All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 12, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:33
November 12, 2010, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
How many of you have had to cut your budgets how many times over the course of your lives?
Far more than 10%.
And I think you're still alive.
And I think you're still eating.
And I think you were able to then come back and replace it at some point because financial circumstances are always in flux and fluid.
Who's to say, I mean, the simplest way to do this is the best way.
You start nibbling around, we're going to cut 10% here.
We're going to eliminate that.
No, just cut everything 10%.
Cut every, including defense.
Cut everything across the board 10%.
And I know it's going to happen.
The teachers, the firemen, the policemen, all of these people are going to raise holy hell.
All the public employees are going to raise holy hell because they're not going to see any cuts in the private sector.
Well, there will be cuts in the private sector because how many people in the private sector are living off the public sector?
Not just the public sector employees, but there are a lot of sponges that are living off of it.
But I mean, it is ridiculous to believe that we cannot cut 10% in every budget.
And once you do that, and then people see that the earth doesn't end, the sky doesn't fall, then you can get even more serious about it.
The private sector, by the way, if you want to, the private sector has already been cut far more than 10% by the public sector.
What do you think 17% unemployment is?
What do you think left-wing economic policies have caused?
Left-wing economic policies are causing great harm to the private sector of this country.
Left-wing social policy is destroying the lives of everybody those policies touch.
Left-wing Democrat Party, liberal, whatever you want to call it, social policy is robbing every beneficiary of the opportunity to be all that he or she can be.
And it's being done on purpose to create dependence, to create incompetence, to create need.
And the truly offensive part is the people doing this claim to be doing it out of compassion when they are nothing more than destroyers.
The idea that look at the federal budget that we have.
The idea we can't cut 10%.
The idea we can't go back to 2008 budget levels.
The country would end.
The country's on the way to ending the way we're going.
We don't have the money we're spending anyway.
All I'm saying is if we're serious about this, we're serious about it.
And we've got to make this debate on our terms.
The compromise have to be on our terms.
You know something?
Look at that deficit commission panel.
One in there in their introduction and a preamble, whatever you want to call it, that sounds like Reagan.
They talk about simplifying the tax code.
Go down to three rates, three brackets, broaden the base and so forth.
Exactly.
Do it.
Eliminate the IRS.
Instead, why do we need 16,000 new IRS agents for Obamacare?
Is that what we need?
Do we want that?
Do we want that?
Do we want 16,000 new IRS agents or do we want to eliminate the IRS and institute a much simpler fair or flat tax?
We argue about what kind it is.
There are people that believe fair tax is better than a flat tax or what have you.
But simplification is the way to go.
Make them defend this.
That's all I'm saying.
I don't see how we can lose if they are forced to defend this.
Now, there are many people on our side, part of ruling class, are going to end up having to defend it.
When I say on our side, they are Republicans.
But there is a left-wing shadow government that is running our lives in this country, and it's got to be defunded.
And these people have to start fending for themselves.
Everybody else fends for themselves.
Why do these people not have to?
How come so many people in this country get to feed off of us?
Where is it written that because of their so-called good works, their philanthropic nature, why is it they get to feed off of us?
Where is that written?
It isn't.
Make them feed themselves.
Make them become self-feeders.
Or better yet, we'll feed off of them for a while.
Let them see how it feels.
I'm just saying, folks, that it's a it's a it's a if we're dead serious about this, this is what we're looking at.
And it really isn't that hard.
The UK is doing 10% across-the-board cuts now.
France and Germany are soon going to follow.
Yeah, we might have riots and protests, but you see who's rioting and protesting.
That's going to happen anyway at the bare mention of cuts, even before they happen.
But I'm I have a whole different attitude about the public protesters that are protesting in essence for more freebies.
I'm happy for them to suffer pain.
You know, I just, I'm getting sick and tired of these people thinking they're entitled to feed off of everybody else, that they're entitled to a life of no charges and no costs simply because of.
Well, now you may think that's cruel, but the people in this country who are not depending on everybody else to eat are experiencing pain of their own.
They're losing their jobs.
They're losing their freedom.
They're losing their liberty because of people like these sponges and others.
And it's a sad thing.
The sponges are being created by the Democrat Party and the American left.
People are being born sponges.
Look at this.
This is Alan Fram, Associated Press.
I predicted this.
People back Republican tax cut plans, but not the GOP campaign to repeal Obama's health care overhaul, according to a poll suggesting the Republicans' big election day win was not a mandate for the party's legislative wish list.
Did I not tell you you're going to see this?
That the election didn't mean what it means.
The election doesn't mean what it meant.
The American people do not want health care repealed.
The American people do not want the budget downsized.
The American people do want their tax cuts.
And AP has come out with a poll.
And that's the headline.
Public backs GOP on taxes, but not health.
And then we go to thehill.com.
Charles Grassley, health repeal will die in the Senate, trying to depress us.
GOP Senator Charles Grassley, Iowa, admitted Wednesday that a full repeal of President Obama's health care law will die in the Senate.
Well, everybody knows that.
That isn't news.
That's not the point.
We know it's going to die in the Senate this year, but who's to say that it's going to continue to die as we get closer to the 2012 elections?
There is an ongoing effort by the interests on the left to make sure that the election results and returns are not about what they were about.
There's an effort out there to convince as many people as possible that overturning and repealing health care was not what this election was about when it most definitely was.
No, Mr. Limbaugh, no Mr. Limbaugh, says the new Castrati.
It's clear, Mr. Limbaugh, that the American people simply do not like the size of government.
They like the depth of the spending and they want to reduce.
And you can't fix any of that without getting rid of health care, Mr. New Castrati.
They are inexorably linked.
Speaking to Iowa radio station KCIM, Grassley conceded that Senate Republicans don't have the 60 votes necessary to force through a full repeal.
It's a non-story, but here it is a headline.
The Hill trying to make everybody depressed, think the Senate is selling you out, Senate Republicans selling you out, trying to make Grassley look like a rhino giving up already.
Grassley health repeal will die.
Non-story.
We know it's going to die in the Senate.
We didn't win the Senate.
That's not the point.
The point is make them defend it.
Welfare reform died three times on Clinton's desk until the fourth time when it didn't.
And we got it.
These things can happen.
Bobby Jindal has a new book, and I have a copy of it, autographed right over there.
Bobby Jindal's got a great new book, and he blasts Obama in this book over the BP oil spill.
He uses this book to portray Obama as disconnected from the spill.
He charges that he was more focused on the political aftermath and the actual impact of the crisis.
And if there's anybody that knows, it's Bobby Jindal because it was his state that was under assault by Obama, the federal government.
Bobby Jindal recounts a pair of private conversations with Obama that paint him as consumed with how his actions were being perceived.
On Obama's first trip to Louisiana after the BP spill, the governor describes how the president took him aside on the tarmac after arriving to complain about a letter that Jindal had sent to the administration requesting authorization for food stamps for those who had lost their jobs because of the spill.
As Jindal describes it, the letter was entirely routine, yet Obama was angry and concerned about looking bad.
You don't embarrass me by sending me a letter asking for food stamps.
I know enough to provide them.
You don't need to make me look like I have no heart and no compassion.
Careful, he quotes the president as warning him, quote, this is going to get bad for everyone, unquote, if you make it look like I don't care about people.
Nearby on the tarmac, Jindal recalls then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel was chewing out his own chief of staff, Timmy T. Pell.
If you have a problem, you pick up the effing phone, Jindal quotes Emmanuel telling T.Pell.
The governor asserts a White House had tipped off reporters to watch the exchange on the New Orleans tarmac that Sunday in May and deemed it a press stunt that symbolized what's wrong with Washington.
So the press have been tipped off by Obama.
We're going to get off the plane and we're going to tell these people to Louisiana what for.
And that's what it was made to look like.
And Jindal writes about it in the book.
And he talks about how this is symbolism over substance.
It's nothing's different here with this bunch.
In the meantime, Obama's got a drilling moratorium in place.
It's costing tens of thousands of jobs.
We know what we're dealing with.
Jindal writes, political posturing becomes more important than reality.
Bingo.
After Obama instituted the moratorium on offshore drilling, Jindal recounts that the president dismissed his concerns about the economic impact of the ban.
Jindal quotes Obama saying, look, I understand you need to say all this.
I understand you need to talk about the job losses I need.
I know you need to talk about how all this is, the moratorium is affecting you.
I know it's because you're facing political pressure.
I know you have to say this.
When Jindal said he was concerned about people losing their jobs, he was really concerned about it.
Not having to say it, he was really concerned about it.
He said that Obama cited national polls showing the people supported the ban.
I don't care, governor.
People may be losing their jobs, but I got national polling data that says that the American people support the drilling moratorium.
Jindal writes, the human element seemed invisible to the White House.
Now, they're not going to like that because this is what liberals rely on is this human element.
They care.
They are good people.
And Jindal recounts a story where Obama didn't give a rat's rear end that Louisiana people were out of work.
Cold and aloof.
Like walking past your wife on the stage after she makes you look like the biggest human being to ever walk the planet.
Cold and aloof.
Not cool.
Asked by Politico to respond to Jindal's assertions, Obama aides didn't directly address either conversation, but pointed to the president's overall response to the spill.
From day one, Obama directed his administration to work with state and local governments to respond to and help Gulf communities recover, said the White House.
No, they didn't.
They didn't get involved on day 53.
To the phones.
I know it's Openline Friday.
People have been on hold for over an hour and a half.
Time now to reward them, hopefully.
Starting in Northern Virginia with Will.
Great to have you, sir, and I appreciate your patience.
Hey, Rush, I'd like to ask your opinion later on something separate from what I'm calling about, if that's okay.
Yeah.
But to my point, you've been talking about cutting government.
I worked for the federal government for 10 years.
I'm a mid-level worker bee type.
You sound just like Harry Reid.
To me.
Well, as soon as...
Do me a favor, say this war is lost.
This war is lost.
Sound just like Harry Reid to me.
I know you're not.
I just you do.
I didn't mean to interrupt you.
Go ahead and make your point.
As soon as Obama took office, there was announcement after announcement after announcement for about a good year for high-paying, high-level jobs.
This is just in my agency now.
We're talking analyst types, IT types, program manager types.
Our mission, our responsibility, our workload, nothing changed.
We were getting along fine without these people, and people...
Wait, no, I want to make sure you understand.
These were, they were asking...
They were soliciting more employees, hiring more people.
Yeah, when I say announcement, that's the first step in the hiring process.
And these people have now been hired.
But why were they announcing it to you who already had a job?
No, they announce it like on USAID jobs.
Anytime a new job comes out, they have to announce it.
Okay, so what you're saying, as soon as he got into office, he won on a federal hiring spree.
Big time.
And like I said, there are all these high-level type jobs.
And these jobs, you can't really account for what they do or what their productivity is.
Unlike a guy like me, who you can, you know, there's a mechanism in place to track what we do and what our workload is.
So basically what I'm getting at is some of the people in my type of positions, not so much me, but the newer people with less seniority, they're kind of worried because, you know, people are talking about, hey, let's cut government employees, et cetera.
And I said there was just a flurry of hiring all these high-level, high-paying types.
But were they really doing any work or is it just patronage type stuff?
You know, from my level, we just kept looking at each other like, why are they hiring all these new people for these high-level jobs?
Because, like I said, we were getting along fine without them before Obama came in, and our mission didn't change.
Our workload didn't change, nothing.
So our guys were thinking, you know, we need to look into any new position, especially the high-level ones that were filled, not so much filling a vacancy when someone retired or left, but these were all just new poof.
They just popped up out of nowhere.
And there really isn't a need for them in our perspective.
We're trying to figure out how to do it.
Well, of course not from your perspective, but from Obama's.
I'm just reminded of a story that backs up what you're saying.
May 11th of this year, headline, Obama wants federal agencies to hit the gas on hiring.
This is even after the period of time where you saw it happening.
And this is exactly the kind of thing I've been talking about in the first hour and a half of the program of how these people build up the size of government.
And whether these new hires are doing anything or not, they are being paid.
And they're being paid.
So their vested interest is to protect the government.
And I'm sure it's patronage jobs.
I'm sure it's payoffs for campaign workers and who knows who else.
But it's probably, did these people show up for work?
Did you ever see them?
Well, I work in kind of a satellite office separate from headquarters where all these people are supposedly.
And I went down there actually for a conference, and there was a room full of them.
And they were just kind of, you know, during this conference discussing things, but not really.
Well, that's anecdotal.
I'm sure some of them were no-show jobs, but this is how you build the size of government, pure and simple.
There was no reason to hire these people.
There couldn't possibly have been.
Environmental Protection Agency saw a budget increase of 129% over two years.
Two years, the first two years of Obama, 129% increase.
Now, let me ask you a serious question.
In fact, I know most of you in this audience, I already know what your answer is going to be.
Why does the government have to be even half as large as it is?
What would be fun to do is go back and look at the size of the federal government.
And you can express that in any number of ways.
The size of the federal government as a percentage of GDP.
You could express it as a percentage of, or how many employees, or how many agencies, how many cabinet-level agents, how many bureaucracies and so forth.
But you go back, you go back and look at how small this government was before FDR.
You go back and look at it and then take a look at what's happened since FDR, since the Great Depression, since World War II.
It is 1,000 times the size it was.
Why is this necessary?
Stop and think of this.
Stop and think of all the resources, all the capital, all the production that's been taken out of the private sector and moved to the public sector.
This nation was already the economic engine that grew and propelled the world.
Think of how much larger it would have been over the last 50 years were it not for the left and the breaks and the impedance they put on it.
The great society, the war on poverty, OSHA, EPA, all of this rock gut stuff, what they've done to the National Education, NEA, the Education Department, whatever it is, whatever they're in charge of never happens.
The environment isn't cleaner.
We all know that education's not better.
But look at all the people.
Look at the humanity, the human beings.
If government weren't so big, where would they be?
They would have to feed themselves somewhere.
The creativity, the ingenuity, what would our private sector be?
How big, how productive would it be were it not for how big government has gotten?
Every other operation on earth has grown by becoming more efficient, by doing more with less.
Except the federal government has grown and grown and grown.
You've got a guy like Obama's elected, and the EPA budget grows 129%.
The budget for EPA, 129% in two years.
It's not because of any necessity.
It's because these people are sponges.
It's because they're unwilling to work for a living.
This has been a pet peeve of mine all week, the tipping point, seeing these protests over in the UK.
I have a big bugaboo about people wanting something from somebody else, not working for it for themselves, and feeling entitled.
It's just, I don't know, go through these periods of time where it really bothers me.
Other times I'm able to put it aside and not have it bother me so much, but this week it has really reared its head.
And I start looking at all the people out there that want to feed off everybody else.
And the way they approach it and the way they come at you as though you owe them because they're somehow better people because of the good works that they are doing.
And I just think of all of the lost productivity, all of the lost creativity and ingenuity that's resulted with the growth of government.
Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Limbaugh, you think government has no role?
No, of course not.
Don't go extreme on me here, but I guarantee you there's no justification for the Environmental Protection Agency budget growing 129% over two years, not during a recession.
There's no justification for it.
Not substantive lies, not issue, not economically.
This pure patronage.
This is pure partisan ideological growth of government.
And all those people get paid by all of us.
And they're not producing anything.
They're not contributing to the GPD or the GDP.
They're not contributing to the overall growth.
They are a drag on it.
They don't create wealth.
They confiscate it, redistribute it.
Like I say, this week has just really bugged me.
And it knows no bounds.
It knows no bounds whatsoever.
Here's Tyler in Toronto.
Is that right?
Toronto, California?
Toronto, Canada, Rush.
What is it, Montana or Canada?
Canada, yeah.
Canada.
Okay, Snerdley thinks that the zip code for Canada is CA.
Economically booming, Canada.
I was going to say, I never heard of a Toronto, California.
Anyway, well, welcome to you.
All right.
Thank you, Rush.
You bet.
Since this week, everyone has been talking about George W. Bush and analyzing his book, trying to figure out what his legacy will be, which I think will probably be a good one.
And since you spent some time up and close and personal with him, would you say that he is part of the ruling class or part of the country class?
Because in Code Villa's piece, which you read on air one day, he almost implied that Bush 41 and 43 may have been members of the ruling class.
Would you agree with that?
Well, depends on how you want to define Bush as a human being, as a person, is despised by the ruling class.
That's right, which is why I think then they saw him as stupid.
Yeah.
That's what happened with Reagan.
But he has the resume.
He's got Yale.
He's got Harvard NBA.
He's got the pedigree for ruling class, but they hate him.
That's right.
If you read his book, though, he almost holds the Ivy Leagues and the elite in some sort of contempt because I've always seen him trying to separate himself from them.
And I think that was probably the right thing to do because I think people respected him more because he tried to distance himself from them.
Well, he did, but I don't disagree with that at all.
But then the things that the president did that we would philosophically disagree with, establishing the Medicare Part B entitlement.
That's not what we do.
But we know why.
President, like Nixon, in many ways, succumbed to the notion of wanting to be liked.
We have OSHA because of Nixon wanting to be liked.
What else do we have, Nixon?
EPA because of affirmative action because Nixon wanted to be liked by these guys.
Immigration.
Now, the reason, and you may have forgotten this, but the reason that the president was for immigration was they had a dream.
Bush and Rove had a dream.
They were going to end the Democrat Party.
The Democrat Party was going to cease to exist.
They were going to make the Republican Party the melting pot for virtually everybody.
That was their objective.
They were true partisans.
And in that sense, they saw these potential citizens as Republicans if they got out in front of the issue.
So in that sense, you can question the result, but you might find the motive acceptable.
Some of you wouldn't.
Wage and price controls.
Thank you, President Nixon.
Went off a gold standard.
Goal because Nixon wanted to be liked by these guys.
So there's any number of things.
At the end of the day, as a man, as a human being, Bush is not a ruling class guy in any way, shape, man, or form.
He doesn't have the aura.
He doesn't have the mannerisms.
He doesn't have the aristocracy gene.
And he doesn't, yeah, he doesn't have the number one requirement for ruling class people, and that's disdain for the American people.
Your admission into the ruling class, if you can't convince the ruling class that you hold the average American in contempt, you're never going to be allowed in the club.
Detroit, Debbie, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Josh, what an honor to speak with you.
Your call screener asked me to get the background noise down a little bit because I'm teaching elementary art right now.
You're teaching elementary art right now.
Yes, and in our private Christian school, we can listen to you.
Well, that's refreshing, and it's an upper free to kids.
It is great.
I wanted to tell you about something that happened to me last night.
Wait, wait, wait.
Just a second.
Okay.
Just want to remind people, reinforce, reiterate something.
For those of you who knew Castrate, the left and the media, yes, she did say she's calling from a private Christian school where they can listen to the program.
I wanted to make sure that they heard that.
Okay, Debbie, keep on.
Well, Rush is an elementary school, though, so in the future, if you could just keep the language down a little bit.
Okay, hell yes, I will.
Thank you.
I wanted to tell you that last night my husband and I had the opportunity to go to a Ford fundraising function, and the keynote speaker was Alan Malally, the CEO and president of Ford Motor Company.
Right.
And afterwards, well, the format was such that they showed a video that my husband's company produced for Angels House, which is, anyway, it's an initiative for people that have some physical and mental challenges.
But at the end of it, Mr. Malally opened the floor up to people to have an opportunity to ask questions.
And it was really quite interesting to hear how wonderful things are doing in Ford Motor Company because of the different cuts that they've made and all the decisions that they've made to become profitable.
And then afterwards, I was able to go up to him and personally thank him for not taking government bailout money.
And what did he say?
Well, he just looked me right in the eye and just about gave me a high five, and he said, and me too.
Well, that's great.
It was interesting after he went through all of the history of how they had gotten to be financially profitable and how they approached the banks.
And they themselves borrowed $26 million so that they could do some more strategic moves to cut costs and to make better vehicles and to streamline them for the different countries that they're used in.
That he said now, year two now, that Ford Motor Company is going to have record profits.
So it just goes to show you that free market capitalism actually does work.
No question about it.
Every time it's tried.
Thanks, Debbie, for the call.
Steve in East Brunswick, New Jersey.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You guys.
I really appreciate what you do to inform and encourage the American public.
All I can say is push even harder and expose even more, if at all possible.
Now, I have a comment to make regarding this kid who was riding around with his bicycle with the American flag on the back, and he kind of got, you know, kicked down for it.
Look, I'm not that old.
I'm in my mid-30s.
When I was in public school, we had an American flag in every classroom, and we used to pledge allegiance to that flag.
Do we not do this in our classrooms anymore?
No.
In fact, in California, it appears that you can burn the flag, but you can't put it on the back of your bicycle.
That seems to be where we are in California with the flag.
Burn it, but don't display it.
James, somewhere in Arizona.
Great to have you on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hey, how are you doing, Rush?
Very well, thank you.
You're the second person of all people that I've been wanting to talk to.
You know who you come second to?
Who's that?
President Reagan.
President Raywell, thank you very much.
Yes, yes.
I appreciate it.
He's made a fantastic impression with me in the 80s when I was a young Air Force troop.
And I got to tell you, he made me proud to be American, and so do you.
Anyway, getting to the idea of cutting back to the federal government, you know, I am an employee as such, and it's very frustrating to witness the waste that seems to be an inundation within this entity that we serve.
Yeah, so you're saying you think it can be cut?
A lot of things can be eliminated.
Not just cut, eliminated.
Which is why I didn't want to tell your screener or have who I am announced nationally.
But anyways, a lot of things could be cut.
And I would recommend starting with a lot of the positions that have suddenly come about within the last year or two.
But again, I witnessed it and I see it, and it's just maddening.
And quite frankly, I would go on record by saying I would be happy to have my pay frozen, but I would put this under a condition.
If Congress enacts that, they need to freeze their own too.
They need to be the example of all of this stuff.
Well, more power to you.
10% across-the-board budget cut would include a 10% pay reduction.
Federal employees.
These are the kind of things, if we're serious, that are going to have to happen.
If we're not, then, you know, we just keep nibbling around the edges here in the margins and think we're going somewhere.
It's going to take, I think, a real concerted effort to do this, and there's going to be all kinds of caterwauling.
There's going to be people screaming like stuck pigs over it.
And that's when you have to have fortitude to stick to it.
And a lot of people don't.
The first signs of any pain, that people will cave and not want to be responsible for all that.
People are just conditioned here in our country.
There shouldn't be any suffering.
And that's understandable.
But we're not talking about suffering here.
We're talking about survival.
We all know that that's where we're survival as we were founded is what we're talking about.
We don't want to become a socialist country.
And make no mistake about it, that's what Obama is.
And they're going out of their way at this administration to do everything they can to cover that up.
They don't want to be known as socialists.
They try to impugn, laugh at, make fun of anybody who calls them that.
And the reason they don't want to be called that is because it means something.
A socialist is what a socialist is.
It has a definite meaning, and it's not something they want to be thought of as.
Obama didn't run as a socialist.
He didn't run on a socialist agenda.
He did let it slip out a couple of times.
Joe the Plumber.
Oh, I think we spread the wealth around.
Look what happened.
Then they had to go investigate Joe the Plumber and try to turn him into a kook because Obama misspoke.
Well, that's exactly what we face.
And socialism is just a step down another road or down the road to something even worse.
At some point, we're going to have to be serious about stopping and then going the other direction.
It can be done.
Just a matter of are we going to have the guts to stick with it once we start it?
Here's just one example, and there are countless examples like this.
Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood got $350 million in tax dollars in his fiscal year that ended June 30th, 2008.
And the president of Planned Parenthood was paid $385,000 a year.
That's all from your tax money.
Why should Planned Parenthood be supported by you?
▲
Export Selection