Rush Limbaugh Program - March 25, 2009, Wednesday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 25, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:24

March 25, 2009, Wednesday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Yeah, I watched it and I didn't want to watch it.
	I watched it because it's my job.
	Now, oftentimes, this is not a job to me.
	I love what I do, as you know, but it's a job watching an Obama press conference.
	Yeah, yeah, I can hear people.
	At least you have a job.
	Stop complaining.
	It was boring.
	It was professorial.
	And fewer Americans are watching.
	The numbers are coming in.
	Early ratings are down.
	Obama viewership weakens for press conference.
	The viewership declined from the previous press conference.
	So it appears, ladies and gentlemen, the Obama show beginning to wear a little thin.
	It was the only time he came alive last night.
	By the way, greetings, it's the Rush Limbaugh program, and this is the EIB Network here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	The only time, tell me what you think.
	Did you watch it, Snerdley?
	That's exactly the only time Obama came alive.
	The only time he got excited and animated and passionate was saying he's in love with the idea of cutting charitable donations.
	Man, he came alive.
	He was excited about that.
	He was able, he connected with, you know what I also thought?
	We got the obligatory question from Chuck Todd, predictively from NBC.
	This question was so silly.
	The answer was so easy.
	And Obama failed to see that it was a hanging softball and knock it out of the park.
	The question that he got from Chuck Todd, what about the notion of the American people sacrificing during this time?
	You have said that the economic situation we're in is like a war.
	Well, where is the notion of sacrifice?
	I'm sitting there and I can't wait for this answer because this is such a stupid question.
	What the hell is sacrifice when 600,000 Americans are losing their damn jobs every month?
	What the hell is sacrifice when their earned income is being eaten away by taxes and future sacrifice?
	The American people are more than sacrificing.
	The American people are getting, they're paying a huge price for this.
	Sacrifice?
	What more does this government expect of the American people?
	Well, I'll tell you, higher taxes, that 95% tax cut for 95% off the table now.
	Gone off the table.
	In fact, Obama's looking for new ways to raise taxes.
	You people in the 95% was always going to be the case.
	You were never going to get a tax cut, but now it's official.
	You may not have it.
	Sacrifice.
	And he asked it twice.
	There was a follow-up because, and then I love the drive-bys last night after the press conference.
	Ooh, he really connected on the sacrifice.
	He did not.
	He did not.
	Well, American people trying to come up with ways to put their kids through college and so forth.
	The sacrifice the American people are making is this man's presidency.
	We are all making sacrifices here.
	But what is this notion?
	What is this notion of sacrifice anywhere?
	Where is American exceptionalism written?
	Or where is it written in American exceptionalism that this is a nation built on sacrifice, economic sacrifice?
	Yeah, we have people who make sacrifices, the people that join the military and so forth, but for crying out loud, sacrifice.
	You know, the press asked Bush about that.
	Well, where's the sacrifice during the war?
	Sacrifice!
	What the hell is 8.1% unemployment?
	The American people are being made to sacrifice for this man's presidency.
	And then he comes alive out there on this notion of cutting charitable deductions.
	It was an emotionally empty performance, but the high point, when the issue of cutting the legs out from under charities came up, and then right after that, Obama gets this question.
	You know, he didn't have any questions last night from the dean of the drive-bys, no Wall Street Journal, no New York Times, no Washington Post, no, what am I living at?
	Some other big newspapers did not get questions.
	Los Angeles Times instead, some guy from Ebony Magazine, which is a pop culture magazine.
	That's like having somebody from People magazine in there.
	And this guy asked the strangest question, this bogus statistic that one out of 50 American children are homeless.
	And what are you going to do about it?
	I want to see the facts on that.
	Just like we had the two to three million people homeless during the late 80s and early 90s, Mitch Snyder and his bogus homeless numbers.
	I mean, that was obviously huge, a bogus discussion about homeless children just after Obama got animated about cutting charitable deductions.
	He got happy.
	So he's happy.
	He can't wait to cut the charitable deduction.
	He gets a question about one in 50 kids being homeless.
	If that were true, why would somebody want to cut charitable donations?
	I think a caring person would want to triple the deduction in order to reduce the bogus number of one in 50 children who are homeless and living under bridges.
	Would somebody tell me the last time you saw a kid sleeping under a bridge?
	I want to hear from somebody who's seen it.
	Because that's the way the question was framed out there.
	All right, ladies and gentlemen.
	And then, of course, we have the Ed Henry question on AIG.
	And Obama totally blew that.
	And I got emailed some people last night.
	And this is so frustrating.
	I have to admit to you.
	Rush, rush, rush.
	Did you say the press was finally tough on Obama?
	And I just sit there and I get frustrated.
	And I want to shout back at these people.
	I want to call them up, not email them.
	I want to call them, what the hell are you thinking?
	The press got tough on Obama?
	Please, folks, would you stop?
	If you are one of these people, would you stop looking for validation in the wrong places?
	The press might have gotten tough on Obama, but I don't know if you noticed.
	Shortly after the press conference, it was 100% fawning.
	He really, really answered those tough questions really well.
	Ed Henry.
	Ed Henry, with his question about why did it take you so long to respond to the AIG bonuses?
	So Obama goes through a wandering, meandering non-answer that's very professorial.
	And Ed Henry says, but you still didn't answer the question.
	Why'd you wait?
	I like to wait until I know what I'm talking about.
	And there was laughter in the room.
	Now, the way I interpreted that at the moment I heard it, this guy's slicing and dicing Andrew Cuomo.
	Who was it that went out there immediately and started talking about AIG?
	Andrew Cuomo and everybody else.
	And Obama, I'm smarter than these people.
	I wanted to open it.
	The fact of the matter is that even after he waited two days, he got it wrong.
	Even after two days, he claimed he didn't know what had going on.
	They were lying left and right about AIG.
	And now there's a great letter published as an op-ed today in the New York Times by an AIG employee.
	He's quitting.
	He was earning one buck, just like the CEO.
	He was promised one of these retention bonuses, but he's not putting up with it anymore.
	You could say that John Galt has spoken at AIG, but there won't be any sympathy for this guy.
	By the end of the week, this guy is going to be trashed and destroyed because that's the modus operandi of the whole AIG thing.
	The whole AIG business is nothing more than an act and a show, a fraudulent show to make an even larger power grab at more and more companies and eventually more and more people.
	Now, this guy at AIG, it's his resignation letter to the CEO, Ed Liddy.
	And the New York Times published it.
	Hey, Rice, hey, Rice.
	See what the New York Times did.
	Yeah, they published the guy's letter long after it's going to have any impact, long after it has any meaning on the cause, on the issue at hand.
	And I guarantee you, with the drumbeat of class envy and hatred for the rich and Wall Street people, this guy's going to get no sympathy from the people who ought to be affected by the people who've already been ginned up into full hatred of AIG are just going to read this and go, yeah, good.
	You only got a buck.
	That's what you deserve.
	Glad you're quitting.
	Find out how the rest of us live.
	That's going to be the reaction.
	And that's exactly what this administration has ginned up.
	Now, yesterday in Strasbourg, France, a member of the European Parliament, Daniel Hannon of Southeast England, spoke during the visit of the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
	He took it to Gordon Brown and left nothing on the table.
	And this is exactly the kind of thing the opposition party in this country needs to be saying to President Obama.
	We have three sound bites.
	Here's the first.
	Prime Minister, I see you've already mastered the essential craft of the European politician, namely the ability to say one thing in this chamber and a very different thing to your home electorate.
	Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this House if your actions matched your words.
	Perhaps you would have more legitimacy in the councils of the world if the United Kingdom were not going into this recession in the worst condition of any G20 country.
	Gordon Brown's trying to keep up with Barack Obama on printing money and spending money that his country doesn't have.
	And they're fed up with it over in Great Britain.
	They are fed up with it.
	This is one of his own countrymen at a European Parliament meeting in Strasbourg, France.
	Here's the second soundbite.
	The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money.
	The country as a whole is now in negative equity.
	Every British child is born owing around £20,000.
	Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child.
	Now, it's not that you're not apologizing.
	Like everyone else, I've long accepted that you're pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things.
	It's that you're carrying on willfully worsening our situation, wantonly spending what little we have left.
	Last year, in the last 12 months, 100,000 private sector jobs have been lost, and yet you've created 30,000 public sector jobs.
	Prime Minister, you cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit.
	Now, the last part of that is fascinating.
	But again, the whole thing is great because this is, again, European Parliament Daniel Hannon, remember Daniel Hannon, taking it to Gordon Brown at the European Parliament meeting in Strasbourg, France.
	This was yesterday.
	But the last item here in that particular soundbite, Prime Minister, you cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit, meaning you can't keep taxing the achievers and giving it to the unachievers.
	And see, oh, that's obviously true.
	I mean, it's economically true.
	It's logically true.
	It's mathematically true.
	It's true everywhere you want to.
	These guys all know it.
	The difference is they intend this.
	These are socialists.
	These are statists.
	100,000 British jobs lost while 30,000 government jobs, government gets bigger.
	Same thing happening here.
	600,000 Americans lose their jobs every month in this country up to 8.1%, 8.1% unemployment on our way to 10%, and the government keeps hiring.
	It's being done on purpose.
	It is a purposeful restructuring of free market societies to socialist societies, socialist Democrat societies, with the government as the giant power broker that runs and is in control of everything.
	It's being done on purpose.
	This is not people making mistakes.
	This is not people who don't understand what they're doing.
	They understand fully what they are doing.
	These are people who don't believe in individual liberty, people who don't believe in individual freedom, people who don't think that you have what it takes to deal with all that freedom.
	You'll make a mess of it.
	You need to be controlled.
	You need to be programmed.
	You need to be directed into certain spheres of work and play because otherwise we'll all suffer.
	There's a story I have here from, I'll have to check where this is from, Daily K.
	It's one of the European papers.
	And what's happening is that they're having flyovers.
	Spy planes, here it is.
	It is the Daily Mail.
	UK Daily Mail.
	Council uses spy plane with thermal imaging camera to snoop on homes wasting energy.
	In Great Britain, snooping on the public has reached new heights with local authorities putting spy planes in the air to snoop on homeowners who are wasting too much energy.
	They are using thermal imaging cameras to create color-coded maps that will enable council officers to identify the offending homeowner and pay him a visit to educate them about the harm to the environment and measures they can take to reduce their usage.
	And there's a picture here.
	They've already spent £30,000 using a spy plane carrying a thermal camera to determine which homes are wasting energy.
	And there's a picture.
	Let me show you to you here on the Doodle Cam.
	There's a picture of a UK home from the spy agency that shows that home is vastly overusing energy according to the little control Nazis at the British government.
	My point is, this is not accidental.
	This is not people making mistakes.
	This is not people who don't know what's right.
	Same thing in the United States.
	Same thing.
	It's just patently ridiculous last night to listen to Barack Obama talking about saving and reducing deficits while he's expanding them to $10 trillion over 10 years.
	But he gets away with it because he says he's going to cut the deficit.
	It's only going to be $8 trillion over 10 years.
	That's a cut.
	It's just like the Democrats, the Washington Post, everybody else saying, Democrats not happy with Obama budget.
	They're going to cut the budget.
	They're going to cut Obama's budget.
	And there's that magic word cut.
	And the word cut, it carries weight.
	When you tell the uninformed, the uneducated, and the mob that the budget's being cut, they don't have any recourse other than to think they're going to lose services.
	Okay, so Obama submits a $3.6 trillion budget.
	The Democrats find, you know, $100 billion in it that's too much, or $500 billion in it's too much.
	And so they claim they're going to cut it.
	So 3.6 becomes 3.55.
	And therefore, it's a cut.
	When it's actually an increase of $5.5 billion over the current budget, or four.
	There's no cut.
	There's never a cut.
	A cut in what's projected?
	But the word cut is used.
	The drive-bys dutifully fall in line.
	Oh my God, we're cutting services.
	We're cutting this.
	We're cutting that.
	There are no cuts.
	Just like there are no cuts in the deficit.
	How you can take a deficit of $400 billion to $8 trillion and claim you're cutting it.
	That's Barack Obama.
	Here's the final bite from Daniel Hannan to Gordon Brown, a Prime Minister, the UK.
	You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt.
	And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we're well placed to weather the storm, I have to tell you, you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line.
	You know, and we know, and you know that we know that it's nonsense.
	Everyone knows that Britain is worse off than any other country as we go into these hard times.
	The IMF has said so.
	The European Commission has said so.
	The markets have said so, which is why our currency has devalued by 30%.
	And soon the voters, too, will get their chance to say so.
	They can see what the markets have already seen, that you are the devalued prime minister of a devalued government.
	Yeah, Republicans in Washington could take a lesson from the bravery of this man.
	We'll be back.
	Ha!
	How are you?
	It's El Rushbo, and we are back, by the way, on this charitable donation business and President Obama's glee and his energetic recitation of his plans to cut charitable donations.
	It might be prudent, ladies and gentlemen, for us to recall a Wall Street Journal op-ed January 22nd of this year.
	It was by Arthur Byrne, Arthur Brooks.
	Over the past several years, studies have consistently shown that people on the political right outperform those on the left when it comes to charity, and this pattern appears to have held, increased even in 2008.
	In May of last year, 2008, the Gallup Polling Organization asked 1,200 American adults about their charitable giving patterns.
	People who call themselves conservative or very conservative made up 42% of the population surveyed, but gave 56% of the total charitable donations.
	In contrast, liberal or very liberal respondents were 29% of those polled, but gave just 7% of the donations.
	Now, these disparities were not due to differences in income.
	People who said they were a very conservative gave 4.5% of their income to charity on average.
	Conservatives gave 3.6%.
	Moderates 3%.
	Liberals gave 1.5%.
	And very liberal people gave 1.2%.
	So it's the charitable donation deduction or reduction in the deduction is just another hit at American conservatives.
	Bloomberg News.
	Let's not forget this.
	They ran the story in September of last year.
	That would be 2008.
	Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 to 2004 to charities.
	That's less than 1%.
	And that's according to tax returns for those years released by the Obama campaign last September.
	2000 to 2004, the Obamas gave less than 1% to charity.
	We did a big cover story, well, a big feature story on this in the Limbo letter in the May 2008 issue on just who gives charitable donations, who are the largest givers in this country.
	And there's no question that it's self-identified conservatives who are American people.
	Chuck Todd wants to know from President Obama last night, well, are you asking the American people to sacrifice during any of this?
	IBM is expected to inform a large number of American employees in its global services unit their jobs are being eliminated.
	Some of the work is going to be shifted to IBM employees in India.
	The planned cuts show that even companies that are successfully navigating this recession are continuing to slash costs, some of them by taking advantage of cheaper Asian labor.
	Couldn't be determined how many people are losing their gigs in the IBM action.
	IBM typically avoids public disclosure of layoffs.
	And a spokesman declined to comment on the plan.
	This is from the Wall Street Journal today.
	So could we say that IBM employees are sacrificing during the Obama recession?
	A bunch of them are going to lose their jobs and they're going to be outsourced to India.
	I thought Obama's going to stop all of this.
	Ladies and gentlemen, remember all these companies, how bad they were going to get punished if they outsource and how they were going to get rewarded if they stop outsourcing.
	And here's IBM laying off American workers and transferring the jobs or the work in those jobs to India.
	And Chuck Todd has to ask the President of the United States if he's asking the American people to sacrifice.
	I'm still, that whole question and answer period last night, that segment just sent me for a loop, asking the American people to sacrifice in the midst of what they're saying is the worst economy since the Great Depression.
	Speaking of this, you know, I love this, by the way.
	I have always been an admirer of Federal Express.
	I've always been an admirer of Fred Smith, who got a C-minus or something like that on his doctoral thesis in college.
	His doctoral thesis was the structuring and marketing plan of FedEx.
	And some pointy-headed professor says this will never work, but it's a nice effort, gave him a C-minus.
	And now FedEx is what it is.
	But FedEx has an order.
	They have an order for 30 brand new Boeing jets, cargo jets, to deliver your packages overnight.
	30 jets.
	The order for 30 jets equals billions and billions of dollars that FedEx needs to spend to upgrade their fleet.
	FedEx said yesterday that they are thinking and probably will cancel the purchase of these jets from Boeing if Congress passes a law that would make it easier for unions to organize at FedEx.
	This is card check.
	They said that if card check happens, they're going to cancel plans to buy as many as 30 new Boeing planes should Congress pass a bill that would remove truck drivers and couriers and other employees at FedEx Express unit from the jurisdiction of the Federal Railway Labor Act of 1926.
	In January, FedEx said its express unit exercised options to buy 15 more Boeing 777 freighters worth $3.7 billion at list prices.
	However, the company deferred delivery of some of the planes as the U.S. economy faces a bleak outlook.
	FedEx' actions raise the stakes in an increasingly bitter battle involving their chief rival UPS and the Teamsters Union, which has been trying for years to organize at FedEx.
	FedEx and Boeing could not be immediately reached for comment by Reuters.
	Cancel 30.
	This is how you have to deal with these people.
	This is how you have to deal with the mob.
	This is how you have to deal with the mafia.
	You don't go up there and lobby them and talk and beg and cajole.
	You say, fine, you're going to do this, and we're going to cancel our growth plans because you're going to kill our company.
	You're going to destroy our company.
	The problem with this is that I'm sure the Obama administration doesn't care if they destroy FedEx because they are out to punish people who don't do it their way.
	They're out to punish people who do not have unionized workforces.
	What the hell do you think card check is?
	Card check is a giant threat.
	It is a threat.
	Now, I know Senator Specter has said he's going to come out against it.
	That gives the Republicans 41 votes.
	That means they can filibuster and block it if Specter holds true to what he's saying now.
	But this is a key piece of legislation.
	It is crucial that this thing be defeated.
	Because if it passes, you're going to see this, like we're hearing about FedEx from a lot of different companies.
	They're not going to put up with it.
	I mean, they're just going to see themselves go out of business for no purpose whatsoever.
	And again, don't make the mistake of assuming the Obama administration, Obama himself, are naive and they just don't understand.
	They know exactly what they're doing.
	They know exactly what they're doing.
	They're operating policy, is returning the nation's wealth to its rightful owners, quote-unquote, rightful owners.
	FedEx is not a rightful owner of the nation's wealth.
	FedEx is depriving people of a living wage because they have no unions.
	FedEx is evil and mean, and so is all other American business.
	So is AIG, and so are all these Wall Street people.
	They're evil, and they have stolen what is not theirs.
	They have stolen the nation's wealth right up from under the nation's rightful owners, the real owners, the poor and the middle class.
	This is purposeful.
	It is a purposeful attack.
	The destruction that happens will be purposeful.
	It's identical what Gordon Brown is doing.
	You know, folks, there's a story in the New York Times today, headlines, should White House employees keep their bonuses?
	The hot-button issue of year-end bonuses from firms that took bailout money may not just be a headache for Wall Street.
	It could become a White House problem.
	No, it won't.
	Won't become a White House problem.
	Several members of the Obama administration worked for financial companies that received bailout funds, raising the question of whether they should keep any bonus they received.
	At least three members of the still growing team of political appointees, for example, worked at Citigroup and were eligible for year-end bonuses.
	One of the former Citigroup executives, Michael Froman, the Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs, has decided to give his bonus to charity.
	The White House declined to provide specific details on what the other two, Jacob Lew at State, David Lipton, the White House Senior Director for International Economics, will do regarding their bonuses.
	However, last night on PMS NBC, David Axelrod was asked about this.
	He says, people who once worked for financial firms who may be working now at the White House, some chose to give up their bonuses.
	But the administration didn't force anybody who was in the position to, in fact, give up their bonuses.
	Do you know of anything, anybody in the White House who kept their year-end bonus?
	And is the administration rethinking its policy on that point just because of the way it looks?
	I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of people's finances, and I don't think we're going to start sorting through everyone who's worked here and examined that.
	We need the talent that we have.
	Right now, our problem isn't that.
	Our problem is that we've got enormous challenges.
	We have to work on them all at once to get this economy moving again, and we need all hands on deck.
	So if you're working at the White House and you got a bonus, that's none of the White House's business because your talent is so needed, just like they said that we needed the talent of the tax cheat, Timothy Geithner, who is incompetent and clueless.
	And if there's anybody who doesn't really know what they're doing, it's Tim Geithner.
	Now, he may be in on the game, too, knowing exactly what he's doing.
	I doubt that the Obama administration would bring anybody in there that is not up to snuff.
	But see, when it's for the government, and of course, the Obama supporters will say, oh, see, but they're working for government now.
	That makes them holy.
	That makes them above criticism.
	Of course, they can keep their bonuses because they gave up their wealthy positions in the private sector, Mr. Limbaugh, in order to work for the government and to help the people.
	And so they should keep their bonuses because they've given up Thomas.
	They have sacrificed Thomas to work for the Obama administration.
	This is how the Obama crowd would react to this.
	And here's Axelrod.
	Liberals are going to have rules for themselves that exempt them from the rules they make for us.
	Problem isn't these guys got bonuses.
	We need the talent here.
	Our problem is we got enormous challenge.
	Well, so does AIG.
	AIG has an enormous challenge.
	And all these Wall Street things have enormous challenges, but you certainly don't care about robbing them of their talent.
	By the way, a reminder, at the top of the next hour, Mark Levine will be here.
	Mark Levin will be here to discuss his new book, the title of which is Liberty and Tyranny, a Conservative Manifesto.
	Have you started reading it, Snerdley?
	Did you get a cop?
	Well, you can have mine.
	Once you start, you can't stop turning the pages.
	It's, as I said yesterday, throughout my entire star-studded career, I have people say, Rush, what can I go read to learn what you know?
	What books and magazines should I read to understand conservatism?
	And of course, I've always had my list that I give them.
	My website, my books, the books of others.
	This book is a one-stop shop.
	This book is it.
	And it's going to be a pleasure to talk to Mark about it at the top of the next hour.
	In the meantime, a quick timeout.
	Sit tight.
	We'll be back.
	Grab a couple of your phone calls first, right after this.
	No need to think about it.
	We do that for you here.
	Rush Limbaugh redefining HIP on the radio.
	We go to the phones now.
	Grand Junction, Colorado.
	This is Candy.
	It's great to have you with us, Candy.
	Hi.
	Hey, Rush.
	Yeah, hi.
	I just got my new federal tax tables in the mail yesterday.
	I have a little business and support my husband and I along with my Social Security.
	And we also have a full-time employee and a very part-time employee.
	Now, I was under the impression that our federal taxes were to be reduced, Rush, weren't you?
	Well, I have never been under the illusion that the Obama administration was about reducing anybody's taxes, and I have been trying.
	You know, I'm really, I'm in a foul mood today.
	I'm in a foul mood yesterday.
	I'm in a foul mood today.
	So I don't mean to be taking it out on you.
	You can take it out on me.
	But I get so sick and tired of saying, I told you.
	Well, I'm telling you, not you personally, but I've been telling you, there are no tax cuts.
	There are no budget cuts.
	There are no cuts in anything except the military and freedom with this administration.
	Zip Zero Nada.
	So you got your tax tables now for your little small business with a part-timer and a full-timer, and you're going to tell us how your taxes are going up, right?
	My taxes are going up.
	My employees.
	But you're the backbone of America.
	You're a small business.
	You hire people and say your taxes are going up.
	How can this be, Candy?
	Well, now, Rush, not only my taxes are going up, but everybody in the whole United States' taxes are going up.
	They will not be able to earn $1 in full.
	If they make $1 a month, they will only receive 92 cents of it.
	The tax tables start at zero.
	If you make $1, they want 7.65% of it.
	Ironically, that's the same amount that you withhold.
	All right.
	Hang on.
	Last year, what was the change in last year's tax tables?
	Well, last year's tax tables, if you earned, if you were on a weekly table, you could earn up to $160 a week with no federal taxes.
	Now they tax your first dollar.
	Now they tax your first dollar.
	At 7.7 odd percent.
	7.65%.
	7.65%.
	So you keep 91 or 92 cents a year.
	92 cents.
	So that means you've got to start deducting from the first dollar for your part-timer and full-timer in your business.
	That's right.
	And they're going to look at this as though you're cutting their pay.
	They're not going to blame government.
	They're going to blame you.
	You understand this, Candy?
	Well, you can show them the tax tables, and they're not going to be able to understand it.
	How long have they been working for you?
	Well, I've got one employee that just went to work for me, and my husband and I have been working here for two and a half years.
	We've owned this business for two and a half years.
	It's a little corporation.
	We made about $140,000 growth last year.
	All right.
	What's going to happen is that your employees' paychecks are going to be smaller once these tables are required by law to be applied.
	Well, they're asking us to apply them now.
	All right.
	So the next pay period, your employees are going to have less take-home pay.
	And guess who they're going to be mad at?
	They're going to accuse you because you're rich.
	Well, what you're doing is you're trying to save money because they're going to tell you, they think Obama's going to tax you out of existence, which is true.
	And so they think you're going to be hoarding your money.
	And you're going to have an interesting time explaining to them.
	You can show them the tax tables.
	I will.
	And they'll blame Bush.
	Where are these employees?
	Do you know what their political inclinations happen to be?
	Do I?
	Yeah, are they Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Communist, Marxist?
	What are they?
	Power and money.
	No, you're employees.
	My employees?
	Your employees.
	Yeah, what are they?
	Liberal, conservative, Marxist, socialist, communist?
	You know, I don't know.
	They're both gay.
	Well, you can't make, you can't assign an ideological to that.
	You're right.
	I mean, you can't do that.
	But I mean, you're doing a lot of people.
	They're really good kids.
	They're hard-working kids.
	Exactly.
	And I'm sure they're great employees.
	They are great employees.
	All right, then what you need to do, you need to tell them that this is the result of Barney Frank.
	Oh, okay.
	Do it.
	I mean, Barney Frank, Chuck Wrangel, it's all Pelosi.
	It's all coming from the Democrat Ways and Means Committee.
	It's the Democrats doing this.
	So you, Barney Frank.
	This is going to affect everybody's payroll.
	It's going to affect your payroll.
	It's going to affect everybody in the whole United States.
	And I'll have to reevaluate.
	I'd like to give my employees more money.
	I'd like to give that money to them.
	I know.
	At least she got it.
	Whatever, it took the tax tables, but she now knows I was right.
	Okay, coming up when we get to the next hour, a mere few moments from now, Mark Levin, the author of the already over-the-top number one bestseller, Liberty and Tyranny, a conservative manifesto.
	You don't want to miss it?
	It's a good friend and buddy.

▲