All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 26, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:15
December 26, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The GOP nomination in flux, a very fluid situation.
The Democrats, well, well, well, who cares about the Democrats?
You know, that really is the problem.
The Democrats have been so successful in moving the debate so far off the left-wing end.
They're just a bunch of Fabian socialists.
The danger for the GOP in the last 15 years or so has been following them over to the middle.
And then when somebody criticizes them, say, well, we're not as bad as the other guy.
So the Democrats keep drifting even ever more leftward.
The Republicans think, or the establishment Republicans think they can drift to the center.
They can be liberal on a number of issues.
And then their defense is, well, still not as bad as a Democrat.
That is not going to cut it anymore.
This is a time for choosing.
The party is at a crossroads.
The party is either going to go back to its Reagan roots or it's going to go the way of the Whigs, non-existence.
And that's, I think, what has, that's why this race in the GOP side is so, is so fluid right now, because nobody's wedded to that one individual that says, I am the heir to Reagan conservatism, because they've just been abused too many times.
It's a bit like Charlie Brown in the football.
I'm not going to fall for Lucy one more time.
Well, maybe one more time.
And then, of course, you get the usual folks saying, oh, come on.
Oh, come on.
You just got to shut up and vote Republican.
No, there are a lot of us out here that are conservatives first and Republicans second.
And by that, I mean the very purpose of a political party should be the conduit to a means to an end.
That is, it's a conduit to a larger goal.
And the reason I'm a lifelong Republican and have been a Republican and ran for Congress as a Republican is I always thought that the GOP and certainly its platform stood for a larger goal.
And the larger goal was free markets.
The larger goal was limited constitutional government with enumerated powers, a reliance on legislative deference and federalism.
And if you get away from that, it doesn't convince anybody to say, well, yeah, we're not that anymore.
But, you know, don't you want more R's in the legislature?
Don't you want more Republicans in the House?
No.
It's falling on deaf ears.
People belong to parties or the movement folks belong to parties because they think it is a conduit to an end, a means to an end, not the end of itself.
And yet you've got these big government conservatives, which is an oxymoron, if you've ever heard of one, constantly telling us, well, you can't win that way.
The days of Reagan are over.
And let me tell you where they are.
They're in Florida with Governor Christ.
They're in Georgia with Sonny Perdue.
Certainly in California with the Uber liberal Mr. Schwarzenegger.
They're in Minnesota with Governor Poleny.
Schwarzenegger, of course, is liberal on so many issues, but you've got these other guys that want to redefine conservatism from a pro-life liberal stand, thinking that their pro-life bona fidees will inoculate them from any criticism on everything else, whether it's global warming, whether it's smoking bans, whether it's the ridiculous crates for ethanol subsidies, which is causing everything to go up, whether it's meat, poultry, milk, you name it.
This whole craze about alternative fuels, alternative fuels would not exist in a free market right now with the current technology.
The only way they exist are these huge tax advantages and outright subsidies in the form of a $286 billion farm bill, which is a total boondoggle, in the form of the 51 cent gallon credit that ethanol gets, the import fee from ethanol, you know, Brazilian ethanol or what have you.
We've got a situation.
The cap and trade system that the global warming kooks are advocating is nothing more than telling the traditional means of energy production, whether it's coal or whether it's oil or whether it's anything other than a windmill or a solar panel, that you will be taxed and then you will give that money to windmill farms because that's the only way they can make it.
Well, you've got a bunch of these incumbent, moderate Republican governors, especially, but all over, saying, you know, that's the wave of the future.
And look, my pollster tells me it's like Dick Morris on crack, triangulation.
My pollster tells me that as long as I stay good on the social issues, I can veer portside on global warming, on ethanol subsidies, on smoking bans, on prescription drug benefits, on anything.
Well, I don't think it's going to work.
And I think that's one reason that there's been no clear frontrunner established yet in the Republican field.
Speaking of the Democrats, though, and I hate to do that, but every now and then.
John Edwards, New York Times front page today, Edwards gets demerits for tardiness on the trail.
Tardiness on the trail.
John Edwards apparently can't get to the rallies in Iowa or any place else on time.
He is routinely 45 minutes to an hour late.
But they did come up with an answer.
What they did is they had an ambulance pull up outside the hall, and boom, Edwards is on that just like it's an old trial lawyer joke, folks.
If you have to explain them, they really don't work too well, do they?
1-800-282-2882.
That's 1-800-282-2882.
Did you watch a Christmas story?
Did you watch that?
I love a Christmas story.
This was this movie.
It was a story written by Gene Shepard.
I think he even narrated it.
But Ralphie and the Red Rider BB Gun was on, you know, every Christmas Now, 24 hours straight.
Reminds me a little bit of It's a Wonderful Life, which did not start out as a blockbuster.
I don't know if the movie was panned, if Frank Capra's movie with Jimmy Stewart was panned, but it wasn't a huge hit.
And then as the years go by, it becomes ingrained in our public psyche in America.
And I think a Christmas story has done that now.
One of my favorite, you know, Darren McGavin in that movie is everybody's dad.
When you watch a Christmas story and you see the way he reacts to the insanity all around him, it reminds me of my long-departed dad.
So I love a Christmas story.
And I especially like the part where they take the kids to the mall, not to the mall, I guess it wasn't a mall.
It was a downtown store.
Pigbees, I think it was in the movie.
And they've got Santa, right?
And they've got to climb up the ladder to see Santa when they go down the slide.
The parents, and you know this is 1940s America.
The parents drop the kids off at Santa's spot.
In fact, my wife and I were talking about this the other night or last night.
They drop them off at Santa's spot and then they leave.
They leave their kid in a big department store in a downtown urban area and then they go and they come back an hour later.
They had to wait in line an hour.
And every time I watch that, it just struck me how sad it is in America today that that would never, ever happen.
You know it as well as I.
I mean, we can hear all of the statisticians talk about the decline in violent crime, but those were from record levels.
You and I know it intuitively.
Intuitively, the very least crime is more random, and I think it is greater on a scale.
I mean, you can talk about the anecdotes and you can talk about instances here and people say, well, those are just, that's anecdotal, doesn't count.
You don't sleep at night with your screen door open or your door open just to have a screen door on.
You don't do that anymore.
You don't leave the kids at the Santa booth and then leave for an hour anymore.
Half the time, you don't even let the kids play outside without somebody watching them.
There is something to miss, and it's hard to, you know, people have talked about this for quite some time.
Public policy wonks have been debating this, but it is hard to get away from the notion that, look, we have a culture now that doesn't sufficiently suppress the perversion that crime really is.
Any kind of crime, child abductions or anything else.
We have a cultural neighborhood aspect in the old days.
And I know everybody says that's wishful thinking.
The fact of the matter is, I can remember growing up, asking my mom or dad for a nickel, and then going out up to the dime store, get a candy bar, and play sun up till sundown.
Never came home until the sun came down.
My folks weren't worried about me.
They weren't bad parents.
You don't do that anymore.
And there is a cultural aspect to this that says, well, we don't want to cast aspersions on anybody's lifestyle.
We don't want to oppress the downtrodden if they happen to have to resort to crime due to poverty.
And then, of course, there is, I think, the primary driving force of this, at least intuitively, this sense of a lack of safety anymore, and that is the modern welfare state.
Isn't it ironic that poverty actually fell faster in the 50s before the advent of the modern welfare state, which for practical means and purposes started with Lyndon Johnson and the started with Roosevelt, to be honest, but obviously it was exacerbated by Lyndon Johnson, the Great Society in 1964.
And $6.5 trillion later, poverty rate is about the same as when it started.
The welfare state has done a great job of subsidizing poverty.
It hasn't eliminated it by moving people to work, notwithstanding welfare reform that many people are dragging their feet on.
The $6.5 trillion later, what have we created?
We've created neighborhoods that are not safe anymore, whether it's North Minneapolis or in your neighborhood in L.A. or New York or Miami or anyplace else.
You can remember, you can remember these places that were safe in the old days.
There was that cultural taboo on crime.
There was certainly no ability not to work.
You'd better be working.
And I suppose in some communities, the idea of these porous borders we've got, and I'm not trying to appeal to people's base instincts here, but there is a concern about crime and, quite frankly, illegal immigration.
They do have a higher rate of criminal activity.
And some people say, well, it's because they're impoverished or they're working for, you know, speaking of a Christmas story, Jason out in L.A. reminded me of this.
I'd forgotten it.
In April of 2007, April of this year, the Christmas story director, Bob Clark, who did a great job on that movie and a number of other movies, was killed by a 24-year-old illegal immigrant living in Los Angeles.
It was on the PCH-1, Pacific Coast Highway, and his utility vehicle was swerved into the wrong lane and hit Clark's sedan.
Now, why wasn't he deported before he killed the director of a Christmas story?
Why would anybody in this day and age countenance sanctuary cities where you've got mayors like Minneapolis saying, we're not going to enforce the federal law on immigration because, well, because we don't want to.
You know, Fred Thompson said not long ago, all right, you don't enforce the federal law on immigration.
You don't get the federal funds in a whole number of areas.
Might not be a bad strategy.
16 now after the hour.
I am Jason Lewis in for the great one today.
Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB Mike.
Back with your calls at 1-800-282-2882 right after this.
You're listening to the EIB Network.
As I said earlier, Mark Belling, in for the next couple of days.
I'll return on the New Year's Eve, I should say, then rush to take us into Iowa 2008 and beyond on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Speaking of this illegal immigration issue, Bob Clark being killed by an illegal immigrant driver.
That happens, that happens more frequently than people realize.
I mean, one of the reasons, the Real ID Act, whether you like it or not, which would tell states they've got to comport with certain federal restrictions on driver's licenses or federal requirements, is the carnage on the highways in the Southeast, all over the country, from illegal immigrant drivers.
And this happens, and then all of a sudden Elliot Spitzer up in New York says, well, we've got to give them licenses to make the road safer.
And then the Secretary of State in Minnesota, an activist left-wing Democrat, says, oh, by the way, anybody that gets a license in Minnesota should be automatically eligible to vote without registration.
That should serve as a dual registration, if you will.
You start to connect the dots pretty soon.
You start to see that there's another group out there that the liberal open borders left wants to appeal to.
And so they're going to make certain they get a driver's license, the driver's license will qualify them to vote.
And all of a sudden, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in elections in perpetuity, or electoral victories anyway, because of this growing base.
The whole driver's license issue is a huge one.
The whole illegal immigrant issue is a huge one.
That's why Huckabee got stung on that.
That's why McCain got stung on that, notwithstanding his recent surge in New Hampshire, we're told.
And now we've got word that the border fence that was going to be really isn't being built in any meaningful way.
This was, what, a couple of years ago, what Michelle Malkin calls the incredible disappearing border fence.
This is another aspect of trust that a lot of the candidates are having problems with.
The good news on all of this, though, is federalism and is this notion.
And you really do have to reduce the magnet.
If you want to tackle illegal immigration, and I'm all for the border fence, it's worked very well in San Diego.
But you've really got to stop the magnet.
We've got this great magnet that are drawing people here, a ridiculous Supreme Court decision back in 1982 suggesting that illegal immigrants have a constitutional right to taxpayer-funded education.
The Medicaid subsidies that go out, the 14th Amendments misconstrued to declare that anybody born in the United States, even if they're born to two illegals, is all of a sudden a citizen that was not.
Look at the framers of the 14th Amendment, the Civil War amendments.
That was not, that had no intention of making anybody a citizen who was not already, and it's right in the words, subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Well, illegal immigrants who have children in America are not subject to the jurisdiction of America.
Therefore, their progeny, their offspring, should not be a citizen.
And I'm not even certain you need to revisit that with a constitutional amendment.
I think statutory language could reverse that.
But there you have the magnet that is drawing people here.
And quite frankly, we're subsidizing illegal immigration.
We're subsidizing low-cost labor.
In a perfect world, as Milton Friedman used to say, you would welcome most immigrants.
And it's not just a cliche.
It's true.
We're a nation of immigrants.
But we also, for 200 years, well, to be fair, not 200 years, but for a number of years, we had immigration quotas, realizing the vast, the sheer numbers of people coming across the border could not be assimilated.
And that's what you're seeing all across the country, a lack of assimilation, a lack of English as a primary language.
And I'm not talking about immediately, I'm talking about, you know, quite a few years down the road, it's not being done.
And those sorts of things all are de facto subsidies for illegal immigration.
If you remove those subsidies, you're going to get less of it.
And to the extent that you remove those subsidies and people want to come here and assimilate, they want to come here and work, they want to come here and rely on their own two feet, well, then great.
That makes America stronger.
I'm all for that.
But there is something to the notion of embracing America.
And if you embrace America, we will embrace you.
And I'm afraid just a little bit of that has been lost in the last great wave, as it were.
Let's go to, let's see.
Let's go to Mark from Atlanta.
You're up next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
Sure.
Actually, this is the first time I've ever called a radio show, but I did hear something you said, and I wanted to try to correct you on it.
Sure, go ahead.
About the fair tax, when you do calculate the rate, it is as it's written in H.R. 25, I believe, and in the fair tax book.
Most critics actually do not critique it as it's written, and that 30% number is something that gets thrown about quite a bit because they are not looking at it as the bill is written.
The tax itself is an inclusive tax, just like your income tax is.
And say an item that's $100 with the embedded taxes that are in the item already, you know, they calculated about 22%.
But that item, you know, when those taxes are taken away, then it's replaced by the 23%.
You're getting into the minutiae of all of this.
You're talking about the difference between.
Let me get in.
Let me get in.
You're talking about the difference between the tax-inclusive rate and a tax-exclusive rate.
And what you say in defense of using the tax-inclusive rate, which comes out to be 23%, is that, well, that's the way income taxes are calculated.
The problem with that argument is that's not the way every other sales tax in the country is calculated.
Exactly.
I'm going to ask you the same question I asked the previous caller.
If a product costs $1 at retail, what is the fair tax on that as it currently is proposed?
It's 23 cents.
And the way that's written is you pay $1.
23 cents of that dollar is for tax, and the 77 cents goes for the item.
It is replacing the 22% or 23% embedded taxes so that the price goes down by that much, and then it is replaced by that.
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
You're assuming.
Wait a minute.
Let me see if I understand you right.
You're assuming before you answer it.
It's always a useful process.
You're assuming that the price will go down, so it won't be a dollar.
It will actually be less than a dollar, and therefore you come out with 23 cents.
Right.
And that's disingenuous.
It's all get out.
Okay, well, maybe I see what you're saying.
You're saying, well, the retailer isn't going to reduce the price because they'll just increase their profits.
No, somewhere along the line.
I'm up against the clock.
I got to go, but I'm going to tackle this when we come back because I understand where you're going with this, and I'm sympathetic to the overall cause, but it's a little bit misleading, and we're going to tackle this next.
I am Jason Lewis, Minnesota's Mr. Wright, with the honor and the privilege sitting in for the big guy once again.
The number, however, remains the same as always, 1-800-282-2882.
Rush does have a new email address, lrushbow at eibnet.com.
And I want to get to Ronald and L.A. in a second, but I said I would address the fair tax.
Look, and I love single-issue types, and I love the debate over taxation, because that is an issue that I think is imperative to conservatives everywhere.
As I've said before, if they can take your labor, all the other liberties don't mean anything.
If they can take what you earn, if they can take your property, property is the barrier to the state, and you can't have property without keeping what you earn.
So it is a crucial issue to me.
But we've got to be objective, and we've got to be honest with our analyses here.
And I think there's been a little bit of dissembling, for lack of a better term, on the whole fair tax thing.
You know, one of my favorite economists out there is Dr. John Lott.
He's more guns, less crime.
He's written a number of great books.
Freedom Nomics is a great book, his latest.
And he explained to me not long ago that the fair tax, obviously we've got embedded taxation with payroll and income taxes in all of the products we produce.
That is true.
But if you've ever had a class in economics, and I've had a few, you understand that the business will produce right up until the marginal revenue is equal to the marginal cost.
So, you're producing product, you're going to make a profit on it, you'll keep producing.
Pretty soon, the profit margin narrows and narrows and narrows until the cost, the marginal revenue, is less than the marginal cost.
Then, business stops producing.
There's no reason to produce a product when it costs you more to make it.
Well, unless, of course, you get a subsidy.
But enough about ethanol.
I hate to throw that in there.
So, what lot and others have pointed out is: look, you will have some relief over time from eliminating the corporate income tax, from eliminating the tax on LLCs or subchapter S corporations, but not immediately.
And here's why.
Because once you have the marginal cost equaling the marginal revenue, let's say you're going to sell your product for 50 bucks.
It costs you 40 to make it.
You're going to produce it.
But now, as time goes on because of bottlenecks, higher costs, pretty soon your cost of goods sold goes up to 45, 48, 49.
Now, you're only making a buck a product for 50 bucks.
You're still going to produce it, but you're only making a dollar.
When that gets to 50-50, that's the break-even point.
You'll stop.
You'll stop.
Now, here's the problem.
At the break-even point, you're paying no income tax on that last item produced.
So, there is no income tax burden because you have no profit.
And the income tax burden shrinks as the profit margins shrink with increased production.
So, when you talk about being relieved of the income tax from that scenario, the actual advantages are very little.
And that, I think, is a little, you know, gets to the point that the previous callers were making.
Well, you're going to have the drastically lower costs immediately because of going to a sales tax from an income tax.
Not immediately.
But the fundamental problem, and again, I'm sympathetic to this.
I think states ought to rely more on sales taxes than income taxes.
We've got nine states without an income tax.
They're some of the most prosperous for a reason.
I'm sympathetic to taxing consumption, much more so than the savings, than investment.
Certainly, we ought to have no capital gains tax, no double taxation of dividends.
And the Democrats want to double the capital gains tax.
They want to triple the dividends tax, which is just what the market needs, not.
I'm sympathetic to all of that.
And a progressive tax on work is the most insane thing any country could adopt.
The more you work, the more disproportionately you pay.
But you've got to make certain the 16th Amendment is repealed before you go down this route, or the liberals in Congress and elsewhere will reinstate the income tax.
Now you've got it alongside a sales tax.
And that won't go away.
You've got to make certain that the new IRS created in the Fair Tax Act of 05 that called for a Department of the Treasury sales tax return pursuant to Section 404 isn't harassing business saying, did you collect your national sales tax?
You've got to make certain the rate isn't too high, and it is 30%.
I hate to break it to you guys.
If you calculate it like any other sales tax, the rate, the retail sales tax rate is 30 cents on the dollar.
And that's going to be high enough to invoke a black market.
And what's going to happen?
Now you're going to have some sort of outfit at the new IRS or the Treasury going after businesses instead of going after 140 million taxpayers where they thankfully can't get them all.
Now, the big advantage of the national sales tax is it does reduce those outrageous disincentives to production, and it puts us on an even playing field with, say, imports.
They'd have to pay the retail sales tax, just like items manufactured in America.
All of that is to the good.
But I'm just asking for a little honesty in salesmanship here.
That's all.
And that's hopefully we don't want to get bogged down in this because I know people have this issue in their head and they get hooked on it.
And by God, their credibility is at stake.
And they're not going.
The bottom line is this.
Bottom line is this.
Unless we cut government drastically, any amount of government you spend is going to come out of the private economy.
And frankly, any amount of taxation.
Now, I think the income tax, frankly, is the worst.
Consumption taxes are more beneficial.
But if you've got a consumption tax of 30%, and now you add on the state sales tax of 6%, 7%, local surcharges, you're going to get some black markets.
And government purchases are going to be taxed at that rate.
So that might increase the cost of government.
And the sales tax proponents are saying, well, it's revenue neutral.
I don't want anything to be revenue neutral.
I don't want the federal budget of $2.7 trillion.
I want tax cuts that starve the federal budget.
David Stockman was right.
It's a good idea.
That's why I'm a big fan of deficits.
I'm not interested in redoing the tax code to keep taking $3 trillion out of the private sector.
Any amount of money you decide to raise is going to be financed, whether you finance it by taxation or inflation or borrowing, it's going to have a deleterious effect on private production.
So until we get a handle on spending and go back to a more of a constitutional view of enumerated powers, that's got to come first.
That's got to come first, in my view.
Anyway, got to move.
Ronald in L.A., thanks for your patience.
You are on the Rush Limbaugh program with Jason Lewis.
Hi.
How are you doing, Jason?
I'm doing fine.
How are you?
Did that make any sense to you what I just said?
That's a whole other world for me.
In any event, I call about immigration.
I'm an over 50 African American.
And there are two things regarding illegal immigration I wanted to ask you if you're aware of.
The one is the law out of Indiana that's going to the Supreme Court on the 9th of January.
Voter ID law.
You got it.
Yeah.
Okay.
This is a similar ploy that the Democrats generally make that they made back in the 60s with African Americans.
Is this going to be discriminatory?
You know, it's going to be difficult, et cetera, et cetera.
Ronald, you are a bright guy.
In fact, that's exactly the argument they made in now invoking the Voting Rights Act.
Absolutely.
And saying a voter ID requiring proof of citizenship, prove that you're eligible to vote, prove that you live in the precinct you say you're going to live, is violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Really?
Absolutely.
And here is my point.
I have been a Democrat for the past 25 years.
Do you know I have changed my party affiliations?
Take a guess to what?
I'm going to guess.
I'm going to go out on a lynn.
No, you go ahead and tell us.
Okay.
It begins with an R. Name is my.
Okay.
Now, the other issue in regards to illegal immigration is the 14th Amendment.
Right.
That was during the Civil War.
Right.
And it was designed specifically for African Americans.
You know, you could not be more correct, my friend.
The Civil War amendments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th, which have now been used to incorporate, incorporate the rest of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, which was never their intention either, incorporation doctrine.
But it was designed to break the black codes of the South so that the government could not enforce discrimination in the South.
And you had voting rights provisions in there in the 15th Amendment.
Obviously, the 14th Amendment and equal protection under the law.
But at the time, if you go back and look at the ratification debates, they were talking about they were never, ever, they were still skeptical of foreigners back then.
It was, you know, it wasn't that far from the founding.
I mean, you're less than 100 years out.
And they said, my intention was never to allow anybody to come here, have a child, and make that child a citizenship.
That's why in the 14th Amendment itself, it says you have to be under the jurisdiction thereof.
Absolutely.
So that if, yes, a slave had a child, that child was a citizen with all of the rights and privileges and immunities that any other citizen had.
Well, those slaves were already under the jurisdiction, weren't they?
That is the whole point.
Slaves had no other jurisdictions.
That's right.
They were Americans.
And I don't think you need to have a Supreme Court decision.
I don't think, although the courts will challenge it, but I don't think you need to amend the Constitution.
There is statutory language that's been introduced to, shall we say, revise the meaning of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause to the extent of what you're saying that says, look, this says if you are an American citizen and you're subject to the jurisdiction of this country right now and you have a child, the child is a citizen.
That is absolutely correct because slaves weren't even denied citizenship.
They were just denied access to the process.
Right.
Right.
That's a great point.
Am I making any sense?
No, you're making more sense than about 95% of the people debating this topic.
You're quite right.
That's got to be, look, that's got to be addressed because that is the mother load.
When we talked about the benefits and subsidization of illegal immigration, that's it.
You come here, you get your child born in America, and you've got it.
And the reason that I am so astute on this is because, unfortunately, out of experience.
And I love Rush.
I love his show.
He woke me up a long time ago.
And let me tell you, the mainstream media is not going to allow African Americans such as myself to have a voice in order to wake up other people.
But you guys are great.
And I think that's the same thing.
Ronald, thank you for taking my call.
I appreciate you, Carl.
Look, this has nothing to do with the fight over slavery or even civil rights.
Nobody is saying, nobody is talking about, gee, we don't want to let you do this or this because you're Hispanic.
We're saying we have concerns because you're illegal.
That's a difference between the legal status and race in the former example that Ron was talking about.
Those are two wholly different subjects.
Anyway, thanks for the call, Ron.
I got to move.
I'm Jason Lewis, in for Rush on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
You're listening to the EIB Network.
The microcosm of the notion that government is there to fix everything, and it is not.
If you look, the markets work, and the banks have to mark these mortgages to market, and the people who have overextended themselves in home buying have to, quite frankly, downsize.
This thing will be over by summer.
If the government exacerbates it with easy money and a subprime bailout for Wall Street, we're going to put off the day of reckoning, friends.
So that's coming up next hour on the program.
In the meantime, I am Jason Lewis, and this is Aaron from the great state of Iowa, the epicenter for 2008, right now, at least for the next few days.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Yes, go ahead.
I was wondering, the other day we were supposed to have Bill Clinton come to our school, and he never said that.
So were you guys bad?
Did you do something wrong?
No.
Oh, I thought if you did something wrong, Bill Clinton would come to your school.
If you did something wrong again, he'd come twice.
But nevertheless, go ahead.
Well, basically, it was a big Hillary campaign stop, which I didn't think was right because basically we were forced to go listen to him in the gym.
And Courtney Stevens sang.
So, well, I mean, look, this is what you're going to get when you get a co-president.
I mean, look, first of all, are you surprised that the largest chapter of the Democratic Party, known as the National Education Association, would use their position.
Is it a public school, I presume?
Yes.
Yes, of course.
Would use their position and their particular advantage to advance the people they support, i.e., liberal Democrats.
The NEA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, or maybe it's the other way around, but either one, they're joined at the hip.
So when you've got government schools, they're going to more than likely be in favor of pro-big government candidates.
True.
I mean, I didn't, I was kind of wanting to listen to him.
I mean, ex-president, you don't get the chance, but still, the teachers didn't even really give us a choice as to if we wanted to go or not.
Well, look, to cut out a little slack, he is an ex-president.
And anytime a president comes to a school, it's a big deal.
Now, if the campaign is abusing this as a way to campaign for Hillary, that should be explained as well.
And the school should have tried to vet that with the campaign.
But it doesn't surprise me.
I mean, for heaven's sakes, they're teaching global warming.
I should say man-made global warming has fact in elementary school.
Every time there is an operating levy or a bond levy in your local school district, you get notes home from the school that are nothing more than campaign brochures.
So, you know, as Disraeli said, tyranny begins in the nursery.
The fact of the matter is, I've never understood why so many ACLU civil libertarians who are so afraid of government would willy-nilly be supportive of handing over their children to government-run schools.
I'm getting off on another subject here, but I've long been an advocate of real school choice.
And the only way you can have that, Aaron, in the final analysis is to essentially move towards a more market-oriented system in schools.
And the best way to do that is tuition tax credits, but that's a whole nother issue.
Yeah.
But I understand your frustration.
And it's, you know, tell the taxpayers of that school district and tell the parents of the kids in that school district raise a little cane.
It isn't going to change.
True.
I had another question or comment, too.
Yeah, go ahead.
Hillary's health care issues.
She said from what I've heard where she's going to get most of this money to help equal health care for everyone and lower.
I'm not sure.
Basically, what I get is once she's in office, if she does, she's going to pull everybody out of Iraq.
And that's where she's thinking she's going to get money.
No, no, no.
Thanks for the call, Aaron.
I appreciate it.
In fact, oddly enough, Hillary, if you can believe what she says, of course, has positioned herself as not pulling out of Iraq immediately, unlike the other candidates.
But I'll tell you where she's going to get the health care funds.
She's going to raise taxes.
There's going to be the largest tax increase in American history, all for socialized medicine.
And once you have the government controlling your health care and they realize they don't have enough money to pay for everybody's health care, you're going to get government-directed rationing.
It's as sure as the day is long.
And that's what's going to happen if you elect a Liberal Democrat next year.
I'm Jason Lewis in for Rush Limbaugh.
You're on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
You're listening to the EIB Network.
In Utah, Jenny, you're on with Jason Lewis on the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Hi.
Hi, Donin.
How are you today?
I'm good.
How are you?
Good.
Hey, I've got the cure all for the immigration problem.
Yes.
No federal or state funding for any illegal immigrant from any country, period, except for emergency medical care because of humanity.
We have to keep humanity.
But if you get rid of that card that they come up here and pull, I'll go.
Gotta go.
Got more on this coming right up.
▲
Export Selection