Rush Limbaugh Program - October 25, 2007, Thursday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 25, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

35:20

October 25, 2007, Thursday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Oh, frankly, I have to admit here, I'm a little bit confused.
	I thought California was going to take the lead in the global warming initiative.
	I thought they were going to take the lead in reducing global warming pollution.
	But with these fires, obviously those plans have run amok.
	Greetings, my friends.
	Great to have you with us, Rush Lindbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
	And we're raring and ready to go.
	Three hours of broadcast excellence straight ahead.
	Telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
	And of course, if you want to send an email, it's rush at EIBnet.com.
	The interesting story here from the San Francisco Chronicle today, couple columnists, when it comes to greenhouse gases, Mother Nature and her forest fires, like the ones raging through Southern California, can be some of the biggest polluters out there.
	According to the California Air Resources Board, the fires raging from Malibu to the Mexican border will send some 2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, plus 200,000 tons of methane and nitrous oxide.
	That output of global warming gases is equal to what 440,000 cars would pump into the atmosphere in a year, said Richard Bode, chief of the Air Resources Board's Emissions Inventory Branch.
	He says, in terms of global warming, that's a sizable chunk, but you have to remember that overall the state puts out about 470 million tons of gases every year.
	So it's about a half a percent of California's yearly contribution to global catastrophe.
	Now, I have a question for you folks about these fires.
	Let's just look at this as the environmentalist wackos want to see the planet, and that is without us on it.
	The fires started.
	Now, in two of the cases, they, well, they have, in fact, they shot a suspected arsonist who's trying to get away out there the other day.
	And they've got another one that they're hunting down, they think.
	But there are a lot of fires, and they don't know that arson is responsible for all of them.
	But let's, since we're taking human beings out of the equation, it's just a think-piece question I've got for you.
	Let's say these fires are started by lightning or some other natural thing.
	We got Mother Nature going here, right?
	If there were no human beings to put out the fires, would you not say that Mother Nature intends for these fires to happen?
	And Mother Nature intends for these fires to keep going and going and going until they go out because of Mother Nature's causes and reasons and methods of putting them out, such as the fire runs out of stuff to burn or it reaches water or some such thing.
	Now, the reason I ask this is because we, of course, put these things out.
	We put them out because they do great damage to us and things that we have built.
	Businesses, homes, highways, bridges, roads, screws, hospitals, illegal immigrant check-in centers, all these things that we have built.
	We put these fires out.
	There's a theory being bandied about today that one of the reasons that these fires become more frequent is that we put them out.
	And by putting them out, we preserve future fuel for fires to burn.
	That Mother Nature, when these fires start, they just let it go.
	But we, and the environmentalist wackos who have made the point here that Mother Nature is Mother Nature and we should not do anything about wheat.
	Human beings are just causing all the problems here, are the same ones that will not allow all of this dead wood to be cleared out of there, which adds to even more fuel or adds more fuel for these fires.
	In the midst of all this, the Democrats are still in the process of trying to blame Iraq, President Bush, some other domestic policy priority.
	It is laughable to watch.
	We'll talk a little bit more about the fires.
	I got some audio soundbites to come as well from people.
	But we have to first, before we go to our first break, we have to chronicle what a dismal week it has been for Dingy Harry.
	This has nothing to do with the smear letter, by the way.
	This week, that was last week.
	But, you know, Dwayne Patterson at townhall.com on Hugh Hewitt's blog says the weekend can't come soon enough for Dingy Harry, the feckless Democrat majority leader.
	First, he gets caught politicizing the California wildfires as being global warming related.
	Then, when he was questioned by it about it by a reporter, he denied having said it.
	And then, yesterday, Dingy Harry to Democrats got thumped twice before lunch.
	First, they were unable to stop the confirmation of President Bush's appellate court judge, Leslie Southwick.
	And they tried yesterday.
	We had the audio soundbites of the despicable things that they said about Judge Southwick on the floor of the Senate yesterday.
	And they thought they were going to be able to stop this guy.
	They thought they were going to be able to stop him, and they were not able to.
	He was confirmed, which is why I didn't get to playing those soundbites yesterday because he was confirmed.
	And they thought that that was a slam dunk keeping him off the appellate bench.
	And then came the DREAM Act, Dick Durbin's Wet Dream Act.
	And Dingy Harry was convinced that he had 60 votes.
	He was so convinced that he had 60 votes that he scheduled a whole day and a half yesterday afternoon and all day today to debate the DREAM Act and then get it ready for a vote.
	And it went down.
	He lost eight Democrat senators on this because the word got out again that this was stealth amnesty, despite the fact that the press and the drive-bys were portraying this as a simple little immigration bill that will give children, illegal immigrants, a right to citizen.
	It was nothing about that at all.
	It was a stealth amnesty bill.
	It was a horrible piece of legislation.
	And a bunch of Democrats defected from Dingy Harry.
	He and Durbin went out there and they counted their votes.
	They counted their heads and they were just damn certain that the Wet Dream Act was going to pass and it didn't.
	And so he had a whole afternoon and a whole day today with nothing to do.
	He got totally stumped.
	It just has not been good for Dingy Harry lately, folks.
	It's been a tough three weeks for Dingy Harry, ladies and gentlemen, and Nancy Pelosi.
	By the way, Barbara Boxer, she finally fled Washington, fled the scene, went out to Qualcomm Stadium yesterday for a nice little photo op because she realized the mistake that she had made speaking from Washington about the war in Iraq.
	It's fun to watch these Democrats scurry around.
	Speaking of the Democrats, and we're going to get into this in some detail today, Charles Wrangell finally has announced his mother-of-all tax hikes, the largest single tax increase in American history, over $1 trillion.
	I have been studying the way the drive-by media has been reporting this today.
	Folks, it is journalistic malpractice.
	He's not.
	The way, actually, what his politics are on this are pretty shrewd, given he knows he's got buddies in the drive-by media.
	The way they're spinning this is that Wrangell has to get rid of the alternative minimum tax because it's just creaming people it was never intended to cream.
	It was supposed to cream the rich, but now it's creaming the middle class.
	There's a lesson in this, folks, by the way.
	All these things aimed at the rich are eventually going to get to you.
	They're always about you in the first place.
	So he's going to get rid of that.
	People are going to go, yeah, yeah, yeah, get rid of him.
	He's got two weeks.
	He's got two weeks to get rid of the alternative minimum tax, from what I understand anyway, because they don't get it done in two weeks, then the IRS can't reprogram their computers to do everybody's tax returns and calculate this and that starting in January.
	Now, how's he going to pay for the alternative minimum tax?
	Well, this is what the drive-bys are eating up.
	What the drive-bys are just loving and everybody else is loving is he's going to raise taxes on hedge fund managers.
	He's going to raise taxes on asset managers.
	And there's a 2080 rule that allows certain hedge fund managers and asset portfolio managers to take 20% of their fee in earned income and 80%, the growth of the gain in the fund at the capital gains rate, which is 15%.
	So he wants to raise the capital gains rate.
	He wants to eliminate that, charge these guys.
	Now, who's going to get hurt?
	The money for that is going to come out of the earnings, and the earnings are invested by teachers and public employees and all these unions that have their pension plans invested in various portfolios, assets, hedge funds and so forth and so on.
	So while the press is disguising for Dingy Harry the fact it's a big middle-class tax cut we're going to soak the rich, ultimately in the end, it's a middle-class investor who's going to get screwed on this.
	But the worst part about it is that what the drive-bys are leaving out, the New York Times left it out, the Associated Press left it out.
	I think one place I saw might have touched on it briefly.
	But here's the thing.
	The bill will add, Wrangell's tax bill will add a 4% surtax on Americans earning more than $150,000 a year.
	Yeah, of course you didn't read that, Mr. Snerdley, because it's not in the stories.
	That's what I meant.
	I did an expert show prep analysis of the drive-by media on this.
	The bill will add a 400,000 or 4% surtax on Americans earning more than $150,000 a year.
	It'll be 4% surtax on couples who earn $200,000 a year or more.
	That is on top of the scheduled expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which will expire in 2010.
	So under Charlie Wrangell's plan, forget this AMT business for a minute.
	Forget soaking the rich on the corporate side and the hedge fund side and all that.
	Oh, by the way, he's going to cut corporate taxes too from 35 to 31 percent and offer some deductions.
	But if corporations don't pay taxes, you do.
	We all do.
	At any rate, so after his 4% surtax on single people earning more than 150 grand, but who's married anymore?
	You know, with a $200,000 for married couples, less than half the country's married these days.
	You've got a lot of single people going to be affected by this.
	So here's how it's going to end up.
	You cancel, you let the current tax cuts expire, you add the 4% sur tax, and over the next few years, the individual income, top tax rate, in the United States will rise from 35% to 44%.
	By way of comparison, the other 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Countries, basically other developed nations, have an average top marginal tax rate of 35.7%.
	In fact, only five OECD countries would have a higher top marginal tax rate in 2011 than the United States if the Democrats bill is enacted.
	Now, Wrangel knows that he's not going to get this bill passed and signed into law this year.
	But he is going to try this AMT business.
	He wants to cherry pick the AMT business, but this is a test.
	The whole floating of the proposal and to see how it goes is a test.
	But I'll tell you what it is.
	It is precisely what would happen if the Democrats win the White House in 2008.
	Because when they're inaugurated in 2009, this is exactly the Clintons did it, raised taxes.
	So we're looking at a top marginal rate of 44%, and everybody else's rates are going to go up accordingly, folks.
	Don't think yours won't.
	We'll take a brief time out here.
	Sit tight.
	Be right back.
	On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh, the primary target of the American left and the Democrat Party.
	And I've got my finger in a dyke, and we're holding them back.
	800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
	Let me go back to this fire business for a second, because I don't think, based on emails that I received, I checked here during the break, I don't think I made my point.
	When I was asking you to think about the fires without us here, which is what the environmentalist WICOs want, they would just burn and burn and burn.
	Who knows how long they would go to burn and burn and burn and burn?
	You know, there is some vegetation that needs fire in order to thrive, in order to germinate and this sort of thing.
	Nature is an amazing thing, but the point that I didn't make well is this.
	The environmentalist WACOs, the global warming crowds say that it is man-made activity that is causing this catastrophe of global warming and that we should just leave the environment alone, just leave nature alone.
	It's not our business.
	The point is that every species has to alter the environment in order to thrive.
	What are we supposed to do?
	Just sit back and say, okay, there's a fire.
	Yep, there's my house.
	Well, let the house burn because this is nature.
	No, we don't thrive by purposely letting our property be destroyed.
	We try to save it.
	Now, we may make dumb decisions in deciding to put these structures in certain areas where disasters are known to occur, but people take risks.
	The point is that we and every other species cannot exist and thrive.
	We cannot thrive is the key.
	We might be able to exist, but what's the point of existence when you're a human being?
	Most species are not even conscious of their own existence.
	You ever held an animal up to a mirror?
	Most people think the animal doesn't see itself because it's something about its eyes.
	It has no self-consciousness.
	It has no self, not aware of its own existence.
	They're aware of you and they have aware of their presence, but in terms of they're not.
	But we are as human beings.
	We are totally, many of us are so absorbed with our own existence that we are idiots and we rub people the wrong way.
	Me, me, me, me.
	But the point is, you cannot thrive as a species without altering your environment.
	We supposed to sit out and let it snow on us and rain on us and let the wind blow without building shelter.
	I mean, it takes environmental materials, wood and this kind of thing, to build shelters.
	We're not supposed to do that.
	So the idea that man-made activity is causing mass destruction and catastrophe can be just knocked out of the ballpark, as big a grand slam as we hit against Dingy Harry, if you just think about it.
	Now, back to this tax increase from Wrangel.
	Wrangel is 77 years old, and he's not taking a long view of anything, obviously.
	When you're 77, you don't take the long view.
	He wants this done now.
	These people are telling us right out in the open, right out in full daylight, just who they are and what they want.
	This large a tax increase would destroy the economy.
	It would literally destroy the trend growth trend that we're on.
	It's just, it is mind-boggling.
	Now, the presidential candidates have not weighed in on this yet, but you know, all tax legislation originates in the Ways and Means Committee in the House, and all spending bills originate there.
	The president can send over his ideas, and if he controls the White House and they control the various houses of Congress, then that will probably be what will happen.
	But that's why if Hillary gets in there or any of the other Democrats get in there and Wrangell remains as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, you're basically looking at what they're going to try to do and how they're going to try to get people to believe it's not what it actually is.
	They're going to try to make you think it's a big middle-class tax cut by really, really soaking the rich.
	And if you go look at these AP reporters and all these other drive-by media people reporting on this, these people don't make $150,000 a year, so they don't care.
	They don't make a to them, fine, soak the rich.
	They love, by the way, the whole class envy business of soaking the rich in the first place.
	So they're happy to not dig deep and find the true details of this.
	They don't even put in, these stories did not even include the 4% surtax on the income of $150,000 a year for singles, $200,000 for couples.
	But the surtax, folks, is on adjusTedros income, not taxable income.
	Sounds technical, but it's not.
	It means that Wrangell's bill will erode the value of a lot of tax deductions, including for mortgage interest and charitable giving and medical expenses, because the surtax is on adjusTedros, not taxable.
	It's on the top.
	Yes, my friends, think about it all you want, but you still won't get as close to where I will get to the truth.
	That's why I'll be there to help nudge you.
	Donnie, you feeling okay?
	You look like you're a little down in the dumps in there.
	Something wrong?
	I don't know.
	That didn't look like a very affirmative denial.
	Anyway, welcome back, folks.
	We are here.
	I want to spend a little bit more time on Wrangell's tax bill that is he unveiled it last night, this morning.
	It's a test.
	Most of it is not going to be enacted this year.
	He knows the president would never sign it.
	The House probably wouldn't pass it.
	This is just a preview.
	It's sort of like getting a beta.
	If you're into computer software, this is like getting the beta before the final release, which in Wrangell's dream world will be 2009.
	So the key ingredient that is being left out of all the reporting today in the drive-by media on Wrangell's trillion-dollar tax increase, 4% surtax on single Americans earning more than $150,000 a year, $200,000 for couples.
	That will take the individual top marginal rates in the U.S. from 35 to 44% when you combine that 4% surtax with the expiration of the current tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and 2003.
	These new tax rates will affect approximately 10 million taxpayers directly, including those who report business income like small business owners and farmers.
	But the damage then ripples through the economy because small businesses and family farms pay their income taxes as individuals.
	You're allowed to do that.
	If you're a sub-S, you can file on a personal income form.
	And you're just taking money out of the place, out of the engine that fuels the creation of jobs.
	Now, this surtax is also on adjusTedros income, not your taxable income.
	Now, you know, tax terms, they sound technical and off-putting, but what that means is that Charles Wrangell's new tax bill will erode the value of a bunch of tax deductions that you have now.
	Mortgage interest, charitable giving, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and the standard deduction.
	And because the surtax kicks in at $150,000 for individuals and $200,000 for couples, this bill creates a monster of a marriage penalty.
	Remember, we thought we got rid of the marriage penalty.
	Right now, they're bringing it back with this surtax.
	So it's, you remember how upset you were back.
	If you remember this, let's go back to 19, what is it now?
	19, when was it that we, 87, we did the big tax reform with Reagan, the rates came down from 50 to 31.
	I don't remember the year.
	Remember when a tax code change eliminated your ability to deduct interest on your credit card payments?
	Do you remember that day, Mr. Snurt?
	Oh, the people called here and were furious.
	I will never forget.
	We get a call from a woman in Illinois who was just going through the roof and I said, ma'am, calm down.
	This is actually a good thing.
	Why do you think it's such a big deal to deduct interest on your credit card?
	Well, because it just is.
	It makes it cheaper.
	No, it doesn't.
	Do you realize how much in debt you're going by not paying the balance in full every month?
	The deductions are the magic word to make a middle class think that they're operating like the big guys because they think the big guys are deducting everything.
	Get away with paying no taxes.
	Get to deduct this.
	Everything's at business expense.
	Write this off, write that off.
	Well, you have to have it to write it off, and you have to lose it to write it off, if it's a genuine loss.
	So they took that away.
	People got fed up.
	If this bill becomes law, if it ever gets signed into law, what it means is that, for example, your mortgage interest, not all of it will be tax deductible.
	Only a portion of it would be.
	Yes, only a portion of your, well, now, only a portion of your charitable contributions would be deductible.
	Only a portion of your medical expenses would be deductible, not the full.
	Yes, because the surtax is going to be on adjusTedros income, not taxable.
	It means it's going to be on the highest amount.
	Before you do take all your deductions, before you take all those things to get to your taxable income, the AGI, you're going to be taxed on the higher amount, not quite your gross because it's standard deduction and things come out of there, but you're going to get taxed on the highest amount.
	That's what the surtax is going to do.
	So it's going to lessen the value of the deductions that you currently have.
	And of course, the mortgage interest, that's a big deal.
	And the Realtors Association, the home builders, and all these guys are going to get involved in this.
	They've tried.
	What?
	Well, you have, when you file your taxes, you've got two different kinds of income.
	You've got your gross, the adjusTedros income, and then that which is taxable income.
	And from the AGI, you are given the standard deduction based on kids that you've got, a number of other things that will reduce.
	The surtax, the 4% surtax, will be tacked onto the higher amount, not your taxable income.
	And so that surtax taking your rate at the upper bracket from 35 to 44% is going to impact the percentage of all of these things you can take interest deductions on.
	So you're not going to lose the mortgage interest deduction because the surtax that you've got to pay, I mean, the money that you would get, the money you would save to be able to deduct the interest is going back to the government and forming a surtax.
	They're just taking it back.
	You're going to get the deduction, but you're never going to see it because there's going to be a surtax.
	And this is for people $150,000 or over.
	And I know some of you in this audience are not in that bracket.
	And if you're married, some of you are not in that bracket.
	But you're trying to be, aren't you?
	You're aiming for that.
	We all want to improve our standard of living.
	We all want raises.
	We all want new opportunities.
	You're aiming for that, are you not?
	The people that are already there.
	Don't sit there and say, good, make those people pay it.
	Yeah, yeah, me.
	Because you're next.
	You're next.
	It's like I've been trying to tell you on this S-CHIP program.
	They're going to pay for this by taxing cigarettes, what, another dollar a pack.
	And you're sitting there, pumping.
	Some of you say, well, that's good.
	I don't smoke, make those filthy people polluting the causing cancer.
	So they're going to make them pay the taxes.
	Right.
	Well, when you allow, and this is classic use of the same trick, rather than just soak everybody at once, you pick a group, an unpopular group, at first to make them pay the tax, like smokers.
	Who's going to defend smokers?
	Well, as I've warned you, smokers are not going to be allowed to use the product very often and in very many places in the future.
	You couple the fact they can't use the product legally in a lot of places with the fact it's going to cost through the roof now and you're going to have fewer people buying the product, which is going to generate less tax revenue.
	And guess who's next to pay for it?
	You, who were laughing and clapping your hands when the smokers, these people deserve medals of honor, these smokers.
	They're paying for so much in society now you wouldn't believe it.
	They deserve your respect, folks.
	Anyway, I'm off the beaten path.
	It's the same thing here with Wrangell's system.
	So it also creates the marriage penalty.
	Now, here's the key to this.
	The key that Wrangell is hoping to use to get the drive-bys all for it and as many Democrats as possible, including some Republicans.
	And that's the alternative minimum tax.
	You know the alternative minimum tax is catching more and more people it was never intended to catch.
	It was originally created because back in the days, there were like 20 families, one tax year, wealthy, super rich families who paid zero income tax and they didn't cheat.
	They just used the existing tax code of the day and they were able to end up paying no income tax.
	Well, that was reported.
	And of course, everybody had a cow.
	And so they came up with the alternative minimum tax, which is what it says.
	Even if you don't owe tax, you're going to pay it because there's a minimum out there.
	And here's the formula.
	Well, as is always the case with government-created programs run by liberals, guess who it's catching?
	It's catching you.
	It's catching more and more of the middle class.
	And there's a firestorm erupting over it.
	And there have been attempts, you know, the Republicans did come up with a minor patch for it that's been in place, but it's not anything really drastic.
	So Wrangell, the key to his plan in selling it, is he's going to get rid of it.
	He's going to get rid of the alternative minimum tax.
	But, but, but, big butt here.
	As government operates, they are not going to cut the alternative minimum tax, but they can't do without that money.
	This is called the pay go system.
	Government will take taxes, money, tax money from you, and make you do with what little you have left.
	They will never do with less.
	You cannot cut government's taxes, essentially.
	They will not do with less.
	So they're going to get rid of the AMT.
	Okay?
	Well, that brings in a lot of money, which is why they haven't gotten rid of it now and already.
	So the AMT being eliminated really does not have to be paid for.
	The government, and this is why, and this is a selling point that the Republicans could use.
	The government never meant for the AMT to affect middle-class Americans.
	And government has a responsibility to make sure that it doesn't.
	Now, by arguing that preventing this tax increase requires us to raise taxes elsewhere, Democrats are trying to lock the Congress into a system where we are guaranteed to raise taxes by $3.5 trillion over 10 years.
	That's where Wrangel's plan ends up after 10 years, $3.5 trillion.
	The baseline that the Democrats are using for PAYGO includes revenue from an unpatched AMT and from the tax increases that occur when the 01 and 03 tax laws expire after 2010.
	Now, those things together total $3.5 trillion over 10 years.
	If you use the Democrats' pay-as-you-go rule, that is the size of tax increase that's being imposed on the American people.
	Because getting rid of the AMT, see, the reason in a moral and just world, the AMT has flown way out of control.
	It was never intended to raise the money that it's raising, and so that money is technically never intended to go to the government.
	So they don't need to recover it if they give that money back or if they eliminate that tax.
	But that's not how government works.
	It's not how Democrats work.
	If there is a tax cut somewhere, there's got to be a tax increase someplace else.
	And so, Wrangell, the key to selling this is getting rid of the AMT and soaking the rich.
	And that's what the Drive-By Media is out selling.
	And that's what they're going to continue to sell and hype.
	It's going to be the old-class envy game.
	They're going to try to get as many people as possible to clap their hands and jump for joy that the AMT is going away.
	And these rich people who are stealing everything they've got are going to get soaked again.
	And think back, folks, every time this has happened that you've been an adult, when you've been told that the rich are getting soaked, ask yourself, go back to those days and tell me just how that helped you in a financial sense.
	We'll be back after this.
	Well, here's an easy way to understand this AMT business, folks.
	Think of the alternative minimum tax as a mistake.
	It did what it was not intended to do, theoretically.
	Let's not even get into that.
	It was a mistake.
	It raised taxes by mistake.
	It collected money it was not intended to collect.
	So you get rid of it.
	It was a mistake.
	Sorry.
	You do not then come up with new increases in taxes because you're going to lose money you should have never had from the first place because you had a mistake.
	And yet that's what they're going to do.
	Now, I've got the AP story on this.
	And I told you I scoured as your steward, as in service to humanity as I am and you.
	I scoured the drive-by media looking at news stories on this.
	And I want to read to you the way the AP, and what is this clown's name?
	Let's see.
	I guess it doesn't matter.
	I just love mentioning these clowns.
	Jim Abrams.
	Just going to go to the end of the story.
	Under the Wrangel Plan with costs and new revenues over a 10-year period, married couples filing jointly would be entitled to take an additional $850 as a standard deduction at a cost of $48 million.
	Every tax cut has a cost to the government, and it's going to be picked up somewhere else.
	You never see the annual budget go down, do you?
	Nowhere in this list are you going to hear about the 4% surtax on single-income, 150 grand, married couple income, 200 grand.
	Next one, the number of lower-income taxpayers qualifying for earned income credit would grow at a cost of $29 billion.
	The refundable child credit would be increased at a cost of $9 billion.
	Investment fund managers would be prevented from paying taxes at capital gains rates, raising $26 billion.
	Hedge fund managers would be prevented from using offshore tax haven corporations to defer taxes and so forth.
	They're raising $23 billion.
	There'd be mandatory cost basis reporting by brokers for transactions involving publicly traded securities raising $4 billion.
	That one's somewhat complicated.
	It would be tough to explain a lot of numbers in a verbal sense, in an audio sense.
	I might give it a shot.
	But the bottom line here is that the real tax increase in this bill is not reported in the drive-by media anyway.
	Let me grab a quick phone call here before we have to go to another break.
	It's Tampa.
	This is Mike.
	Nice to have you on the program, sir.
	Hello.
	Hey, Megha Didos from Wesley Chapel, Florida.
	How are you doing, Ray?
	Fine, sir.
	Thank you very much.
	Hey, the thing that got my GOAT, I was reading the Wall Street Journal article yesterday, and the line that caught my attention was how U.S. manufacturers are going to be penalized by this whole bill, and it's going to cause them to go overseas.
	Charlie Wrangell is the same guy that's going to sit here after it goes through and blame us, blame manufacturers for going overseas when he's part of the problem.
	Well, here's a good point, and you know why this happens, because Democrats, plus the government agencies that score these tax increases and tax cut bills, they do it statically.
	They do not dynamically score what happens.
	So you're exactly right.
	You raise taxes on a certain segment of society, say, on manufacturing.
	What are the people who own those businesses going to do?
	They are not going to sit there and pay Charlie Wrangell the money.
	They're going to go where it's cheaper to operate.
	Hello, China or hello, Mexico.
	They're going to go whether it's cheaper.
	Then Charlie Wrangell's going to come back and not understand why his tax increase isn't raising the revenue he thought it was going to raise.
	And he's going to complain and whine about the lack of Americanism on the part of these manufacturers taking these jobs overseas because they don't understand.
	Well, I don't know if they understand it or not, but they think that people are just going to sit out there and, okay, you got a new tax increase.
	Your tax rate's 44%.
	Fork it over.
	They just think, okay, here it is.
	And this was, I mean, they just think that people are static and things are not fluid and there isn't any dynamism in the economy.
	And this is why the tax cuts work.
	And they never do score them properly.
	Score them strictly on a zero-sum game without using any dynamics at all.
	Tax cuts increase investment.
	There's more money to play with and spend, invest or what have you.
	That's why the economy goes through the loof every time it happens.
	More jobs are created, more revenue.
	This tax increase proposed, folks, during a record period of tax collection and revenue generation for the government.
	One other way to look at this tax increase, this is Hillary's tax increase.
	Wrangell always is the front man of forward operator on Hillary's plans.
	He was the first to raise the idea of her running for the Senate.
	This is Hillary Clinton's tax increase.
	Wrangell 77.

▲