All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 6, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:42
January 6, 2011, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, and welcome back.
Rush Limboss, starting a million conversations with mind over chatter.
We are here daily behind the Golden EIB microphone, the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
None of the dictionaries here at the Institute contain the word circame.
A word invented recently by distinguished Professor Cornell West and added to the urban dictionary, but not found in the dictionary here at the Institute.
All right, Republicans, this is from Mother Jones magazine.
Republicans have disbanded the one committee devoted solely to climate change and energy issues.
That would be Ed Mockie's committee.
So it's done with after a couple years.
How many of you people are cheating on your spouse?
Ha ha that made you look up, right?
How many of you know people who are cheating on this?
Oh, I'm getting a lot of nods on this.
Well, the ChICOMs also face this problem in their culture, and they have an interesting way of dealing with it.
China's exploding wealth has created a culture of secret mistresses and second wives.
I guess we're led to believe here that during the poverty-ridden days of Mao, that there were no mistresses, uh, secret mistresses, uh, second, third wives, or what have you.
Only with uh the new wealth that the Chicoms have did that happen.
And they're so worried about it, uh, cultural rotten all that, that Chicom officials are now putting marriage records online so lovers and spouses can check for cheaters.
State media today said that Beijing and Shanghai will be among the first places to put marriage databases online this year.
The plan is to have records for all of China online by 2015.
The Ministry of Civil Affairs a few years ago said such a project would be operational by last year.
Officials have not explained the delay, but not all areas have such databases yet ready yet.
Uh ministry numbers show 23 of the country's 22 provinces, four regions and four municipalities do.
Bigamy is illegal in China, and corruption inspectors with the ruling Communist Party have said several officials have been guilty.
That includes the former head of the National Bureau of Statistics.
He was called a vile social and political influence and expelled from the party in 2007.
He's now with the Obama regime.
One study of extramarital affairs in China published in the U.S. in 2005 said 20% of 1,200 married men surveyed in urban China and 3.9% of 1,200 married women said they had had an affair in the past 12 months.
So the uh ChICOM's cracking down.
Healthcare news from the Los Angeles Times and other big California health insurer has stunned individual policyholders.
Huge rate increases.
This time it's Blue Shield of California seeking cumulative hikes of as much as 59% for tens of thousands of customers on March 1st.
Blue Shield's action comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39% for about 700,000 California customers.
San Francisco-based Blue Shield said the increases were the result of fast rising health care costs, sure to lower the deficit, and other expenses resulting from the new health care laws.
It's a waste of time here to repeal Obamacare because it's gonna lower the deficit.
If the Republicans get rid of Obamacare, it's gonna add 145 billion dollars.
By the way, the numbers up to 230 billion now to the deficit, not to mention the 200 plus companies that have been granted waivers from the new law just to be able to stay in business.
Rising costs and new health care laws are the reason for rate hikes of as much as 59%.
But don't worry.
Your 26-year-old kid living in the basement can be covered.
And uh no preexisting condition rule, right?
59% uh rate increases.
Anthem Blue Cross, they tried to raise rates by 39%, led to national outrage, and helped Obama Marshall support for his health care overhaul.
The insurer was ultimately forced to back down, accepting maximum rate increases of 20%.
So maybe Blue Cross will only be able to raise their premiums by 30% once it's all said and done.
And as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning from the New York Times, Pablo Maratinez Monsive.
Associated Press President Obama signs healthcare and education reconciliation act of 2010.
This is about the parade of victims, the Democrats plan to bring before the House to illustrate benefits being taken away by repealing Obamacare.
Democrat leaders in Washington plan to spend the next week doing what they all but refuse to do during the midterm elections, mount a vigorous defense of Obama's health care legislation.
Now there's, you know, nothing to worry about my supporting it.
The All Fronts plan is a response to the decision by John Boehner to schedule a vote next Wednesday on a complete repeal of the bill.
Senior Democrat officials said their effort will be managed by a rapid response operation modeled after the ones Obama used during his presidential campaign.
That team will monitor Republican claims, send out fact checks, and deploy a team of surrogates to get their views on television.
Paid TV advertisements will be run as warrants, said one senior Democrat who asked not to be named because he's not authorized to speak about this.
Organizing for America, the president's chief political apparatus will host phone banks and will schedule events featuring people who would lose their benefits if the health care law were repealed.
We're not talking about benefits which you may get down the road.
We're talking about taking away benefits you enjoy right now.
Tangible benefits with value.
This puts us on offense.
The victim parade is being assembled even now.
All about taking away benefits.
Which is exactly what the Democrats do in any piece of controversial legislation that's wasteful and unproductive comes up for repeal change or what have you.
Now, this is an interesting uh marketing thing.
Starbucks has removed its name and the word coffee from the logo they print on their cups.
Now ordinarily, I wouldn't waste your time.
I'd talk about health care repeal.
But as a Reuters story, Starbucks Corporation, the world's biggest coffee chain, unveiled a new logo today that omits its name and the word coffee, which this is what intrigues me, infuriates customers.
Customers are supposedly really ticked off about this.
The new green logo is essentially Starbucks representation of a female siren, a half-human mythical temptress, who led sailors to their deaths.
The change announced during a webcast of a company meeting comes as Starbucks is building new billion-dollar brands sold outside its cafes.
Even though we have been, it will always be a coffee company and retailer.
It's possible they will have other products with our name on it.
Probably get into the smartphone business.
Company based in Seattle has not changed its logo since it went public in 1992.
They have asked for comments, and here's one.
Who's the bonehead in your marketing department that removed the world famous name of Starbucks coffee from your new logo?
This gold card user isn't impressed, wrote one customer who identified herself as Mimi Katz.
That's what interests me about this.
If you have a company, it has a name.
You have a product, you're going to remove both from the number one marketing thing you have, and that is the cups that people put your product in.
Just keep the logo there.
But it I've got sent a picture of it.
It does not say Starbucks and doesn't say coffee.
It's just got it's just got the siren up there.
This female temptress that's gonna kill you.
If you're a sailor.
And customers are ticked off.
What does that tell you?
What does it tell you when customers are ticked off about it?
It tells me they don't care about the coffee.
It tells me they want people to see that they are drinking Starbucks.
They don't care what Starbucks tastes like.
This guy is a bunch of comms, these customers are willing to go someplace else now.
So obviously, these people are telling me Starbucks isn't the best coffee.
And here is a lesson.
They're not buying it because they like it best.
They're buying it because they want people to think certain things about them.
They want people to know they drink Starbucks.
And when they uh have a cup and nobody's gonna know they're drinking Starbucks, it's not worth it to drink it.
That is in itself a marketing lesson.
All right, a brief time out.
I I have this Daniel Henniger piece here, Congress has broken windows uh about how Congress alone cannot cut spending.
This is not an excuse piece for Republicans.
Quite the opposite.
It is really a fascinating uh column that Henniger's put together today, and I got a couple of companion stories that help illustrate what his uh point is.
In the meantime, brief timeout, we'll come back, get some of your phone calls right after this.
To the phones we go, Colorado Springs and Ted.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Russ.
You were talking about the the government fraud stuff, and I was uh suspended from college when I was doing my undergraduate work as a pre-veterinarian major.
When I did the arithmetic, I had a geek sitting next to me who had a brand new TI um computer.
Hang on just a second, for those of you who are younger than what was it?
TI's Texas Instruments.
Yeah, Texas Instrument.
He had that brand new calculator that was out.
And this probably cost uh seventy-eight.
Yeah, it probably this was uh well this thing probably cost $59.95, and then you can get it for a buck and a quarter at the checkout stand at the grocery store today.
Exactly.
But anyway, we did the math.
We had a uh guy from the FDA who was coming out there and he was talking to it uh to us about a uh an additive to um feed like cattle and also pigs, and it was called DES.
Diahyl Sylvesterol.
And we did the mathematics on it, and the amount of DES that they gave the rats and the monkeys, I would have to eat a hundred and no, it was a hundred and six pounds of bacon a day for two hundred years to die of the cancer that these are that's exactly that's exactly how the saccharin stuff was done.
Caveman stuff.
So you challenged it?
Oh yeah.
I raised my hand and I said, Do you know that with all the figures that you gave us, this is what I would have to eat, and I got suspended for three days.
Because you challenged a government study.
Yes, sir.
What happened to your career?
Did you become a vet?
No, I never did become a vet because I was, you know, I'm a white guy, and they were I wasn't a female and I wasn't a minority, so no whoa, whoa, whoa.
Wait a minute.
Well, I just flew airplanes for the Air Force.
Uh so that's quite a change of vet school and studying pigs to the Air Force.
You mean you if you'd have been if you'd have been uh if you'd have been uh black and female, you'd have gotten you'd have become a vet.
No, I'd I get it.
I don't know.
Uh people of a certain age want to stand what he's talking about.
They there were uh think Alan Bachy.
Uh people were passed and moved forward not based on grades and uh that kind of I don't know.
Whatever whatever happened to questioning an authority.
That was such a great back in the sixties questioning authority, it's what made you a big hero.
It's what made you a star.
Well, uh getting good grades back then wasn't the objective.
Burning down the bank building, blowing up something was the objective.
Joining the Symbionese Liberation Army, spending some time with Patty Hearst while you had her kidnapped.
I mean, that was the that was the objective back in the sixties and getting your story in Time magazine.
It wasn't anything about grades.
Here's uh date uh date no, I'm I'm I'm looking at something else here that I can't mention right now.
Day day spring in Tex Arcana, Texas.
Hello.
Hi, Russ, that's baby Ditto.
Thank you.
I'm really excited to be talking to you.
I've been listening to you for over twenty years.
I really hate to call and disagree with you today.
I want to talk to you about the autism study, uh the Andrew Wakefield study.
Yes.
Um okay, well, let's first of all uh concur that this study probab most likely was a fraud.
However, that does nothing to prove that autism doesn't is not caused by vaccines.
And um in fact I think you really have at 180 degrees.
But now wait, I gotta I I have to stop you here because this is a little exercise in critical thinking.
Here we have a study which has proved that this guy's claim that uh the MMR vaccine created cause whatever autism was a fraud.
And you ign you acknowledge, but then you said doesn't mean we have we have no news now.
The only news we have that vaccines cause autism has been debunked as a fraud, yet you say, Well, that may be true, but it doesn't mean that other vaccines don't.
Okay, well, that's that's correct.
Because why do you want to believe that vaccines lead to autism?
Why?
Would you have ever thought of this yourself had this fraudulent study never been reported?
Yes, I believe so.
I have a vaccine injured child.
Um I was recommended to have a flu shot when I was pregnant, and that resulted in a child on the autism spectrum that um with uh significant speech delay and social deficits, et cetera.
And has it been established, has it been proven that a flu shot led while you were pregnant led to the autism?
No, no, but I know that I received 25 micrograms of mercury, and mercury is a proven neurotoxin, and that has been proven to cause uh to to cause fetal development problems.
And I in fact, if you look at in Minamata, Japan, there were several cases of uh uh prenatal mercury poisoning that resulted in ch in children with severe deficits, even though their their parents didn't have enough mercury or the mother, you know, who told you, who told you all this?
I I didn't I do my own research.
I just look looked online, but it's it's it's public information.
If you look up Minamata disease and Well, no, but this is this is my point.
How do you know?
Like, for example, this this Wakefield stu study, everybody believed it.
Why did they believe it?
Not because they never heard of Wakefield.
They believed it because a bunch of irresponsible charlatans known as the drive-by media gave it credibility.
Who are people for s no wait a minute?
Who are people at the science Center for Science Public Interest?
Just a bunch of crackpots who have uh uh a nanny state like arrogant attitude about food that they want to force everybody else to have a logo on a fax machine and send this stuff out, and the media gives them credibility.
So you're doing your own research, but how do you know that what you're reading is not just as fraudulent and biased as Wakefield?
It may be.
This is the thing.
The Minamata Japan is completely unrelated to the vaccine debate.
I've never heard them paired together.
I discovered this on my own, but but it's uh the the government recommends that pregnant women do not eat fish can containing high levels of mercury, such as shark and tile fish and that sort of thing.
Well, the the they say do not have any of it while you're pregnant.
The highest level of mercury that you're going to get from eating shark is between point five and um point nine micrograms of mercury, and the amount that you get in a flu shot is twenty five.
So that's fifty times more.
if this is the case, why doesn't every pregnant mother who gets a flu shot give birth to an autism child?
Well, um I I believe there are there are biological differences, but however, I have friends that have also had speech delays with their children that receive a flu shot.
This is a new recommendation that just started about five years ago.
So it's just now cropping up.
My friends are very intelligent.
Very sensitive to what you want to believe.
And and and it's not it's no fun what happened to you.
I totally understand that.
But you know, all this anecdotal evidence uh it leads to people demanding government do something.
Government must do something, and some things just happen.
And a lawyer is right behind you, wanting you to do something, to do something for you, blame the government, blame somebody with a lot of money for it, mercury manufacturers, importers, exporters, what have you.
Um back in the days of my youth, they rabbed rubbed dirt in open wounds.
Uh the coaches did.
The coaches did.
No, that's nothing.
Three inch gas in your hand.
Here, run a little dirt in it, keep playing.
I did.
I'm fine.
My mother drank, she smoked.
I'm a pillar of the community.
I'm among the leaders in the broadcast industry.
I mean now, drinking and smoking when you're pregnant, don't do it, don't.
If all this stuff they say were true, the human race would have died out hundreds of years ago.
Because of what people who were pregnant did.
By the way, on this mercury business, if which I did a quick check here during the break, and I find some references to the fact that mercury has been debunked as a cause of autism.
The mercury connection has been debunked.
If if you know, if if if mercury leads to autism, then we got to get rid of the compact fluorescent light bulb.
Oh, I don't now don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying go out there and eat mercury if you're don't eat mercury, period.
Mercury's not good for you no matter what you're doing.
I know it's bad for if you're pregnant, don't go eat mercury.
Don't go break a compact uh compact fluorescent bubble and start licking up the mercury off the floor.
I'm not don't misunderstand me here.
Jeez, I am see I gee.
See how this works.
Uh don't, by the way, don't open a can of paint and drink that either if you're pregnant.
If you're not pregnant, go ahead and drink all the paint you want.
Hope it comes from China with lead in it.
It's not nearly as bad as mercury.
What?
At any rate, uh, ladies and gentlemen, all of this.
This is no different than oat bran.
Used to be a savior, then it was a killer, and now it's the coffee caused heart.
All of this stuff.
And at the foundation of this is a media drive by media ramping up and creating hysteria associated with these fraud scientists.
I don't care whether it's environmentalism or health or diet or what have you.
And then 30 years later, saccharine, guess what?
Not a problem.
Oh, where's the media?
They're all the way, they're already long gone creating the same kind of hysteria over global warming.
Now, on this autism business, Robert Kennedy Jr. was a major champion of the claim that vaccines cause autism.
In fact, some people say that Robert Kennedy Jr. almost single-handedly managed to stoke fears that vaccines were causing an epidemic of autism.
This is what leftists do.
They create crises, hysteria, panic.
Why?
Because they want to go sue the companies involved and expand government And get rich themselves off the whole process.
And now it's all been debunked.
Wakefield, a fraud.
Look what happens.
We have a story here.
Study tying vaccine to autism was fraud.
We got people calling, well, maybe so, but it's still true.
Because people want to believe this of a human nature.
Believe crisis, believe conspiracy, believe people are out to kill you.
Companies are out to kill you.
The vaccine company have to kill you.
Well, then let's talk to the Clintons, because they're the big vaccine pushers of their era, trying to get everybody to take them.
If RFK Jr., if Robert Kennedy Jr. could be so wrong about autism, maybe he could also be wrong about global warming.
We know that he is.
In fact, in 2005, Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote a scare piece in Salon and Rolling Stone linking autism to the mercury preservative used in vaccines.
And he's still promoting these scares on every talk show he can get on.
2005 articles.com.
January, July 1st, 2005.
Autism, Mercury and Politics.
Robert Kennedy Jr.
It has been debunked.
Also on Starbucks from a website called Newser.com.
With traffic waning, Starbucks has a new strategy dropping Starbucks from its store names, not just the cups.
And rebranding the stores to reflect their neighborhoods.
This is in the Seattle Times.
15th Avenue Coffee and Tea, for example, will not feature the Starbucks logo, even bags of coffee can be labeled 15th Avenue.
The shop will, it's a Starbucks store, they just changing the name of it.
Shop will also aim for a classic coffee house vibe, selling alcohol and featuring live music and poetry.
Well, you can't do this without Bed Midler rolling in now and then.
Don McLean got his start in places like this.
Why would this be why why would this major, major leader, Starbucks, be trying to get its name off of everything?
I'll tell you why.
I'll tell you exactly why.
Because their clientels, a bunch of kook leftists who hate corporations.
Starbucks customers, a bunch, most of them are people that hate big business.
They've been complaining about Starbucks destroying the pure as the wind-driven snow mom and pop independent coffee shops.
Starbucks is becoming Walmart to its own clientele.
That's why they're taking the name off of it.
So Starbucks is now pretending to be a mom and pop coffee shop.
Getting rid of the logo on their cup is all part of the process here.
And meanwhile, some customers are failing to go along with them.
Hey, what's the logo?
I want people to know that I'm Starbucks.
I want them to know that I can pay three bucks for something you can get for a dime.
I want people to know that I'm drinking stuff, even though I may not like it.
I want people to know I'm drinking it.
Fascinating marketing stuff.
All right, uh Daniel Henninger.
Congress has broken windows.
The president must have power over the budget to make spending reform work.
Hanniger write, this is not an excuse piece for Republicans in the House.
Don't misunderstand.
Here's something most Republicans don't want to hear.
There is no way the born-again straight and sober Republicans of the 112th Congress are going to get spending under control unless they involve the president.
The spending reforms that Boehner and his counterinsurgency lieutenants have proposed are terrific.
But if you think Congress by itself is going to sustain this discipline over time, I have a bridge in Alaska, I would like to sell you.
Congress is a legislative body, and like legislative bodies from ancient Rome till now, its DNA is not to forego things.
Its DNA is to do stuff.
Everyone agrees that Congress holds something called the power of the purse, and they know it.
But nowhere in the Constitution will you find that phrase.
Nor in the Constitution that they are reading on the House floor will you hear the words spend programs or outlays.
All this, though, is what Congress has been about since anybody can remember.
The reform groups and blogosphere are threatening hellfire for any Republicans who cross them on spending.
Take my word for it, Mr. Henniger writes, once any Congress makes it to the budgeting out years, all that hellfire will be just a puff of smoke.
James Buchanan, the father of public choice theory, won a Nobel Prize for unraveling this reality.
It's not hopeless.
The locus of hope, however, lies with the executive, a word at least nominally associated with responsibility.
In an article on these pages recently, a successful political executive, Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana identified the reform to sustain spending discipline.
Presidential impoundment power.
But the president doesn't have to spend it all.
If he's got the power.
The president does not right now.
Forty-two, forty-three governors do.
And Chris Christie's one of them.
Do have the power to not spend all that their legislatures budget.
As in, you can call it impoundment.
You can think line item veto, although it doesn't have to be that.
But they have control over what is spent.
Federally, Congress has control over what is spent.
So they budget it, they appropriate it, and they spend it.
But however you define the idea, impoundment, rescission, line item veto, is the power of a president or governor to zero out some of the spending pile that a legislature dumps on the front lawn.
It's executive pushback against the wretched legislative excess.
Mitch Daniels wrote in his piece that presidents once had that authority to spend less than Congress made available through appropriation.
Ask New Jersey Governor Chris Christie about the impoundment power.
He has it.
And he'll tell you it's indispensable to what he's trying to do in his hopelessly profligate state.
Absent that impoundment power, a lot of the Christie pitch would be just rhetoric.
Now, before getting into why 43 governors, but not the president have this power, a comment on those who say that impoundment's a pop gun, that it can't control entitlements or megaprograms.
Maybe you've heard of the broken windows theory of urban chaos.
It says that in a neighborhood racked with murder and mayhem, it's important to repair the broken windows.
The idea is that leaving small matters like broken windows unrepaired tells criminals that nobody cares.
If they break the neighborhood further, it tells the people that there's no hope of fixing the big things.
In New York City, this worked.
Well, earmarks, pork, corporate carve outs, and all that are Congress's broken windows.
Every knowing article written on this subject points out what a small percentage of spending this stuff is.
Earmarks, it doesn't add up to much.
Can't close the deficit with it, but the behavioral incentives for big-time criminals in the Bronx and big time spenders in a legislature like Congress are the same.
An annual federal budget of three and a half trillion dollars is a towering monument of broken windows.
Federal highway spending, they're looking for places to cut the budget, get this federal highway spending has been on automatic pilot for nearly 20 years.
Senator Tom Coburn has a long list of programs uselessly duplicated across the government.
There are nine agencies that run 69 early education programs.
Cut 68 of them.
There's no place to cut the budget, Mr. Limbaugh.
There's just too much.
Every diamond that is terribly enough a fairy.
Wrong.
The redundancy in the federal, but this is just early education programs.
How about all the school breakfast, lunch, snack, dinner programs?
How about all of the highway spending, farm spend just it goes on and on and on.
Now, the reason that this executive impoundment doesn't exist is mainly two reasons.
In the early 1970s, Richard Nixon tried aggressively to impound spending, which naturally touched off a war with Congress, its prerogatives.
Then Watergate broke, and in a fury, one of the most liberal Congresses passed the Budget Control Act of 1974, which Henniger writes should be repealed.
The Budget Act of 1970, Budget Control Act 1974, transferred most spending control to Congress, which one commentator at the time called Congressional Government and Cha.
Second, the Constitution is ambiguous on how to divide the spending authority, and the Supreme Court in coin flip decisions has sided with Congress.
All the congressional names above, and a lot of people here who have supported a list I didn't read to you, including Paul Ryan, have tried to thread the legal needle, but it doesn't exist because the bipartisan pig out caucus in hiding now won't let it happen.
Yeah.
This week the GOP Congress is talking about a Lollapalooza annual budget cut of a hundred billion.
Go for it.
But let's hear Barack Obama put the impoundment power back in play in his State of the Union address for this presidency and however many presidents are left in the future of our broken windows capital.
So the point is that if Congress maintains 100% authority over spending what they what they appropriate is a roundabout way of getting to the line item veto or what have you.
Now, companion story, Chris Christie from Mark Hemingway, the Washington Examiner.
The four-year-old New Jersey State Division of Minority and Women Business Development has been quietly dismantled by the administration of Governor Christie, which continues to register small businesses and help them obtain state government contracts on a race and gender neutral basis.
So Governor Christie here has just scuttled the division of minority and women business development.
There's a story out of uh New Mexico yesterday.
And the headline that they have a agency out there in New Mexico called EIB.
And when I read the headline, I got it.
I'm in fact rather than paraphrase this, because this governor has just eliminated EIB.
I read that.
Whoa.
I found out there's a name of an agency out there that's a total liberal Democrat worthless agency, and she's just she just ended it.
The new Republican governor out there.
They can go the other way.
Obama can create stuff by legislative fiat or executive fiat, which he will do.
By the way, the Budget Control Act of 1974 also created the Congressional Budget Office.
They wanted the Democrats back then wanted to stop Nixon from limiting spending.
Watergate came along, and Republicans got trounced, and so the Budget Act of 74 gave uh total spending authority back to Congress, created the Congressional Budget Office.
Totally ostensibly nonpartisan.
Here it is.
This is from the AP.
The headline, New Mexico governor removes EIB members.
Shocking headline.
Governor Susanna Martinez on Tuesday took aim at the controversial environmental improvement board, announcing she was removing all members over concerns about the board's approval in recent months of what she considers anti-business policies.
I love this governor.
The board made up of members appointed by the former Governor Bill Richardson was at the center of a heated debate last year over whether New Mexico should regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
So this governor came in, just wiped it out.
The Environmental Improvement Board gone because she was concerned the board's approval of recent months of what she thought were anti-business policies.
She issued an executive order halting All pending regulations by executive branch agencies under her control to determine whether they hurt businesses in New Mexico.
She also directed agencies to review rules and regulations that are in place and determine by the end of the month which ones should be scrapped to improve economic development and job growth.
So here's a new Republican governor who's looking at the state, looking at all these regulations, all the things the Liberal Democrats have done and said, look at uh anything that is hampering the creation of jobs or economic growth, I'm wiping out if it's under my control.
She's just doing it.
And, you know, some people go back and forth arguing for presidents to have uh that kind of power, line item veto, and you get into monstrous scholarly constitutional legal debates over that vis the constitution and so forth.
But states have the uh right to set themselves up however they wish and do that.
In many cases, 43 43 governors have the uh ability to just not spend what their legislatures appropriate.
Seven states.
Well, no, 43, 14 states, there'd be 57 uh do not.
Back after this.
All right, that's it.
That's another exciting hour of broadcast excellences uh in the can.
And I mean, it's zipping by here today, only one more to go.
And I know there has been um fewer phone calls taken on the program today.
I will remedy that in the in the next hour.
People have been holed here for 90 minutes.
That's how important it is to people to impair on this program.
▲
Export Selection