversy, you know what that was really all about?
You know what the White House was getting complaints from senators and others out across the fruited plain?
Because those, many, not all, but many of those eight U.S. attorneys that were targeted for dismissal were not pursuing voter fraud cases.
I don't know why.
They weren't interested in them.
They had a big enough high-profile.
Who knows why?
But they weren't.
And the voter fraud is another one of these media templates that is an exclusive Republican problem.
The Democrats think every election is stolen from them when they lose it.
They can't.
The Democrats lose elections, why it doesn't compute.
They lost the House, doesn't compute.
Lost the Florida aftermath.
They lost 15 recounts before they lost.
It doesn't compute.
It has to be the election still.
John Kerry, if they just had a 55,000 vote swing in Ohio, Kerry would be the president, he thinks, and he said.
There had to be voter machine fraud.
So the voter fraud that's actually occurring is more on that side.
It's everywhere, but they're probably more involved in it with fake registrations and that sort of thing.
And this is only going to blow up and expand if this immigration bill that the Senate has agreed to now remains in its present form, signed by the president.
This is what I'm inexplicable to me.
I do not understand the Republicans on this at all politically.
And even when you look at it beyond politically, okay, we look at this and say, okay, well, this is a bad move.
Republicans are going to take it in the shorts.
This is really, really a dumb thing.
But beyond the political aspect, and we try to look at things here not always through the political prism, the worthlessness of the law, the empty promises that we've had on securing the border.
Part of this bill is to relax some of those things, too.
The fence, no, not going to be nearly as big now.
Senator Kennedy, not crazy about it.
So you look at just the real world aspects of this rather than just factoring the political ramifications.
And that's also a mystery.
Nothing about this makes any sense.
And the people that try to sell it engage in some of the most unbelievable spin.
It makes you wonder why they do.
Do they not know how they sound?
Do they not know how this is not selling?
Do they know how up in arms people are when they people don't like to have their intelligence insulted?
And some of the spin on this from the Republican side is exactly that.
And plus, the final straw is when you throw in with the Democrats.
You compromise.
Well, but Rush, they're the majority of the minority.
They have to throw it.
Yeah, well, there are procedural steps you can take.
You have to give in like this.
Anyway, a quick timeout here.
We'll be back and continue on the EIB network right after this.
And we're back.
El Rushball from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, high atop the EIB building in Midtown Manhattan.
This is Lynn in Chester County, Pennsylvania.
It's great to have you with us.
Rush, it's an honor to speak to you, and I am apoplectic about this immigration bill.
I agree with you 1,000%.
But do you realize, Rush, that former ACE prosecutor Rudy Giuliani couldn't even properly vet out Bernie Carrick for Homeland Security Advisor, but we are expected to believe that 12 million illegal aliens from countries replete with corruption, which keep no verifiable legitimate.
I don't know about that.
Wait, but there was the president that couldn't vet Bernie Carrick.
I mean, Rudy knew.
Well, that's true.
That's true.
With all that, your overall point, I agree with you.
Where is the belief that a brand new bureaucracy and inefficient bureaucracy is going to be able to do something that it can't do anywhere else?
We have the Fort Dick VI.
We have the Fort Dick 6.
They're here.
They're plotting terrorism.
If it weren't for an informant, we wouldn't have the slightest idea.
Well, you can't put it that way.
But where are we going for these background checks?
I mean, presumably to the consulates of these countries and the officials in these countries who are corrupt from the word go.
We're going to relax that.
We're going to relax that.
You watch that they're going to slough that off on the employer.
The employer's going to do it, but it's going to prove too onerous.
It's going to prove too much.
It's going to cost businesses money.
And look at an amnesty program.
There's not one thing in this bill that's redeeming.
I agree.
It's an absurdity.
It's absolutely treasonous insofar as I'm concerned.
And I also thought that I heard, although I don't want to misquote him, I thought I heard Tony Snow yesterday allude to the fact that they've committed felonies by virtue of obtaining fraudulent documents to the extent that they have here.
And I thought that that in itself was a bar to citizenship.
So I don't know how that hurdle is going to be overcome.
Well, that's, don't get me going on any of this because I've, you know, I'll be talking here till the program ends and I won't have time for commercials.
Well, we're counting on you, Rush.
That's all I've done.
But obtaining fraudulent documents is going to still happen.
It does now.
And what enforcement measure is going to stop it?
There's going to be no incentive to stop it is the point.
Once your objective is to make it as easy as possible for these people to get legal, what's the incentive to stop it?
What's the incentive to man the border?
What's the incentive to shore up all of the holes in it?
I mean, you've taken the incentive away.
That's not the objective of this.
That's just in there to try to placate people.
But people like you are too wise and smart.
You're not going to be bought.
You're not going to be fooled by it.
The objective here is to get these people as legal as soon as they can possibly get it done.
You're exactly right.
You're exactly right.
I don't know what there is for the rest of us to do, but that's exactly the right conclusion.
Well, yeah, that's the real troubling thing.
What to do?
If this were the Dubai Port deal, they listened to you on the Dubai Port deal.
By the way, Halliburton's CEO moving to Dubai soon to set up operations.
Have that story in this deck.
I love those two words, Halliburton and Dubai.
Remember the Dubai Port deal?
You people were livid.
And on Capitol Hill, the Republicans and Democrats were in a race to see who could first get to the finish line to take credit for stopping it.
And there's been just as much outrage over this, this whole immigration philosophy, but it's not being listened.
In this case, you don't know enough to really have an informed opinion about this.
We here in Washington know best what's going on in this deal, and you're just going to have to live with it.
And, you know, this is, wait till the Republicans.
I mean, it's going to show up in the primaries.
And McCain is big on this.
He was involved in the first effort to get this done.
You just watched the primary.
See if this doesn't put up a huge roadblock for him.
The desire to go out and please this constituency of 12, whatever it is, million illegals and ignore the people who have voted for you and supported you.
Well, I can't explain this, folks.
Don't ask me.
I cannot give you other than arrogance, usual answers.
It doesn't make sense, which is why I can't explain it.
I'm not good talking about things that don't make sense, other than liberalism, because I got that down fat.
Reading, California, this is Kelly.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Russ.
I can't believe I'm talking to you.
My heart's beating through my chest.
You're one of my heroes, along with my husband and my two children.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate your saying that.
Okay, I just want to get right to the point and tell you that you are such an icon that even the man on the left, the icon on the left, wants to meet you.
And who can blame him for wanting to meet you?
You're a man of integrity with great wisdom, courage, and strength.
And he did what any one of us who are in awe of you would have done.
He could have walked by the table.
I would have never seen him because I was not looking around at the restaurant.
Because of my hearing, I positioned my head a certain way to be able to hear who I'm talking to.
I would have never known he was there.
Absolutely.
I'm sorry.
You act like a true patriot, a gentleman, and I just want to say thank you for making the rest of us and your party look good.
Well, that's very nice of you.
I appreciate it.
That's a very mature take that you have on this.
Very mature position.
I appreciate it.
By the way, folks, a lot of people are curious not about Clinton, but they want to know the woman I was with.
You know, who is she?
No, folks, not your business.
There's a way you might be able to find.
You can call Clinton's office and ask if he got her phone number last night while I was talking to Mayor of Los Angeles.
Just kidding?
Lighten up.
You know, I got a note from a friend of mine.
He said, I don't understand these people in your audience that are mad at you.
It's Clinton's audience that ought to be mad at him for being nice to you.
They're the ones that go nuts when a Democrat is nice to a Republican and so forth.
And I thought that was a pretty good point.
But there's also this, folks.
There is, there's the office of the presidency, and he held it.
And there is a respect for that.
I remember when they had the unveiling of the portraits of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and George Bush, President Bush, was the MC, if you will.
He handled the unveiling.
And he just beautiful speech about those two people.
I remember getting phone calls.
Did he say that?
He knows the truth.
How did he say?
Because he's the president.
He understands what a small, unique club of people have been in that office.
And there's a reverence and a respect for it.
I think, in truth, I think the primary reason that Bush doesn't go partisan, I think the reason he doesn't very often descend into partisan politics, he's done it a little lately, but for most of his two terms, he hasn't gone there because I think he thinks it's beneath the office.
I think he's the presidency is something that's above all of that.
Let underlings and let other people handle that.
He's going to have a certain manner and exhibit a certain decorum as president because of his respect for it.
And I think that portrait unveiling was a classic illustration of it.
The problem is that when in such a partisan circumstance as we're in now, the all-out political war that we're in, the president happens to be the leader of the movement.
And if he doesn't go partisan, it makes it very difficult for others in the party, like senators and congressmen, to go off that reservation because then it could raise questions about party unity being lost and so forth.
Like it was very much easier for Newt Gingrich to unload on Bill Clinton as a speaker of the House because Clinton was not his leader.
He was a political leader of the party.
Clinton was a Democrat, and so it was easy to have elected conservative leadership in that circumstance.
Much more difficult when the president's in your party and you also run the House to go off the reservation.
So it's been sort of stifled high-level partisanship.
No need for you people to think about it.
We do that for you here, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh, a maha rushy, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-feeling, all concern.
Back to the phones we go to Jenna in Apple Valley, California.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
My name is actually Janice.
And it's a long time ago.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Did you say Janice?
Yes.
Okay, sorry.
It says Jenna up there.
That's okay.
Mr. Snurley is one of the nicest people I've ever talked to, so that's okay.
We'll cut in some slack on that one.
You might.
My question to you is, since most of the Mexican people that I know are hardworking people and they're mostly Catholic, so that would take the abortion issue right off the table.
Why are we to automatically assume that if they all become citizens, they're just automatically going to be Democrat registrations?
Why wouldn't some of them be siphoned off to Republicans?
I just don't see why it's an automatic thing.
What is it in their culture, maybe you can explain to me, that would make them automatically.
No, no, I'm not basing this on any cultural examination of Mexicans.
Look, the best answer in the world that's staring right in front of our faces is who is it that really wants this to happen?
It's the Democrats.
Now, why?
What is their possible interest in it?
The Republican interest is based on the desire for them to have cheap labor.
That's where the support and the pressure on Republican senators is coming from a lot of the agriculture business people and other big business people via the Chamber of Commerce.
The second thing is experience, Simpson Mazzoli, with that was 2.7 to 3 million illegals, and there's no evidence that being nice and granting them legal status and granting them amnesty made them appreciate Republicans who were in charge of that legislation.
Republicans are counting on the appreciation of these people.
That has nothing to do with cultural.
And they're not all going to be Democrats.
Of course, every group of people is going to have a percentage.
It's not going to be universal Democrat.
But the Democrats are going to more actively pursue them via the unions and getting them registered to vote and this sort of thing.
Republicans will be in that game, too, because they both want this.
I mean, they're both looking at this as a new pool of voters.
But I just think experience says the Democrats are going to win this.
Oh, that's not good.
See, most of the people, when you watch the news out here in California and they interview Hispanic people that are citizens, they aren't happy about all this either.
They are.
I know, but those are the ones that have gone the legal route, and they resent all this.
And we've got people trying to get in the door legally who are watching this who aren't going to like it either.
Not just from around the world, but from Mexico as well.
Here's the dirty little secret.
When it comes to the southern border, you get in, and they know it.
Get in, and you're in.
And you're not going to be deported.
The odds are.
And when you get in now, especially now with this new immigration bill lurking out there, you talk about a new magnet.
But you look at the rallies.
All these rallies for amnesty, for making the illegals legal, who do you think put those together?
The unions, La Raza, Democrats put those.
And they got bigger numbers on those rallies than they got for any of their anti-war rallies.
Well, I know from being an ex-union worker, because I'm retired now, that they really push that.
They push that in the workplace.
They push it on you everywhere.
Absolutely.
These kind of things.
So I know that they're looking to swell their ranks because they are becoming ineffective.
You mean the unions?
Yeah, they are.
They're becoming ineffective.
Well, this is another reason the unions have turned around.
Some of them have and want this is because they're losing membership.
The percentage of the workforce that is unionized is, I think, down to 9%.
In the 80s, it was 12 to 15.
And the highest it was was 35% back in the glory days.
And most of the union work now, believe it or not, is in government.
Most of it is the government unions and this sort of thing.
So there's a pool of new union workers out there.
And by the way, if the union can get a hold of these people and get them into union jobs, get them organized, you're not going to get any of this cheap labor stuff anymore because the union is not going to settle for that because they're going to use, just like they use the minimum wage.
The reason they want an increase in the minimum wage because that raises the ceiling on which other workers get paid.
So union boss will go in to negotiate with the business that he's working with.
We just raised unskilled labor to whatever it is, seven, eight bucks an hour loss for unskilled.
And you're telling me my professional skilled workers only worth $15 an hour.
Not in this next contract, Mr. Businessman.
Well, you bring in the illegals who are working now for whatever it is, two to three, four or five bucks an hour.
You won't get them up to eight or ten.
And guess what?
The unions get to get their floor raised again.
So there's all kinds of things in this that point to Democrat activism, not the least of which is the engine behind this in the United States Senate.
Austin, Texas, this is Al.
You're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, mega Hispanic ditto.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, listen up.
You know, I was listening to the lady just now, and she was basically commenting, you know, well, what makes you think that Hispanics are going to vote for all Democrats and everything.
And Rush, I grew up in South Texas, where it's predominantly Hispanic.
The Democratic Party has such a stronghold in South Texas, it's unbelievable.
They've created so many welfare programs.
They've kept people on the welfare rolls to, you know, just keep them voting for Democrats.
And so, I mean, I know these people, I mean, because I grew up with them, and yes, there's a lot of very good people, hardworking people.
I know a lot of them.
And I grew up with a lot of people knowing that they were not fully legal here in the U.S.
And yes, there's a lot of very good people, but what I don't understand is why can't they just come here legally?
I don't understand.
Because it's easier to get here illegally.
Yeah, they can get in here illegally, and they can earn more even at what they get paid here than they can in Mexico.
Look at it.
I'm looking at a picture on the Fox News channel right now.
It's Senator Kennedy, and they're all excited up there in the Senate.
They're celebrating this deal that they've made.
Now, the Senate's come to an agreement on granting legal status as quickly as possible to 12 million tenants.
Standing right over his right shoulder, right behind his right shoulder, is Senator McCain.
This picture gets out.
Republican primary voters see this.
And Senator McCain is going to have what I predicted mere moments ago on this very program, a problem.
Because this is not something.
Here's Ted Kennedy out now.
He's taking a credit.
This is Greg.
He's the guy that's happy on this.
And any Republican that's in that same picture, going to have problems.
Who doesn't look good?
Joe, he doesn't.
He's not happy.
But he's there.
He doesn't have to be there.
He could be in the group, but not in the camera range.
I know where the camera is and where it isn't.
But Ken Salazar standing behind Senator Kennedy's left shoulder.
McCain looks like he's frowning now, looking off to the, like I had a question in his mind.
Like, what did I just hear?
I don't know.
Or somebody could have said something to him.
It's tough to judge this because I say, can't hear I'm not listening to what's being said.
Here's Dave in Leesburg, Ohio.
It's nice to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hey, mega Dittos from Buckeye Country, Rush.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
I got just a couple of quick observations to make.
I personally am very happy and pleased that you were respectful and courteous to President Clinton.
I don't think very much of him, but you can be sure it would not have played out very well had you handled the situation any differently, especially in light of how the mainstream media likes to go after you.
That's number one.
Number two, on the right, we've been asking for a very long time to a return of some kind of civil discourse and for respect for the office.
And you serve both of those purposes.
Absolutely right.
I exhibited the leadership this country needed last night.
Well, people ask me for that.
The Democrats are out there saying the Republicans are destroying respect for the office.
Really?
The Democrats said that about us in Clinton in his first term.
Riddle Limbaugh and Republicans critics are destroying respect for the office.
What's happening now?
But there I was last night with a former president, admittedly a political adversary and admittedly a political opponent.
But in those circumstances, it was not about any of that.
It was about what it was.
And I'm glad that you, that's a great point that you're making.
Civility was on parade on both sides, proving that it can happen.
And thank you again.
You bet.
I'm glad that you called.
Ruth Ann in Bloomington, Indiana, you're next on the EIB network.
Great to have you with us.
Hey.
Yes, it's nice to talk with you.
And I thought it was absolutely hilarious that this restaurant meeting with the president, ex-president, was just fine.
And you did predict what the media would say or whoever encountered you.
I think that was funny.
And that was very intuitive of you to know that.
I mean, you've been in the public eye for a while.
You know what's going on.
And I have one other comment.
Our young people, you know, we live in a liberal town.
And of course, IU, Indiana University is here.
And we have a lot of students that I don't know how active they are on the campus with the Republican Party, but it would be well for all of our young people to take a better interest in our political process and know exactly what the Bill of Rights are, as you have explained.
I think too many people are just ignorant of what we have.
Well, how fortunately we have to do that.
You are absolutely right about that.
That's largely not a problem of the people, the students.
It's a problem of the curricula in modern public education.
And even when you get to the academy, academium, the institution of higher learning, the agendas that are part of the curriculum are not oriented toward the history of this country, not oriented toward our greatness.
Yeah, parents are on the hook for this too.
Parents need to make sure what their kids are learning.
I actually think that the conservative kids, the young conservative students out there, are learning these things independently because they're showing up.
Look at how many rush babies there are that are now getting into college.
You have a foundation, and they are able to tell when they're facing an agenda-oriented professor.
We hear from them all the time.
I think the kids on the left, they're happy to be indoctrinated.
They're happy to have what they've been taught at home confirmed and so forth.
It makes them less uncomfortable.
But I'm optimistic that there's a renaissance that's going to happen in education.
The places that I'm pessimistic are the current population seems to me so gullible, so ignorant, so susceptible to propaganda and the drive-by media, the propaganda of Al Gore's movie, and so forth.
And that's a whole other ballgame, and it's partly its education, partly its emotions and feelings and a number of other things.
But we keep plugging away, and I still say that things are different and better in this country than they were in 1988 when we started.
As long as I'm here and as long as we're all here together as a big, big family growing and influencing even more and more people, we can continue to have success.
But it requires me to continue to be here.
Back up, stay with us.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, tumult, chaos, depression, absolute apocalyptic destruction, and even the good times here on the EIB network.
Excellent role model for the youth of America.
A man, you could and would totally trust your wife, your daughter, your little dog overnight in a motel six while you are on business.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program, emailers, you are still skating on the question you were asked yesterday from the woman in Flint about why Exxon can't lower its profits a little bit to be fair.
I'm not skating it.
I thought I explained it.
And I thought, frankly, that most everybody wouldn't need that stupid question explained.
But I will be glad to endeavor into it or to answer it.
But first thing you've got to do, you've got to throw out this concept of fairness.
There is no word fair in market economics, at least as a guiding principle.
Businesses don't go into business to be fair.
Everybody knows businesses go into business to screw other people.
Is that what you think?
Like Burger King wants to kill its customers, folks.
It's serving trans fat.
They're being sued.
They want their customers to die.
Big tobacco wants their customers to die.
Every corporate Walmart, they hope that something happens to you, that you die too.
That's what we're being told.
It's absolutely absurd.
Now, as this concept, why can't they lower their profits?
In the first place, if they gave away, if they take Exxon's profit, $39.5 billion, most reported profit, divided up equally among every man, woman, child, and illegal immigrant in this country, it would be enough for maybe every man, woman, and child, an illegal immigrant to go out and buy three or four gallons of gasoline.
And you could do it one time because after you take their whole profit, Exxon's going to say, why should I stay in business in this country?
It's going to happen.
It's not that much money.
The big profit is being made by taxing agencies, the states and the feds.
But here is another way to look at this.
If the managers of, say, ExxonMobil and they work for the owners, and you know who owns ExxonMobil?
Shareholders.
It's a publicly traded company.
So if the managers, the CEO and all of that, if they start charging too little for their product, they would lower profits.
And guess what?
The company's owners would toss them out.
The shareholders would not be happy, nor would the board of directors.
It's the same answer if the company charges too much.
They'd have unsold inventories.
And the firm would underperform.
Profits would be lower than would be possible.
And the short answer to this is that big oil, which is a citizen of the world, big oil, 30% of its profits derived from operations in the United States, 70% around the world, they're constrained by market forces.
They have to charge the market rate.
If they don't, one way or another, it's not going to work out.
A lot of people see that competition exists in the retail market.
And they see that Exxon would have trouble charging 10 cents a gallon more than mobile.
But what people fail to see is that competition in the capital markets also constrains managers to maximize profits.
The capital markets, the commodities markets, any numbers, there's so many factors that go into the costs of doing business.
And then the setting the price based on what the market will pay and hopefully making a profit here.
But you people have been led to believe by a drive-by meeting of Democrats that big oil alone, maybe big drug too, is able to magically set its price for every product to guarantee itself not only a huge profit, but that you get screwed.
And that they are not part of the market, that they somehow are independent of market forces.
They've got so many market forces preying on these.
If I were big oil CEO, I would call members of the government up and I would conduct hearings and I would ask them why is it you are making it so hard for us to do business?
You won't let us drill.
You will not let us build any new refineries.
You will not let us do one thing to expand our operations in your country.
And you turn around, you're blaming us for gouging customers.
Market forces totally constrain big oil just like any other business.
But you're going to have to shelve this belief that there's some wizard behind a curtain that can do whatever he wants price-wise, independent of the market.
It does not exist.
Boy, this show is zipping by.
They all do, but this one just said, we're already into the second hour, the third hour, right around the corner.