All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 28, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:44
December 28, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This kind of relates to what we were talking about in the first hour of the program about how this administration doesn't have anybody in it that knows anything about business, and one of the reasons we don't have a hiring going on is that businesses have no confidence in the president.
The last time I did Russia's show, which was a few months ago, uh I had on the Republican candidate for the United States Senate from my home state of Wisconsin, a guy named Ron Johnson.
He was running against the entrenched Democratic incumbent, another liberal egghead named Russ Feingold.
Ron Johnson, I got a lot of reaction to that interview.
People were intrigued by him.
Ron Johnson won that election.
It was a very big upset.
Wisconsin's a swing state that transdemocratic.
And Feingold had been in office for 18 years.
Johnson beat him.
One of the ads that Johnson ran on television in Wisconsin during his campaign, they just resonated and stuck with people.
He stood in front of a blackboard, and he drew out the in this little chart.
100 members of the United States Senate.
Lawyers, and it was like 57, lobbyists, and then whatever that number was.
Manufacturers, zero.
He's a manufacturer.
The guy owned owns a company in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
They make plastic type stuff.
So owned the company for 20, 25 years.
His point was is that there's nobody in the United States Senate who owns a business that manufactures anything.
We've got all these lawyers, we've got all these thinkers, but nobody who actually does anything.
That I'm telling you, that ad worked.
People in Wisconsin don't dislike Feingold.
I don't like him, but people like him.
They bought bought into his image, they think he's a maverick, all of that stuff, but he had no chance in this election.
First of all, there was a Republican tsunami sweeping the country, and it swept my state of Wisconsin.
But secondly, there was a guy offering the message that we need a different perspective in Washington.
We've got way too many of these professional politicians, the lawyer class, the professional class, and nobody who seems to represent what's actually going on in America.
That ad really hit home.
Because I think people understand that we've got a government right now that feels as though it has nothing in common with us.
And this has harmed Republicans also.
There are certain little things that stick.
Remember when the first Bush was at the supermarket and he didn't know what the scanner was, and as insignificant as that story was, it stuck with people because they had this impression that here was a guy who didn't have anything in common with them and didn't know what was going on in the United States.
You get the same impression with Barack Obama, that he's kind of above it all, that he's above the fray.
And I think it's a real part of what's going on here.
There's a story in the news today.
Story from a little city in Michigan that I think is really telling.
Ham Tramic, Michigan.
Hamtramck is, well, it's really in Detroit.
It's a suburb of Detroit, but it's almost encircled by Detroit.
It's not one of those ritzy suburbs where the executives live 35, 40 miles away from the inner city.
Ham Tramic is a working class community in Michigan, and like a lot of other communities there, has really been hit hard by the downturn in the automobile industry.
It's also been run by liberals forever.
Ham Tramic is broke, and they don't see any way out.
They've cut and they've cut, and they say they've cut some more, but they don't have any money.
They want to declare bankruptcy.
And Michigan State government is saying, no, no, no, no, no, you can't do that.
And the reason they don't want to let them declare bankruptcy is they know that if Hamptramic does it, there are probably 30 or 40 other cities in Michigan that will want to do the same thing.
I'm telling you that if they do it, there's probably going to be 800 governments in this country that will do it.
Look at what's going on.
All over the nation.
State governments, county governments, municipal governments.
All over the place you see case after case after case where they're just broke.
Their tax revenues are not matching their spending.
And in each case, the problem is the same.
They have all of these fixed costs that they can't get out from underneath.
In most cases, public employee pensions.
Pensions, the old-fashioned pensions, are dying out in the private sector.
Very few people who aren't part of a union even have them anymore.
When people have a pension, they usually have an IRA or a 401k from their boss, that they kick in the money too.
Maybe there's a small company match, but pensions in the real world are driven by contributions by the employer him or herself.
Government has all of these pensions in which the employer employee either kicks in nothing or a very, very small amount.
With the baby boom retiring, you've got this wave of people that are now going from being employees of government to being retirees from government.
And by law, they can't just not make the pension payments, they've got to pay that money into the system.
And they're paying so much that they can't make ends meet.
In the meantime, they've been doing all of this other spending.
Look at California.
It's a classic example of this.
Spend and spend and spend, pound the state government filled with employees, pound up the university system, overstaff the public school system, and just figure out that when all they retire, when all of them retire, that somebody else is going to have to worry about it.
Well, that somebody else is the people that are in power now.
Bankruptcies the silver bullet.
It's the magic pill.
It would fix everything for these governments.
If they could, as many Americans have been able to do using bankruptcy laws, simply flap their hands and be done with it.
Wipe out all of their existing obligations, stiff all of their bondholders.
And these communities all over the country, they've been doing a lot of borrowing.
They borrow to get through this fiscal year, and then they borrow some more and they borrow some more and they borrow some more after that.
California's bot, does California even have a bond rating anymore?
It's not triple A, it's probably triple F. Their bonds, they've been borrowing forever.
And they've got to pay back the interest on these bonds, they've got to pay into the pension funds, and they have needed public services, they've got to continue to support like the police and fire.
And they don't see how they're going to be able to make ends meet.
If they could just snap their fingers and make all the bills go away by declaring bankruptcy, they do it.
Now, if this happens, it will kill the municipal bond market.
It could create a deep recession because stiffing all of those bondholders means that you're stiffing all of these bond funds that are held by millions of Americans in their retirement accounts.
Municipal bonds have been considered one of the safest investments that there is because we all know that local governments won't go default, they won't go bust, they won't go bankrupt.
That never happens, and indeed it doesn't happen.
So people buy these municipal bonds knowing that they are as safe as safe can be.
If you look ahead over the next 5 to 10 to 15 years, though, with some of these communities that are faced with cutting everything, laying off all the cops, laying off all the firefighters, or just not making their pension payments, that bankruptcy option is going to become a more and more tempting way to go.
They can either look to the federal government to bail them all out, but the federal government is broke too, Or they can look for this answer, and if it if it's an answer that's allowed, you're going to see a lot of them do it, and it will be a disaster.
Just look how bad it is right now when a business that you're involved with goes bankrupt and they stiff you.
If you're one of the vendors that's owned 20 or Owed 20 or 30,000 by the business.
They don't pay you.
It's a major hardship for you.
Imagine if government just tried to wipe out all of its debts.
If we continue to spend money we don't have, this option is going to become more and more real.
There's a famous quote that I use all the time.
I used to attribute it to Milton Friedman, and somebody told me that, you know, that wasn't Milton Friedman, it was somebody else, and indeed it is somebody else.
You know who Ben Stein is?
You know, Ben Stein had the game show.
He does the Clear Eyes commercial, he was in Ferris Bueller, writes a great column in uh American Spectator.
Well, it wasn't Ben Stein's comment.
It's his father, Herbstein.
Herbstein was, I think, the head of the Council of Economic Advisors during Nixon, Republican economist from the 70s and the 80s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.
And Herbstein had this quote that said, something that can't go on forever won't.
What you're finding is that many of the policies of liberalism that we knew couldn't go on forever are now finally hitting that point where they won't.
We are facing this with Social Security and Medicare.
And every conservative in America knows it.
We're facing a situation in which we aren't going to have enough money to pay all of these bills.
It's real easy to say we're going to create this program knowing that we're going to have to make all the payments at five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years when somebody else is in power.
We'll spend and spend and spend and spend and back it up with all of this borrowing and worry about paying it back then.
Well, we're at the then.
This point that we're hitting is now.
I believe that the Tea Party movement of the last two years is largely in reaction to an understanding of that.
A lot of things made it come together.
And health care was the final straw.
And the people who go to these Tea Party rallies or consider themselves part of the movement or part of the email chains and so on, they all have different issues.
There are a million different things that they disagree on and a million different things that are their highest priority.
But the one thing you get from almost everyone who considers themselves a part of that movement is they think government is spending too much money.
They are terrified about the size of the federal deficit and the national debt.
They're bothered by the borrowing and spending that's going on in their local communities.
They think government is spending way too much money.
One of the reasons why Republicans were empowered in the eastern two-thirds of the United States in the last election.
I don't know what happened on the West Coast, is that there were a lot of candidates who are standing up and offering up credible reasons to tell the voters that I'm not going to spend as much as the people who were in there.
When I come back after the break, I'm going to tell you a story that truly identifies the problem.
Government trying to force other public officials to spend money they don't want.
That's the mentality that we're up against.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in today for Rush.
I'm Mark Delling sitting in for Rush, 1-800-282882 is the telephone number that uh every year they do that survey.
Who's what American do you most admire?
What man and then what woman?
And of course, Obama won.
The president almost always wins, and the most admired woman was Hillary.
You know what the problem with that is?
If you're a conservative, who would you say?
You know why the word, it's the wrong word.
We don't admire people anymore.
Better word would be who do you most respect?
Who's the person the most inspires you?
But there's no shit of admiring.
I don't even know who I would say, other than obviously people would say people that they know in their own lives, or you know, a family member or a pastor, someone like that.
Who are you supposed to say?
My cockabee?
I mean, come on, you'd sound like an idiot if you said that.
I know what the staff here would say.
Rush, rush.
I would have to say who else are you going to say?
Myself?
Obama.
How can you even answer that?
I don't know who I don't know who came in.
I don't know who came in second.
The Pope always does well.
Billy Graham always makes the top ten.
As for most admired woman, I mean Hillary, Sarah Palin, who else are you going to say?
There's nobody else to say.
I want to tell you a story here.
This story proves my point that government can't stop spending money.
In my own state of Wisconsin and in the state of Ohio, the newly elected Republican governors wanted to kill federal plans to put in a high speed rail train.
Now this high speed rail thing is going on all over the United States.
It's a big pet project of Obama.
Obama somehow thinks that the last century's technology ought to be this century's technology.
And the idea is that we'd have all of these bullet trains that are going to run around the country and I guess compete with planes or compete with cars.
And feds are going to pay for the entire cost of building them, but they aren't going to pay to run them.
Each state would have to pay the operating costs.
Most of these governors are realizing that those operating costs that that's the real problem.
They don't want to take on a new expense even if the feds build it for them.
In my state of Wisconsin, the plan was to put a high speed rail line between the cities of Milwaukee and Madison.
They're only about 70 miles apart.
It's not that long of a drive.
But the cost was eight hundred and ten million dollars.
Eight hundred and ten million federal bucks.
There was a similar proposal in the state of Ohio.
Both of the Republican candidates for governor, Scott Walker in Wisconsin and John Kasich in Ohio, campaigned saying that they were going to kill those trains.
Both were elected.
And both made good on their promises saying, we don't want the money.
And we don't want these trains.
The response from the federal government was initially, I don't care if you want it or not.
We're going to build it, you have to take it.
And it's impossible to do anything in any state that a governor doesn't want.
They could tie up this thing with environmental impact statements and homeowner lawsuits and so on.
And eventually the feds started to back down, which created this backlash.
How can you turn down all of this federal money?
The lefties in both Ohio and my state of Wisconsin berated Kasich and berated Walker, saying, You're nuts to turn down all of this money.
And they said, you've got to understand, when the feds come in and they want to spend money, they are committing you to spending money also.
Furthermore, these projects aren't needed.
Nobody's going to use these trains.
As a result, the feds back down.
And that high-speed train isn't going to be built in Ohio, and it isn't going to be built in Wisconsin.
But instead of simply returning the money to the Federal Treasury and not spending it, the response from the Obama administration was to say, okay, we'll give it to another state.
So now you've got a lot of other states lining up and raising their hands saying, we'll take the money that those idiots in Wisconsin and Ohio don't want.
California's begging, great, give us the train money.
This is the mentality that exists in government.
When one state says we don't want the money, rather than simply not spend what a radical notion.
Wisconsin doesn't want the train.
Let's not do the train.
And by the way, just that 80-mile train line in Wisconsin, $810 million.
That's real money.
You're almost at a billion dollars there.
Instead of simply not spending it, in a nation that's got an enormous annual budget deficit and a national debt that's terrifying people.
The response instead is to offer it up to somebody else and allow the gimme gimme gimme crowd to raise their hands and say, give it to us if they don't want it.
The logical response would be to encourage and reward States that are weaning themselves off of federal dependency and saying we don't want and don't need this money and not spend it.
Instead, the reaction is to try to bully these states into taking the money and create problems for public officials who refuse to accept it.
So these two governors now, Walker in Wisconsin, incoming governors, Walker in Wisconsin and Kasich in Ohio, are having to defend to their constituents, turning down money that was merely given to another state.
If President Obama was serious about the deficit as he now claims he is, he would easily simply say, We're not going to spend it, I'm going to return it to the Treasury.
Government does not have the ability to think that way.
So long as we have government officials that will not accept the notion of not spending money, we will never get out of the financial pickles that we're in.
I'm Mark Belling in for Rush.
Hey, little ELO bumper music coming out.
Is Jeff Lynn in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?
I don't think he is.
You know, he's kind of a genius.
He was sort of like the next generation's Phil Spectre.
Well, maybe he is in.
I don't know.
Look into that for me.
I don't I'm making the engineer look into this for me because everybody else is everywhere is everywhere else.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
1-800-282-2882 is the telephone number.
Let's go to Albany.
He's not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Albany, Georgia, and Bruce.
Bruce, it's your turn on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hey, uh we all thought the cap and trade uh bill was dead on the floor due to his unpopularity.
And apparently Obama said that there's more than one way to skin a cat, so that they've broadened the powers to the EPA and just said, Well, we're just going to pass it through the EPA, we're going to regulate it another way.
So if that's the case, if Obama doesn't need the Congress to move his agenda along, shouldn't the Congressman, the representatives, and the senators be worried about a job?
Well, better.
The point you're making is outstanding.
On the program yesterday, we talked about how he's doing the exact same thing with Obamacare.
The provision, very controversial, that was taken out of the legislation in which the government would be paying, using Medicare money, doctors for so-called end-of-life counseling with patients.
It was taken out.
Obama is now writing in through administrative rule.
You mentioning cap and trade, which died last year because Democrats who controlled the Congress from industrial states weren't able to justify it and knew that they'd be slaughtered at the polls if they supported it.
Cap and trade being massive energy taxes that would kill industrial states and kill states that have a lot of coal-burning power plants that they're now looking at using EPA rules to do the exact same thing that they couldn't do by legislation.
People need to watch this over the next year.
Obama's not going to turn into this wonderful centrist that the media is claiming that he's going to be.
All he's going to do is try to move the agenda that he couldn't get through legislatively into the rule making process.
And yeah, I think they're going to be doing that kind of thing.
He's publicly going to be going making kissy face with the Republicans in Congress and doing a compromise here and a compromise there, but you watch what's going on outside of public scrutiny, outside of public eye, in those administrative rules, you've got this giant bureaucracy that has the ability to write any rule it wants.
Rules are trumped by law.
If you pass a law, the rule can't be in conflict with the law.
But if they can't pass a law banning the kinds of things that he tries to do by the rule because he'll veto that law, the rule remains in place.
And I think you're going to see the president, now that he no longer has his overwhelming Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, move to this rule making process.
By the way, we talked at great length on yesterday's show about that Medicare rule on end-of-life counseling that he's writing in a story that broke over the weekend of the New York Times.
The White House is now denying us.
Oh, this is no change.
We're just doing the same thing that President Bush authorized in 2003.
Well, if there's no change, why are they writing a new rule?
And the new rule not only mirrors what existed in the first version of Obamacare, a provision put in by an Oregon Democratic uh congressman, it goes farther.
It says doctors will be paid every year they do it.
And once you start end-of-life counseling, and you know what that is, are you sure Gramps you really need that hip replacement?
Are you sure you need to have this?
Are you sure you need that?
Are you sure you want to go through this?
After all, you're going to croak.
That's what it is.
This notion of having people consider whether or not they're going to go to steps B C D and E to save their lives.
The administration, well, we're not really doing anything new.
This story is just being hyped up by talk radio.
I think that might be me.
Uh there's nothing really new about all of this.
Well, then why'd they write the rule?
The thing he mentions with regard to stronger regulations from the EPA to achieve the goals of cap and trade.
You talk about a job killer.
If you're a company that's involved in heavy manufacturing, and you're faced with massive taxes now, and far higher utility bills if you're in a state that has a lot of coal plants.
What are you going to do?
Are you going to expand and create jobs here?
Or are you going to cut back and just figure out a way to make the stuff in Mexico or China or somewhere else?
Watch the rule making process.
And watch and see whether or not the Republicans in Congress are onto this and try to obstruct it and call attention to it.
Grand Rapids, Michigan, Steve, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello, Mark.
You're doing a great job.
Thank you.
You bet.
By the way, I downloaded the Rush iPhone app and I love it.
I I don't have an iPhone, and I don't have anything Apple, which makes me completely out of sync when I do this program here because Rush and his staff are big Mac users.
Anything Mac wise, I'm just not onto the whole thing, but I'm told that that app is really, really good.
It is very important.
If I'm going to keep guest hosting here, I think I'm going to have to do this because I'm like I'm the brown shoes and in a studio full of black suits, I think, right now, being totally MAC illiterate.
Anyway, what's on your mind, Steve?
Um the new banking regulations, uh, they're not only affecting the homeowners and home buyers, but they're also hammering small businesses.
I know of many small businesses, retail manufacturers and real estate who've had their loans called by the banks, even though they've never missed a payment.
Which has forced those small businesses into bankruptcy, and obviously the people that were employed by them to lose their jobs.
Yeah, when the loan is called in, if you don't have the cash to pay the loan, you're probably going to have to sell the business to raise the cash.
Every time I do this show, I hear calls like this, and you don't see these stories reported anywhere.
We pass these banking regulations, supposedly the c financial reform is what they call it.
Whenever a liberal wants to regulate something and make things worse, they put the word reform on it.
We called it financial reform.
The pressure that's being put on these banks to improve their balance sheets is not only leading them not to lend, but they're being tighter with their existing clients that are on lines of credit or have outstanding loans.
So how are we going to create jobs in the private sector if businesses can't get loans?
If you're a business and you want to go out and do something new, you're probably going to have to borrow the money because most businesses aren't sitting there with nine million dollars in the bank.
If you can't get the money for the expansion, you're never going to hire anyone because the expansion never occurs.
This is going on all over the place.
At the very time that we should have been, making sure that lending doesn't get out of control, the housing bubble, we were encouraging banks to make loans to anyone.
Now, when we're in the reverse situation, when we need to have credit available so that the private sector can expand and go out and hire people, you've got the banks instead tightening the screws on them, and the loans and the money aren't flowing.
And this is why I keep criticizing Bernanke's quantitative easing and this notion of putting more money into the money supply and making more loan money available.
If the banks, in order to comply with the new regulations, can't make the loans, it doesn't matter how much money the feds are making available To give to the banks.
And it's the thing that this thing keeps coming back to again and again and again, and you don't get any impression at all that the administration or even the Federal Reserve can relate to this.
Thanks for the call.
That's right.
Another great call from the trenches.
I mean, these stories are real.
He's not making that up.
I didn't ask him, but I get the impression he's probably involved in one of those businesses that had that very thing happen to them.
Let's go now to uh Charlottesville and Conan.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Kyle, hey, Mark.
Glad to hear you set them in for Rush.
I wanted to uh talk a little about unemployment insurance and how it is that actually successful employers who don't lay off people get punished by these unemployment extensions.
Unemployment is uh consists of two different things.
There's FUTA, which is the Federal Unemployment Tax Assessment, which is about two point one percent that all employers pay on the first eight thousand dollars of every employee's earnings.
And that goes into the federal unemployment fund.
Then every employer also has a state unemployment insurance rate, which is a combination of your personal business's experience factor based on your employment history and how many employees you have, and how many people you've laid off over the years and how many unemployment clients.
And what's the impact then when we keep extending unemployment benefits?
Well, what happens is the second half of the state equation is the state general assessment.
And that applies flatly to all employers, regardless of their employment history.
So in my case, I haven't laid off anyone in my Virginia operations ever, but last year my assessment for the general fund of Virginia doubled because the state fund was broke because it paid everybody's uninsured unemployment.
Because unemployment was extended and extended and extended, and the states therefore have to pay their share of that.
They have to go out and assess businesses like you with higher unemployment compensation rates in order for them to have the money to pay out all the unemployment insurance, which takes money out of your pocket, which is money that you might have been able to use to create a job.
So what the unemployment extension is doing in your case is it's making harder for you to actually give a job to somebody who is unemployed.
And and not only that, but the unemployment payment uh rates.
I can't give away a part-time job in the state of New York to someone who's unemployed.
Because it doesn't make sense for them to go to work.
As long as we keep extending their unemployment benefits and they're making more on unemployment than they would be making under it with a part-time job.
You're right about that.
Thanks for the call.
I mean, that's another call from the trenches.
What the problem that you have here, and I don't want to keep harping on this point, is that the people who are running this administration, and I think running the Fed don't understand the real world ramifications of these policies.
Well, let's just extend unemployment benefits because we're compassionate.
Pay people not to work rather than deal with the real problem, which is that employers aren't hiring those people to work.
And then let's just do it and pretend that the money comes from some magical place somewhere.
Well, this guy's getting an assessment on his unemployment rates.
He's paying more money to the government, even though he himself didn't lay anyone off.
Is that ever considered?
Do we ever think about the ramifications of these government actions?
The problem is no, we don't, because the people running the government and running the economy have never been in the private sector and can't relate to it and don't know anything about those things.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm the guest host today for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Here's one for you.
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, says he's being forced into writing an autobiography to keep WikiLeaks from going under because of all the legal bills that he has.
You know, what with being accused of rape and stealing trade secrets from every business in the world and the United States government.
Uh he's looking at getting an advance of better than a million dollars.
By the way, have you noticed how both Assange and who is the uh Army private uh Bradley Manning are being turned into like heroes by the left?
Even though the government whose secrets they have been stealing, is their own government, the Obama government.
Kind of conflicted in all of that.
Now here's a story for you.
Uh Mr. Snerdley found this one for me.
Lawmakers fund pet projects without earmarks.
This story's actually beautiful.
We've all we all know what an earmark is.
It's when a member of Congress specifies in a budget bill, in a spending bill, that a portion of the money be spent for this.
And then they say exactly what that is.
So that the age so the bureaucrats don't get to decide where the money is going to be spent, but you have to spend it on this project and that project.
The thing that makes earmarking so terrible is that it becomes the way that you get everybody to vote for these spending bills because you let everybody put in an earmark.
Well, all the Republicans in the Senate say we're not going to do any earmarking anymore.
So now we've got new terms.
And I admit I've never heard of this one.
Mark Kirk, new Republican senator from Illinois, currently a member of the House, was elected to the uh Senate in the last election.
I'm not going to earmark anymore.
But he's caught letter marking.
Letter marking means he's writing a letter to the agency involved saying, I want you to spend the money on such and such.
In other words, the legislation won't have an earmark from Kirk.
Instead, Kirk will write a letter winking at the agency saying, This is the thing I want it spent on.
So it's a way of kind of earmarking without having to earmark.
There's another term, too, New York Times today.
The phone mark.
The phone mark is when they don't actually put it in writing where some reporter can get their hands on it.
The phone mark is when they pick up the phone and say, Hey, here I am, Senator So and so who can't earmark anymore.
But there's the I know there, you've got all this money in the spending project.
There's this really cool project that we need to have in my state.
My constituents really want it, and there are tremendous benefits for it.
And you know, I'll support your agency spending bill.
If this magically happens to be in there, if you give me your word that if the spending bill is passed, you'll include funding for this.
So that becomes a phone mark.
So you've got members, including some Republicans, who don't want to give up the power of earmarking, so they have to get around the new vows that they have against earmarking.
You knew this was going to happen.
The whole problem is this.
So long as the individuals who vote on spending bills, the Congress, get to decide what's in the spending bills, there will always be an incentive for them to game the system.
If the problem indeed is that government is spending too much money, you can't have the people decide who are deciding how much is going to be spent, deciding then what specifically it's going to be spent on.
It's like going to your kids and asking how much money you should spend on the Christmas present budget.
Of course they're going to come up with a high amount, especially if they get to pick what the presents are going to be.
Until Congress is excluded from making decisions on where the money is spent by getting rid of everything and whatever you want to call it, phone marking, earmarking, letter marking, you're going to have the imp the pressure on Congress to spend rather than not spend.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling in for Rush.
This story is just beautiful.
There's this stupid show on MTV called Teen Mom.
It's a reality show about teenage mothers, unmarried girls who get pregnant.
Just exactly the sort of role model kids need to have right now.
Perfect message MTV is sending here.
Anyway, on this show Teen Mom, one of the teen moms that's being followed is Amber Portwood, who is now actually 20 years old.
She's been arrested and facing felony domestic battery and child neglect charges.
She's accused of slapping, choking, and kicking the father of her daughter, a 24 year old guy.
You know how they caught her, this reality star?
She did it on the show.
She did it on national television.
This is from Anderson, Indiana.
The people who live there all called the authorities and said, look, look what she's doing.
She's living with the guy.
He's the father that makes it domestic violence.
So they've arrested her and she's facing felony criminal charges because she did it on national television.
Idiots.
Is there anything people won't do when they're on television?
I guess not.
▲
Export Selection