All Episodes
Previous Next
June 10, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:42
June 10, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Solar physicists, ladies and gentlemen, are worried.
Solar physicists are worried.
For those of you in Rio Linda, this is scientists who study the sun.
There has been a longer than average time with no sunspots on the sun.
They're not worried yet, they say.
They're not concerned yet.
The last time, the last time the sun went without sunspots for 50 years led to the little ice age.
Now, it hasn't been near 50 years here, ladies and gentlemen, but there have been any sunspots, and solar physicists cannot predict what happens on the sun, but they can observe it.
And they have observed that it's a it's just it's a dull surface.
There's not no activity there.
And the longer it goes on, the more concerned they're going to get.
Also, Aspen will open snow skiing this weekend on snow mass.
They had so much snow this past winter, it's still there.
So you want to go to Aspen and ski, you'll be able to do it for three days this weekend.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Great to have you here.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
And if you want to send an email, email is lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
I have to correct something yesterday.
A very, very minor correction, still I must correction.
When discussing the whole bonfire situation in Seattle, I mentioned that Long Island had already gotten into the act here by banning bonfires during times of the year for the piping plover.
I was wrong about it being bonfires.
They banned 4th of July fireworks out on Long Island because, yes.
Now, this was some time ago, but the piping plover nesting nearby was the term we can't upset the piping plover.
It's a bird.
And so no 4th of July fireworks because of the piping plover.
I also, I want to try to delicately address something here that I was chastised somewhat.
It wasn't a whole lot of emails, but I did get four or five emails after yesterday's program from very upset women.
They were very, no, not upset about that, certainly.
Something quite more basic.
They were very upset over the discussion of sex in the city and why men don't go watch the stupid movie.
And three of them demanded that we cancel their subscriptions to my website, Rush24-7.
I wrote back, cancel your own subscription.
It's right there on the website.
Why do I have to do your work for you?
Well, that's what Bill Buckley said when people would send him complaints of what was in national review.
It was a cancel my subscription.
He wrote a book called Cancel Your Own Damn Subscription.
Anyway, what got, and I look at it, I can understand this.
We were discussing Sex in the City yesterday and why men don't go watch it.
And some guy, some guy named Moore, James Allen Peter Moore, whatever, wrote a piece saying the reason that men don't go watch the movie Sex in the City is because they are envious of the deeply bonded friendships that the four women have in that movie and in that series, and that men don't have those kind of friendships.
The only time men get together and really bond is when they go out of a golf course or engage in basketball, some other sports activity, or when they head to bar and start consuming adult beverages.
But in no other form of fashion do men bond with deep friendships, and they just, they're jealous and they're envious.
I said, that has nothing to do with this.
What I said was, men do not want to go watch a movie where you've got.
I did describe them unflatteringly, but accurately.
Horse face, Grand Canyon neck, 51-year-old sex kitten skank, whatever I said.
I didn't write these things down.
They just kind of float off the tongue.
Nobody wants to go watch these kind of people drink cosmos or whatever it is and sit around complaining about men.
And men don't want to go watch relationship analysis movies.
And get enough of that in their real life.
We don't analyze the relationships.
Just live it.
Because relationship analysis, inevitably, men are being told what they're not doing right or what they're doing wrong.
And then in the heat of this inspired monologue, and I knew that I was on the edge here.
In the heat of this inspired monologue, I said, look, if you give us Cameron Diaz or Julia Roberts, I don't, names just flew off.
I mean, it doesn't matter.
What I said was, we might watch a 31-year-old doing relationship analysis.
We're not going to watch a 51-year-old.
Well, it was that, Mr. Snurdly, that caused the anger.
It was emails from women who are 50, 51, who wrote and said, huge fans, but that's it.
Cancel our subscriptions because that's just the plenty of beautiful 51-year-old women out there.
And I just, you know, I cast myself as a typical male by making that observation.
And so they're mad.
And I even got a note from one of them today and said, you know, what you don't understand, doofus, is that there are a lot of 57-year-old women who like looking at 31-year-old men, not people like you.
To which my, so?
What's the point?
Totally understand it.
I'm not insulted when you say that because I like myself.
And I'm not, but anyway, let me, I'm not going to grovel.
I'm not going to grovel, Snurdy.
You know, I don't grovel.
What do you mean am I going to have to grovel?
I don't have to do anything.
Follow my instincts.
Do what's right.
That brief moment of time that I made that statement yesterday, ladies, that was not the me that I know.
That was not.
I am not groveling.
That was not the me I know.
That was not the person everybody knows.
How many times have you heard people get in trouble?
I mean, even Obama.
Well, that's not the Jeremiah Wright I know.
That's not the Tony Rezco I know.
Well, that yesterday was not the me that I know.
Or, you know, some athlete will get, you know, caught DUI or, you know, driving some car off the road.
You know, that really isn't me.
I don't know who that person was.
We're all part of the male community here.
And it just.
The reason that it came out of my mouth, ladies, is because the article that spawned the whole discussion was so stupid.
Men jealous?
See, ladies, as a man, I sort of like Christians and Catholics, I'm a little fed up that we're the only group that constantly can be ripped, criticized, made fun of, and we're supposed to sit there and laugh at it.
And then when some other dork guy writes why I don't want to go to see a movie because I am jealous of the kind of relationship those women have, well, I just got a little fired up out there.
And nothing could be further from the truth.
There's very little that I, here I go again.
There is very little that I see women do that I'm jealous of.
I'm not a jealous person or envious of.
There's very little I see women do.
Damn, I wish I could do that.
Damn, it just doesn't happen.
I don't look at women as things to be in competition with.
I don't.
A lot of women think there's a competition out there.
At any rate, it was, I said it, I can't take it back.
It was in the heat of the moment.
That was not the me I know.
Well, we'll take a quick time out here and come back.
We're going to talk about gas prices when we come back.
Stay with us.
The views expressed by the host on this show documented to be almost always right 98.8% of the time.
I am Rush Limbaugh.
I like hearing what I say, and I like saying what I mean, and I mean what I say.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Listen to Chris Matthews.
This is last night on DNC TV and his show, Hardball.
I don't understand why the Democratic Party doesn't do to the Republicans what the Republicans did to the Democrats back in 1980 when we had a fuel crisis.
You get gasoline going to five bucks a gallon.
Everybody knows that it could be at six fraud by November.
Why don't they blame it all on Hall of Burton, the oil industry, the Republicans in bed with the oil industry?
That's incredible.
Where the hell has he been?
Chris, what do you think the Democrats have been doing?
Howard Burton has been blamed for everything since we went to Iraq.
The Senate Democrats are trying to pass a windfall profits tax today on the floor of the Senate against the oil companies.
The Democrats have been blaming Bush and his oil buddies for all kinds of horrible things for six or seven years.
And I have two stories.
First off, this from the Politico, the AFL CIO going to send members to gas stations in two dozen cities this week to focus attention on soaring prices and to attack President Bush and John McCain for being beholden to big oil.
Now, the thing about this is that the AFL CIO knows full well that it is the leftists in this country who are hurting supply and capacity.
It is the leftists in this country who are doing everything they can to see to it that there's no more domestic oil production taking place in this.
In fact, official climatologist Royce Spencer sent me this this morning.
There have been protests filed against further oil and gas lease sales on government property.
While there is an increasing public realization that we need to be drilling more and drilling now, here at home, the environmentalists have begun the fight, the leftists, to stop future oil and gas lease sales by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
These are leftists.
These are people who want to shut down this country's economy.
They know full well that there is a building public mood to start drilling here and drilling now to increase supply and reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers.
And so what are they doing?
They're taking preemptive action to try to intimidate via protest the Bureau of Land Management from selling any further leases or awarding any further leases on government land.
It's not a lawsuit that they have filed yet.
It is a protest.
And here's a quote from it.
This protest is predicated on the Bureau of Land Management's failure to address global warming and climate change.
So while Chris Matthews wonders what the hell the Democrats are doing, why aren't they blaming the Republicans?
His own people, Chris, your own leftists are taking every step they can to shut down any increase in domestic supplies of energy.
Now, this specific protest that I'm talking about here is in reference to recent New Mexico lease sales, but this is just a tip of the iceberg of new efforts to stop or to greatly slow through legal maneuvering future leases.
Make no mistake about it, folks.
We are in a war for all of you, and you've seen the polls, the public sentiment on drilling on the outer continental shelf and up in Anwar and in Montana, the Bakkenfield, and expanding that.
There is increasing public sentiment to do this and to do it now.
And the leftists who are doing their best to shut this country down are fully aware of it, and they're using their time-honored and true techniques.
They're simply intimidating federal agencies and bureaucracies.
And they may not have to intimidate them much, because like-minded fellow travelers probably are working in some of these agencies, like U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA.
This is what the leftists have done.
Over the years, they have succeeded in having like-minded fellow travelers appointed to bureaucratic positions by people like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, and in some cases, even George Bush, who was trying to forge a new tone with the Democrats and try to end all this partisanship.
So they're there and they can't be gotten rid of.
I've run into a lot of local and state bureaucrats who head up various commissions and councils.
I've asked them when they have made rulings in favor of an animal, a species, or something against the interests of human beings and the property they own.
I said, why did you rule this way?
He said, well, the environmentalist is the only one that showed up, and this is what they said they wanted.
And they were going to hassle us, and they're going to bother us on re-election and so forth.
What do you mean they're the only ones that showed up?
Yeah, we put out a public notice.
Nobody cared.
Nobody showed up.
None of these property owners you're talking about showed up to defend themselves.
I would have had I known about it.
But point is, while all these Democrats on television, the drive-by media types are worried to death that their party's dropping the ball, the exact thing they want to happen is not only happening, it has been happening for years, in some cases, decades.
The companion story to this is from the Politico today.
More Americans now view energy as a serious concern than at the low point of the 1979 energy crisis, according to a politico analysis of historic Gallup polls.
And the percentage of voters who consider energy issues very important in determining their vote has also risen dramatically since the last election.
54% October 2004, 77% in a recent poll released by the Pew Research Center for the People and the press.
Distress over gas prices could hardly come at a worse time for Republicans, it says.
Voters usually blame a poor economy on the partly the party.
Sorry, I've got a very, very bad copy of a story here.
It's very dim, tough to read.
Voters usually blame a poor economy on the party that controls the presidency.
And there are few more potent reminders of hard economic times than the high cost of fuel at the pump.
Thus far, it's McCain who has been most, sorry, who has most suffered from the imitation, well, that limitation, I think this is, on an issue that three in four registered voters believe to be very important.
It is the Republicans who are taking the heat.
Now, I understand the theory that the party in power, the president, the executive, gets the blame for all of these things.
And the polling data in this story says that the Republicans are lagging Democrats by 15 points on energy.
And McCain is even further behind the GOP than that.
And stop and figure this.
If this poll is accurate, what it means is that those of us who want to increase supply are getting blamed.
Well, now, if the American people actually knew who wanted to increase supply and by doing so lower prices, then they would also find out who is standing in opposition to all that.
And it's our old buddy Chris Matthews who doesn't even know what's going on and all of his leftist buddies who are doing everything they can to attack and shut down the U.S. economy and its growth.
And so the party that's trying to do something about this, the people trying to do something about it to increase production, are getting blamed for the problem.
When the problem exists primarily because of leftists the last 30 years who have done their best to shut down the domestic oil industry.
Now, the Republicans are not sitting back from the Cybercast News Service.
As expected, gas prices keep rising.
Republicans are placing the blame on the Democrat-led Congress.
Republicans apparently see pain at the pump as a key election issue.
House Republican leader John Boehner called it insane that the Democrat-led Congress is still refusing to allow increased production of American energy.
He said today marks another dubious day for this do-nothing Democrat Congress.
On their watch, gas prices have soared to new heights, and by refusing to schedule a vote on a plan to increase American-made energy to help lower prices, congressional Democrats are complicit in this unprecedented surge in fuel costs.
Every American has a right to ask, what will it take for the Democrat-controlled Congress to finally take action and help ease the pain of the Pelosi premium on behalf of struggling families and small businesses?
Speaker Pelosi has the power to schedule a vote on our plan to begin breaking America's costly dependence on foreign sources of energy.
She should not wait another day to do so.
Now, the Republicans are putting this out.
Have you seen this anywhere?
Have you seen this statement from Boehner?
Before I tend to think about it, did you know the Republicans were on the warpath on this?
No, because as they often say, whatever they do will not get covered.
Cybercast News Service has this, which Brent Bozell's group, Media Research Center and newsbusters.org.
But they're doing whatever they can.
The idea that Republicans are standing in the way when it's Republicans and others and conservatives who are trying to increase the supply for independence and lower prices is a message that must get out.
Screams of joy or panic at the very mention of my name, El Rushbo Talent on loan from God, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Senate Republicans have blocked a Democrat plan to tax the windfall profits of the largest oil companies.
They failed 51 to 43 just now to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster of the energy package and bring a bill up for consideration.
Democrats said that the huge profits enjoyed by the largest U.S. oil companies should be reined in with motorists paying more than $4 a gallon for gasoline and oil prices soaring well beyond $100 a barrel.
But the Republicans said that higher taxes on all companies would increase, not lower, gasoline prices.
Look at Jimmy Carter did this.
But did you see that McCain stole my line?
I'm glad he did, but did you see it?
He's out there talking about Obama represents Carter's second term.
I've got the sound bites coming up.
I'll show you here in just a second.
Jimmy Carter windfall profits tax on the big oil companies during that four years of melees.
And you know what happened?
You know, our big oil companies, our biggest oil company, Exxon, is one of the smallest oil companies in the world.
If you factor in the Saudis and all of the Gulf states and their companies and so forth, our domestic oil companies are huge within the context of the continental United States.
Well, including Alaska and HaVi.
But in terms of the world, they're tiny.
They're among the smallest oil companies out there.
Anyway, Jimmy Carter did his windfall profits tax, and the oil companies said, well, okay, fine.
We'll just stop.
We'll stop producing as much in the United States.
We'll lower our production so we're not paying taxes.
And that's exactly what happened.
They cut back production domestically.
They went back and produced more in their offshore properties and tracks.
It just, the Democrats know this.
This is not about revenue.
It's not about oil.
It's about punishment.
It is about punishing risk takers.
It is about class envy.
It is about punishing people who then have success after taking a risk.
It's like the minimum wage.
They raised the minimum wage, ladies and gentlemen.
You know, the Congress is one of the few achievements that the Queen Bee, Nancy Pelosi, had.
And so we got the most recent unemployment report, 5.5%.
And of course, all hell broke loose on Wall Street, and everybody was panicking.
Oh, no, oh, no.
But very few people put together the fact that this new increase in the minimum wage rate combined with a flooded job market of both high school students and college graduates is what led to the 5.5% employment number.
Jerry Bowyer was one of a number of people writing about this.
He posted a piece at Townhall.com called What the Media Didn't Tell You about Friday's Unemployment Spike.
He wrote, it wasn't Bush.
It wasn't greedy corporations or free trade or history's most overpredicted recession.
It was not the oil companies, income inequality, or the excess of cowboy capitalism.
None of these things caused the unemployment rate to jump a half a point in one month.
Ask yourself a few questions.
Why did unemployment surge at a time when unemployment compensation claims are historically low?
More to the point, how could unemployment spike this much without a coinciding spike in corporate layoffs?
If unemployment went up this high, where in the hell were all the people that lost their jobs is what he's saying.
There weren't anybody that lost their jobs and yet unemployment's up a half a point.
He says the answer to all these questions is the same because very few people lost jobs last month.
Very few.
This huge jump in the size of the unemployed comes from new entrants to the economy.
Hundreds of thousands of them.
In short, well over 600,000 people who were not job seekers in April became job seekers in May.
And who starts looking for work at the end of spring?
That's right.
Students.
Hundreds and thousands of students looking for work right now, and they are not finding it.
And Congress, as always, well, mostly always, is to blame.
Last year, congressional Democrats, along with some Stockholm syndromed Republicans, and we remember who they were, passed the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which started a phased hike of the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour.
Free market economists warned, among them Professor Hazlet.
Among them warned that this would increase unemployment, that rapid increases in unemployment compensation hit teenagers and minorities the hardest.
They do.
You know the percentage of people earning the minimum wage in this country on any given day is well over 50%.
Teenagers, it's not people who are providing for a family of four or a family of two.
Rapid increases in unemployment compensation hit teenagers and minorities the hardest.
But the class warriors are running the people's house now, the Democrats.
And they would hear none of that.
So they took to the floor.
They let loose the dogs of demagoguery and saddled America's pizza parlors, municipal swimming pools, house painting businesses, and lawnmowing services with a huge cost increase.
And now we see the perfectly logical outcome of wage controls, which is exactly what the minimum wage is.
It's a wage control.
And it is an arbitrarily established number that has nothing to do with productivity, experience, qualification.
So it is a wage control.
And the logical outcome of such, rising unemployment among the most economically vulnerable.
The chart in this story tells the story.
Friday's unemployment spike occurred overwhelmingly among teenagers and secondarily among African Americans, just like the economists, including Professor Hazlett, said it would.
A kid who is at entry level of job skills, maybe a good deal at $5 an hour, but maybe not a good deal at $7 an hour.
Our anointed leaders get a glory in their generosity with other people's money, of course.
And just so long as very few people in the media know that a demand curve slopes downward, which is a good bet that they don't know this.
So this summer, the left is going to make political lemonade out of a tough student job market.
It may provide a small army of angry unemployed youths to man the campaign, hungry for hope and loose change, never once realizing that they're working to entrench the lefty war on business, which left them jobless in the first place.
The key to understanding this is very simple.
Hardly anybody lost a job in May when the unemployment rate went up half a point, five to five and a half percent.
And those who couldn't find work were the new job market entrants.
What's all this got to do with the price of oil, the windfall profits tax?
Because none of this is aimed at actually helping anybody.
And it's typical liberal or leftism.
It ends up harming the very people it's intended to help.
Look at Obama and his predicted, at least he says this is what he wants to do, tax increases.
He wants to raise taxes to 39% on people who make $200,000 a year or more.
To him, that's rich.
Current rates, 35%.
He wants to take it back to the glory days of the Clinton administration at 39.
All right, fine and dandy.
Well, what's going to happen here?
Well, how many small business owners, the largest employers collectively in the country, they file, they're sub-S, sub-chapter S corporations, but they file a returns on a personal return, 1040.
So their rate's going to go from 35 to 39.
Guess what?
The very people that Obama says, look, I'm going to get even with these rich people for you.
I'm going to raise their taxes.
I'm going to make things fair.
And these people are going to go, yeah, yeah, yeah, you stick it to them.
And who gets it stuck to them?
The guy who loses his job, who's not making $200,000 because his employer has to fire him in order to pay the federal government's new taxes authored by Obama.
I was alive, as many of you were, during the early 70s, 72,000, 73.
I was working at a radio station in Pittsburgh.
Richard Nixon, in the midst of 3% inflation, imposed wage and price controls.
And of course, management back then loved it.
They got to suspend any increase in wage whatsoever.
But I noticed as I went around town consuming as I did, I'd go to the grocery store and I would go to a number of other stores and the prices are still going up here.
And I said, now, how can I, I mean, I thought Nixon instituted wage and price controls.
Well, I asked my good friend Professor Hazlitt about this one day, and he enlightened me.
He said the way they handle it in butcher shops and in the meat sections of supermarkets was when the wage and price controls were initiated, everything that existed at that time was ostensibly controlled price-wise.
So all they had to do was create a new cut of beef like the Ribeye B or the boneless half-bone-in ribeye, which prior to that didn't exist.
No price control on it.
They could charge whatever they wanted.
And so they were raising the price on that to compensate for other prices that they were having to control.
It's the same way with the minimum wage.
The liberals impose these things, and in this case, Nixon, thinking that the economy is static and not dynamic, and also believing the American people are just going to bend over and grab the ankle, say, okay, you want to pay more money?
I'll pay more money.
It's not the way it works.
The truly industrious and creative find ways to either work harder to earn more money to make up or going to lose paying taxes, or they try to find clever ways to earn money that's not reported as earned income.
So they don't have to pay Obama's new tax on it.
By the same token, Congress directs small business, everybody, to raise the minimum wage on a graduated scale up to $7.15.
Well, small business owners are not going to sit there and say, oh, well, okay, because they don't have, just like you probably don't at home, they don't have an unlimited supply of cash sitting around that they're not doing anything with.
They might have some cash flow, but it's allocated or it's there for insurance or what have you.
But if somebody comes along and says, look, the four guys you're paying minimum wage, you've got to increase them by X. One of them is going to lose a job because the business owner is going to do his best not to sit there and lose money because if he loses money for too long, he's out of business.
And then everybody that works there is fraud.
And this is what I was talking about yesterday, about the incremental loss of basic liberties and freedoms by all of these well-intentioned people who have convinced way too many Americans that their intentions are honorable and they love people and they're filled with compassion.
And yet everything or most everything they try as a remedy to some social problem not only doesn't work, it exacerbates the problem.
Jeffrey Lord has a, what I think is a great piece today in the American Spectator.
And I'm going to go through that.
It's a long piece.
Lord writes long pieces.
He's a very prolific guy.
But I'm just going to highlight some of this to illustrate the point about all of this dynamic economic activity, coupled with the fact that everything or most everything they try to alleviate social problems, be it poverty, racism, all these, they end up exacerbating the problem and even making it worse.
Quick time out here.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
As usual, half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, before I get to Jeffrey Lord's piece, I watched a little bit of Obama today.
There was a web feed of an Obama appearance somewhere, and they were running it, of course, on DNC TV.
They're doing Obama telethons each of the next 10 or 12 Tuesdays leading up to the convention.
I mean, they're not calling it Obama-thons, but that's what they are.
Super Tuesdays devoted entirely to the presidential race, which is all they do 24-7 there anyway.
At any rate, I'm watching him.
He's talking about the health problems in this country, specifically health insurance.
And he started talking about, and I spotted, by the way, because I'm good at this, I spotted the tactic immediately.
He started talking about the underinsured.
Now, this is a new category.
We've got the number ranges from anywhere, what, 40 to 43 million uninsured.
And by the way, that was a number that Bill Clinton was using starting in the campaign of 1992, which dovetails with Jeffrey Lord here in a second.
That number has gone up despite eight years of Clinton.
But now, all of a sudden, the underinsured, people who have health insurance, but they don't have enough.
And lo and behold, a story from today from healthdailynews.com.
The number of American adults who had inadequate health insurance to cover their medical expenses rose 60% from 2003 to 2007, from 16 million to more than 25 million people.
So if you have insurance and you are not worried about the issue, you now are part of the problem.
You are underinsured and you are putting stress on the system and you are going to be targeted.
Even those of you who have insurance, but Obama and his people think not enough, you're going to have to get it somewhere and they're going to turn you to the government to get it.
The underinsured, 25 million, added now to the 43 to 45 million uninsured.
And lo and behold, we're up to around 65 to 70 million people with a health insurance problem in this country.
And Obama's going to, you see the tactic here.
Jeffrey Lord's piece, somewhere Lyndon Johnson has to be insulted.
And he quotes Obama here in that acceptance speech Tuesday night of last week, wherever he was, St. Paul.
If we're willing to work for it and fight for it and believe in it, then I'm absolutely certain that generations from now, we'll be able to look back, tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless.
This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.
Jeffrey Lord says, excuse me, you mean all those LBJ Great Society programs didn't provide care for the sick?
Didn't secure good jobs for the jobless?
Didn't take care of the environment?
On the off chance the internet has a space limitation, let's settle for a partial listing of LBJ's efforts for the sick, the jobless, the environment, and more, as reflected in the list of legislation he proudly compiled and boasted of in his memoir, The Vantage Point.
And I've got, I only have a minute before the break, and I don't have enough time to list for you every program or every area for which there are multiple programs in the Great Society and the War on Poverty.
Clean air, vocational training, Indian vocational training, manpower training.
This LBJ's own book, Federal Airport Aid, Farm Program, Pesticide Controls, International Development Association, Urban Mass Transit, Water Resources Research, Federal Highway System, Civil Service Pay Raise, War on Poverty, Truth and Securities, Ozark Scenic Riverway, Medicine Bow National Forest, Food Stamps, Housing Act, Nurse Training, Revenues for Recreation, Library Services, Federal Employee Health Benefits, Wilderness Area.
That's a mere partial list.
And Obama's out saying it hasn't worked because we are a compassionless country.
We haven't had the right charismatic messiah healing everybody with the power of his personality.
There's more here in the form of commentary, but I do have to take a quick time out.
Back after this.
All right, first hours in the can, folks.
Lots more straight ahead, plus.
And I promise we'll get to your phone calls today much sooner than we did yesterday.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection