All Episodes
Previous Next
March 7, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
March 7, 2008, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, I've got it.
In the spirit of equality, in the spirit of equal distribution of resources, I've got an idea as to how as to uh Brett Favre's retirement.
Uh the the great Green Bay quarterback, by the way, he announces officially yesterday, Brett Favre of the Packers retiring.
Today in Minnesota, it's a state holiday.
I don't know if they're connected or not, but a lot of people happy in uh Minnesota today.
Welcome back.
I am Jason Lewis, second hour now up and running in for El Rushbow.
Don't forget Rushlimbaugh.com as always.
In the meantime, we will uh keep things keep things in force in the uh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies as we persevere onward.
Anyway, it's rather it's rather interesting because if you make an analogy between sports in this particular case and the Democrats' idea of uh economics, which might be an oxymoron to boot, you can see what it's clear what we have to do.
You take all of those awards, all of those records that Brett Favre accomplished before he retired, and you redistribute those to every second string quarterback in the NFL.
And of course, on an equal basis.
You do it on an equal basis.
I mean, because everybody has a right to the same sort of of achievement.
Isn't that the idea?
We're gonna tax the rich more.
We're gonna regulate so some some big business doesn't have an advantage over the lowly labor unions.
We're gonna we're gonna even the playing field.
Well, let's do it with all of those NFL records that Brett Favre set.
Everybody in the NFL right now as a quarterback is going to get a proportionate share of those records.
Favre, of course, will have his reduced in the name of equity.
Well, you can see the absurdity of that.
There's the there's an old analogy out there for many, many years about teachers, of course.
You score ninety-five on your test, somebody else scores fifty-five, they take twenty points from you, you give twenty points to the kid that scores fifty-five, and you both have seventy-five, and we're all we're all equal.
You know, that really the idea of equality has to has to have some nuance to it.
We are only equal in the Western tradition.
We are only equal under the law.
And by that I mean governments should never, ever, ever be allowed to discriminate.
All of the invidious discrimination, all of the horrors in society in the world can be traced when one man has power over another.
That's called government.
Equal application under the law is the only equality we need to worry about in a free country.
The rest of it is bunk.
The rest of it is we are not equal.
There is there is uh an aristocracy of merit, as Thomas Jefferson once said, a meritocracy.
That's what governs America, where you can climb as high as your abilities can take you.
And if you don't get that high, or you don't want to work that hard, then your station in life is set as well.
Why why talent and energy and initiative should be punishable by an outdated tax code is beyond me were it not for the politics of envy and the class warfare.
And that's literally what liberal politicians live off of.
They live off of the unconscionable notion that since they have power, you can vote for me, in effect, hiring me to take something that doesn't belong to you from somebody else and give it to you.
That's the Democrat economic philosophy.
Sadly, uh the philosophy of a few renegade liberal Republicans these days.
In fact, I wasn't gonna do this, but I'll bore you with the Minnesota story for just a second.
Last year, and remember, I only bring this up because uh this article in the New York Times today, the Senate Democrats hope for a majority, not seen in thirty years.
They want to get past the filibuster.
They want to have a filibuster proof majority in the U.S. Senate.
So ostensibly, if you had a Democrat president, if you had a filibuster uh proof in more than sixty votes in the Senate for the Democrats, the Democrats would be in total control of the nation's politics of Washington, D.C. And Republicans have twenty-three seats to defend this cycle, uh, five left vacant by retiring incumbents, Democrats have just twelve.
So the Democrats could expand their majorities in the House, they could have a filibuster proof Senate, and conceivably they could have a Democrat president.
What's going to happen?
Well, let me give you a microcosm of that.
Here in the People's Republic of Minnesota, the Democrats won overwhelming victories in 2006, based on the really it was right down the ballot on the profligate spending Of the Republican majorities in the U.S. Congress, it kind of gave a bad eye to all Republicans everywhere because Republicans betrayed their conservative base by spending like Democrats.
And they were going to change Washington, Washington changed them.
You've heard all the cliches.
So the Democrats had a big victory in Minnesota.
They won the House of Representatives, the State House here.
They've got a veto proof Senate majority now.
What happened?
Well, last year the state of Minnesota had a $2 billion surplus.
The Democrats spent the surplus and voted to raise taxes $4 billion.
$4 billion.
They authored a bill to raise the Minnesota income tax to put it at the highest income tax rate in the country.
Stand back, California, we're coming after you.
Well, fortunately, through a few gubernatorial vetoes by Governor Polleny, we just got by with spending the surplus, which really isn't kind of a Pyrrhic victory if you think about it.
We had a 31.5 billion dollar state budget in a in a state of only five million people, and we spent another two billion.
And that was considered a conservative victory.
Well, this year they get in there with even a greater greater power, if you will, greater momentum.
Last week in the state of Minnesota, a $6.6 billion tax increase.
But here's the kicker, and here's the lesson.
The lesson is one.
That's what's going to happen nationwide.
You're going to see the largest tax increase in history.
If the Democrats win, big victories this fall, they win the presidency.
First of all, you're going to see Washington, D.C. have their own member of Congress so that federal employees can vote to tax the rest of us for more money for well, federal employees.
Neat trick.
That's going to happen.
The Democrats will let the Bush tax cuts expire.
Charlie Wrangell will uh get his largest tax increase in history passed.
The American family will be out.
The average American family will be out $1,500.
Capital gains taxes will double, dividends taxes will triple.
That'll be good for the stock market.
And the American corporation will continue to move offshore because right now we have the second highest corporate income tax in the country, second to Japan.
Look out Japan.
We're going to tax the oil companies.
What happened in Minnesota, where in the face of a $2 billion surplus, we spent it and now we've raised taxes $6.6 billion, is going to happen in Washington on a much grander scale.
But here's the other lesson.
The governor here vetoed this tax increase last week.
It's a sales tax increase, license fee tax increase, and a gas tax increase.
Massive.
The governor vetoes it.
The House overrides it.
The state Senate up here is veto proof, but the House wasn't.
They had enough Democrats to override a veto.
In the House of Representatives in Minnesota, they needed the aid and comfort of six renegade liberal Republicans who sided with the Democrats to override the veto and raise taxes in Minnesota.
The other lesson here is liberal Republicans are not our friends.
They are not to be countenanced.
They are not to be tolerated.
How can you possibly defeat the enemy as Rush says so eloquently and correctly?
If in fact you have people in your camp who are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
No other organization in society would allow this.
No business would allow people selling secrets or aiding with their competitors.
No sports team would allow it.
Nobody.
But the Republican Party, insecure about conservatism, far too often says, well, we got to have a big tent.
Got to have a big tent.
Remember when the Democrats took Congress in 06, Nancy Pelosi said, here's what we're going to do in the first 100 hours.
We're going to have six big votes.
We're going to put price controls on a free market when it comes to pharmaceutical companies.
We're going to tax the bejeebers out of the oil companies.
That's a good energy policy, don't you think?
We're going to increase the labor costs of small businesses by raising the minimum wage in a careless way.
Another example locally that you can extrapolate nationally.
Representative Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, long a liberal, long a Sierra Club advocate, long a mental health parity advocate with Paul Wellstone, voted on all six votes with Nancy Pelosi and against the Republicans in Congress.
Now that's bad enough.
But Ramstad has announced his retirement as a member of the U.S. Congress.
And it's a swing district.
So what are the national Republicans doing?
You got it.
trying to talk him out of retiring.
To which I ask, what for?
If the GOB does not disabuse itself of these pro-life liberals, of these pro-choice liberals, of these environmentalists, of these these populists within their own ranks, they will never ever offer the voters a clear choice.
They will never be a governing majority.
They are so afraid of being in the minority for a session or two that they are willing to throw principle to the wind and get in bed with the Democrats in some forta some form of perverse Dick Morris triangulation strategy.
You want to know why conservatives are upset today.
I just described it.
Six liberal Republicans undercut the Minnesota Republican Party, undercut the taxpayer of Minnesota, and if there's six here, there's many more in Washington.
Just look at the U.S. Senate and some of those Republicans.
I don't need to name them, you know them.
And I don't know why we've got this death wish in the GOP.
If you keep listening to your enemies, if you keep listening to the New York Times, if you let the Sierra Club educate the country on global warming, well, naturally the polls are going to reflect a concern about global warming.
But part of being a great politician is not following the polls, is not looking at this and saying, Oh, I've got to modify my view.
As the Gipper used to say, part of being a great politician is moving the polls.
Somebody presented a poll once to Ronald Reagan when he was president, where the vast majority of Americans disagreed with his view.
He didn't say, Oh, that's it, let's change our view.
He said, Well, or as Reagan would put it, well, well, we'll just have to educate them.
That's leadership.
That's leadership, and that's what the GOP needs.
I'm Jason Lewis, 17 after the hour.
Your calls on this open line Friday coming right up at 1800, 282-2882 on the Rush Limbaugh program.
And here we go, back with Minnesota's real anchor man in for America's real anchorman, Jason Lewis in for Rush Limbaugh on this open line Friday.
Glad to be covering the Northern Command for El Rushbo.
He's back on Monday.
In the meantime, back to the phones we go.
First up this segment, I should say, on the excellence in broadcasting network.
Hi, Jason.
Thanks for taking my call.
I am thrilled.
Uh the reason I called was that I've watched McCain.
I'm sit I'm a 65-year-old conservative, and I have watched McCain for over 20 years stick his fingers up our nose, and Grant stand with his liberal friends on the other side of the aisle.
And he does not have my vote.
I'm not sure that he's going to get it.
If he does, he's going to have to work awfully hard at it.
And what I want the Republicans to do is I want them to find their way.
And I think it would be easier for them to find their way if rather than having a Republican liberal in the White House who has the bully pulpit of his party to have a liberal Democrat in the White House.
Here's the problem.
You've got so many people, and you're right.
You've got so many people who view politics not as a calling uh or a vocation, but they view view it as a lifestyle.
They literally are the political professionals, the consultants, uh the party hacks, you name it.
They don't care about cause, they don't care about ideology, they don't care about changing the country, they care about wins and losses.
And anything you have to do to win is just fine by them, which is the problem.
Sometimes, sometimes you need to lose an election in order to avoid losing your soul.
I mean what's essentially where I am.
What good does it do to win if we're going to govern like the other side?
That's right.
Now what could he do?
I mean, here is the problem, I think that that once again that you you represent.
Would it not be worse if if Hillary or uh Barack got in there?
I mean that's what people are telling you.
I think if we look at it and and and look at the possibility, the possibility is there, but I look at it from the standpoint of if the Republicans are to find their soul and get that back, it's gotta be much more difficult if their own party is in that White House overriding them as it were all the way along the way.
I mean, they they don't have the ability to fight as well as they do if someone from the other party.
I'm willing to let them stand back and and lose that White House for a short period of time if they get back to the Reagan-esque principles that put them there in the first place.
Well, and it's just not the executive branch.
I mean, the re the Republicans' majority in Congress are the ones that really blew it.
I have two rhinos up here.
Yeah, you get I should say you do.
And and the people that came in with Bush 43 need to be held accountable, the Michael Gerson speechwriters and all of those those people that that are now represent the evangelical left who di do disdain Reaganism, who disdain real conservatism.
Uh there is a real fight going on for the soul, the heart and soul of the Republican Party.
And I I do believe it's between, Bob, people like you who have faith in the principle, the idea that political parties should be a conduit to a more important end, the end being conservatism, that we believe in limited government, we believe in low taxation, uh we believe in enumerated powers and federalism and all the things that make us conservative.
People don't believe that.
Many of many liberal Republicans don't believe, not just in that, but they don't believe America believes in that.
Therefore, if you're insecure in your own party's philosophy, they have to reach out.
Whereas I have more faith in the American people, I think you do too.
I think it's a philosophy that can be sold with vigor if you're committed to it.
And you've got to be committed to it.
That's that's the bottom line.
And I don't think many in the Republican Party are committed to it.
So we're a party of know nothing's in many ways.
And we could go the way of the Whigs if we don't watch it.
The Democrat Party is very, very effective in demanding some sort of fidelity towards their overriding philosophy, which of course is socialism and expanding government.
The Republicans are not.
And until they get that that back, uh they are they are not going to be a government.
You know, here's the bottom line.
If they tell you that, gee, we don't have enough people in our party, we can't afford to throw anybody overboard as a uh moderate governor once said, well, wait a minute.
We we went down the road of Republican liberalism.
We went back we de went down the road of Rockefeller Republicanism.
It's never worked.
It didn't work for Gerald Ford, didn't work for Nixon.
It certainly didn't work when the Republicans took control of the House and Senate and had the majority, even with the Republican president.
They spent money like like Ted Kennedy at a at an orgy.
I don't know how we'd spend money at an orgy, but you get the drift.
The point is Republican liberalism doesn't work electorally either.
Anyway, Bob, I understand your angst.
Kurt in White Bear Lake, Minnesota, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
How are you doing, Jason?
Good, Kurt, how are you?
Oh, hanging in there.
Hey, you're doing a great job for uh for the master in there.
Thank you, sir.
Um say you you touched on something a little bit earlier, talking about how commodity prices might be falling and kind of related that to the uh supply and demand of the market.
And I'm just wondering if there isn't something more at work here, like the erosion of our manufacturing economic base that's causing the market not to bear the prices that they once did.
Uh I you know, we're shipping so much of our stuff over to China that uh, you know, I'm just kind of wondering i if there's just not the money there to support the bre the prices we once had.
Well, I don't think so.
A couple of points.
Number one, manufacturing output as a percentage of GDP has not gone down.
So you you've got fewer people doing it, to be sure.
But as a far if you take a look at the manufacturing output of the United States, that's a percent of our gross domestic product, it does not drop drop precipitously.
And the other the other point, which seems to be lost on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, is that is you can't decry both a trade deficit and outsourcing because they are opposites.
You can't have a trade deficit where you're you're importing more goods than you are buying, so you've got dollars floating around in the international market.
Those dollars come back, and they come back for a Toyota plant in Tennessee.
They come uh back for a a plant owned by another uh company in Texas, a foreign company.
Well, why isn't that considered manufacturing in the U.S.?
Well, because we don't own the manufacturing plants, and is that the direction we really want to take our country into is having our facilities owned by foreign nationals.
Well, think about it.
Now think about that for now.
Think about what you're saying there.
What you're saying there is that the United States is a great place to invest, and there is a demand for dollars, albeit albeit the dollars weaker now.
There's still a demand to invest in the United States by foreign companies, and that's a bad thing.
I'd rather have them owned by our own people, to be honest, but what happened to all those companies owned by the Germans at the outset of World War II?
They're gone.
Well, what are what are the United States do?
United States took them.
They exappropriated them.
It's not a threat.
Back after this.
And welcome back once again, everybody.
Greeting conversationalists across the fruited plain.
It's me, Minnesota's Mr. Wright, in for El Rushboe.
He will be back on Monday to take over the reins here on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, my pleasure to sit in for him while he's taking a couple of well deserved days off.
I forgot to get to this story at the top.
Let me throw it out there now because this one's a this one's a hoot.
I was kind of joking about Brett Favre and how we should redistribute his NFL records just, you know, for equity sake, the way we redistribute income through our tax code.
Think about this.
The University of Wisconsin is now mulling over whether students from well off families, people that earn more because they produce more in most cases, should pay higher tuition to subsidize lower income peers.
The Board of Regents is debating the issue in Wisconsin as part of a wide-ranging discussion on the future of tuition and financial aid.
Now get this.
They're going to base the price of this overrated product, I'll get to that in a moment.
We're going to base the price of tuition at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, otherwise known as the People's Republic of Madison, on how much you make.
I want you to ponder this for a moment.
Can you imagine if any other enterprise, other than a government-run one, of course, were to base the cost of their goods and services on ability to pay money?
Walk in to your favorite car dealership.
Hey, I like that.
I like that SUV there.
I drove it.
I love it.
How much is it?
How much do you make?
Well, for you, it's fifty grand.
For you, it's 35 grand.
Walk into your grocery store.
It's milk, loaf of bread, how much do I owe you?
How much do you make?
Oh, you make that much.
Well, you, the milk is six dollars a gallon.
You only make, oh, for you the milk is only four dollars.
Why don't we price our products that way?
Because in America, the idea of capitalism and freedom, and remember, our revolution was an economic revolution.
And economics is just the moral dimension of liberty.
Or I should say the economic dimension of liberty.
The idea of free markets, the idea of earning money and not having to give it to the king or to government.
That is that is the the economic dimension of freedom.
What I'm getting at here is is these issues aren't economic issues, they're moral issues.
If you don't have the right to keep the fruits of your labor, you're not free.
It's no different than the right to free speech.
It's no different than the right to be free from from illegal searches and seizures.
By the way, I get a kick out of that one.
Why do we have the Fourth Amendment?
Every civil libertarian out there says you can't go in there without a warrant.
We can't we can't spy on terrorists without a warrant.
Why?
What is the barrier there?
The barrier is private property.
You can't enter my house without a warrant.
Now why?
Because it's private property?
I thought liberals didn't care much about private property.
Private property is the barrier between you and your freedom and the state.
If you lose private property, you lose your freedom.
We fought a great civil war about this, where certain group of individuals were not allowed allowed to keep the fruits of their labor.
Now with this ever progressive tax code and basing tuition on the ability to pay, they're enslaving us all.
In 1765, when the Crown put on the Stamp Act, when we had the import duties on tea, the coercive and intolerable acts to enforce those.
The colonists were revolting about economic liberty, about freedom.
The ability to get rich and the idea of growing wealthier means that all of your expenses become a smaller percent of your income.
Why is it the taxes shouldn't be any different?
Why is it the more you you you earn, the higher tax bracket you're forced into?
Why is it that the top one percent of income earners in the United States of America pay 40% of the federal income tax burden as much as the bottom ninety-five percent?
Is that a manifestation of freedom?
Is it free when the University of Wisconsin contemplates on gouging even further?
People who happen to support the University of Wisconsin with their taxes.
I mean, get this irony.
The people ostensibly making the most money in Wisconsin are paying the highest taxes, much of which goes to the University of Wisconsin.
Now they're being gouged for the tuition rate.
And that's another story.
This whole idea that that college tuition is never ever faulted for price cow price gouging.
They will haul the oil companies, they'll haul the pharmaceutical companies to Capitol Hill in a New York minute if the price fluctuates.
College tuition is one of the greatest ripoffs in America today.
I'm talking about public colleges.
But private colleges have their own problems too, including political correctness.
But tuition in America has gone up 35% from 2001 to 2006, adjusted for inflation.
That's according to the college board.
That's faster than gasoline, faster than food, and yet the government keeps subsidizing these universities.
These bastions of liberal political thought, where they bring in old left-wing terrorist groups or founders of left-wing terrorist groups as professors.
Pell grants, they keep going up.
State aid keeps going up.
Universities sitting on billion dollar endowments.
You know, you got most universities sit there on these billion dollar endowments and then tell taxpayers, oh, we got to raise tuition because the state government isn't giving us enough money.
Well, why don't you tap into your endowment?
Well, because we don't want to.
They'll give you some sort of deflective dissembling tactic like, well, the endowments are allocated for specific purposes hogwash.
They could get around that.
They could ask for endowments for for lowering general levels of tuition if they wanted to, they don't.
They're feathering their own nest.
I mean, you're going to spend a hundred thousand dollars to get your kid through college so we can get a degree in sociology.
You'd be better off taking that hundred grand, putting it in a single premium deferred annuity, keeping it until he's 62 and he retires more than a millionaire.
I'm, you know, look, this is coming from a guy who spent, you know, a lot of years in undergraduate school and graduate school.
In fact, the my freshman year was the toughest three years of my life.
But the point here is we never talk about how colleges routinely gouge their customers, how universities game the system.
We only talk about private sector business that funds these universities.
How convenient.
In Middletown, Connecticut, here's Mike.
You're on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
Hey, Jason, how are you doing?
Doing well.
Um, you know, I've listened all to all these bone-headed pundits trying to explain why Barack Obama's losing blue-collar whites.
Well, there's a perception, because I saw all my old union buddies last week.
There's a perception that Obama and his wife are somewhat anti-American.
Her statement about not being proud of the country and whether it's true or not, him not putting his hand over his heart during the um uh pledge of allegiance.
Well, you gotta be careful.
Some of this stuff is urban legend.
I understand that, but that's not that's that's where it's hitting with these union guys.
There were ten of them.
I was in the union hall, and every one of them was parroting the same thing.
But Bill Clinton, but Bill Clinton goes overseas, denounces America in so many words, along with Al Gore denounces the incumbent president in so many words, talks about America not leading the way on global warming, on uh on being a renegade uh, you know, state and all of that, and we need Hillary.
Well how is that any different?
And why do the why do the union support Hillary?
I understand that, but he's getting tagged with this.
That's all I'm saying.
It's not just one or two people are just the union guys.
It's other people who are Democrats too, who are saying it to me.
So you don't think race has anything to do with it?
I think it has less to do with it and more to do with this perception.
When she made that comment about not being proud of the country, I think that really turned off a lot of uh blue collar whites who were supporting him.
For the first time in my life, I'm proud of the United States.
I understand.
And she's followed it up with another sort of uh slam against the country.
Yeah, there's a real problem there, but if you you know Democrats have literally been doing this for a career since Vietnam.
Their whole idea has been bashing America.
That's why they love the UN.
That's why they continue to to coddle left wing terrorists.
That's why they love open borders.
Anything that dilutes our Western tradition, private property, capitalism, the rule of law, common law, is is to the benefit or is to the good in their eyes.
So I don't think Barack Obama has a monopoly on this.
Anyway, I I I understand your point.
I think you're accurate.
Um, but I think it's also it also applies to Hillary and a whole lot of Democrats.
I'm Jason Lewis, in for Rush Limbaugh here on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
Yeah, well, you bet.
I think we ought to haul these boards of regents, the college administrators up in front of your local state house, go to your State House representative, demand a stop, a stop to this m this price gouging of college tuition.
Don't give them more money, don't give them the third party payment.
The more government gives these colleges and universities, the higher they jack up the tuition rates.
Give you an example.
Consumer price index from uh 1978 to 192 or to 2006, it's gone up three point one times.
It's gone up three times.
The growth is is three times as high as it was in 78.
College tuition at public universities, eight and a half times as high as it was in nineteen seventy-eight.
Much higher than prescription drugs, new vehicles, unleaded gasoline, milk, you name it.
And yet these bastions of liberal progressive thought are never held accountable for their very own price gouging.
I wonder why that is.
In Fair Hope, Alabama.
Tucker, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program with me, Jason Lewis, Minnesota's Mr. Wright.
Hi.
Hey, Jason, how are you doing?
I'm doing well, sir.
How are you?
I'm doing pretty well.
Um I wanted to add to your economic argument about the uh foreign owned companies uh doing work here.
Um I'm down across the bay from Mobile, and the stink this week is the Air Force granting Northrop EADS the tanker contract.
Right.
They're gonna assemble those planes here in Mobile, and that's gonna create twenty five hundred jobs in manufacturing jobs or technical high skilled paying well-paying jobs.
Um the auxiliary jobs are gonna spin off that mobile or quite an impact, plus the suppliers around the southeast that will be affected by that.
But you've got Nancy Pelosi out saying, well, this should have gone to Boeing, this should have gone to Boeing.
And the bottom line of the whole thing is the Air Force is getting a better product because the uh KC-130 air tanker is better a better product than what Boeing had offered for the same uh bid package.
Well, of course, it's amazing how markets work that way.
People desiring to get the best product for the cheapest price, everybody benefits.
That's why it's a voluntary exchange.
And you know, Milton Friedman was right.
There isn't really no such thing as a trade deficit.
Because if we if we purchase more imports from another country, uh those dollars then are in the hands of of the supplier.
Well, what do they do with those dollars?
The dollars are no good over there.
They have to come back to America.
And as long as America is a good place to invest with high real rates of return, i.e., low inflation, low tax rates, good business environment, the dollars will come back and they'll employ people in Fairhope, they'll employ people in Texas in Tennessee, the worker doesn't care if he's getting a check from Toyota.
That's right.
Actually, I'm quite glad to get a check.
And on the national security angle, again, the riskiest investment any country that has, let's say, ill intention Towards the United States can make is an investment in the United States because if we declare war, God forbid, we simply take their property.
We've got it here.
So there really isn't I I happen to be a bit of a hawk on immigration, but I happen to be a traditional liberal, small L, liberal before Roosevelt destroyed the term meaning uh meaning pro-liberty on trade.
Trade is good, which is why states trade amongst one another in the United States.
If you really don't like trade, then quit buying Florida Sun uh orange juice.
Grow it yourself.
You know, you go right if you really don't like trade and some foreign country creates a vaccine that will save your life, don't buy it.
Don't buy it.
Trade is good.
It elevates everybody's income by allowing people to specialize in what they do best.
And when you allow people to specialize in what they do best, total output is larger for both sides.
Now the real danger right now is, and this is where the trade deficit could have some ramification, is then this ridiculous attempt to talk down the dollar.
This is a ridiculous attempt to say we ought to have a weak dollar for trade advantage is going to lessen the rate of return on people investing in the United States.
Because when they go to the exchange markets, it takes more Euros now to get the dollars.
So what will happen is if the Democrats get in office, they raise taxes.
If the Fed keeps inflating, all of a sudden those dollars in the international markets at the money center banks won't want to come back here because investing in America won't be a good a good place because the the taxes on business have gone up, the taxes on capital have gone up, the dollar is worth less.
Then you do have a problem with a collapsing dollar, and then you do have a problem with quote unquote a deficit in that context.
Anyway, thanks for the call.
Rich in Nutley, New Jersey.
Welcome to the program.
Hi.
Yeah, how are you doing, Jason?
I love your uh filling in for a rush.
You know, if Nutley, New Jersey is not the capital of New Jersey, it should be.
Yes, it should.
Right.
Because of the way we vote over here.
Well, the other people vote.
Well, because you know the capital of New Jersey is filled with nuts.
I got it.
But anyway, that's been used many, many times anyway.
But I'm a gold water Republican.
I've been conservative since that time.
And the gentleman that called and said he doesn't want to vote, uh, we should let the other party get in there and make the mistakes, and that will allow the Republican Party to re find itself.
That's not going to work.
They're not going to refined itself.
You're always going to have the liberal Republicans unless we make some kind of a law that they can't be in the party, which we're not going to do.
So how would you like to have a law is the election or Obama select our next uh two or three uh Supreme Court judges?
I mean, it would be just awful.
No matter how bad, no matter how bad McCain is, he's better than the others too.
Who gave us who gave us David Suter?
Oh, I know, I know, but still.
Who gave us Anthony Kennedy?
Who do you think uh who do you think um Hillary or Obama will give us?
True, but but remember when when the um the filibuster was going to be taken away from the Democrats.
I know.
Who sided with the Democrats?
I know, I know the gang of 14.
Here's my here's what conservatives are asking people like you.
What assurances do you have, Rich, that McCain won't make a deal on immigration with the Democrats, won't go forward with his global warming policy, won't make a deal.
Now get this, on judges that can be confirmed.
Because the Democrats will be feeling their oats, and they're gonna tell John McCain, you need to reach across the aisle on these judges, because if you send us up an anth Antonin Scalia, we are not going to confirm them, and John McCain likes bipartisanship.
On all these issues, there simply is no assurance that Mr. McCain so far will do the right thing.
Now, I'm not saying he'll do the wrong thing, and I'm not saying he's equivalent to Barack or Hillary in every sense, to be sure.
But what where conservatives are uncertain right now is you go right down the issues as we did before on his vote on the tax cuts, on global warming, on campaign finance, on immigration, on waterboarding, on judges, on the estate tax.
He's been in lockstep with Hillary Clinton.
That is not comforting.
He needs here's all I'm saying today.
It's up to John McCain to do something about this.
It's not up to conservatives to swallow principle once again and vote for someone they're not enthusiastic about and who might not share their values.
I'm Jason Lewis.
We'll take a quick pause.
Back after this on EIB.
Well, well, well.
Speaking of the education monopoly, a California Appeals Court uh ruling today clamps down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials.
Shockwaves across the state this week estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.
▲
Export Selection