All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 5, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:54
January 5, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
They're gonna do it.
They're really gonna do it, and I like it.
I I love uh, ladies and gentlemen, love the idea of reading the Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives today.
They're actually going it's an exorcism.
Look at it that way.
The House Republicans are performing an exorcism today.
The Democrat-controlled 111th Congress is being exercised, evil, if you will, is being removed.
And uh, I mean, when they start reading the Constitution, you watch.
I want to see how many Democrats get up and leave.
I really, you would not believe they're they're calling this a fetish.
People have a fetish, the Democrats, we have a fetish with the Constitution here.
So let's see.
Let's see when the exorcism begins, if Democrats get up, some of them, and walk out of the chamber.
Greetings, my friends.
Great to have you here, El Rushbo.
This is the EIB network and the uh Limbaugh Institute.
It's already the middle of the week.
We're the fastest three hours in media, fast as over, and Wednesday really comes fast when you have Monday off.
Uh telephone numbers 800 282-2882, the email address L Rushball at EIBNet.com.
Right here it is in the Washington Post.
Recitation of Constitution set in-house, renews debate over founders' intentions.
This is a serious news story in the Washington Post today.
You know, it's fascinating, folks.
If you notice when the when the Republicans decide to vote on uh overturning Democrat legislation, like their effort to repeal Obamacare.
Even though it's going to be vetoed, we know it's going to be vetoed by by Obama.
The news media is calling this a stunt.
They're calling it political theater, and it's anything but it's dead serious.
When was the last time?
Let me ask you.
When was the last time that a bill of any substance, any substantive size, was voted on for repeal?
Do you recall?
I don't mean reform.
But when was the last time a vote was taken to repeal a piece of legislation?
I prohibition.
I don't know the answer.
I know it doesn't happen every day.
It's a big deal.
And by the way, as I pointed out, this is a birthday present to me from the House of Republicans.
That vote will occur one week from today on my birthday, January 12th.
That's not a coincidence, folks.
Don't doubt me.
I haven't spoken to them about it, but I know they know.
Now maybe it happens from time to time.
I don't know.
Voting to repeal big time legislation.
And my impression is that once a law is passed and bureaucracies are created, they never go away.
This is a remarkable effort, these guys are going to try.
Remarkable effort by House Republicans to repeal Obamacare.
And boy, you know, we were talking yesterday about how the media sets these templates and narratives, and everybody just assumes that all that they say is true and accurate, and that everybody's talking about what the media is talking about.
Dana Milbank has a piece in the Washington Post, really snarky piece today about the Republicans.
Now they're really no different than the Democrats.
In terms of the rules, violations in the House that they're going to employ and all these other things.
And he talks about how they're big, big deficit cutters, and yet, and yet by repealing Obamacare, they're going to expand the deficit by 143 billion dollars.
Now, where does that come from?
Does Mr. Milbank not know that everything from the Congressional Budget Office regarding numbers and finance regarding health care was bogus?
Mr. Milbank, I guess this is when you're in Washington and any bureaucracy says anything, that is what's golden.
The Constitution, nah, that doesn't matter.
That's old fashioned, that's old hat.
That's crazy.
But new legislation, that's set and go.
Bureaucracy says anything, that's the gospel.
Now, anybody with independent intelligence, anybody who doesn't just follow conventional wisdom has to know that Obamacare budget busts like crazy.
There is Zilch zero not a deficit reduction with Obamacare.
And yet, right up at the top of Milbank's piece is how the Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites because they're talking about cutting the budget, and yet repealing Obamacare will expand the deficit.
Which is patently absurd on its face, and it makes me wonder what is this guy a hack?
Is he partisan hack?
Is he one of these people thought to be brilliant who's stupid?
Or is he so caught up in the Washington beltway that whatever happens there is gospel?
Whatever the CBO says is gospel.
That's right, Mr. Limbaugh, the the B all everyone knows but you if nonpartisan okay, that's how it goes, huh?
The CBO is nonpartisan.
So the Democrats can send up a piece of legislation that's filled with lies and incorrect financial assumptions.
And the CBO, Mr. Limbaugh, they can only deal with Congressend them.
And Congress is infallible when run by Democrats.
Okay.
So they can only deal with what the Democrats send them.
And the Democrats send them a bunch of hooey.
That the deficit's going to be cut with Obama.
So here's Millbank.
Certainly doesn't qualify as a journalist with this, but it's just one example of this.
Because what's really happening here, this this is a remarkable effort the Republicans are going to make in voting to repeal such a massive piece of legislation, a truly remarkable uh effort.
It is contrary to well-established and heavily defended ruling class behavior.
This is not, you know, we've been talking about that a lot since Angelo Covilla, his brilliant piece, The American Spectator talked about the ruling class.
This is not ruling class behavior here, folks.
This, I mean, this is the kind of stuff that gets the ruling class tied up in knots.
House Republicans need to be given the same treatment as Obama's immaculation, right?
I mean, what what about the historic nature of the January 12th vote to repeal Obamacare?
What's this say about them?
The 112th Congress is blazing a new trailer, putting their stamp, right, with this vote on freedom, on the role of the individual in America, the role of government in what has been private sector health care, the limitations on the commerce clause, the genius of the separation of powers.
This is an historic effort and vote.
We know it's going to be vetoed.
But the effort and the statement inherent in the effort that accompanies the effort is crucial because it marks a crucial time in our nation's history.
It marks the willingness of Congress to actually repeal a law, a massive one, and not reform it, but to repeal it to get rid of it.
In response to the wishes of a majority of Americans.
Totally anti-ruling class behavior here.
This vote that'll happen a week from today, not just historic, but it is of substance.
Who knows?
It could be the beginning of reversing a destructive trend that's taking us to the brink of bankruptcy and tyranny with this bunch.
Democrats, I paid a little spent a little time today watching um cable news networks and one Democrat guest after another, one Democrat House member after another.
Well, what are you going to have to do?
Huh?
We're going to buy partisanship from Chris.
Yeah, we never know.
We uh we really might find common ground.
That was just I is a reminder what I told the House of Republicans in 1994.
The media is not going to treat you like winners.
The media is not going to treat you like the new powers in town.
The media's not going to uh come and bow down to your feet and beg to be accepted by you.
They're still gonna treat the Democrats as the powers that be in this town.
They're still gonna treat the Democrats as um as uh their their gods.
You're gonna be, you're gonna be cockroaches.
And I couldn't find maybe a couple Republicans, I didn't watch cover to cover this morning.
I, of course, was busy.
But every time I looked up, there was a Democrat being interviewed about, oh, whoa, is that so what is it, and how long will it take to get your power back?
What's it gonna be like for you?
Oh, whoa, is you working in the minority work?
I think we can do it.
It's gonna be very challenging.
Uh hope we work together uh bipartisanship, clearly what the American people stated in the election.
None of it was true.
What we were hearing.
Washington Post by Jason Horowitz and the founders said, let there be a Constitution.
And the founders looked at the articles and clauses and saw that it was good.
That's how this story begins.
And the founder said, let there be a constitution.
And the founders looked at the articles and the clauses, and they saw that it was good.
For more than 200 years, Americans have revered the Constitution as a law of the land, but the Republicans and the Tea Party, heralding of the document in recent months and the planned recitation on the House floor Thursday, actually Wednesday, has caused some Democrats to worry that the charter is being misconstrued as the immutable word of God.
New York Representative Gerald Nadler.
These people have such contempt for the Constitution, these Democrats.
They're reading it like it's a sacred text, said Nadler, outgoing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties.
By the way, now this is great.
As they quote this clown, they're reading it like a sacred text.
That's Nadler talking about the Republicans in a critical way.
They're reading it like a sacred text.
Now listen to this.
Listen to how the post describes this guy, Nadler.
Chairman, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, who has studied and memorized the Constitution with Talmudic.
Or Talmudic, the Talmud, Jewish Talmud, intensity.
So here's a guy who's looked at it as his Bible, they say.
Accusing the Republicans of looking at the Constitution as a sacred text.
Nadler called the ritualistic reading on the floor total nonsense and propaganda intended to claim the document for Republicans.
You read the Torah, you read the Bible, you build a worship service around it, who argued the founders were not demigods, and that the document's need for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed that it was highly imperfect.
You're not supposed to worship your Constitution.
You're supposed to govern your government by it.
Nobody's worshiping it, you fool.
What we're doing is trying to reestablish it because it's under assault from people like you.
Pardon my yelling.
I get passionate about this.
Individual liberty, the Constitution, freedom, are all under assault.
They have been since the founding of this country.
The change is that a large element of that assault now comes domestically from people like Gerald Nadler.
And courts like the Ninth Circus who just found another cross in a public place unconstitutional.
The Democrats so hate this document, leftists so hate this document, they read it and tell us it means the opposite of what it says.
A couple fascinating stories I want to share with you today about Justice Scalia answering some questions about the Constitution, the specific 14th Amendment, specifically the 14th Amendment, and how that just sent Democrats practically needing straitjackets and ambulances to the home.
But here are a few soundbites on this Republican fetish with the Constitution.
Last night on PMS, MS uh whatever it is, a stupid Mess NBC.
Slate.com's senior editor and legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick about the Republican plan to read the Constitution.
The question is, is there a historical precedent for the Constitution fetish on the right?
I think so.
I think, you know, the way some people rub Buddha and they think the magic will come off.
I think there's a longstanding tradition in this country.
We're awfully religious about the Constitution.
I think there is a sort of fetishization here that is of a piece with the sort of need for a religious document that's immutable and perfect in every way.
Now, Ms. Lithwick, you'll never understand it, but all this is simply because health care is unconstitutional.
So much of Obama's agenda is unconstitutional.
So much is what had come out of Congress in the form of legislation, unconstitutional.
It's only the foundation for our existence, Lithwick, and it's under assault.
So what if it's revered?
It's the most brilliant governing founding document ever in the history of mankind.
What is there about it that so threatens you?
That you have to characterize people who love it, believe it, admire it as somehow having a fetish.
All these people are doing, again, as I say is showing their contempt.
This is this is Chris Hayes.
He's he's a host, the guest host on this Mess NBC show, and he responded to uh Dahlia Lithwick and her notion of uh fetish here by saying this.
They kind of fetishize the the Constitution and they had to give it this sort of biblical textual status.
You know, what's wrong with that?
Is this sort of harmless, or is there something kind of insidious underneath that?
Part of what's a little bit fraught about this conversation is that the same people who are fetishizing the document as written as framed by the framers, and you know, bracket the idea that there wasn't one framer and there was no one agenda embodied in this.
But even if you bracket that idea, I think there's a real problem with the idea that we're trying to sort of fetishize the document at the same moment that we're falling over ourselves to amend and change the parts we don't like.
Well, that's part of the process is changing and amending it.
But you guys don't do that, because your changes in amendments would never see the light of day if voted on legislatively, so you've ginned up the courts to do it for you.
And that's what's under assault here.
Simply defenders and protectors, and people are going to swear an oath today on the floor of the House to the Constitution.
They are going to swear an oath to the and to God to defend and protect the Constitution.
A piece of propaganda, the left says.
And of course, the template having been established, Maud Behar had to get in on the act on her show last night on a headline, whatever it is.
Do you think this constitution loving is getting out of hand?
I mean, is it a nod to the Tea Party?
Is it the first time a lot of Congressmen will have heard about it?
Read it.
We'll take a brief, just to show you how the template gets started and the privates, the buck privates and the army start following in place.
Quick time out.
We'll come back and continue after this.
What is it with these Democrats anyway, sexualizing the opposition teabaggers?
Fetishes of the Constitution, these are perverts themselves.
These are well, don't roll your eyes in there, Dawn.
I mean, it is what it is.
These are perverts perverting the founding documents.
Let me, if the Constitution's not that big a deal, how come the same people had such a cow when they thought Christine O'Donnell didn't know what she was talking about regarding the Constitution?
If it's so unimportant, how come Obama's so proud to have been a constitutional lawyer?
Or professor, or a lecturer, whatever he was.
Abraham Lincoln.
They hate him.
Abraham Lincoln have a fetish for the U.S. Constitution.
Here's what Lincoln said, among many other things.
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts.
Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
It's Lincoln.
Is he pervert?
Lincoln have a fetish.
Lincoln also said, don't interfere with anything in the Constitution.
That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.
I wonder how many people in the media, and I wonder how many Democrats know, I wonder how many of you know, I know that the odds of you knowing are far greater than the media or Democrats knowing.
Our nation's first official Thanksgiving was to give thanks for the new Constitution.
Not the Indians and Turkey and popcorn and all that.
gravy, it was to give thanks for the new Constitution.
And now it's...
Now it's fetish.
And all it means, folks, all it means when Gerald Nadler comes out of his contemplary, Maud Behar follows the facts that she's sent, when Dahlia Lithwick and some of these other so-called intellectuals of the left begin to impugn the character of people who revere the Constitution.
All they're telling us is how much it threatens them.
What they're telling us is how much they fear the Constitution.
They don't revere it.
In order for them to succeed, they have to pervert it.
Lincoln's word, not mine, although it fits.
They're really afraid of it.
They're afraid of the Constitution, afraid of Sarah Palin, they're afraid of a whole lot of things.
But you add the Constitution to the list.
What with his latest assault on people who revere it?
I'll tell you what, they're dropping like birds out of the sky over Arkansas in the White House.
Robert Gibson now leaving, and that goes on.
Axelrod is leaving.
These guys are not leaving.
You know what they're doing?
They're going to start working on Obama's 2012 campaign.
That's what they're doing.
They're not leaving.
You think about fetishes.
I'll tell you who has a fetish.
Well, many people have fetishes.
The Democrats have a fetish for Maya Angelou poems.
I mean, they even have her right poems for their swearings in like Clinton.
What was the Viva Zach and its he?
Uh by Maya Angelo at the swearing in the Clinton in 1990.
That's right.
The river the rock is at sea.
And then who knows, they read my Angelou poems all over the place.
Just look, folks, I gotta break up here for one thing.
I knew this, I knew it, I've known it, I've known it instinctively all along, and every time I've offered this opinion, cat lovers have given me all kinds of grief, and here it is.
Manipulative cats, fake illness when upset.
Veterinary research confirms that cats are psychologically manipulative.
They don't talk, but when cats are upset about a change in their environment, they let you know by acting sick.
They don't eat, they throw up or regurgitate, even if they are healthy.
They are manipulative.
Just, just, just...
No.
I'm just telling you, I've learned a lot from my cat.
Back to the Constitution.
Quickly, I did that because this...
This relates LA Times, and I heard about this when I was gone, Scalia to talk about Constitution to House members, and the Democrats are livid.
This is a Michelle Bachmann idea.
It's from the LA Times.
The decision by Anton Scalia to accept an invitation from Michelle Bachman, the founder of the House Tea Party caucus to speak to incoming House members about the Constitution is drawing fire from some who worry the court is injecting itself into partisan politics.
The meeting suggests an alliance between the conservative members of the court and the conservative members of Congress, said Jonathan Turley, law professor, George Washington University, who said Scalia is showing exceedingly poor judgment by accepting the invitation.
He said the association of Scalia, an outspoken conservative, with the bombastic Bachman.
Bombastic, she's just passionate.
Anyway, could contribute to the high court becoming overly politicized.
Now I have to laugh at that.
So it's Scalia that makes the court overly politicized, not a bunch of liberal hacks that are on the court, but Scalia, who does nothing but interpret the original intent of the Constitution when he issues opinions.
That's all he does.
He does not impose his agenda.
Whatever it is.
He interprets the Constitution as best he can according to its original intent.
And that the left hates.
It's an originalist.
Bachman's office said Democrats as well are welcome to attend the 24th of January speech.
It's not unprecedented for a sitting Supreme Court justice to confer with the legislative branch.
Several justices have met in off the record sessions with the bipartisan congressional caucus on the judicial branch.
Separation of powers, by the way, is the topic.
She went to see Scalia.
He accepted the invitation.
His topic is separation of powers.
Yeah, that's really a threat.
Wow.
You imagine that a Supreme Court justice accepting an invitation from a member of Congress.
Legislative to talk about separation of powers?
Well, can't have that.
No, no, no.
Let's get a Marxist professor in there to talk about it and balance it out.
Is that what we should do?
And Scalia again.
This is from the Washington Post by Emmy Kolawale.
Justice Antonin Scalia has weighed in on the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, leaving women's rights activists seething.
I love it when women's rights activists seethe.
The thing is, it's their constant state of existence.
Women's rights activists, i.e.
feminazes are constantly seething.
They are perpetually ticked off, constantly angry, as are most liberals.
In an interview with California lawyer to magazine, Scalia said the Constitution this is why they hate the guy.
Or what I just say, he searches for the original intent.
Scalia said the Constitution itself does not protect women and gay men and lesbians from discrimination.
The horror!
The horror.
He's a bigot, he's a racist, he's a sexist, he's a homophobe.
Scalia said the Constitution itself does not protect women and gay men and lesbians from discrimination.
Such protections are up to the legislative branch, he said.
He's got a mature idea on the restraints of his branch.
Here's what he said in 1868.
Well, this is the question to Scalia.
In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, certainly not sexual orientation.
So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to sex discrimination, sexual orientation?
Scalia, yep, yep, sorry to tell you that, but you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine.
You don't need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of current society.
That's key.
You don't need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society.
Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex.
The only issue is whether it prohibits it.
And it doesn't.
There's nothing in there about it.
Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant.
The 14th Amendment.
Nobody ever voted for that.
Sex discrimination, sex orientation discrimination, nobody ever thought of that when this amendment was being proposed, debate and vote or not.
Nobody voted for that.
If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey, we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.
You don't need a constitution to keep things up to date.
All you need is a legislature in the ballot box.
You don't like the death penalty more, that's fine.
You want a right to abortion?
Nothing in the Constitution about that, but that doesn't mean you can't prohibit it.
Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea, pass a law.
That's what democracy is all about.
It's not about nine super annuated judges who have been there too long imposing these demands on society.
That's why they hate him.
Because that's precisely what judges are for.
Imposing their view, imposing their personal policy preferences, imposing their ideology on society.
That's how the left does it because they cannot win those votes.
Because they represent 20% of the thinking in this country.
No matter what anybody else tells you.
You know what I hope happens today.
When it's time for Pelosi to give Boehner the gabble, I hope she doesn't.
I mean, I would love to see them have to pry the damn thing out of her hand.
I would love to see her stand and make a protest speech, saying for the good of America, she just can't do it, cart me off to jail, string me up, but I refuse.
I refuse to turn the gavel over to these perverts who have a fetish for the Constitution.
I refuse, who want to send old people out on the streets, and they want to kick seasoned citizens out of their homes, and they want to deprive Medicare coverage for all elderly, and they want to deprive all health care for everybody, and they want everybody to die except the banks.
I would love to see Pelosi go nuts.
She'll do that behind closed doors.
And probably already has.
Wait a minute here.
Wait a second.
Wait, just a minute up here.
There's a bunch of kids in that place today.
Now Pelosi and the Democrats are saying that reading the Constitution today is a tomorrow, whatever it is, a stunt.
It's theatrics, it's propaganda.
But having a bunch of grandkids there today.
And when Pelosi was sworn in back in 2007 and making herself look like the grandmother of the house with all the grandkids.
Oh, that was look at that.
Five of them sitting right in a row there in the front.
Kids, members, kids, that's not theatrics, is it?
No, no, no.
That's that's not.
That's not a stunt is oh no.
That's of course not Myth or Limbaugh, that's just the thank the five ceremony, the children of the family being present.
Right, right.
Yeah, some um a little six-year-old sitting on Pelosi's lap there next to Stanley Hoyer, who's sitting next to Pelosi Hoyer.
I mean, look at that expression.
He said, What am I doing here?
You know, the word sex does not even appear in the entire Constitution.
You uh you can't find it there.
Not a not in not in a real one.
Uh in the once upon a time news magazine called Time, the GOP House's opening act making a statement or making a mockery.
What are they talking about here?
Two months after a sweeping victory in the midterm elections, Republicans officially reclaim the House today, but before the new majority party begins the biddings of governing, they will take the opportunity to savor their triumph and make a statement with a good dose of Washington political theater.
At about noon, the House clerk will call a chamber to order after reciting a prayer and the pledge of allegiance.
The members will elect John Boehner as speaker.
The Ohioan will be presented by his predecessor, Nancy Pelosi, before swearing in the largest Republican freshman class in more than half century.
See, it's political theater to pray, say the Pledge of Allegiance, but when Pelosi flexed her muscles on the speaker's podium surrounded by an untold number of grandchildren and extended family, whoa, that was not theater.
And then they refer to the reading of the Constitution as a mockery here in Time Magazine.
We truly do have two countries here, don't we?
And I want to know where the middle ground is with these people.
I I want to know even if you cross the aisle to try to meet these people halfway, what in where where is their compromise with somebody who thinks the Constitution, if you revere it, you have a fetish for it.
Reading it, the floor of the House of Representatives is a mockery.
See, the Democrats folks can only win, they can only get their agenda by lying and changing the rules, and that's why they hate the Constitution.
Constitution's a contract.
It's our social contract.
It's the mother of all rules, you might say.
It's the source of the rule of law.
Of course, they hate it and they want to pervert it.
It's the only thing standing in their way.
The Constitution is an obstacle.
That's why Obama, the Democrats have conceived this second, well, FDR spent the uh the new Bill of Rights.
Uh, and the whole concept of a charter of negative liberties, meaning for big statists and big government people, the Constitution doesn't spell out what government can do.
All the Constitution does is tell the government what it can't do.
And they hate that.
John Boehner.
I don't know if you know this or not.
This this is this is really cool.
Harry Reed told Boehner.
Don't bother to repeal Obamacare in the House.
Don't even don't even bother because it's gonna fail in the Senate.
Don't don't even bother with it.
So there you have the Senate majority leader telling a new speaker, forget it, don't even mess with repealing Obamacare.
He's gonna fail over here.
Why are you gonna waste your time?
Don't even do it.
From the Hill.com, here's Boehner's response.
Senators Reed, Durban Schumer, Murray, and Stabenow.
Thank you for reminding us and the American people of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with big pharma, resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D at a cost of the taxpayers of 42.6 billion.
The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now.
You're welcome.
Whoa!
Whoa, whoa, right back at you, dingy Harry.
This is the you know, this is the kind of thing you and I, this is what we would say here.
Vahner actually did it.
It's in the Hillgown County, actually wrote that reply back to them.
Basically said, up yours.
In polite lingo, of course.
Here's the Dana Milbank piece.
And I by the way, I was just during the break.
Former Louisiana Senator John Broad repeated this.
Dana Milbank, GOP congressional leaders are acting a lot like their predecessors, which at the time, of course, remember now, Milbank loved the Democrat predecessor, loved Pelosi, loved all these Democrats in the House.
For incoming majority leader Eric Cantor and his House Republicans, something strange happened on the way to Wednesday's opening day.
For two years, Cantor and his colleagues campaigned against high deficits.
Now, in their new majority's first major act, they plan to vote to increase the deficit by 143 billion dollars as part of a repeal of health care reform.
So here's this template now that Obamacare is going to cut the deficit.
Obamacare is going to save money.
143 billion.
See how this works?
The Republicans by repealing it are going to add 143 billion dollars to the deficit, and yet they're big spending hawks.
John Brough is just being interviewed by Fox.
You either question it today, what do you uh think they have to do here to get along?
Bro said, well, you know, the most important thing here is if you're a Democrat, reach across the aisle Republican establish relationships, vice versa.
There's oftentimes those relationships are more important than anything else that'll happen in the House or in the Senate.
And by the way, uh, even after doing that, I I the Republicans, I really don't understand it.
I mean, they say that they're gonna cut 104 deficit spending with the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan.
He made a point of non-nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that Obamacare save 143 billion dollars of deficit.
I don't know how the Republicans are gonna square this, but that's part of working together.
So the template's there, And plus the debt ceiling and all this, all of this predictable.
Folks.
Don't miss.
I'm trying to be funny with it.
I'm not outraged by it.
This is who they are.
Just illustrating it and pointing out the last thing that they care about is working together or getting along or anything of the sort.
They can't, not even one syllable of truth comes out of these people's minds today.
Hey, Democrats are also ticked off because Daryl Issa of California has sent letters to 150 companies, trade groups, research organizations asking them to help him identify federal regulations that are restraining economic recovery and job growth And the Democrats are livid at that.
Can't wait to give you details.
▲
Export Selection