All Episodes
Previous Next
June 22, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:49
June 22, 2009, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away and this is your undocumented anchorman starting the week on the EIB network.
Mark Davis will be back tomorrow.
Rush returns on Wednesday to take you through the end of the week.
The president, President Obama, is just signing the new tobacco regulations bill into law, which is which is great news.
More regulation.
That's what we need.
That's what we need.
There are still some parts of American life that are still unregulated, but eventually we'll get to them all and everything can be micro-regulated.
And the great thing about government healthcare, which is what we were talking about in the previous hour, is that it licenses you to regulate everything else.
This is a phenomenon of the modern world, by the way.
You look at the immense improvement.
The biggest single, as I said last hour, the biggest single improvement in life expectancy is when you cure childhood mortality, when you lower, get control of childhood mortality.
That's the big difference between, basic difference between the United States and, say, Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has very high childhood mortality.
Most of the big cures of childhood mortality were made in the 19th century through basic hygiene procedures apart from anything else.
Basically, England conquered childhood mortality at the beginning of the 19th century and its life expectancy improved dramatically.
Everything after that, everything after that is basically just marginal.
So the idea of annexing a fifth of the economy for the possibility, the possibility of marginal improvements in life expectancy is ridiculous.
And yet, simply because everybody else does it, we think the United States now has to do it too.
Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post this morning, he has a very telling statistic.
Since 1970, he writes, government has changed radically.
Then, 52% of federal spending went for defense, 26% for, quote, payments for individuals, or what we mean by the welfare state.
By 2008, 61% consisted of, quote, payments for individuals, the welfare state, and only 21% for defense.
So in effect, between 1960 and the turn of the century, our whole perspective on what is the proper role of government was transformed.
So the idea that keep what were once regarded as normal responsibilities of adulthood.
Look, you're grown up, you wear long pants, you can do what you like, you have to look after yourself.
There's certain responsibilities that come with that.
It can't just all be about drinking alcohol and going on club 1830 vacations in the Bahamas and having a big party and going to Disney World.
It can't all be about stuff like that.
There are grown-up responsibilities too.
And what we've done instead is take those grown-up responsibilities and made them the job of the state.
And that is what has made them expensive apart from anything else.
Now you look today, 2008, 61% of federal spending consists of the welfare state.
What is that likely to be in a generation's time?
We can't afford it now.
We can't afford it now.
And yet we're going to stick it to our kids and our grandkids even further down, even further down the line.
And the problem with this, I think, is actually not even a cost problem, not a budget problem, but the fact that it changes the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the state.
It's in fact a full-blown assault on citizenship.
Once you have socialized healthcare, elections become about healthcare.
If you look at an election in Europe or in Canada, in Canada, elections were about things like how do we reduce healthcare wait times.
Waiting times becomes the big thing.
How do we reduce the time?
How do we reduce the time that people wait?
That becomes the dominant issue in an election.
The health ministry becomes the most powerful position in cabinet.
It's where you want to be.
Things like being foreign minister or defense minister are no longer important.
Now, you think about the way that is in the United States.
Even in the Obama cabinet, Bob Gates wouldn't regard it as a promotion if he were moved from defense to health and human services.
But in Canada and in Europe, defense is just something unimportant and peripheral that you pass through on the way to the important jobs like being in charge of healthcare.
And even the health guys, the healthcare systems in those countries would be unaffordable were it not for the fact that the United States pays for the defense costs of essentially of Europe and Canada.
So they can afford, they find it easier to afford to have a welfare state because they don't have to maintain a serious, credible military in the way that the United States does.
Now, you may say, well, why shouldn't we get that perk too?
But it won't work if America does it.
Euro-Canadian socialized healthcare is in essence subsidized by American taxpayers.
So if America then goes down that route, the entire system really will become unaffordable.
What it means, in effect, there will be worse healthcare for certain parts of the world because America will no longer have the money to do, for example, the research it does into new diseases.
If you look at the Centers for Disease Control, for example, it essentially serves as the research institute of last resort for the entire planet.
If a kid comes down with something wacky in some African village and his country doesn't know what it's in, they put it in a test tube and ship it over to the Centers for Disease Control.
In other words, why if the American system is so bad and so embarrassingly bad compared to Canada and Europe, is it the leader in medical technology?
Is it the leader in new cures?
Is it the leader in new medications?
None of these things are going to continue once it becomes just another socialized healthcare system.
So we're going to take some more of your calls on that subject.
I must say, by the way, that I always love being on this show, but normally it's like I'm normally kind of under the weather slightly.
I think the first time I did this show, I was jet lagged.
I'd just flown in from Australia.
So I arrived here with like kind of 15 minutes to go and HR and Mr. Snurdley were all panicking, you know.
And so I was like, my brain was somewhere halfway across the Pacific on the beach with the Uyghurs and I wasn't really focused.
Last time I was here, I had a nightmare trip getting here.
I went to Burlington Airport in Vermont and discovered like 20 minutes before I got there that I've never heard this phrase before.
Vermont airspace had been closed.
I don't even know.
I don't even know what that means.
Vermont airspace had been closed.
What?
Excessive bovine flatulence or something.
It wasn't safe to take off at that stuff.
So I had a nightmare time.
I had to wound up driving to New York, so it was kind of under the weather for that.
But I'm like, I'm feeling fight and fit today, and this is basically as good as it gets.
So it's not going to, this is a performance unaffected by Australian jet lag or the closure of Vermont airspace.
But HR reminded me, the word I was looking for, when I was calling it the spatula, when I was talking about chlamydia, it was the speculum.
Speculum's the right word, is that it?
Spatula, I don't know.
I'm right on top of the Uyghur lingo.
When I was talking about Uyghur diaspora, I can produce that off the top of my Uyghur diaspora, but chlamydia speculum eludes me.
You know, if the Uyghurs had come down with chlamydia, I would have been, boy, I would have been, I would say, you know, Uyghur speculums I could have handled, but I just got confused, so I apologize for calling it a spatula.
Although I wouldn't put it past me that if you go to a hospital in Labrador, that they do actually use a spatula.
Don't flip your pancakes with it afterwards.
It's not.
Anyway, the whole Uyghurs, I was on top of all the Uyghur lingo, and now I've got all computers.
But that's the word I was looking for.
Speculum.
Socialized healthcare is the reason it's so important to resist it is because it is the biggest single factor in what I would regard as the enervation of the citizen's self-reliance.
Once you get the idea that somehow, you know, it's entirely normal for you to go to the supermarket and be able to choose from a hundred different breakfast cereals.
It's entirely normal for you to go to Netflix and choose from a million different movies.
That's fine, but when it comes to healthcare, it's all too complicated.
And I want the government to make the decisions for me.
What you're essentially saying is I'm no longer a fully formed citizen.
I am a child.
And the government nanny has to make the decisions for me.
And the trick then becomes holding that redefinition of you as a child to healthcare.
Because once the government has got you to accept the principle that you're a child for something as primal a responsibility as your health, it becomes much easier for them to get you to accept that you're a child in all kinds of other areas.
And that's why I don't think it's unconnected, for example, that societies with government healthcare find it much easier to, for example, to regulate speech and regulate opinion as they do in Canada and Europe.
And as I don't think the President would be averse to doing here.
Because once you have accepted that you are not a self-reliant citizen, but you are a ward of the big nanny state, once you accept that on something as basic as healthcare, then it's easy to get you to accept it in all kinds of other issues.
I mentioned those in Continent Quebecas.
Those guys go into the bathroom 12 times a night, and a government bureaucrat tells them, oh, good news, we've scheduled your half-hour procedure for the year 2012.
And these are people, these people say, oh, yeah, sure, fine, 2012, that's great.
I can cross my legs for another three years.
No problem.
That's fine.
That's good.
You'd be surprised how easy it is to get freeborn citizens to accept that.
And you cross a Rubicon there.
You essentially say, these are people who fought for freedom and who died for freedom, yet are happy to have a government bureaucrat tell them, no, you've got to go to the bathroom 12 times a night for the next three years just because.
Just cuz I'm the government and I say so.
And that is the problem with these systems.
And the idea that you can have them side by side, by the way, I think is also problematic.
Essentially, Once you introduce routine government health care, it metastasizes and swallows a private sector for all but highly specialized things, and it becomes the defining component of your healthcare.
1-800-282-2882, Mark Stein sitting in for Rush on the EIB network.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Let's go to Tom in Columbus, Ohio.
Tom, thanks for waiting.
You're on the EIB network.
Good afternoon, Mr. Stein.
How are you?
I'm doing great.
How are you?
Good, sir.
I'm a quasi-Republican that believes in single-payer universal health care.
Oh, no.
I don't want Republicans for single-payer health care.
We want to keep that a very small demographic group.
What's your thinking?
Why are you for it?
Well, I can tell you why.
If you look at healthcare, my dad was a hospital administrator at a nonprofit hospital for years.
But if you look at healthcare, it's an inelastic market.
It's not a supply and demand type market like, let's say, gasoline, for example.
It's inelastic.
No matter where you go, the market, no matter the supply or the demand, the market's still the same, pretty much.
So you mean it's not a normal market that responds to normal market pressures.
Now, why is that?
Because in essence, because we don't have a choice about it, is that right?
Pretty much, yes.
It's just like if you look at the milk industry, dairy producers subsidized by the government, they give us a certain amount for our milk.
If we pay $3 at the store, $2 at the store, usually a dairy farmer gets X amount.
They pay, they sell their milk, but it's also subsidized by the government.
So it's a certain price that we can all afford it.
You know, if you want to even draw it out this way to property taxes and public health, or public schools, rather, it's the same type of basis.
What I like to see is a single-payer health care system.
And I don't know if it'd be a 5%, like a VAT tax or 10% tax, a flat tax, just for healthcare.
Well, the thing about that, for a start, no matter what you set it at, you can never get enough that way.
The British National Health Service is the biggest employer, not just in the United Kingdom, but in the whole of Europe, precisely because the government is responsive to that inelastic market too.
So the government can never have a government health service big enough for the pressures on it.
So the tax thing is whatever you set it at, whatever you set your 5% VAT or 10% VAT, it's going to be higher than that simply because we're talking about something for which there is inexhaustible demand that the government has pledged to gratify.
Tom, I understand your concerns about it not being a normal market, but that is why, as I said right at the beginning when we started talking about this, I'm in favor of having as much of the healthcare system maintain the character of a normal market as it can.
Now, when you get a healthcare bill, by the way, if you're in the position, if you're ever at a hospital and they show you the thing, if you saw what was itemized on the bill, you would query it.
But you don't.
If you're insured, it goes to some third-party thing.
It's seen by some bureaucrat.
It makes no difference to the bureaucrat whether the 10 minutes the specialist was in the room is billed at $120 or $600.
He doesn't care.
He's just processing it, the bureaucrat in Hartford, Connecticut or wherever.
I had an interesting experience the other day.
I was giving a speech in Palm Springs, and a guy from Alberta, Canada, came to attend the speech.
It was a wealthy, you know, it's Palm Springs, wealthy people at a big country club in Palm Springs.
This guy is a wealthy guy up in Alberta.
He's been waiting a couple of years for hip replacement.
He's a wealthy guy, big oil and gas guy up in Alberta.
But he was told, you know, unless you're a hockey player or you're a prominent politician, you can't sort of jump the line in Canada.
So he'd been waiting and waiting and waiting for these hip replacements in great pain.
Happens to have a winter home in Palm Springs.
So he's down there for the weekend in howling pain.
And he thinks, I can't take this any longer.
I don't want to wait till 2012 for my hip replacement.
So he goes along to the local hospital in Palm Springs and he sees the doctor and the doctor does a couple of tests and says, hey, no problem.
That's right.
You need a hip replacement.
We can do it on Tuesday or whatever it is.
So he goes and he gets his hip replacement.
It's just great.
He's feeling great.
He's standing there at the business desk in the hospital and they say, okay, you don't have any insurance.
And he goes, no, I'm a Canadian.
I'm just here visiting.
I've got a winter home down here.
So I don't have any insurance.
And they say, okay, well, in that case, you get the non-insured discount.
So right away, there's whatever it is, 20% off.
And he gets out his checkbook and he goes, well, look, you don't have to process this through any third parties.
There's no HMOs.
There's no Blue Cross, no Blue Shield, none of that stuff.
They give him X thousand dollars and he gets out his checkbook and he's writing, you know, pay Palm Springers Hospital or whatever.
He goes, well, can't you do a bit better than that?
So she goes, well, I don't know about it.
So she goes in to see her boss, comes back out, knocks another $4,000 off.
That's a normal customer relationship.
This guy, this guy, this big, wealthy Albertan, just got a hip replacement for far less in Palm Springs, for far less than any full-time year-round resident of Palm Springs is paying for it, just because it was a normal customer supplier transaction.
And we have given ourselves, we have chosen to give ourselves a healthcare problem, essentially by allowing all kinds of other parties to intercede between the patient and the doctor.
And we seem to think that's a natural feature of life now.
No, it wasn't.
In the old days, in the old days, you'd go to see Dr. Jones.
Well, actually, Dr. Jones, believe it or not, would come and see you.
That's how great it was.
So he'd come and see you in your like broken down loser shack and he'd fix you up, he'd patch you up and you'd settle up with him and give him the body.
And that way, healthcare wasn't complicated.
Why is healthcare complicated now?
Because we're trying to design a universal system of health care for 300 million people with widely differing needs.
And no, and the idea, and the power and control that the government would require over your lives to be able to do that is huge, huge.
The idea that that can be done and your life will just tick on as normal, tick over as normal, no particular problems, no big changes.
It's just that now the government is running the health of 300 million people.
It is not possible to design a health system for 300 people, 300 million people.
It is possible to design a healthcare system for you, Joe Schmo, of 27 Elm Street.
And that is why you, Joe Schmo, of 27 Elm Street, should be entrusted to make your own health care arrangements, except in very exceptional and very particular circumstances.
And not trusting the people to do that will have disastrous consequences for the United States.
More straight ahead.
Great to be with you.
Mark Davis in for Rush tomorrow.
And then Rush returns Wednesday to take you through the end of the week.
Let us go to Christine in Florida.
Christine, thanks for waiting.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Well, hi, I'm talking about the health care.
And for myself, about a year ago, I completed chemotherapy for breast cancer.
And while I was undergoing chemotherapy, there was an article on the internet that the United Kingdom decided that only two chemotherapy drugs were being discussed as being exclusively the only chemotherapies for breast cancer.
Right.
Not taking into consideration that breast cancer is a general description of a disease.
There's more than one type of cancer.
For myself, after I completed three months of chemotherapy using what would have been their approved medications, my oncologist came back and said, hey, we didn't get it all.
And I had to go through another round of chemotherapy, which did get all of my cancer, fortunately.
But that one wasn't one that was approved of by Britain.
So if we would have been under the British type of health care system, I would never have been able to have gotten that particular chemotherapy.
And it did, in fact, work for me.
And you might not be making this call right now because, in fact, what you say about breast cancer is true for cancer treatment in the United Kingdom generally, which is why, as Rudy Giuliani pointed out during his otherwise disastrous presidential campaign, that the UK has much lower rates of cancer survival than the US does.
And I think in your case, when you actually say, see what drugs, the only drugs you're allowed to be given in Britain, and you actually know from your own experience that these are the ones that don't get all the cancer, you have a compelling reason, the most compelling, vivid personal reason to understand why it's important for citizens to be able to make their own decisions on healthcare.
Oh, yeah.
Well, and I think people in this country truly want health care reform.
They want free health care, forgetting that you only get what you pay for.
That's right, that's right.
And there is no free health care.
The government, there's no free anything.
The government only has money it can get from you or under the Obama model from your as yet unborn grandchildren that we're sticking it to down the line.
And the problem with that is that a bureaucracy becomes run for the bureaucracy.
And if you look at healthcare in the UK, the targets, every time they try to reform it, because of all these horror stories, from people who go in, they go in with a stubbed toe and they wake up and find that due to some erroneous memo, they've had their arm amputated.
There's all those stories.
And then what always happens, what I love about this, this is again the enervation of the citizenry that goes along with socialized healthcare, is that the minute the Daily Mail in London carries one of those stories, 48 hours later, there's a story from some guy in Wales who says, oh, well, you know, I went along.
I went along.
I don't know why you're making such a fuss about this poor guy having his leg amputated when he only went when he went in for his appendix.
He goes, I went to my hospital.
I had an appointment at 8 in the morning and I only had to sit there until 11.30 p.m. at night and they treated me and they were all very friendly.
People become grovelingly grateful for the most abysmal level of service, which, by the way, has never factored into healthcare costs.
When they say that America spends more on healthcare in terms of GDP per capita than Canada, I've employed people on both sides of this border.
When my assistant, Tiffany, in New Hampshire, has an appointment at the doctor for 9 o'clock, she's generally back at work at 11.
Chantal, my Quebecois assistant, when she goes to her local CLSC, as they call it up there, in Canada, she has an appointment at 9 o'clock.
She's there until 6 o'clock in the evening.
That's it.
The day's gone.
She doesn't get to see anybody till right at the end.
sits there all day reading all the old news magazines and all the rest of it all day.
The cost of that difference is borne by me and that is never factored in.
That is never factored in that the costs of the healthcare system are in effect the additional costs imposed by a socialized healthcare system are imposed in two ways.
First that, which is an economic thing, and then on the quality of life, which is what Christine was talking about in Florida by not having the right to choose the most effective drugs that will treat you most comprehensively in the quickest way and allow you to return to a full life.
How are you feeling right now then, Christine?
I'm doing very well with that.
But I might also add, well, I'm on disability for another injury that I was recovering from an injury to my back when I was diagnosed with a cancer, but I am also a nurse.
And I get to see the other side of the healthcare.
I've seen that for 35 years.
I saw the other side of healthcare.
And one of the biggest scare words you could ever give a nurse was socialized medicine because we knew as professionals that as soon as that came in, our income was going to be radically cut.
That's right.
And that's why when you essentially the socialized healthcare system, apart from its many other defects, becomes a way of denuding the third world of all its best and brightest.
Because you find that in first world countries, people do not want to be nurses because they don't want to work in socialized hospitals.
So the socialized hospitals have to go and get their nurses from Bangladesh and Botswana.
And at that point, who's going to be the nurse in the Botswana or Bangladesh hospital?
Because as I said earlier about doctors, it's no longer an attractive middle-class profession to be in.
Well, South Florida is a big touristy area, and we have a seasonal type of business, even within the hospital, because we have the Canadians that come down to Florida for the winter.
And where do we get our temporary nursing?
Call an agency, say we'll do a contract for the winter season.
And we've had British nurses coming in.
And some of the comments that came out of the British nurses, what do you mean you're going to treat this man that's 80 years old?
He's going to have open-heart surgery.
In Britain, he would be too old.
And yet, this is a guy that is leading a very active life.
He's active in the local politics.
He plays golf three days a week.
Yeah, he's had his three score and ten.
Forget him, cut him loose.
We can't, he's just the cost on the healthcare system now.
We can't bother with him.
You know how bad it gets, Christine, once you get that way of thinking.
And you're talking about this patient, this guy you knew in Florida that wouldn't bother treating the 80-year-old.
When they had all these C. difficile, you know, essentially this infection, this superbug that runs around a lot of the hospitals in the socialized systems, in Quebec, where they have four times the rate of C. difficile than they do in American hospitals, they attribute every death to C. difficile is where you say go in to be, you know, you go in because you've got a broken arm and you wake up the following morning drowning in your own diarrhea and you're dead two days later.
That's basically, you get it in the hospital.
And they get the superbug.
And the Premier of Quebec, actually, the separatist Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, who was in favor of separating from Canada, he went into hospital.
He got one of these superbugs and it ate up his leg and he had to have his leg removed.
Essentially, his leg seceded from the rest of his body, which is appropriate for a separatist secessionist politician.
But the system they have up there is if you're over 55 and you die of C. difficile in a Quebec hospital, they put it down to old age.
55?
That doesn't seem That seems like old age seems to be creeping under the socialist system.
Old age kicks in earlier.
Oh, you're too 50.
Well, he lived a full life.
He was 53 and he died of a disease he picked up in a government hospital.
But he had a full life.
He lived till 53.
He lived until late middle age.
There's no point complaining.
Thank you very much for your call, Christine.
We got more straight ahead talking about healthcare on the Rush Lip Board Show.
Mark Stein sitting here on the EIB network.
Mark Stein in for rush on the EIB network.
Let's go to Connie in Austin, Texas, the non-reliably conservative corner of Texas.
Yes, I know.
I'm in a sea of liberals.
It's in the capital of the great nation of Texas.
So when the Republic of Texas secedes, your little island of Austin will insist on staying with the United States.
I doubt it.
I don't know what's going to happen.
Actually, we have the right to divide into five states, as a matter of fact.
A lot of people don't know that.
Yeah, great.
I love small nations.
The more, the merrier.
Bring it on.
I don't know.
I wish I could leave, but unfortunately, I'm trapped here.
In fact, that's why I'm calling, because I had to retire a number of years ago on disability, and I'm making a teeny tiny little social security check and a pension.
So I don't have a lot of money.
So this makes this all the more reasonable, I think, when I tell you that Obama forced this $250 mini bailout supposedly down my throat.
I tried.
The minute I heard this was going to happen, I started calling.
Nobody would even talk to me.
So I decided what I was going to do is take the money, spend it, but I'm going to spend it on things that will thwart Obama.
Like I'm giving it to pro-life causes and wounded warriors and various other things, and just anything and everything that will fight the man because he's a socialist twit.
So you got, so you, like everybody else over a certain age, you got a $250 stimulus check from Obama, regardless of whether you want it or not.
Exactly.
And I'm not even over that certain age because I had to retire early.
I didn't want to leave my job.
I loved my job.
But you're having, you've decided to use it to stimulate the downfall of the Obama stimulus.
Excellent.
Excellent.
You know, that kind of balances out because, as far as I can tell, in Vermont, I was in Vermont the other day and I picked up the local newspaper and it was advertising for all these positions available under the that had been funded by stimulus money.
And it was basically the southeastern Vermont community organization regime that was advertising for a lot of non-jobs like stimulus projects coordinators.
So in fact, the stimulus is only stimulating more stimulus project stimulus coordination stimulus.
The stimulus basically exists to stimulate the stimulus.
So by you using your stimulus check to stimulate the anti-stimulus, you may be in a small way, you may be contributing to wrestling this monster to the ground.
It's only $250, but it's everybody else's $250.
So I decided to use it as wisely and as frugally as I could on that because it just angers me what the man is doing.
And I really felt helpless.
I really tried not to get the money.
They wouldn't let me not take it.
But you know, you got $250 from your government.
Isn't that great?
But I got it from you.
No, no, no.
You got it from the good.
You got it from benign King Barak, who was giving, who was handing 250 groats to one of his grateful serfs.
Don't you understand?
Don't you?
I mean, that's a generous check.
Getting $250 in return for giving up liberty and self-reliance and citizenship.
That is a steal of a deal, Connie.
You should be more grateful for it.
I have to tell you one thing before I go, and that is that you are my favorite rush replacer.
Oh, God.
Love your rush.
No, no, we can't have any more of that.
Mark Davis is in tomorrow.
He's a great guy, and he'll take care of you, too.
Thanks for your call, Cottie.
Let's quickly go to Sandy in Florence, South Carolina.
Sandy, you're on the air on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate it.
Nice hearing your program today.
Hey, one thing I wanted to point out, everybody can't figure out why Obama doesn't understand about the socialist system sailed everywhere in the world.
Why pull it here?
It's not about insurance, sir.
It's about the money.
It was the same thing with the Social Security.
I'm not one of them right-wing kind of people, but the Social Security was set up, and when it was challenged in the Supreme Court that you cannot put a system on everybody for retirement and other things, the government just said it's just a tax.
They use it as an income stream, and they're doing the same thing with this.
It's not about your health.
It's not about health care.
It's not about poor people or rich people.
It's about, well, you want that income stream.
And if we have to pay a little bit out along the way, oh, well, we'll be able to get more money from people because they're stupid.
Well, it's about two things, Sandy.
I agree with that, that in a sense it's revenue, it's a revenue issue, and whatever they call it, it goes into the government's broad revenue stream that it allocates as it wishes.
Now, whatever they call it.
Sometimes you pay taxes and it just goes into the general pot, and sometimes it goes into what appears to be designated for a particular purpose, but isn't really designated for it.
They buy bonds, and then that goes into the general pot.
Yeah, yeah.
But it's also about something else, too, which is I think it is about the annexation of more and more areas of your life.
Because if you believe in big government, it is necessary to persuade the citizenry that big government is necessary.
And the best way to do that is to make the government more and more a part of your life.
Now, if you go back essentially, if you go back to William McKinley, before the guy, poor guy, got shot in Buffalo, when he got shot in Buffalo, Americans were upset.
But he didn't play a big role in their life.
The federal government was, in those days, the federal government had very little to do with your day-to-day life.
Your day-to-day, insofar as government intruded on your life, it was town government in places like New England, and it was county government in the West and other parts of the United States, and a little bit of state government, and federal government, almost not at all.
And now we have a situation where basic daily aspects of your life are being annexed by a federal government in Washington.
That is something that would have astonished any American citizen back in William McKinley's day if you'd told him that a bureaucrat in Washington would have a big degree of control over large elements of your daily life.
And it's about that as much as about the money too, Sandy.
Thanks very much for your call.
We've got to run.
We are one of the last few unbailed.
I believe Obama is talking about bailing out the Rush Limbaugh show and putting in Air America's chief executive to run it.
So under the new $3.7 trillion budget, we'll be doing just great.
More straight ahead on the EIB network.
The EIB network, Mark Stein sitting in for Rush.
Healthcare is really the line.
If you're going to draw a line in the sand, this is the line to draw it on.
You're not going to be able to reverse this if it goes through.
In fact, we need to reverse the government annexation of healthcare that's already there now.
And that's what Republicans and Conservatives should be standing for.
You let this go, you let this go.
You're never going to have anything more than Republican light ever again when it comes to electing governments because this is a line too far.
This is a bridge too far.
So this thing has got to be reversed.
And the Rush Limbaugh show will be there on the front line, helping it, helping it, and helping the pushback.
I've got a date with a hot Uyghur, and I got to run.
Because when you've got a hot Uyghur parked outside, you don't want to be hanging around.
I wish it were that, actually.
It's actually my three-year incontinence appointment up in Montreal that I've been waiting for with my cross legs for the best part of a half decade.
Mark Davis is going to be here tomorrow, sitting in for Rush on the EIB network.
And don't forget, set your clocks.
Rush will be back on Wednesday for the rest of the week.
Thanks a lot.
▲
Export Selection