All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 31, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
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, 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 1-800-282-2882.
Well, folks, what can I say?
Well, on the way up here, I was reading a cartoon.
And let's see, the fellow's, the cartoonist is Gary Vervell.
And 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 $50 billion.
Anyway, here's what the detective says.
All right, Maddoch.
Where did 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 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 article written by a fellow who works for the, he formerly worked for the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, Texas, and the fellow's name is Mike Warren.
And he says that this spring, the Social Security trustees released their annual report on the state of Social Security and Medicare programs.
He says, Whelan says that the combined unfunded liabilities of both programs come to $101 trillion.
Now, I've heard, before I read it, I've heard that the unfunded liability is around $50 or $60 trillion.
But what does $101 trillion 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 in the bank today at a rate paying a rate of interest of 6%.
Now, keep in mind that our GNP only comes to $14 trillion a year.
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 and 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 going to 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, 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 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, it's 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 yeah, we got a few minutes before we go to break.
The other bit of news has to do with the governor of Illinois, Blagojevich, his appointment.
He's all of the news.
And before I talk about his appointment of Ronald Barris to be the senator to sit in Obama's seat, who's 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 commonweal.
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, Blagojevich is totally within his right to appoint Ronald Burris, a black man, by the way, to sit in Obama's seat.
And there's no constitutional basis for Harry Reid and the rest of the gang in Washington to block it because Roland Burris, he is not a criminal.
He has a clean record.
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 seated.
Now, what happened last night, I was watching it, as Blagojevich was announcing his appointment, this is Representative 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 Barris, it would be a shame for a Congress not to have at least one black in the Senate.
Well, and also he said that Roland Barris should not be lynched or hung, you know, kind of bringing back all those Southern Ku Klux Klan scenarios.
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 this is Walter Williams filling in for the vacationing Rush Limbaugh.
And we're going to go back to the phones.
And you can be on with us by calling 800-282-2882.
And let's go to Mark in Independence, Missouri.
Welcome to Michelle.
Yes, Walter, I was wondering what would it take to get this coming shipwreck turned around on Social Security and Medicare?
Do you foresee any chance of a statesman coming along and something like even Reagan-esque with the Cold War?
Because that's what it's going to amount to, $53 trillion unfunded liability.
There's no way.
I mean, Medicare is approaching a half a trillion annually.
LBJ said it would top out at $9 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 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 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 of Americans would run James Madison out of town on the rail because Americans have contempt for the founding values of our nation.
And if you don't believe, 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 Irate.
And he said, and I'm virtually quoting him, and all the quotes can be found on my website, walterewilliams.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 $3.2 trillion budget is spent for the purpose of benevolence.
And so if a true statesman came today, were running for office today, he'd be run out of town on the rail.
And thanks to our public schools, I mean, nobody knows this.
I mean, nobody knows the Constitution.
And like you say, two-thirds of our budget is unconstitutional.
That is absolutely right.
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, 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 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 sent the message back 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 Vicki in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Welcome to the show, Vicki.
Hi, 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.
I have.
You know, putting me in political, 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.
Dr. Williams, I have two things.
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, what do you think about Hillary Clinton's idea of taking profits from our oil companies and giving them to the poor?
Don't give me the answer, I'm afraid.
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.
And they were like, 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 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, as I said earlier, there's no explaining for them to do.
They're going to be dead.
That is, when the system, in 2040, I don't believe that there's any congressman currently in office that's going to be alive in 2040 or 2050.
And so what does he care about it?
That's just the hard political facts of life.
And if a politician does something today that maybe restricts some handouts today in the interests of our nation in the future, he's going to be run out of town.
And so there is no incentive.
Now, what needs to be done, now you tell me, for example, I'd be very interested in your response, Vicki, that suppose I'm running for office and I say we're going to privatize Social Security and that all those people 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 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 think I would make it in the political arena if I campaigned on that and I said, look, you're going to 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 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 presented to the people as our founding fathers' 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 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 would, Vicki, I would hope that you are correct.
I would really, honest to God, hope because I love my country and I want it to have a rich future.
But I would, but I really doubt whether you are correct, but 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, thanks a lot for calling in.
And we're going to come back after this 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.
Vicki reminded me of something.
Now, I've had a lot of dealings in Washington.
I used to, and I say used to, I don't do it anymore, I used to testify 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 addition.
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, if you want to look at C-SPAN, you see guys saying, oh, you're honored, it's a pleasure for me to be here, blah, I remember Senator Hatch, he invited me to give testimony about the 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 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. Mencken was absolutely correct when he was asked to give a definition of an election, and H.L. Mencken replied that every election, excuse me,
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 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 of 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 God gave Moses the commandment, thou shalt not steal, he did not mean that thou shalt 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.
Let's talk to Alex in Toronto, Canada.
Dr. Williams, first of all, I want to say it's an absolute honor to speak with you.
Well, thank you.
I guess I'm following up a bit on the previous caller who had mentioned Madison, or you had mentioned Madison, and was hoping for a statesman who would come along and fix things and 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, 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 the state is.
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, 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 going to talk about more in a third hour.
But here's an I think the problem is with the American people, not politicians.
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 frustrating to American people that is 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 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 Shaddeg from Arizona.
Enumerated Powers Act.
Yes, right.
That is, he's introduced it every year since he's been in Congress since 1995.
And it's called the Enumerated Powers Act, 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 31 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 wrote the constitutional authority for doing it.
And this is gross contempt, but they're supported by the American people.
I hope that America does not follow the way, go the way that 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.
It's Walter Williams sitting in for the vacationing rush.
And I hope he's having fun.
Now, we're pushing back the frontiers of ignorance.
There's a column in the December 21st New York Times, and it relates to something I said just a few minutes ago.
And it's written by Nicholas Christoph, Bleeding Heart Tightwads.
And it says that it demonstrates that liberals show tremendous compassion when pushing for government spending to help 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 a book, Who Really Cares?
And he cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30% 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 45%.
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, so much for liberal compassion.
Let's go back to the phones and talk to Tom in Lee Summit, Missouri.
Hi.
Hi, Dr. Williams.
Hi, how are you?
Welcome to the show.
I'm doing great.
I'm 56, and I'm not planning to take Social Security when I retire, or even 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 age up a half a year a year until it's gone.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Push the retirement age up?
Well, you know, I mean, you could solve Social Security by making retirement age 95.
Sure, that would be fine with me.
I mean, everybody would be dead by the time they're eligible.
Yeah, that'd be great.
I would be in favor of just turning it off today.
Well, I would not be in favor of that because we did make some promises and we do have some obligations for those people who paid in.
But 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 don't follow that.
Well, you know, like our parents said, hey, this is a pretty neat program.
We're going to vote it in.
We weren't alive when they voted in Social Security, and now we've had to pay all our lives, and 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, this is the reason why I suggest it may be 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 just would love to get back to a system where we all take care of ourselves and get the government out of this thing.
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 Social Security did not come into existence until 1936 or so.
And 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 died with their children.
And now, older people, many times, they just die by themselves.
And so what we're doing, we're getting rid of the idea, the notion of the biblical notion to honor their 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.
And so I think that's one of the tragedies that we're faced with today.
We'll be back with your calls after this.
We're back, Walter Williams, sitting in for Rush Limbaugh, and you can be on with us by calling 800-282-2882.
You know, I was struck by the question asked from the fellow, I forget his name from Canada, 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 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 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 going to 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, one of the, I think the biggest benefit of the book is not all the intelligent 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 10 lectures in economics.
And if you read those 10 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 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 an important question next hour.
▲
Export Selection