All Episodes
Previous Next
May 25, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:27
May 25, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
That is absolutely right.
And it is absolutely right that the ladies wish that there were hundreds, perhaps thousands of him.
Anyway, I left you folks the last hour.
For those of you just tuning in, you really miss a really, really good education, I think.
And the education was by the callers and me.
Okay, okay, so the last question, the question I left you with for the last hour, for this hour, is if one group of Americans prefers government to control and manage other people's lives, and another group of Americans prefer liberty and they have a desire to be left alone, should these two groups be forced to fight one another, antagonize one another,
risk bloodshed, loss of life, in order to impose their preferences, or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?
Now, I feel, or I think, that our nation, the problem our nation faces is very much like that of a marriage, where one couple, or one partner, rather, has broken and has no intention of keeping the marital vows.
Now, of course, the marriage can remain intact, and one party tries to impose his will on the other, engage in devious behavior, or one party just be submissive or subject themselves to domestic violence.
I think a more reasonable alternative, a more peaceful one, a peaceable one, is separation.
Just get divorced.
Now, I believe that we're nearing a point in America where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone, that separation is looking like the only peaceable alternatives.
And just as in marriage where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution have been grossly violated by a government that was instituted to protect them.
The Democrat-controlled Washington is simply just an escalation of a process that has been in full stride for at least two or three decades.
And there's, for me, and I'd like to be corrected on this, there's no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support the abrogation of our Constitution have any intention of mending their ways.
I don't see any evidence whatsoever.
Now, so you say, well, Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?
Well, just read the Constitution.
Look at some of the magnitude of the violations.
And if you look at Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, it lists the activities for which Congress can tax and spend for.
And nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank bailouts, business bailouts, food stamps, and other activities that represent about two-thirds of all that the Congress spends money on.
James Madison, as I mentioned last hour, James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, he explained in Federalist Paper 45 that the powers delegated, and I'm actually reading what he said in Federalist 45, he said, the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.
Those which are to remain to state governments are numerous and indefinite.
The former powers, those that we've given to the Congress or the federal government, are to be exercised principally on external objects such as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.
The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives and liberties and the properties of the people and the internal order and improvement and prosperity of the state.
And that's the end of the quotation.
Now, if you turn that upside down, you have what we have today.
That is the powers of the federal government are unlimited.
They can just do anything.
Now, that's right.
Kitt said, who would have signed the Constitution for that?
And matter of fact, the Constitution of the United States would have never been ratified if the states did not believe that they could just secede.
Now, keep in mind that a little bit of the history here, that in 1783, the Treaty of Paris was written that ended the war between the colonies and Great Britain.
And if you read the Treaty of Paris, it says that there are 13 sovereign nations.
These are 13 sovereign nations.
And they came together as principles and made the federal government their agent.
And principals can always fire agents.
But see, a lot of Americans, they say, well, Williams, all these things you disagree with, well, you recognize, you know, you have to recognize that we are a democracy and majority rules.
Well, first I try to tell that person, the founders did not intend for us to be a democracy.
Matter of fact, they found the idea of democracy utterly offensive.
And if you read the writings of John Adams, Madison, Jefferson, they talk about a democracy leading to failure.
They wanted a republic.
And you get evidence of this.
I mean, he asked the question, when we say, when we pledge allegiance to the flag, is it, do we pledge allegiance for the democracy for which it stands?
Do we sing the battle hymn of the democracy?
That is, the founders, matter of fact, in our founding documents, you don't even find the word democracy.
And majority rule is just tyranny of the majority.
It's nothing more than tyranny.
I mean, here's a question.
For those of you who don't believe me, or question, suppose we have two alternatives for Thanksgiving dinner.
We can have ham or we can have turkey.
How would you like for that to be decided by a majority rule?
That is, the majority says, okay, we don't have turkey and ham is illegal.
You find that offensive.
Matter of fact, if we said, well, the majority is going to decide what kind of cars we're going to buy, you find that offensive.
So why isn't it also offensive that a majority is going to decide what kind of medical care you're going to have or how we should use our property?
That should be offensive as well.
But, you know, part of this push in America, it represents, it represents a misunderstanding of the economy and misunderstanding of political principles.
You know, a lot of people say, well, gee, the kind of freedom you expect, Williams, you know, like a laissez-faire or capitalism, that favors the rich and is against the poor.
Well, that is utter nonsense.
That is, the free markets benefit the poor people far more than regulated markets.
Here's a little test for you.
Go to a poor neighborhood, say in Harlem, Brooklyn, Bronx, you know, North Philadelphia.
And you walk around that neighborhood, you'll see some nice cars, some nice booze, some nice clothing, some nice food, but no nice schools.
How come at least some nice schools?
Well, it depends on how cars, clothing, and booze is distributed versus how schools are distributed.
Cars, clothing, and booze are distributed by the market mechanism, where my dollar is just as good as anybody else's dollar.
I just don't have as many of them.
But schools are distributed by the political mechanism.
And in many cases, my vote is not as good as a rich man's vote.
So if you look at the basic problems, actually, you don't have to look at poor people.
If you look at the basic problems, you ask the question, look, in which areas of our lives are we the most satisfied with where we have the fewest complaints, where there are the fewest demonstrations and boycotts.
Well, you don't see anybody upset about clothing stores.
People, you don't see them upset about supermarkets.
We're very happy.
Our supermarkets, our computer stores, our video stores.
What's the characteristic of all these?
There's the profit motive.
That is people out there to make a profit.
Where do we have great problems in our society?
It's in the non-profit sector.
Okay, where do people complain?
They complain about the government schools, so-called public schools.
They complain about the post office.
They complain about the motor vehicle department.
They complain about the police services.
That is, because, and why do they get, why do they have these complaints?
Because there's no profit motive.
That is, people there are, they get paid whether people like what they're doing or not, but not at the supermarket.
At the supermarket, you have power.
You can fire that person at the supermarket instantaneously by taking your business elsewhere.
But you cannot fire the teacher or the principal or the rotten school that your kid is going to.
So in my book, I think that the market is pro-the common man.
We'll be back with more explanations after this.
Walter Williams here, sitting in for Rush, who is resting on vacation.
And we're talking about parting company, and we're talking about whether the free market is pro-rich or pro-poor.
And let's go to the phones and talk to Scott.
Welcome to the show, Scott.
Hi, Mr. Williams.
Hi.
I'm with you on the divorce analogy to a point because I just think that we're all sort of looking at the left and the same boy, just leave us alone.
But, you know, bad things happen when people get divorces.
And it doesn't have to happen.
You know, if the one side is trying, it doesn't want to leave you alone, they're going to come after you.
Last time we tried this, you know, the Union Army came after the South and a whole lot of people died.
Well, look, first, let me state, my preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation.
That is my preference.
But however, I would rush to point out that there can be peaceful resolution.
That is, our first secession was violent, namely the one in 1776, where we seceded from England.
The second one was violent in 1861, where it's the war between the states.
But secession need not be violent.
For example, in 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden.
In 1903, Panama seceded from Columbia.
And in 1863, somewhat ironically, West Virginia seceded from Virginia.
And guess who helped West Virginia in 1863 secede from West Virginia?
From Virginia.
Huh?
I don't know.
Abraham Lincoln.
Abraham Lincoln, who said states cannot secede.
But he helped West Virginia to see.
And matter of fact, what a lot of people don't know is that the first secessionist movement in the United States was in the New England states.
And they were upset with Thomas Jefferson over the Louisiana Purchase.
They held it was unconstitutional.
And also, I believe that they were afraid of their power being diluted By the states that would enter under the within the Louisiana Purchase coming in as slave states as opposed to free states and thereby dilute some of their power.
So, so, but however, I think that let me stress again, let me stress again, that my preference is for a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation.
I believe that Congress ought to obey the United States Constitution and give you an idea of the level of contempt that Congress has for the Constitution, and it just might really reflect their constituents, the level of consent, contempt that constituents of these congressmen have for the Constitution, is that a congressman, John Shaddig, he's from Arizona, and he's been in Congress since 1995,
and every new session of Congress, he introduces the Enumerated Powers Act.
And if the Enumerated Powers Act, you should Google it, it's a very simple act, and I think it has no more than three or four sentences.
It says that in order for Congress to enact a bill, a law, they have to specifically point to the phrase or the authority in the United States Constitution that gives them authority to do that, to make such a law.
Well, it's the commerce clause, of course.
Oh, well, well, you know what?
Right.
But they have to specifically point to it.
And the maximum number of co-sponsors it has ever had in the House, I believe is like 50.
And it never had a co-sponsor in the Senate up until a couple of years ago.
And I think they might have 20.
I'm not sure on the numbers.
But here are men and women who put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold and defend the United States Constitution.
And they have utter contempt for the United States Constitution.
But I'm not going to blame them too much because I used to hold politicians responsible until in the 1980s I had a lunch with Jesse Helms.
He and I were friends.
And he said, Walter, I know you're very critical of these farm subsidies.
And he says, and I think you're absolutely right.
But could you tell me how I can remain senator from North Carolina and vote against them?
Because if I do what you say I should do, these people in North Carolina are going to run me out of town on the rail and they're going to vote in somebody worse than I am.
And that was kind of an epiphany for me because I had to ask myself, is it reasonable for us to expect a politician to commit what the politician considers to be political suicide?
That is.
When the whole country is addicted to these handouts.
That is absolutely right.
And that's what I said in the last hour.
I said that if any of these, and it's a sad thing to say about the American people, and that is, if any of these men who were at the founding of this nation, Madison, Payne, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, if any of these guys were running for high office today, that the American people would run them out of town on the rail.
They just have utter contempt for the values expressed.
Now, if you want to look at some of the values, I have a quotation page on my website, walterwilliams.com, and just read some of the statements of the founders.
And you'll see that the Americans of today would find those statements and values offensive.
We'll be back after these few words.
Walter Williams continuing.
Let me just read one quotation and then I'm going to change the topic a little bit.
And that's to give you an idea of or some credence to my statement that if any of these founders were coming back today and running for high political office, the American people would run them out of town on the rail.
Now here's, now we recognize that James Madison is the acknowledged father of the Constitution.
And in 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 to help some French refugees.
James Madison stood on the floor of the House irate and he said, and I quote, I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending on the objects of benevolence the money of their constituents.
Now, you look at the federal budget today, two-thirds to three-quarters of it is spent on the objects of benevolence.
Now, can you imagine, do you think with saying something like that, do you think James Madison could get elected to the presidency today, where he was a president?
Kit Carson said he'd win in Texas, and he just might.
There's a level of rebellion in Texas that I'd like.
I think the level of rebellion in Texas has gone down some.
Because years ago, I used to go there and give a lecture at UT and Austin or either Texas AM.
And I saw so many trucks with gun racks in them.
And I just kind of knew when I was on the airplane, I said, you know, by the time I get back to Philadelphia, I'm going to hear that Texas has seceded from the Union.
But I don't see that level of rebellion in Texas anymore.
Okay, let's switch a little bit because I said one of the topics for this hour was I was talking about how the market is pro the common man and the poor do better in markets rather than regulated activities.
And here's something, kind of a test or an idea for you to think about.
I imagine that Walter Williams only has $11.
Well, I can compete with Bill Gates with my $11 and I can beat him.
You don't believe me?
Okay, let's imagine there's an auction and we're bidding, Bill Gates and I were bidding for a pound of steak.
And Bill Gates says, I bid 20.
Then I say, I bid 11 for half of it.
I've beaten him, haven't I?
And the guy who's selling the steak, who do you think he would rather sell the steak?
To two poor people who have $11 each or Bill Gates?
Now, Bill Gates can say, well, I bid $40.
I bid $11 for a quarter of it.
Now, the point I'm making is that in the free market, if you're poor, at least you can get some of what you want.
Now, for example, take me and Bill Gates.
Bill Gates can buy a yacht and be on the yacht all the time.
I can get the yacht for an hour.
I can rent it for an hour.
I can get a Rolls-Royce.
Bill Gates might have a Rolls-Royce.
I can get a Rolls-Royce.
I can rent a Rolls-Royce.
That is, in the free market, you can get some of what you want.
And the market caters to the common man.
Just ask yourself, who do you think got richer?
The people who produce Rolls-Royce's or the people who produce Fords?
It's the people who produce Fords.
They got richer because they were catering to the common man.
What record companies sell more records?
Are they the records companies that sell Pavrati records or Michael Jackson records?
Now, a lot of people in the free market, wealthy people, who want to hear poverty, they rip off the common man through the public broadcasting system so that they can hear poverty.
The market is not going to provide what they consider the optimal level of poverty.
So, and then open markets benefit the poor in another way.
Right now, I'm in New York.
Now, for a person, an economic opportunity for a poor person, let's say in New York City, is to be able to go out and buy a car, a used car, and get into the taxicab business and be able to make money to support his family.
But in New York, he has to get a license in order to own and operate a taxi.
They call it a medallion up here.
And in May, I haven't kept up with the recent figures.
In May 2007, a medallion was selling for close to $600,000.
That is a license to own and operate one taxi close to $600,000.
Well, what's the effect of a licensing law that generates a $600,000 license price?
Well, it tends to discriminate against people getting in the cab business who don't have $600,000 lying around.
And who are the people who don't have $600,000 lying around?
They're poor people.
Or they can't get a loan.
Matter of fact, there's, I think it's called the Medallion Loan Trust Company in New York that sells mortgages for taxi licenses, or they grant mortgage or big loans for taxi licenses.
Now, that's ripping off people.
I think that's unfair government activity.
And while New York is the most egregious case of the licensing, licensing exists in many other cities as well.
That is, people who are already in have the desire to cut off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder for those who are outside.
And so free markets, free markets are what poor people need.
And let me just, before I go to the phone, let me just give you an idea of a free market.
Free markets or laissez-faire capitalism, it refers to an economic system where there's no government interference except to outlaw and prosecute fraud and coercion.
Now, do we have a free market system in the United States?
No, we don't.
There's extensive government interference.
Whether it's good or bad, the fact is, is that there are extensive government interference.
Let's talk to Ferris from Hartford, Connecticut.
Welcome to the show.
I always hang on your every word, but I can't come up with any of my own to express my regard and gratefulness for you being on there.
Oh, thank you.
Thank you very much.
You know, those Fords you were talking about, Doc Williams.
My wife is proceeding south on Route 8 in one of those Fords, and she's probably hearing this saying good things about you and not too good things about me.
Why?
Well, because she didn't have the opportunity, of course, to become Mrs. Williams, and she doesn't know how blessed that she is by not being in that position.
What?
By not being in that position.
Well, that's right.
She has had the good fortune to be married to me for some 40-plus years.
Oh, very good.
Wouldn't understand that.
And I'm sorry to say that Mrs. Williams passed away in December 2007, but we had 48 marriage, 48 years of marriage, and we did very well.
We started out poor.
Well, God bless you and her, and you always refer to her and you continue to, and that's one of the reasons why we're always glad to hear you on the radio.
But you just stole my thunder.
I just wanted to answer your question about the fact that truly free markets are without a doubt pro-poor because of the economies and the increase in value that they provide to lower-income consumers.
That's absolutely right.
And I think one of the things you have to recognize, look, Rockefeller and Guggenheim, they did not start out rich.
Neither did Andrew Carnegie.
Matter of fact, Carnegie worked as a bobbin boy changing spools at a cotton mill 12 hours a day, six days a week for $1.20 a week.
Rockefeller started out as a clerk.
Guggenheim started out as a peddler.
And Sam Walton milked the family's cows.
Andrew Mellon, he had a leg up.
His father was a lawyer and a banker.
Sears and Roebuck, they didn't start out well.
You know, they didn't start out rich.
One of the great things about our country that we have to preserve, and that is just because you know where a person ended up in life, you can't be sure about where he started.
That is, there's so much mobility in our country, and I'm afraid that we're going to lose it.
Thanks for calling, and we'll be back with more of your calls after this.
Yes, it's Walt Williams, and I'm back.
And matter of fact, I forgot to tell you people that you can just go to my website, and I have the book that carries a lot of my columns, selected collection of my columns, it's called Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism, and you can get it.
And I made the publisher, because I want a lot of people to be able to get it, chart a very low price.
So anyway, if you want to catch up with my columns.
Then I have a couple books coming out later this year.
One is very exciting.
It's about my autobiography, how this sweet little boy from Poor Neighborhood became a host on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Anyway, let's go to Jason in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Welcome to the show, Jason.
Good to be here, Dr. Williams.
Yes, what was your question?
Well, let me start out that I've been in business for 18 years.
I quit college in 1992 to start my business.
I went back in 2001.
I finished associates and two bachelor's degrees.
So, you know, I've started off from a very low, a very low means, you know, like a horse family.
But I think there are places for licensing and for government regulations.
What do you think about the cab company and the cab license in New York?
Well, that's horrible.
I mean, for $600,000, but like my business, it's a very dangerous business, and it doesn't take much to get into it.
You can get a lot of equipment and make a lot of money or whatever.
Some of the richest companies do it all over the nation.
This is highly fragmented.
But when you get into it, you can not have workers comp, not pay Social Security taxes, declare people as, you know, as subcontractors.
So I think they should license people, make them prove they have insurance.
Well, stuff like that.
Well, keep in mind, Jason, that for the time when we were growing and became a great nation, we didn't have all these licensing regulations.
Right.
We did not have all these other.
And I'm saying, if we had them back in 1800, if we had what you say it should be, we would have been a third world country now because it would have stifled economic growth.
Without the industrial revolution, I agree.
But we have to do it.
No, no, no, no.
What I'm saying, with all the licensing regulations, because we didn't have workmen's compensation until, what is it, 1930s?
But what are we going to do?
If somebody gets injured, we're just going to leave them destitute with their families.
Well, you have to ask the question.
What did we do?
Well, we left them.
No, their families took care of them.
I mean, so instead of government taking care of them, their families took care of them.
You know, before people say, well, you just have to have food stamps to stop people from starving.
You'd probably say that too, wouldn't you, Jason?
No, I disagree with food stamps.
Yeah, right.
Okay, very good.
I'm very happy about that because I would have asked you, if food stamps were absolutely necessary, what in the world did the poor Irish do who did do, who were fleeing the potato famine in the 1840s?
When they got to Ellis Island, was somebody distributing food stamps?
No, and we had soup kitchens, but that's part of why we're our Christian nation.
That's part of the Christian ethic, the Judeo-Christian ethic.
That's right.
We're the most generous people on the face of this earth.
I believe the number is, and I don't have the source.
I believe the number is, is that Americans do 80% of all world giving.
Right.
And that is, this generosity has always been a characteristic of us.
That is, the charitable foundations began in the United States.
The Carnegie, the Rockefeller, the Fords, and all, you know, Guggenheim foundations, they all started in the United States.
And matter of fact, when foreigners are raising money for various deals, private or public-spirited events, where do you think they come to raise money?
Here.
They come here.
Yeah.
They don't get it from Sweden or in Germany because what the people say in Germany say, look, I pay taxes.
I'm not going to give you anything.
But, I mean, I understand ideally, but like what I'm saying about certain insurances you have to have, I think people should be proven to have it.
I also believe we don't want it.
Like, we don't want child pornography, obviously.
We don't want child labor, so we do have to regulate.
Well, why don't you want child labor?
I want my kids to go to school and get an education.
I don't want them to have to go to work for my school.
But suppose the family is for, suppose the family is poor and they need the money.
But then they're going to be uneducated, Walter.
Well, it's better to be uneducated than starve to death.
Well, we're not going to agree on that.
I think that's part of what made our country great.
And then you say.
Well, you know what?
Child labor laws that protect kids that used to protect kids from working in mines, they now protect them from working in air-conditioned offices, the same laws.
And then people say, oh, well, what Jason from Wayne also said in his little note, well, we have illicit drugs.
Well, we've had a war on poverty since the 1990s.
Have we won?
Have we won?
And matter of fact, I asked during a great big celebration when George Bush first mentioned it, he said, I asked him, mankind has been trying to get rid of drugs, prostitution, and gambling since before Christ.
Are you saying, and it's been a failure, are you saying that the Bush administration will succeed where mankind has failed in centuries past?
We'll be back.
We're back and we're winding up a learning session.
And you remember I said that the free market is pro the poor, and that is you go to poor neighbors, you see some nice cars, some nice clothing, some nice booze.
I said, no nice schools.
But I was absolutely wrong about that because you do see some nice schools.
And what's the characteristic of some nice schools?
That they're privately owned, such as Marva Collins Preparatory School, Marcus Garvey School in Los Angeles, and Ivy Leaf School in Philadelphia.
So look, ladies and gentlemen, if you care about poor people, as so many people say they do, then you have to be for the market and against the government.
We will be back.
Who's on tomorrow?
Oh, Russia's on tomorrow.
Okay, great.
▲
Export Selection