All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 31, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
December 31, 2008, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
That's right, uh Dr. Walter E. Williams.
I'm going to push back the frontiers of ignorance or at least get a head start in that direction.
And so you can be on with us by calling in 1800, 282-2882.
Well, folks, what can I say?
Well, on the way up here, I was reading a cartoon, and let's see, the fellow's uh the cartoonist is Gary Vavell.
And uh anyway, what it shows, it shows two detectives grilling a man, and the man that they're grilling is Bernard Maddox, the guy who stole fifty billion dollars.
Anyway, here's what the detective says.
All right, Maddox.
Where'd you get the idea of paying early investors with money from late investors?
And he says, from the Social Security System.
Well, he's right.
Bernie Maddox is right.
Now, in principle, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme identical to Maddox's fraudulent scheme.
Now, what what they do, rather than generate wealth through productive investments, both schemes transfer wealth from newer investors to older investors.
Now, that scheme works as long as there's a sufficient number of newer investors, let's say when you're talking about Social Security, young people coming in the system.
And it can go on.
That is Maddox duped the people by fraud, and we're being coerced by the Social Security system.
Both schemes are identical Ponzi schemes, and they'll work, but not for long.
Now there's a very interesting, it's very interesting article written by a fellow who works for the he formerly worked for the uh National Center for Policy Anal for Policy Analysis in Dallas, Texas, and the fellow's name is Mike Wern.
And he says that this spring, the Social Security Trustees release their annual report on state on the state of Social Security and Medicare programs.
He says, Whalen says that the combined unfunded liabilities of both programs come to 101 trillion dollars.
Now I've heard before I read it, I've heard that the unfunded liability is around 50 or 60 trillion dollars.
But what does a hundred and one trillion dollars unfunded liability mean?
Well, it means that in order for Congress to pay off all the promises it made, Congress would have to put in 101 trillion dollars in the bank today at a rate paying a rate of interest of 6%.
Keep in mind that the uh our GNP only comes to $14 trillion a year.
Now, now what this means, ladies and gentlemen, it means in the absence of massive tax increases or huge cuts in benefits, Congress must cease spending on one out of four programs by 2020,
such as education highway construction, one out of two by 2030, and by 2050, all federal revenue will be spent supporting Social Security, Medicare, and prescription drugs.
Now, I believe such a scenario is unsustainable.
That is, in 2050, it is impossible for government to just spend on Social Security, Medicare, and prescription drugs.
There's gonna be economic chaos, and the economic chaos in 2040 Or 2050 is going to make today's level of economic crisis look like child's play.
But no sweat for you and me.
See, it doesn't pay any politician to do anything now that's going to make things better in 2040 or 2050.
Why?
Because he's going to be dead by then.
What does he care about 2040 or 2050 in 2008?
And the people who are the major beneficiaries of these programs, that is, the programs of Social Security, prescription drugs, and Medicare, they're the senior citizens of our country.
And they're not going to be around in 2040 or 2050.
So what do they care about 2040 and 2050?
So this is why I'm so turned off by people saying we're doing it for the children.
We're doing this for the children.
There's very little evidence that people care about future generations in our country, or else they would take strong measures to do something about this massive unfunded liability of the federal government.
And keep in mind, this unfunded liability makes the public debt, which is only around 10 or 11 trillion dollars, uh look like a drop in the bucket.
But see, the public debt is something that we have to service right now.
The unfunded liability, well, let those kids around 2030 or 2040 and let that generation take care of it.
I think that there's a huge calamity that we're just we're we're we're going to see around 20, it's going to begin around 2020 or 2030.
It's not going to get bad for you and me who are living today, you and I who are living today, is not gonna is not going to do anything, but it's going to do something for future generations, and we ought to think about that.
The other bit of news, and uh yeah, we got a little few minutes before we go to break.
Uh, the other bit of news has to do with the governor of Illinois, Blogoevich, uh, his appointment, he's all of the news.
And before I I talk about uh his appointment uh uh of Ronald Barris to uh to be the senator to s to sit in uh Obama's seat who's uh vacant, which is vacant right now, I'd like to just kind of read you a quick quote from one of my heroes, and that's H. L. Mencken.
He's a political satirist for the Baltimore Sun.
And H. L. Mencken said, and I'm quoting now, for if experience teaches us anything at all, it teaches us this that a good politician under a democracy is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.
His very existence, indeed, is a standing subversion of the public good in every rational sense.
He is not one who serves the common will, he is simply one who preys upon it.
Now, I think that describes the average politician.
There are some exceptions, but I think that describes the average politician.
Now, Blakoevich is totally within his right to appoint Ronald Berris, a black man, by the way, to sit in Obama's seat.
And there's no constitutional basis for Harry Reed and the rest of the gang in Washington to block it because uh Roland Barrers, he Roland uh Barris, he is not a criminal.
He has a clean record.
Uh he's not a criminal in terms of the law.
He might do some shaky things.
He might have done some shaky things as a lobbyist.
But he has no record, he's not under indictment, so he has a right to be seated.
And I think that there will be a significant court case if he's not uh seated.
Now, Now what happened last night I was watching it, as Blagoevich was announcing his appointment, there's his representative uh Bobby Rush.
He ran up to the stage, and what did he flip on the stage?
He flipped the race card on the stage.
He said that if Congress does not seat Roland Barrers, it would be a shame for uh Congress not to have at least one black in the Senate.
Well, he said, and and also he said that uh Roland Barris should not be lynched or hung, you know, kind of bringing back all those uh Southern uh Klu Klux Klan scenarios.
But uh but that's what Americans like.
We like that, and evidently it has a payoff, or otherwise people would not do it.
We'll be back with your calls after this.
We're back, and uh this is Walter Williams filling in for the vacationing Rush Limbaugh.
And uh we're gonna go back to the phone, saying you can be on with us uh by calling 800-282-2882, and let's go to Mark and Independence, Missouri.
Welcome to the show.
Yes, Walter, I was wondering what would it take to get this uh coming shipwreck turned around of Social Security in Medicare.
Do you foresee any chance of a statesman coming along and something like even Reaganesque with the Cold War, because that's what it's going to amount to $53 trillion unfunded liability.
There's there's no way.
I mean, Medicare is approaching a half a trillion annually.
LBJ said it would top out at nine billion.
And look what happened when President Bush just tried to privatize just a bit of Social Security.
I mean, this is a shipwreck.
I mean, this is the future of our country.
I mean, we we need a statesman.
Do you foresee anything like that coming along?
No, I don't.
Matter of fact, I think that the American people, if a true statesman came back, you know, take take like James Madison, the father of the United States Constitution, if he were running for the presidency in 2008,
I think that the average American, I think the overwhelmingly large percentage percentage of Americans would run James Madison out of town on the rail because Americans have contempt for the founding values of our nation.
And and and if you don't believe it, you think I'm being too strong with the terminology contempt.
Let me just give you one of James Madison's quotes.
And you know he's the acknowledged father of the United States Constitution.
And in 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 to help some French refugees, and James Madison stood on the floor of the House I rate, and he said, and I'm virtually quoting him, and all the quotes can be found on my website,
Walter E. Williams.com, he said, I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to spend the money of their constituents on the purposes of benevolence.
Now, if you look at the federal budget today, more than two-thirds of a three of a three point two trillion dollar budget is spent for the purpose of benevolence.
And and so if a true statesman came today uh into uh were running for office today, he'd be run out of town on the rail.
And thanks to our public schools, I mean nobody nobody knows this.
I mean, nobody knows the Constitution.
And uh, like you say, two-thirds of our our budget is unconstitutional.
That is absolutely right.
And and here's how we can describe two-thirds of the federal budget.
Two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another American to whom it does not belong.
I don't care whether you're talking about farm subsidies, uh, airline bailouts, automobile bailouts, bank bailouts, food stamps, foreign aid, all of it consists of taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong.
And And anybody who would come to office and protesting that he'd be run out of town on the rail.
Matter of fact, my favorite president was Grover Cleveland.
And you know why?
Grover Cleveland was the veto king.
That is, he vetoed more measures than all of his predecessors combined.
And he often uh sent the message back to con uh to Congress saying charity is not part of the Constitution.
This is unconstitutional.
When have you heard a president say that lately?
It hasn't been.
But thanks for calling and let's go to uh Vicky in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Welcome to the show, Vicky.
Hi, uh Dr. Williams, I am so privileged to talk to you.
I have tremendous respect for you.
I wish you would run for something and happy new year.
Um I have you know, I you know, putting me in political in into the political arena would be very much like putting a virgin into a house of ill repute.
Well, you'd learn fast and so would others.
Uh Dr. Williams, I have two things.
Uh first of all, you're absolutely right about the school system and raising children who do not know this.
I'm a high school teacher, and I have asked high school classes very innocently, um, what do you think about Hillary Clinton's idea of taking profits from our oil companies and uh giving them to the poor.
Don't give me the answer, I'm afraid.
Uh well, you know the answer.
They all thought it was wonderful, and I said, So stealing is okay, and I mean I've never it was so quiet you could have heard a pin drop.
They were like, Well, well, they don't need that money, so stealing is okay, right?
I mean, that's all I said, and eventually they finally got it.
But uh the reason I called is I wanted to know what your thoughts are on how liberals in Congress and Democrats will explain to I guess our children or grandchildren someday, how did Social Security fail?
Because they are so determined right now that the reason the economy is bad is because conservatives deregulated.
And I'm sure that if we are attacked again by Al Qaeda, it will be because of something Bush did or conservatives did.
How are they going to explain the failure of social security?
Well, well, I as I said earlier, there's no explaining for them to do.
They're gonna be dead.
That is, when the system in 2040, I don't believe that there's any Congressman uh uh currently in office that's going to be alive in 2040 or 2050.
And so what does he care about it?
That's just a hard uh political facts of life.
And if he do if co if a politician does something today that that maybe restricts some uh handouts today in the interest of our nation in the future, he's gonna be run out of town.
And so there's there is no incentive.
Now what what needs to be done?
Now you tell me, for example, I'd be very interested in your in your response, Vicky, that suppose I'm running for office and I say we're going to privatize Social Security, and that all those people who uh who are under 45, just kiss whatever you put in Social Security goodbye and prepare for your own retirement, and those above 45 will take care of.
And the reason why I chose 45 is that if you put the same amount of money from 45 to 65 into a re into a private retirement plan, you'll break even with what you would have gotten had the money continued to go to Social Security.
Now, how would you how would you think I would make it in the political arena if I campaigned on on that and I said, Look, you're gonna pay for your own prescription drugs, and you don't have the right to live at the expense of somebody else.
Do you think I would be elected to office?
Well, do you know I I think I'll surprise you.
I think I have a lot of faith in the American people when something like that, like you just presented, is is presented to the people as our founding father's plan, as their ideal.
This is what our country is supposed to be.
And I think that's why Reagan was so incredibly popular.
People heard from him tough stuff, but things that are true that each of us know deep down are true.
And those values I think would be reflected in someone like you who who presents it well, who tells people the truth, hard as it is, and I think people would step up.
That's my honest belief.
I I would uh Vicky, I would hope that you are correct.
I would really honest to God hope because I love my country and I wanted to have a rich future.
But I would but my d I I really doubt whether you are correct, but I I could be wrong.
I've been wrong once before in my life.
Me too.
It was in the 70s.
That's right.
I was wrong in the 50s.
But look, th thanks a lot for calling in, and we're gonna come back after this uh profit break and talk some more.
We're back, and this is Walter Williams sitting in for the vacationing Rush Limbaugh, and you can be on with us by calling 800 282 2882.
Uh Vicky reminded me s of something.
Now I've I've had a lot of dealings in Washington.
I used to, and I say used to, I n I don't do it anymore, I used to testify um to congressional committees.
I don't talk to these people anymore.
But they could not handle my honesty at the time.
Matter of fact, when I gave testimony, it tended to be standing room only.
And the people did not come for air edition.
I believe they were making side bets.
Will Williams be arrested this time?
Because I don't go bowing and scraping.
You know, you see people you if you want to look at C span, you see guys saying, Oh, you're honor uh it's a pleasure for me to be here, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I remember uh Senator Hatch, uh, he invited to give me uh uh he invited me to give testimony uh about the uh Davis Bacon Act and Davis Bacon Act is a super minimum wage law.
Anyway, I began my testimony by saying, gentlemen, the problem with this country uh is a result of people like you.
You get elected for one of two things or both.
Either you promise one American to take the property of another American and give it to him, or you promise one American you will give him a privilege that will be denied another American.
And I point out that H. L. Minken was absolutely correct when when he was asked to give a definition of an election, and H. L. Mencken replied that every election excuse me a second voice.
He said that government is a broker in pillage, and every election is an advance auction on the sale of stolen merchandise.
And he's absolutely right.
That's what p that's what congressmen get elected for, to take the property of one American and bring it to another American.
Now, by the way, I don't want you folks out there to think that I don't care about my fellow man because I don't want to contribute to the welfare state.
I care deeply about my fellow man, but I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable.
I think reaching into somebody else's pockets to help your fellow man in need is despicable and worthy of condemnation.
That is, I think charity is a good thing.
Now, for all of you Christians out there, keep in mind.
When when God gave Moses the commandment, thou shalt not steal, he did not mean that thou shall not steal unless you got a majority vote in Congress.
And moreover, if you were to ask God, well, I'm not stealing, but is it okay to be a recipient of stolen property?
I think God would tell you That's a sin as well.
Let's go back to the phones.
Uh let's talk to Alex in uh Toronto, Canada.
Dr. Williams, first of all, I want to say it's an absolute honor to speak with you.
Well, thank you.
I I guess I'm following up a bit on uh the previous caller who uh had mentioned uh Madison or you had mentioned Madison and was hoping for a statesman who would come along and fix things and talk about talked about the key being educating Americans, which is I think one of the great things that Reagan did was he got Americans to recognize the importance of liberty and lower taxes and so on.
And the question I've got for you, uh particularly speaking as a Canadian who has had to drive a family member into the States to get an MRI done because of the waiting list.
I'm fearful that America may have gone past the tipping point where there are too many people who are too dependent on government to ever stop this inexorable march away from liberty, because people are unlikely to vote themselves out of government benefits that they're already getting.
And I think it may have actually been at Hillsdale College that President Reagan talked about the system hasn't failed.
We failed the system by failing to stand up for things and to stop the encroachments on liberty.
And I guess I'm wondering what we is.
Are we have we gone too far?
Well, I would like to think not.
But if you ask the question, which way are we headed?
Tiny steps at a time, are we headed towards more liberty or are we headed towards more government control over our lives, it would have to unambiguously be the latter.
And it was a great philosopher, uh um uh David Hume who said that it is very seldom that liberties are lost all at once.
They're always lost bit by bit.
And that's what Americans are doing.
We're losing our liberties bit by bit.
And I think that underlying it is a moral issue that I'm gonna talk about more in a third hour.
But here's a here's an i I think the problem is with the American people, not politicians.
I I I don't blame politicians a whole lot.
I blame them just a little tiny bit, but I think that politicians are doing precisely what the American people want them to do.
And that is to let them live at the expense of other people.
Now I think it ought to be a frustrating to American people that is uh in three weeks from now we'll see politicians take an oath.
And they'll hold their right hand up and put their left hand on the Bible and say, I swear to uphold and defend the United States Constitution.
And they won't do th they won't do that at all once they get in.
They'll get in office and begin to attack the Constitution.
To give you some evidence of it, there's a Congressman, John Shadag from Arizona.
Enumerated Powers Act.
Yes, right.
That is, he's introduced it every year since he's been in Congress since nineteen ninety-five.
And it's called the Enumerated Powers Act, you as you correctly put it.
And what the enumerated powers act would do, it would require Congress before they enacted any measure to specifically point out their authority in the United States Constitution.
And the enumerated powers act has gone down to blazing defeats.
It only has thirty-one s uh co-sponsors in the House, and it has never had a co-sponsor in the Senate.
So here you have these men who swear to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, and they would not enact something that would require them to identify with each law that they r wrote the uh constitutional authority for doing it.
And this is gross contempt, but they're supported by the American people.
I I hope that um America does not uh follow the way go go the way the Canada, because you guys won't have anywhere to go for an MRI.
You'd have to take your wife down to Mexico, maybe.
Dr. Williams, that is exactly what I tell any American I meet who is talking about being in favor of socialized medical care.
I ask them, please don't do that if not for yourselves, if only because Canadians need somewhere to escape to.
Well, thanks a lot.
We'll be back with more of your calls after this.
This Walter Williams sitting in for the vacationing uh rush.
And I hope he's having fun.
Now we're pushing back the frontiers of ignorance.
There's a um there's a column in the uh December 21st, New York Times.
Uh and it relates to something I said just a few minutes ago, and it's written by Nicholas Christoph, Bleeding Heart Tightwads.
And it show it says that it it demonstrates that liberals show tremendous compassion when pushing for government spending to help neediest pe the neediest people at home and abroad.
Yet when it comes down to individual contributions to charitable causes, namely reaching into their own pockets, they're cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, he's an author of the book, Who Really Cares, and he cites data that households headed by conservatives give thirty percent more to charity than households headed by liberals.
A study by Google found that even greater proportion the annual contributions reported by conservatives are almost double those by liberals, and he gives some more statistics.
There's an interesting one that conservatives give more blood than liberals.
And he says that in fact, if liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, the American blood supply would increase by forty-five percent.
And the same is true internationally.
European countries show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor.
But they do it by reaching into somebody else's pockets.
That is Europeans are far less charitable than Americans on an individual basis.
Well, uh so much for liberal compassion.
Let's go back to the phones and talk to Tom in uh Lee Summit, Missouri.
Hi, hi hi, Dr. Williams.
Hi, how are you?
Welcome to the show.
I'm doing great.
Um I'm 56, and I'm not planning to take Social Security um when I retire, or even if I if I retire, I really hope I can work a long time.
And it seems to me like it's our responsibility as citizens to write our congressmen and senators and tell them we don't want this program, you know, get rid of it.
Phase it out as fast as you can, maybe push the retirement up age up a half a year a year until it's gone.
Uh wait, wait, wait, wait.
Push the retirement age up?
Well, you know I mean you you could solve social security by making retirement age ninety-five.
Sure.
That would be fine with me.
I mean everybody'd be dead by the time it's uh they're eligible.
Yeah, that'd be great.
I I would be in favor of just turning it off today.
Um well, I I would not be in favor of that because we did make some promises and and we do have some obligations for those people who paid in.
But i isn't it a case of they made promises to themselves.
The people paying didn't make the promise.
The people getting the money are the people who made the promise.
I d I don't follow that.
Well, you know, like our parents said, hey, this is a pretty neat program, we're gonna vote it in.
We weren't alive when they voted in Social Security, and now we've had to pay all our life, and it it is essentially a Ponzi scheme, and the money isn't there, there is no trust fund.
You're absolutely right.
So the money's gone.
In a normal situation when you uncover a Ponzi scheme, you don't keep paying money out to the people who got took.
Well, well, this is a reason why I suggest that maybe a halfway to what you're saying, that is continue to pay the Social Security, continue to make good on your promises for people 45 years and older.
Now, the problem will begin to take care of the self because people will be dying off until those 45 years and under, you take care of yourself.
Kiss all the money that you put in Social Security goodbye, and prepare for your own retirement, and the reason why 45 is chosen because if you put the same amount of money between 45 and 65 into a private retirement account, you'll break even with Social Security.
Yeah, yeah, that sounds great.
I I just would love to, you know, get back to a system where we all take care of ourselves and get the government out of this thing.
You're you're absolutely right.
And I always ask the question when somebody says you need this particular program.
Well, I say, well, what did we do before it?
Well, the uh Social Security did not come into existence until the 1936 or so.
And and what happened, what did old people do before that?
I'll tell you what they did.
They lived with their children.
They lived in the homes of their children.
Instead of dying in little green rooms, they they died with their children.
And now uh older people uh many times they just die uh by themselves.
And so what we're doing, we're we're getting rid of the idea, the notion of the biblical notion to honor the mother and father, and there's less of that going on today because people can force other people to honor their mother and father through the tax code.
Right.
And so I think that's one of the tragedies uh that we're faced with today.
We'll be back with your calls after this.
We're back, uh Walter Williams sitting in for Rush Limbaugh, and you can be on with us by calling 800-282-2882.
You know, the I I was struck by the question asked from the uh the fellow I forget his name from Canada, Al Alex.
And you know, there's very little incentive for us to move more towards liberty.
Consider the following.
Suppose I'm running for the United States Senate in your state, let's say North Carolina, and I go back and forth across the state as I'm camp campaigning, and I say, look, I've read the United States Constitution, and if you elect me to the Senate, don't expect for me to bring back meals on wheels, aid to higher education, highway construction funds because it's not in the Constitution.
I will only do those things that are in the United States Constitution.
Now, do you think I would get elected to the Senate from North Carolina?
No, I wouldn't.
And the North Carolinians would be acting absolutely correctly in terms of their own interests.
Why?
Because if I don't bring back more aid to higher education, billions of dollars for this, billions of dollars for that, it doesn't mean that North Carolinians will pay a lower federal income tax.
All that it means is that North Carolina will get it instead.
That is, once legalized theft begins, it pays for everybody to participate.
Because those who do not participate will wind up holding the brown end of the stick.
So we all have to get engaged with stealing.
That is, once we once government says, yes, it's all right to live at the expense of another American, it pays for everybody to do it.
And if they don't do it, they're gonna be in bad shape.
And by the way, folks, I just forgot to mention this, that I have a new book out.
And it represents a selected collection of my columns.
It's called Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism.
And the benefit that one of the I think the biggest benefit of the book is not all the intelligent uh comments that I make in the book, but there's a photograph of me on the back of the book.
Very handsome photograph.
And then towards the end of the book, there are ten lectures in economics.
And if you read those ten lectures, you'll know more economics than the smartest politician in Washington.
Right?
Oh, it's called Liberty versus the tyranny of socialism.
And I point out in there, and I point out in all my lectures, when I'm lecturing uh publicly, I don't talk about it in class, but socialism is just another form of tyranny.
We can only talk about people being free, that is people owning themselves.
That is, my basic Assumption is that I own Walter Williams and you own yourself.
And once you accept the notion of self-ownership, then certain things are immoral and certain things are moral.
That is, murder is immoral because it violates private property rights.
So is theft.
Well, the next hour I'm going to elaborate on the scheme and I'm going to ask you the uh important question next hour.
▲
Export Selection