All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 14, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:04
December 14, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, if we got to get rid of labels, can we say Merry Christmas anymore?
No.
I mean, taking these people literally, and as you know, I live in Litteralville.
Great to have you back.
I'm Rush Limbaugh.
You know that.
This is the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
This no labels bunch, this is, I think, a last-ditch effort here.
They're going to, if we do this right, we can discredit this whole mindset of the moderate center being the defining group in American politics.
Because this no labels group is going to end up illustrating what a fraudulent idea that whole concept is.
That there are people who decide issue by issue.
On the left, they like certain things.
On the right, they like certain things.
And they want to matter at the table.
And Piper partisanship is asynchronous.
This is just code lingo for they lost the last election and that liberalism has been discredited.
Now, this no labels bunch, and yeah, this does matter a lot to me because this is all about electoral politics.
This is all about liberals trying to reinvent themselves and come back to life in the midst of a shellacking.
And they're on the ropes here if we don't let up and if this is done right.
And people understand because this no labels are going to be attractive to some people.
You know, the people, you know them, they don't like the bickering.
They don't like confrontation.
They just don't like the argument.
They just wish we could all get along.
It's not the fighting.
Please, I don't want to, please, stop.
They're going to be sucked in by this.
They have to know that they're being sucked in and they're suckers.
That it's not possible.
None of what this group advocates is possible.
This is the mindset that leads to a president and a general unwilling to admit to Fort Hood soldiers who just killed 13 of their buddies.
This is the mindset that leads people stealing nativity scenes from the fronts of Christian churches.
This is the mindset we can't keep score.
This is the mindset we can't offend.
This is the mindset we got to get rid of dodgeballs.
Too dangerous.
This is the mindset that wants to take all conflict and controversy out of life, which is not possible.
But more than that, they're just liberals who've been defeated and they're trying to reinvent themselves with a new label now since liberal, Democrat, progressive has been so shellacked.
Five years after Washington state residents voted to ban smoking cigarettes, cigars, and pipes in public places, King County now adds to, well, wants to add one more thing to the banned list.
Electronic cigarettes.
Wait till you hear why.
The 2006 state law banned smoking in bars and restaurants on the basis that secondhand smoke causes cancer and other diseases.
Secondhand.
It doesn't.
It's not to say it doesn't make people uncomfortable.
It doesn't say that.
Of course, I think it's largely in people's minds, but I don't even want to go there because I'm going to win that argument with people.
You get it in your head that somebody smoking a cigarette 25 or 30 feet away from you makes you feel bad.
I'm not going to be able to talk you out of it.
I'm not a shrink.
So, secondhand smoke.
They're going to get rid of all cigarettes, all pipes, all the cigars in public places.
King County's rationale for adding e-cigarettes is a little different.
E-cigarettes, from which users inhale vaporized nicotine, don't emit smoke.
They produce water vapor.
It doesn't smell.
It's combustion-free.
There's no flame.
There's no fire.
There's no tobacco.
Nothing is burning.
There's just a liquid in the nicotine cartridge that screws onto the battery.
The battery is what looks like the cigarette.
When you inhale, the battery powers the vapor or the atomizer inside the cartridge, and that turns the liquidized or liquefied nicotine into a water vapor that looks just like smoke.
They come in all kinds of different flavors, depending on from where you buy them.
And they're no different than nicotine gum or the nicotine patch.
It's a way for people to quit smoking tobacco.
They ought to be hailed.
They should be hailed and applauded by these people on the left who are so insistent that we stay safe and stay alive and don't die.
It's like Michelle Obama cares so much about what your kids eat that you cannot be allowed to make the decision.
We can't leave such important matters up to the parents, she said.
Well, same thing here.
Public health officials in the state of Washington say that e-cigs are so similar to the real thing that they make tobacco enforcement difficult and often prompt real smokers to think it's okay to light up in public.
And that leads to secondhand smoke, which means we ought to ban e-cigs.
Let me translate this for you.
Guy lights up an e-cig in a public place.
Cigarette smoker, so stupid and so idiotic, whoa, maybe you can smoke here.
Brings out his real cigarette and lights up.
People start dying left and right because there's secondhand smoke where there otherwise wouldn't be.
So we've got to ban e-cigs because they look too real.
Yes, the e-cig user is a conspirator to a crime, in essence, that doesn't exist.
Well, I've had, you know, I use these things occasionally, and I've had some funny experiences with them.
Last year, I was judging the Miss America pageant out in Las Vegas.
And I loved getting on the elevator with all the other judges and some of the Miss America pageant officials and pulling a thing out of my breast pocket, my jacket pocket, and start puffing.
And you could hear some people, I always be in the front of the elevator, everybody behind me.
You know, I can hear the gasps, hear the whispers.
He's smoking a cigarette.
What do we do?
He's smoking a cigarette.
Oh my God, what do we do?
You can't smoke it.
He's just an elevator.
I hear all this, and I keep puffing away.
And I turn around and I said, did you see me light it?
I pulled it out of my pocket.
Here, let me show you.
It's an e-cig.
It's just water vapor.
And I blow some very near somebody's face.
I smell it.
That's right.
It's not a cigarette.
And I let them in on the gag.
I just love pulling the thing out of an elevator and freaking people out like I just did you.
And they all start laughing like they're in on a joke.
I will do this in a restaurant, much to the chagrin of Catherine, simply because she knows I'm taunting people.
Nobody else fired up.
No, nobody else.
In fact, nobody.
Well, this past September, I was out in Hawaii on the big island.
And after shooting an episode of the Haney Project, by the way, we've got six of those in the can now.
And there are eight.
We've got two to go.
The last portion of last episode was shot Saturday in Hilton Head at a great, great place, Palmetto Golf Club.
Not Hilton Head Island.
It was about 54 degrees and raining all day long.
And it was a great day.
This is going to be people who watch the beginning of this show.
If you watch every episode, it starts January 11th, a half-hour show.
If you watch this, eight.
And we've got six in the can.
There are eight episodes.
And oh, I've been improving for the four episodes.
It's, it's, it's, oh, it's, it's fun.
This, this is, people are going to be shocked and they're going to be mad that I'm getting better.
But anyway, back to the story.
After shooting an episode in Hawaii on the big island, we shot it at a four seasons course there.
And the after-round interview with me and the producer and Hank Haney and some of my guys in the shoot, friends George Brett and Mike Hart, where they all were interviewed about my game and so forth.
We finished all that and we went to the bar.
Great outdoor bar, great four seasons bar of the big island.
And I whipped out my e-cig and I started smoking it for 10 minutes, total freedom.
And then the general manager came up, very sheepish, embarrassed, but he had to do his job.
Mr. Limbaugh, I know you're aware that no smoking allowed in public here.
And there are people eating over there.
And there were people eating about 20 yards away outside.
And I looked at him and I said, it's not a cigarette.
And I unscrewed the nicotine cartridge and I showed him the battery.
And I showed these people, they think it's a cigarette because the end of it lights up like looks like a cigarette at the end when you take a puff on it.
It's actually the battery indicator.
When it flashes three times, the battery's dead.
So I said, it's just water vapor.
And I explained and I exhaled some water vapor near him so he could smell it.
There wasn't any smelly.
Oh, that's fine.
Okay, fine.
So I continued to smoke.
He came back a short while later.
He said, Mr. Limbaugh, we're still getting some customer complaints.
I said, why?
Well, one woman says you look like you're enjoying yourself so much, and it could be setting a bad example for the children that are here with their parents.
You're looking like you really enjoy it, and it might be tempting children to want to smoke.
And I said, Who said this?
Oh, Mr. Limbaugh, I don't, it's one of one of our female patrons.
So I said, Well, I'll keep that in mind.
Keep that in mind.
And I put it down for a while and started looking around because you know, I have been trained now over these many years.
You can spot, I can spot those who are staring daggers at me.
So I did, I let some time go by.
I did not look at the crowd gathered after the general manager left.
In fact, I looked a little ticked off as part of the act so that whoever it was complaining would feel good.
Ah, we succeeded.
Limbaugh's ticked off.
So after about 10 more minutes, I started looking around and I found two or three really good suspects who it could have been.
I found two or three.
You recognize a genuine smile.
You recognize a smug stare.
And you recognize daggers.
They just do.
It's a matter of learned security procedure.
So when I thought I had figured out these top three, they were in different areas.
I picked it back up and took a puff facing each direction just to let them know that their happiness was temporary.
And the GM never showed up, didn't come back or anything.
And we left, I guess, another half.
We were there an hour and a half.
So we left about a half hour after that.
And, of course, all my buddies, there's nine of us there.
And they're all in on the joke.
I even gave one to Hartley.
Hartley started puffing on one.
So that ticked them off even more.
I just know it did.
I didn't see it.
Nobody came up and said so, but I just know it.
Folks, it's just me.
You know, these nannies, these people want to buck their noses into my life.
I wasn't hurting these people.
I wasn't harming anybody.
I was minding my own business, but they had to go and get the management, insert themselves into my affairs.
Fine.
You do that.
I'm going to behave a certain way.
Now, if I was breaking a law, if it was a cigarette, I would have never lit it up in the first place.
We all know you can't smoke in public.
I don't smoke cigarettes anyway.
I would not have lit one or lighted one, whatever the correct way to say it.
But here we are now in King County, Georgia, Washington.
It's all because they're going to ban these things, all because it might send a signal to real smokers that they can light up, and that will create secondhand smoke.
Co-conspirators to a crime not taking place.
King County, the place in Washington where you steal as many votes as you need if you're a Democrat, where they have more votes than voters, but don't dare light an e-cig.
It's like everybody all bit out of shape over that Jets coach.
That Jets coach, who tripped the Dolphins player.
By the way, he's been suspended for the rest of the season.
Fined $25,000, which is a big number for him.
Assistant coach at most will make $100,000 in the NFL at most.
So that $25,000 finds a big hit for this guy.
He's not a player.
And everybody's just outraged.
Horrible, but nobody gets us outraged over voter fraud or acorn or anything of the sort or now this.
So life is what it is, folks, and you got to take moments like this and make them as much fun as you can.
And there's no more fun than just taunting the left.
I mean, just hoisting them on their own petard.
I just love it.
Now, the story here says that some e-cigarette makers say their products don't contain nicotine.
The FDA says there's no way of knowing that for sure.
Yes, there is.
You give a steady smoker nicotine-free cartridges, and he'll know very, pretty quickly whether there's nicotine in there or not.
A quick way.
They make them all different strengths.
Some come with no nicotine.
Some come loaded with 16 milligrams.
Depends on what you want.
Maggie in Oregon, Ohio, you're next.
Great to have you with us on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Russ.
It's great to be here.
I want to say ahead of time, Merry Christmas to you.
Thank you.
I'll get to the point here.
I caught these two guys.
I wish I would have DVReded.
I didn't be more insightful, but I don't remember their names.
One was a Republican, one was a Democrat.
And Chris Wallace was interviewing them, and he interviewed them and then asked them, well, it sounds to me like you would vote for a Democrat.
And neither person could give him a straight answer.
So what is he talking to no labels people?
Is that what you mean?
Yeah, I'm sorry.
Yeah, the no-labels people.
He was talking to a couple of no-labels people.
When was this?
Sunday.
On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
No, it wasn't his show on Fox News Sunday.
It was just, he was just doing the news.
Oh, okay.
It was after Fox News Sunday with Chris.
Because he goes in over to the Fox News channel and does some stuff on Sunday.
So he had two no-labels guys on talking about no labels.
Right.
One was the Republican, the other was, I believe he was a Democrat.
Right.
And so he said to one of them, well, it sounds like you guys would vote for a Democrat, and he wouldn't answer him.
Yeah, they seemed real sheepish.
They didn't want to really answer him one way or the other, but that's how they came across.
Well, at some point, they're going to have to vote for somebody.
Even if they are no labels, they're going to have to vote for somebody because no labels does not have a candidate.
Who would be the no labels candidate?
They want it to be Bloomberg.
That's what they want because Bloomberg's a billionaire.
And these people, oh, Bloomberg, he's a perfect mark.
Bloomberg's out there talking about how the great center, da-da-da-da-da.
Oh, they think he would be easy to separate from his money.
And with a billionaire, just tell him what he wants to hear and make him pay you for the privilege.
But there's not going to be a candidate from the no labels party.
At some point, you're going to have to vote for a Republican or Democrat.
And that was a great question because these two guys did not want to admit they would vote Democrat.
Otherwise, they would have discredited the whole no-labels movement.
They're going to get caught if they're not already.
It's just, it's silly.
Bloomberg is only no labels because he didn't want to have to run the Democrat primary.
That's all.
He doesn't want it to run against Obama.
He doesn't want to challenge Obama.
He doesn't want to be a Republican because that's just, yuck.
So no labels is perfect for a guy like him.
But we know that he's not a no-labels guy.
We know that he's not a centrist.
We know that he's a hardcore liberal.
Ella in Waco, Texas.
Great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello, Rush.
Dittos to you.
Longtime listener.
Thank you.
I know you like sports, Rush.
And there's been a lot of talk about the coach from the Jets today.
I find that kind of small stuff with him.
My question to you is, did you see the Dallas Cowboy game with the Philadelphia Eagles this week?
I did.
And did you see what happened with Michael Vick?
Yeah, he getting beat up.
Getting beat up.
When he went out of bounds and he was out of bounds and the guy comes and just slams him into the, you know, all the photographers, all of that stuff.
Did you find that kind of, you know, if that would have been Tom Brady, Manning Boys, Drew Brees, anybody, you think there would have been a penalty?
I think they'd have thrown a flag right.
There are two quarterbacks out there right now that pretty much can be mauled.
One's Vic and the other is Rothlessberger.
Rothlessberger's been beat up side to head three or four times in each of the past two games.
One of them with a broken nose.
They don't call it.
Rothlessberger's been piled on.
Rothlessberger's had his knee or his ankle twisted after the play's over.
They don't call it, one of the reasons is because the Steelers, Steelers players are all over the league.
The Stevers claimers are running around saying we're targeted.
And Steelers players are saying what you say.
If that were Brady or Manning, why'd they be throwing flags all over the place?
Right.
And I think the Eagles players are saying the same thing about Vic.
Well, I enjoy watching them.
And this is cowboy country.
We're right in the middle of it here.
And even though they're not doing well, and I'm glad, well, I'm a Philadelphia Eagle fan myself.
I've always pulled for them, and a Pittsburgh Steeler also.
I do like them.
Well, you like Pennsylvania teams, it sounds like.
Well, and I like the Phillies, the baseball team.
So anyhow, I just wanted to get your take on that if you thought about it.
Look, the Eagles are saying the same thing.
The coach, Andy Reid, Vic is saying it.
It's not uniform, the way they're applying that rule in the NFL.
No question about it.
Hey, we're back.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
This, the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
This is Fabian in Staten Island.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Megadittos and Merry Christmas.
Same to you, sir.
Thank you.
And I wanted to, regarding this no-label stuff, it's I was brought up believing that if you withhold the truth, it's the same as lying.
And how liberals are creating this dichotomy with this no-labels issue where they want politicians running for public office to be open and honest with the people, just as long as they don't let us know to what party they're affiliated.
And that's what gets me about this.
I feel like there's a certain danger here where liberals only talk about liberty when they're taking our liberties away.
And they're controlling our speech and throwing that one out.
All of that and more.
They're trying to control what your kids eat now because that can't be left to you.
You're too big an idiot.
You know, who was it?
Since the guy has a good point, which candidates hid their labels in the last election?
Do we know of any that did?
Which candidates tried to hide?
We know the media, in any story of corruption or crime that involves a Democrat, you'll never find out in the story that they're a Democrat.
But what candidate hid their labels during the last campaign?
And why?
I'm going to tell you what this is.
See, it's easy for me because I know, not personally, but I may as well.
I know some of the people on the right joining this group.
I know some of the people on the right, well, formerly on the right, who are championing this group.
And I know their mindset.
And I know that they're ticked off.
They basically have been rendered irrelevant in the conservative movement because these are the people who've been spouting the end of Reaganism.
The Reagan era is over.
We've got to move beyond that.
You can't just say tax cuts and beat the communists anymore.
That's not going to cut it.
Conservatism has to stand for active, large government done wisely.
Well, those people, of course, the Tea Party said Sayonara.
So they resent the Tea Party.
These are the people that resent ordinary average people while attempting to stand up for them and defend them.
So no matter how you slice it, this group is going to fall of its own weight.
It's simply not possible.
It is simply not possible to run around and live and engage in politics the way these people want to.
At some point, people go, well, are you a Republican or Democrat?
In the no labels movement, that's precisely why we're here.
That doesn't matter.
The voters just say, the hell it doesn't.
Are you a Republican or a Democrat?
And you're going to find out they're Democrats trying to hide the fact, or they're liberals trying to hide the fact.
A lot of Democrats, to answer my own question, a lot of Democrats ran ads without party affiliation in the 2008 race.
Congressional races, a lot of them ran ads without saying they were a Democrat.
Plain and simple.
Ken in Livonia, Michigan.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network.
Nice to have you here.
Yeah, Rush.
I wanted to do a comment regarding this whole issue of no labels.
Yeah.
That many years ago, I took a college course.
It was a business class called Conflict Resolution.
And what was being taught was that labels were a bad thing because when you label people, you divide people.
And the way they put this insane idea into the college course is they were teaching that when there's a conflict, there must never be a winner or a loser.
It must be a win-win situation so that you don't hurt the feelings of the people that you are in disagreement with.
Oh, yes.
And this whole idea is just completely out of left field because think of it this way.
The country being an automobile, as the Democrats like to use the comparison with, if you have two unmarked jugs, one, gasoline, representing capitalism, you put that in the car and it'll run nice and smooth.
The second jug, soda pop, representing statism, which is what the Democrats love, you put that in the car and it's dead.
It won't run anywhere.
And so this whole idea of no labels is just, like I said, it's out of left field.
It makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever.
Again, you're exactly right.
You can't even call people girls and boys or men and women.
It's a label.
That's it.
It's just silly.
And again, born of a bunch of losers.
Bottom line is, folks, it's this simple.
If they want to steal our money, if they want to tax us, you know, this whole notion of greed.
Bill McGurne has a great column today in the Wall Street Journal about greed and tax increases or tax cuts to the rich.
And the conventional wisdom is that the rich are a bunch of greedy SOBs.
And that the government, who wants to raise taxes on these people, they are fair.
They understand the great inequities in our society and they seek to level them out.
And it's these greedy rich people who are steadfastly opposing giving up any more of their money.
They don't need the money they've got.
They don't need, they'll never miss a tax increase.
They don't need this.
And the notion gets put out there that they are the greedy ones.
But who are they?
Whether they're rich or not, they're people who want to keep what they've earned.
Who is the government?
Who are the Democrats?
The Democrats are the people who want to take what they haven't earned.
They want to take from the people who have earned it and use it as their own to spend to their own benefit.
Now, to whom does the definition of greed more properly apply?
It is, as I've always said, the real focus of greed in this country is in the government.
And everybody who works there.
Well, not everybody.
Elected officials.
That's the greed.
That's where it's located.
And it's so convoluted to have people who earn their money being called greedy simply because they think they should be able to keep a little bit more of it, that they'll do better with it than the government will.
And that's greed.
And when Reagan won elections, it was a triumph of greed and selfishness, the media said, on the part of the voters.
Yeah, the voters, they wanted to cheat the government out of what was rightfully the government's because Reagan was for tax cuts and so forth.
But the real greed exists in Washington.
It is there that people who haven't earned your money want to take it from you and spend it as though it was theirs for their own benefit.
As in buying votes, continually being elected, what have you.
And he's absolutely right about this.
So, you know, whether they want to steal our money, tie taxes, or what have you.
Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, doesn't matter what they call themselves.
We know who they are.
They are people who feel entitled to everybody else's earnings while having not earned any of it themselves.
Quick time out.
Back with much more after this.
This whole thing is entirely deceitful.
It's no labels business.
Tea Party movement was a spontaneous grassroots movement.
This no labels movement's not a movement at all.
It's all about top-down political operatives, ex-politicians, who are frankly irrelevant.
It's a top-down effort by irrelevant political hacks to make themselves matter again.
It's out-of-work political consultants who are trying to find work by establishing a new niche for themselves where they can fleece potential candidates from their money while seeking office under these auspices.
But they portend something really dangerous.
I know it sounds like it can't possibly happen.
I know it can't possibly happen, but the point is you don't want this to ever be seductive to an increasing number of voters.
And folks, there are a lot of people who want to think of themselves as smarter than everybody else.
There are a lot of people who want to think of themselves as open-minded.
People who decide things issue by issue, smarter than the people who are partisans.
And it's a movement comes along like this, it can very easily seduce these self-important snobs because this is a movement of snobs and snobbery.
And it could be seductive for a while.
It's just like when I heard the Sierra Club say in 1996 or 97 they're coming for the SUV, and I spent about an hour on that warning people.
And I got laughed at.
Ah, come on, Rush.
You know, we really like listening to you, but sometimes you just go so over the top, nobody's going to ever take away the SUV.
These are a bunch of small little minority bunch of wacko activists just fundraising, right?
They're never going to get rid of the SUV.
And here we are.
Yeah, and the same bunch of people went after Joe Camill and Joe Hu.
So, I mean, they're always out there.
This is just liberalism wearing a new mask.
They never go away.
They're always seeking new ways to defraud people and to be deceitful.
They must.
They have no chance.
How would the Democrat Party survive if we did away with the label, the rich?
The one thing they won't do is get away with labels.
That's the thing.
They'll not do away with labels.
They'll never stop using them.
Big oil, big pharma, big food, labels.
Here's Frank in Waco, Texas again.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Yes, great to be back, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
Speaking of labels, I wanted to know on this tax bill, is it now going to be called the Obama tax cuts?
In some places, it already is.
Well, I'm sick of it being called the Bush tax cuts.
It's our current tax system.
Yeah, and well, here, in fact, Wait, I have a story about this.
Glad you brought this up.
This is from ABC News, a poll.
It's by Gary Langer, who I think is their polling guy.
With decisive votes in Congress pending, Americans in a new ABC News Washington Post poll broadly support the tax and benefits deal forged by Obama and Republican leaders of Congress.
The deficit be damned.
That's right.
You know how long ABC News and the Washington Post have obsessed over the national debt.
Oh, yeah, these are some of the most famous deficit hawks we have, ABC News and the Washington Post.
You remember all the editorials and stories they did condemning the deficit all during the Obamacare.
No, they didn't.
You remember all the stories about the dangers posed to the national debt and the deficit by the stimulus.
I'm wrong.
There weren't any such stories from ABC News or the Washington Post.
All of a sudden now, they care about the deficit?
Two-thirds, 69% of you people are selfish bigots because you support this deal, the deficit be damned.
69% support the package overall, far outnumbering the 29% opposed.
And even when given arguments that it'll add as much as $900 billion to the federal budget deficit, 62% continue to support the measure with opposition inching up to only 34%.
Why, folks, this is amazing.
Even when lied to about how continuing the status quo of the last 10 years is going to cost a trillion dollars, 62% continue to support the measure.
Why?
Because they're smarter than these ABC hacks know.
Somebody explained to me how there are no changes here in the tax code.
There is none to speak of.
We're keeping everything the same.
And this is going to cost X. What's going to cost X is the spending, the continued unemployment benefits, which is going to lead to less employment, which is going to lead to more unemployment benefits, which is going to lead to more spending, a never-ending cycle.
Before we're all said and done, there's going to be a full four years of unemployment benefits, probably.
If it takes that to get Obama re-elected, that's what he'll propose, because there isn't going to be any reduction in unemployment, not with expanding benefits for three years.
But ABC and the Washington Post don't look at the spending segment.
No, it's only you greedy, you greedy people.
You want to hold on to the current tax rates.
You selfish, greedy people.
Don't you understand there's a deficit out there?
Don't you understand that you're going to add to the deficit by $900 million?
And people say, well, how can we add to the deficit when nothing's changing on our side?
But taxes aren't going up or down.
They're staying the same.
What changes here?
Apart from the pork and some insignificant tweaks to the payroll tax, this deal simply extends the status quo for another two years.
In fact, some people on our side are saying it's worth it.
Yes, Rush, you got to shut up about this.
You're wrong.
It's worth it.
It's worth it to get these tax rates extended for two years.
Believe me, that's important.
But wait a minute.
What's the cost?
All this spending?
Ethanol subsidies, even gore, of all people, has now said ethanol is a fraud.
It's a waste.
It's as though the election in November didn't matter.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Well, the Senate looks like it's going to pass this thing if they haven't already.
The vote's been going on.
As usual, the final action on the tax and spending bill will take place in the House.
And that has yet to begin.
Well, we'll keep you up to speed on that as it unfolds.
And healthcare is next.
Some in-depth analysis of just what the judge's ruling yesterday means.
It's pretty good.
Back after this.
▲
Export Selection