All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 4, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
September 4, 2009, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, that's right, uh Johnny Donovan.
This is Dr. Walter E. Williams trying to sell my fellow Americans on the moral superiority of liberty.
And that means liberty uh limited government.
First, folks, I want to talk about the health care uh debate.
But uh I don't want to talk about death panels, I don't want to talk about all these other things you guys have been talking about this week.
Here's what I want to talk about, and I'm wondering whether you people care about it.
And that is we're talking about uh public options, uh, we're talking about uh whether health care is going to be this or that, but here's the relevant question, ladies and gentlemen, and I want you to tell me whether it makes a difference.
And that is it permissible under the United States Constitution for the federal government to be involved in health care.
Where is their authority?
Now, I know that some of you are going to say, or some hair-brained congressman is going to say, well, it's in the General Welfare Clause.
That would be absolute nonsense and stupidity.
You say, well, well, it's it's the general welfare clause, Williams.
Well, let me just give you, I just want to read what a couple of people who might be of importance said about the general welfare.
Okay.
One of them is James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution.
And here's what he had to say, and I'm quoting.
And by the way, all these quotes are available to you at my website, Walter E. Williams.com, and it has a very handsome photo of me there as well.
Okay, the quote.
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.
Okay.
Then uh here's what he said say a little bit later, Madison.
Uh he said that let me see where where am I?
Okay, he says that if Congress can do anything that can be justified by the general welfare clause, they can do darn near anything they want.
Uh Thomas Jefferson, uh, he said that the government can't do anything promoting the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
So, the question to you, ladies and gentlemen, is it permissible for the government to be involved in general in uh in health care?
Now, but let's move to another topic, because you're not interested in that at all.
But President Obama and his congressional supporters estimate that his health care plan is going to cost somewhere between 50 and 65 billion dollars a year.
Lady, ladies and gentlemen, that cost estimate is a lie.
A matter of fact, almost any cost estimate coming out of Washington, whether it's a Democratic president, a Democratic Congress, or a Republican president and a Republican Congress, any cost estimate is a lie.
Now you say, hey, Williams, you don't have a lot of faith in our people in Washington.
Well, let me give you some idea, let me give you some some data, and maybe you can tell me why I should have faith or why anybody should have faith in the statements coming out of Washington.
In 1966, the House Ways and Means Committee and President Johnson said that by 1990, Medicare would only cost 12 billion dollars.
In 1966, it started out at 3 billion, but they said By 1990, it won't cost 12 billion dollars.
Well, in 1990, Medicare topped 17 billion dollars.
That's nine times higher than the congressional estimate.
Today's Medicare comes to 420 billion.
Here's another part of the Medicare lie.
Now, this is found in Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act.
It says, and I'm gonna read this because it's just a small paragraph, it says, nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided.
And it goes on to say some other thing.
Ask your doctor is that true.
That is a damn lie.
And Americans fell for it.
But however, lies and deception, it's not a modern thing.
During the debate prior to the ratification of the 16th Amendment, President Howard Taff and the Congressional supporters of the income tax, they said that only the rich would pay federal income taxes.
Matter of fact, in 1916, only one half of 1% of income earners paid income taxes.
Those earning $250 billion, $250 million a year in today's dollars, they paid a 1% rate.
Those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7%.
Now the lie that only the rich would pay income taxes was just simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy.
Well, let me go on uh uh I I I can go on with a whole list of lies, but let me just talk about another one.
Another one is the Social Security lie.
In 19 Here's what a a uh Social Security pamphlet said in 1936, and you can probably find the pamphlet on the internet.
It said, and I'm quoting these sections.
I'm not gonna read the whole thing, but I'm quoting the sections.
It says, after the first three years, beginning in 1940, you and your employer will pay one and a half cents on each dollar you earn up to 3,000.
Beginning in 1943, you'll pay two cents.
And finally, beginning in 1949, 12 years from now, you and your employer will each pay three cents on each dollar up to three thousand dollars a year.
Now here's the lying promise.
Quote, I'm quoting from the pamphlet.
That's the most you will ever pay.
Let me repeat that.
That's the most that you will ever pay.
Now, compare that to today's reality, including Medicare, the Social Security tax comes to seven more than seven and a half cents on each dollar you earn up to a hundred and seven thousand dollars.
And that comes to eight over eight thousand dollars a year in Social Security taxes.
Now how are we gonna believe it?
Let me tell you, uh the okay, there are two more Social Security lies I'm gonna tell you.
Uh the pamphlet, the Social Security Pamphlet put out by Congress, says, beginning in November 24th, 1936, that's a matter of fact, that's the year I was born, so they're kind of committed to me.
The United States government will set up a Social Security account for you.
The checks will come to you as a right.
Well, first of all, ladies and gentlemen, there's no Social Security account in your name.
And moreover, the United States Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that Americans have no right to Social Security.
They have the amount of Social Security coming to them that Congress decides for them.
And then one final lie, Social Security lie, is that on my Social Security card, and I have proof because I just showed it to uh Kit Carson, my uh call screen a guy here, imprint.
yeah, that's number five.
He's counting these lies.
Um my social security card, it says, quote, for social security purposes, not for identification.
Now, you can't even go to the men's room without giving you a social security number today.
They use for identification for almost everything.
Now, the reason why is that Americans back then, they were afraid that social security number would be used for identification, so the Congress just bought them off with this lie saying that Social Security Card is not for identification purposes.
Now, you people are going to believe these turkeys in Washington about health care, the cost of health care.
But a more important issue is you need to ask, and I would like to see some news person that they don't have uh enough intelligence to do this, but ask the president to cite the constitutional authority for fooling around with our health care system.
We'll be back with your calls after this.
We're back, and it's Walter Williams uh sitting in for the vacationing rush limbaugh, and matter of fact, uh it will be the best of Rush on Labor Day, and Rush returns fully rested up and uh ready to push back the frontiers of ignorance live on Tuesday, and you can be with us today, be on with us today, and the number is 800 two eight two eight eight two.
Let's go back to uh this uh call for socialized medicine in our country.
And you know, people are holding uh the uh the British system up as a model for us, or they're holding the Canadian system.
But let me just say before I get to the phones, a few things about these wonderful systems, and I put quotes around wonderful.
According to World Health Organization, around 10,000 British people die unnecessarily from cancer each year.
That is, they have to wait for treatment.
A recent academic study showed that uh delays in bowel cancer treatment were so great, and I'm quoting from the observer, that one in five cases, cancer that was curable at the time of diagnosis had become incurable by the time of treatment.
Okay, well, what about uh Canada?
Well, there's an organization in British Columbia called the Fraser Institute, and they put out each year a publication that's called Waiting Your Turn.
And it turns out that um that Canadians wait, let's say, and this is from the general practitioner practitioner to treatment by specialists.
The shortest waiting time was for oncology.
That's 4.9 weeks.
The longest waiting time was for orthopedic surgery.
If you needed orthopaedic surgery, you had to wait for 40 weeks.
Uh neurosurgery, 31 weeks.
And matter of fact, this orthopedic surgery, the long wait for orthopedic surgery, explains why Cleveland, Ohio, has become Canada's hip replacement center.
That is can Canadians go to Cleveland, Ohio to get hips replaced.
And matter of fact, here's something else interesting, and this is from the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
Uh and it said that British Columbia patients fed up with soldier sojourns on the waiting list, find that they're being wooed by hospitals in Washington State.
That is what Washington State is doing and some other hospitals along the border with Canada, they're advertising in Canada.
They're telling Pete Canadians, you don't have to wait ten to twenty-eight weeks, as you do in some places in Canada to get an MRI.
You can get it in two days at the, let's say it's uh right here it says you can get it in two days at the Olympic Memorial Hospital in Port Angeles, Washington.
And you Americans want to have a system like that in our country where you want to wait all this time when you want politicians to determine what kind of health care you're getting.
I don't believe it.
But let's go to the phones and talk to uh Dominic from Cedar Falls I Cedar Rapids, rather, Iowa.
Welcome to the show.
Thanks, Walt.
Well, the uh the government's charter of the Constitution is designed to protect our rights, which life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom.
They also control the privileges like driver's licenses and such.
But they sh they have nothing to do with nothing in those documents say that they can control products or produce products like health care, retirement, uh run a car company or or charity, which is welfare.
That's those are all products that are produced.
Those those are not those are not uh rights.
Rights are not tangible, and privileges are something that you do.
The products are that's uh either a financial or a thing that the government has nothing to do with those, it should never have anything to do with those.
Well, I I no, no, no.
I I think you're missing a vote a little bit.
That is the federal government can only do what is enumerated in the Constitution, and it's a very limited thing.
Matter of fact, look, after the show, I'm gonna give you people an assignment.
Read Federalist Papers 45, Federalist Paper 45, and for those of you who went to public schools, the Federalist Papers were the papers written by uh John J. Madison and Hamilton, and they're trying to convince the citizens of New York and other states to ratify the Constitution.
And so Madison was trying to explain what is in the Constitution because these people, the the early Americans feared the central government.
And so Madison was trying to explain what is in the Constitution, and he said that the powers delegated to the federal government are few and well defined.
And here's the kicker.
Restricted mostly to external affairs.
Those left with the people and the states are indefinite and numerous.
Now, if you turn that upside down, you have what we have today.
That is the powers of the federal government are indefinite and numerous.
And you know why they're that way, folks?
Because of people like you.
That is, you want government to be able to do anything.
You want government to be in the business of taking one American's earnings and delivering it to you.
That's our problem.
And I'm going to talk about that in the next hour, a little in the in the uh in the next segment a little bit.
I'm gonna go into detail of that.
But before I get to that, let's go to let's see, where are you?
Uh Columbus, uh, South Carolina.
Let's go to Frank.
Welcome to the show, Frank.
Mr. Williams, how are you?
Okay.
Man, I you're my favorite guest host.
Anyhow, I will get to the point.
So the general welfare clause of the Constitution is for the general welfare of the states.
The way I read the Constitution, it explicitly differentiates between the states, the United States, and the people.
So I can't see how the federal government has the power to do anything that's for the general welfare of the people, unless unless, of course, it's for the general welfare of the states in particular.
Well, I I think well, how did you how do you think we got to the current state of affairs where the federal government is doing everything?
Uh by the Supreme Court letting them.
Uh well, maybe so, but I think it is the American people.
That is Congressmen, keep in mind that Congressmen are not doing anything that the American people don't want them to do.
Now, uh, let's say people in in your state, they might want the government to give them crop subsidies.
Uh somebody else's state might want the government to give them uh uh social security money or prescription drugs.
That is too many Americans want government to be in the business of taking the rightful property of one American and bringing it back to them.
That is the big problems, ladies and gentlemen.
That's a shame.
I mean, they're people just gotta do what they gotta do for themselves.
You gotta help out some people, but it's ridiculous to help out all these other entities.
And and you know, and I agree with you 100% that helping your fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable, but under only one circumstances.
That is, when you reach into your own pockets to help your fellow man in need, that is praiseworthy and laudable.
When you reach into somebody else's pockets to help your fellow man in need, that is despicable and worthy of condemnation.
And for those of you who are Christians out there, I'm very sure that 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.
Moreover, if you were to say to God, well, I know you say thou shall not steal, but is it okay to be a recipient of stolen property?
He would probably consider that a sin as well.
This is Walter Williams sitting in for Rush Limbaugh, and you can be on with us by calling 800 282-2882.
And you just have to stay for the second hour of the show because we're having a real treat to my colleague and very good friend Dr. Thomas Sowell, uh, he will be on to talk about, and uh in addition to some other things, to talk about the housing boom and bust.
That's his new book, his 43rd uh book.
My God, uh, I think Tom Sowell writes with both hands.
That's why he uh writes so many books.
Um let's kind of go back to uh something we're we closed up the last segment with.
And it has to do with um an article.
Now, here's what uh vice president Joe Biden said, referring to the stimulus package.
He says, I believe this was the right thing to do morally.
And later on he says, referring to the stimulus package, it was also the smart thing to do economically.
So he's saying these are the moral arguments for federal action.
Well, let's just kind of spend a second on the stimulus package as being a moral requirement for the federal government.
Now, we were founded as a nation in 1787, and we went from 1787 until 1930.
And during that interval, we face some recessions, we face depressions, sometimes they used to call these panics, and sometimes they varied from one year to six years, sometimes three years, and there was no stimulus package.
No one thought, it didn't not occur to anyone to think that the federal government should get involved with the economy.
Now it was not until 1930, after the stock market crash in 1929, when President Hoover started what we might call, he didn't call it back then a stimulus package, but start interfering with the economy.
And then followed by Roosevelt.
Now the actions by Roosevelt, Hoover, and the Federal Reserve turned what might have been a two or three-year sharp downturn into in the economy to an affair to a depression that would not end until 1946 after World War II.
And you can read about uh this uh matter of fact, there's a publication, excellent publication on my website, Walter E. Williams.com, and it's called The Great Myths.
You can click on it, the gr it's a PDF, The Great Myths of the Great Depression, and this documents all the wrong things that the federal government did that made an economic downturn worse than it otherwise would be.
And so, ladies, ladies and gentlemen, that that's the morality problems that we face.
That is every single major issue that our country faces is an issue dealing with morality.
That is, where the government is involved, where Congress is involved in doing one uh or two one of two things, possibly both.
That is using the coercive powers of government to take the rightful property of one American and give it to another American to whom it does not belong.
And if we did that privately, what would we call it?
We call it theft.
And when the government does it, I mean it's still theft, they're still taking the property of one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong.
But if I do it privately, uh it's illegal.
But if it's done by government, it's legal.
That's the only difference.
It's theft, legal theft, and illegal.
And a legal theft and illegal theft.
And that's our big major problem.
And if we don't come to grips with that, we're going down the tubes as a great nation.
Let's go back to the phones and go to Barb in uh in Columbus, Ohio.
Welcome to the show.
Oh, thank you for having me.
Um I was blending to talk about all these TARS and how I think it is unconstitutional.
Um I'm a history buff and my family is from judges and lawyers and concerned with the law, and I can't believe that Congress has just rolled over and let him appoint all these czars who don't need vetting or answering to the Congress or any anybody, and you can always tell, you know, a man by his advisors or friends he keeps.
And the the day that Barack Obama was elected, I cried for the first time in my life.
I'm in my fifties because I was scared having three branches of government and two of them being Democrat, I knew what was gonna happen.
Well, i it was not that it it was not that much better.
I mean, with three branches of government being Republicans.
No, no, and I mean, uh if you look at the level of spending from two thousand, I mean it it it equaled the great society spending during the Johnson years.
Exactly.
And and the thing about the Republicans and conservatives, they let George Bush off the hook and they would have come down on if Al Gore had done half the things that Bush did.
You know, for ex this business of no child left behind.
If Al Gore were uh had become president, conservatives and Republicans would be going up the wall.
But they sit and take it from uh from a Republican president.
Yeah, I was no friend uh or or fan of President Bush.
I would uh quite frequently turn him off because I just I didn't believe in his politics, but I watch everything that President Obama does because he scares me for the first time in my life, I'm scared of what's happening to my United States of America.
Well, thank you very much, and I I and I am afraid too.
Let's go to let's go to Jerry in Chelsea, Michigan.
Welcome to the show.
Hi, Walter.
I just wanted to comment on this theft you're talking about uh concerning Social Security.
Uh from the age of sixteen to seventy-three, I paid into the Social Security Fund.
And they those thieves in Washington took that money out of my pocket and then they embezzled it.
And I don't want wage earners today to pay my social security, but I have a right, whether the Supreme Court says so or not, I have a right to ask for that money back that I paid in.
Well, yeah, yeah, you have the right to ask because I I re I resent I resent the fact that they can take my money for Social Security and then say I don't have a right to get it back.
Okay, but but here but here's the here's the uh issue, Jerry.
Um where are you gonna okay uh l let me address uh is uh uh Jerry's issue.
If he wants to I agree that he has a right to get his money back, but where is he gonna get it from?
Where's the government gonna get it from?
They have to get it from some teeny bopper in the labor force who's working today.
They're gonna have to take his money and give it to Jerry.
And so uh the only way out of it, Jerry, is to is to maybe for future generations do something about social security so this will not happen in the future.
We'll be back with more of your calls after this.
We're back, and it's Walter Williams pushing back the frontiers of ignorance.
Here's a little tidbit uh before we get back to the morality stuff.
Uh on health care.
On the British health care system, if you folks like that, if you want that in the United States, uh the uh they call it the uh National Health Services, and uh the National Health Service Services is struggling to provide basic life saving surgery, um, uh denying people expensive cancer uh treatment drugs and things like this.
But however, reports surfaced last week that a pedophile in in Great Britain, who had abused an 11-year-old girl and had been spared jail, yet he was continuing to receive Viagra.
Uh courtesy of the British tax uh payer.
On August 23rd, the London Times reported that the National Health Service has spent more than 2.5 million dollars during the past five years on sex change operations for transsexuals.
Earlier this year, it was revealed that the National Health Service, now here's a National Health Service in deep crisis on every level.
They paid $6,000 for breast implants for 17-year-old girl because she was jealous that her school pals had bigger bust, which caused her to be moody.
I guess the uh the they said on the forum, this girl is moody and she needs some treatment.
Now, these are the kind of things, the misallocation of resources that we could expect to find in the United States.
Are we any different from the British?
I say no.
But let me get to this question about uh morality, and you guys can think about it.
Now, suppose, here's my question.
Suppose I see an elderly lady sleeping out on the grate in downtown New York City in the dead of winter, the lady is hungry, she needs some medical attention, she needs some shelter.
Suppose I walk up to one of you with a pistol in my hand and I say, give me your $200.
Then having gotten your $200, I go down and help this lady out.
I buy her some medical attention, some food, some shelter.
Would you find me guilty of a crime?
You should find me guilty of theft, regardless of what I did with the money.
Because what is theft?
Taking what belongs to one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong.
Now, here's the issue.
Is there any difference between that act and when the agents of the federal government come up to me and say, Williams, you know that $200 you made last week that you plan to buy a nice bottle of uh Lafitte Rothschild Bordeaux wine with it?
You will not do that.
You'll give it to us, and we will go downtown and help the lady out.
Is there any difference?
I assert no.
Uh only difference is one is legal theft and one is illegal theft.
I mean, you say, let's go back to the original question.
Suppose I get two people to agree to take uh Kit Carson's money to help this lady out.
Would that be theft?
Suppose I get three people.
What about a thousand?
What about a million?
What about three hundred million agree that I should take his money and and uh and buy take somebody's uh money and buy this lady some medical attention?
Does a consensus, here's what I'm asking, does a consensus establish morality?
I don't think it does.
That is, I think that the moral question we need to ask ourselves is that is there a moral case for taking what belongs to one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong.
Now, in my 73 years of life, I know if you guys are looking at my photo, you'll say, oh, this guy must be in his early 40s or late 30s at the most.
But in my 73 years of life, I have not come up with a moral reason For doing that.
Let's go to Larry from Winterhaven, Florida.
Welcome to the show, Larry.
Hey, Dr. Williams.
Hi.
Privilege and a pleasure to speak with you.
I'm a fan of yours.
Uh read your articles whenever I can.
No, thank you.
I I've never heard anything about the thing.
And by the way, folks, you can also read my articles in a new book that I have.
It's called Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism.
But I'll come back to that a little bit later on.
I've never heard anybody speak about the two specific different words in the Constitution.
It says provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.
They use those two words for a specific reason, I imagine.
Well, what what are your thoughts on that?
Well, uh, yeah, and I and I think that when they when they said promote the general welfare, I think that they meant that the government should be doing things that benefit all Americans except uh uh and not specific Americans.
Like, for example, national defense benefits all Americans.
You benefit from national offense and I beneficial benefit from a national offense.
But getting but getting your leg, but getting your leg, your broken leg fixed, I don't benefit from having your broken leg fixed at all because I don't care about your broken leg, and neither do you care about my broken leg.
So the general welfare, I believe it meant that those things to help all Americans, that is their public goods, not private goods.
And and they support it like a like a fight promoter, promotes a uh a fight.
He he advertises it and he makes money off of that fight eventually.
Yeah.
And uh the the government can say how this is good for you, that's good for you, and tell us all about how wonderful it is, but not actually give it to us.
Like providing this.
You're right.
Thanks for calling it.
Now, matter of fact, so far as as this legalized theft is concerned, I think I would be more happy with uh a thief taking my money rather than a congressman.
See, a thief will take your money and be on his way.
A congressman will take your money and then there then stand in front of you and bore you with the reasons why you should be happy about his taking your money.
That's the difference between a thief and a congressman.
Let's go uh let's take a break and then uh we'll come back with more of your calls after this.
We're back, and it's Walter Williams sitting in for Rush, who will be back on Tuesday, but best of on Monday.
And by the way, when Larry was on, I was mentioning my uh my book, it's a collection of my uh syndicated columns and some other good stuff as well.
And you can get it either from going to my website, Walter E. Williams.com and then clicking at the bottom uh for the Hoover Institution, or even go to Amazon.com and it's probably carried in some other places as well.
Uh let's go back to the phones, and there's Mark from the home of Harry S. Truman in Independence, Missouri.
Where unfortunately the Medicare bill was signed in 1965.
But as uh you have pointed out, Walter, there is a hundred trillion plus unfunded liability for all these government programs.
And the only way I see to return to the Constitution and get out of this debt is not to alter them, but at least begin to dissolve them.
And studies have shown that people might be better off anyway.
I've I read that the poor and elderly and even U.S. health care in general were better off before Medicare and Medicaid.
Uh do you see a way out of this myth?
And would it even be possible to dream to begin to dissolve some of them?
And what's going to happen when some of this unfunded liability starts to come due?
Well, if the uh actually he's saying uh the unfunded liability is all the promises that government made and uh and the obligations and at I think just Social Security Medicare and prescription drugs comes to like a hundred and one trillion dollars of unfunded uh liability.
Look, I uh Mark, I I don't know what's going what we're gonna do.
That is one of the questions, one of the issues is that we we may be like other great nations of the past, other great nations uh like Rome and and Great Britain and go down the tube.
Uh now there's a group of people there you there's kind of a wild hope or a remote possibility.
There's a group of young people, they call themselves Free State Project.org.
And these young people are trying to get twenty thousand Americans to move to the state of New Hampshire and peaceably take over the political system, you know, through uh voting and things like that, and elect their own congressmen and senators.
And then having done So they wish they want to try to negotiate with the United States Congress to obey the United States Constitution.
Now, some members of the group, not all of them, some members of the group say if they can't get Congress to obey the United States Constitution, they're going to issue a unilateral declaration of independence, become a separate nation.
Now, uh I I don't know whether that's going to work.
The last time it didn't work, but the first time in 1776, it did work.
And so I think we're batting 500, and I'd like to see whether we could break the tie with whether we could have a sovereign nation.
But look, folks, the next hour is very important.
I have my colleague and very good friend, Dr. Thomas Sowell.
He's going to be in uh in and on the show talking about his new book, The Housing Boom and Bust, and how government is responsible for it.
▲
Export Selection