All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:01
January 27, 2011, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and the Limbaugh Institute.
For advanced conservative studies, we are in Los Angeles today.
Actually, today and tomorrow, but Mark Stein will be hosting the program tomorrow.
And for those of you desperately trying to find the DittoCam on our iPhone app, sorry, there is no DittoCam set up here at our Los Angeles.
I wouldn't really call it a studio.
I'd call it our enclave.
Maybe at some point down the road, that'll happen, but there is no DittoCam here.
So this is just the sadly one day without it.
Back to normal as far as that's concerned on Monday.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
And the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com from the Washington Post, the day after Obama called for popularizing electric cars in the WTF State of the Union address, two Michigan Democrats proposed legislation that would spend billions more on incentives for consumers to buy them.
Sander Levin and his brother Carl Levin are proposing to more than double the scope of a program that gives consumers $7,500.
In other words, these guys are willing to pay you $7,500 to buy a car that you otherwise wouldn't buy.
Paying us to buy something worth billions or with billions of tax dollars.
You realize if this program works, there's no private sector benefit to this whatsoever.
Because Obama owns the car company.
Tax revenue redistributed that we don't have, by the way, will be given to people in exchange for buying the cars.
Incentives are necessary.
Now, this is the Washington Post version of this.
Incentives are necessary to reach that goal.
What is the goal?
Hang on a minute here.
1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2050.
Why is that a goal?
What is that going to prove?
Not going to save the planet.
It's not going to do anything.
All it's going to do is put people in cars they don't want to be in.
And in terms of saving the planet, where the hell is power going to come from?
It's going to come from coal, power plants.
You plug these things in to charge them.
People are going to be using even more coal than already they are.
Nobody talks about that.
In terms of pollutants, coal is a dirty fuel, according to these people.
So 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.
That's four years from now.
That's what, $250,000 a year.
And to accomplish this, incentives are necessary because electric vehicles are so expensive, largely because of the cost of batteries.
That's not why.
It's because people don't want them in large numbers.
I mean, some people do.
A lot of people in the country, some of them are going to be kooky enough to want one of these things.
But it's not because they're expensive.
If that were the excuse, everything that were expensive would be subsidized in order to make sure that they sold.
The Chevrolet Volt is priced at $41,000.
The Nissan Leaf at $32,780.
That's well above comparably sized cars with gas engines.
That can cost about $20,000.
Besides boosting sales at the automakers, the benefit would flow to early adopters who generally tend to be affluent.
Meaning, you know what this means?
The rich are the ones who spring for high-priced new released items like that plasma TV or the flat screen when they originally cost $10,000.
The only way they were gotten out of the market is when the rich could pay that price for them.
That helped the companies recoup the R ⁇ D.
That brought the price down so even the homeless can have one.
And that's the theory here behind the electric car, that only the affluent will be able to afford them at first, but now the affluent are going to be paid.
Some of these subsidies are going to reach as high as $17,000 to tax credit.
The next story, rising gas prices will propel EV sales.
Green Car Summit told.
This is the Detroit Free Press.
Meeting President Obama's goal of putting a million advanced technology vehicles on American roads by 2015 may not be too difficult to do if the price of gasoline keeps rising.
Upward pressure on petroleum prices, along with advances in technology and infrastructure, may play a bigger role than anything else in reaching a goal, said Joseph Rahm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington.
When gas prices hit $4 a gallon, consumer preference for alternative fueled vehicles will spike, and fuel prices are already headed in that direction.
That's not what's going to propel this.
Gas prices are not going to propel EV sales.
Government policy is going to.
We just have the story here.
Subsidies.
Essentially paying people to go out and buy one of these things.
From an unfazed Associated Press, two of the central promises of President Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, according to Medicare's independent economic expert, also known as the Medicare Actuary.
The Medicare independent expert, two of the central promises of Obamacare are unlikely to be fulfilled.
So what's the point?
Why do it?
The two promises.
What are the two promises?
Anybody take a stab at this?
What are the two central promises of Obamacare regarding the health care law?
Yeah?
There you go.
HR on the staff knew the answer, that costs will go down and everybody will be able to keep their plan.
The plan that you have, you like it, you can keep it.
If you can get a waiver, and that costs are going to go down.
Here's the Medicare actuary.
An unphased AP.
Hey, they're just reporting it.
If it were Bush, the word lie would have appeared four times in the opening sentence, much less paragraph.
The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, says the unphased AP.
And it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, said Chief Actuary Richard Foster to a House budget committee, his office responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.
Well, I guess apart from those two minor discrepancies, Obamacare is turning out exactly as Obama promised.
But still, what's the point?
That's the question.
What is the purpose of doing healthcare reform in the first place if costs are not going to go down and you won't be able to keep your plan?
What is the point?
Why are we doing this?
And of course, the answer becomes obvious.
We're doing this to grow government.
We're doing this to put government.
The point of all this is by design, costs are not going to go down.
By design, you don't get to keep your plan.
This is what eventually will force everybody to the so-called public option, which is single-payer government control.
And believe me, that's on their drawing board for something five, 10 years down the road.
The Medicare actuary was asked by Tom McClintock, a Republican from California, for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law, that it'll bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.
On the cost issue, Foster said false.
As for people getting to keep their coverage, not true in all cases.
Obama White House officials dispute his analysis and predict that he'll be proven wrong about the health care law if he likes walking.
Republicans hang on his every word.
So Mr. Foster must be some kind of kook, right?
Clearly isn't as nonpartisan as the sainted Congressional Budget Office.
So why do it?
Turning to the audio soundbites now.
Late Tuesday afternoon, Bloomberg Television Street March Show, the guest is Gloom, Boom, and Doom Report.
The publisher Mark Faber, the co-hoster, Matt Miller says, let me ask you about the State of the Union show.
Now, we're going to hear from the president on what he's done for the past couple of years and what he has ahead of him.
With the political constraints in mind, the president has to deal with.
What do you think of the job he's done and what do you think he needs to do from here?
I think he's done a horrible job, and I think that will continue.
I think he's basically a dishonest person, intellectually dishonest, and change.
Nothing has changed.
Oh, that is Mark Fobber, the publisher of Gloom, Boom, and Doom Report.
Now, obviously, Jeffrey Imelt's not gotten to this guy yet, not made the sale.
Bill Daly hadn't made the sale to this guy yet.
I mean, that's pretty.
Play that again.
What do you think the president needs to do from here?
I think he's done a horrible job, and I think that will continue.
I think he's basically a dishonest person, intellectually dishonest, and change.
Nothing has changed.
Now, remember, this is Bloomberg.
Bloomberg.
The guy that owns this network thought that the Times Square bomber was just ticked off about healthcare.
He thought he was a tea partier.
So these two hosts, they can't sit there and let this stand.
Matt Miller says, well, why do you think he's intellectually dishonest?
I mean, keeping in mind he's a politician.
You have to compare him to other relative politicians.
This guy's saying they're all dishonest.
What's special about Obama?
Yes, but some politicians are more honest than others.
I have a high regard for businessmen and for people who work and not for people who abuse the system continuously.
I think that he came in on a platform as a president that would want to change the government in Washington and actually he's made it worse.
So the co-host, Carol Massar, says, look, to be fair, he came in at a time we were smack in the middle of a financial crisis and it was tough to change the system.
You laugh, you laugh, but he came in at a tough time.
Maybe now he'll start changing the system.
You are an optimist.
Keep on dreaming.
We foreigners, we just laugh.
We just laugh about someone like Mr. Obama.
I was very critical of Mr. Bush, but at least he had one line and he stuck to that line.
He may have been wrong and I criticized him very frequently, but at least he didn't change his mind continuously and didn't prostitute himself.
Whoa!
Didn't prostitute himself.
We foreigners, we just laugh.
We laugh about someone like Mr. Obama.
I love this guy.
Who is this guy?
Mark Fobber, the publisher of Gloom, Boom, and Doom.
The Gloom, Boom, and Doom report.
Now, to show you, ladies and gentlemen, the new civility that we're trying to practice here on the program, I must point out that all of these people in the financial business and in many other businesses profit from forecasts of doom.
These guys that have newsletters on Wall Street, their subscriptions skyrocket with every report that everything in your portfolio is going to be worthless next week unless you sign up now.
Now, this guy doesn't sound like one of those, but I mean, they're out there.
So that's the new civility.
How did that sound?
Katie Couric, do we want to?
Oh, Katie.
Katie's wondering.
Yeah, let's do this.
This is last night on the CBS Eyeball Evening News.
This is during a setup of a report on Congress.
Katie Couric, who last night probably did not know that she was going to be in Central Park today pushing Barry Diller's Maserati out of a snowplow while he was standing there watching her do it, had this to say on her newscast.
At the State of the Union address last night, many Republicans and Democrats crossed the aisle to sit side by side in a show of unity.
Well, it's the day after.
Was this just a one-night stand for most of them?
A one-night stand.
Date night, one-night stand.
And last night, Chicago, the Big 89 WLS, the Wolf and Proft Show, during a discussion about the state of the Union.
One of the two hosts, and Representative Danny Davis, Democrat, Illinois, now this goes by fast, 12 seconds.
This is their little exchange.
Who'd you sit next to?
I sat next to Trent, Republican fella from Arizona.
Danny Davis had no idea who he sat next to.
Danny Davis, Illinois, no clue who he sat next to.
That Trent guy, somebody from a fellow Republican fellow from Arizona.
So I guess there's Katie's answer.
It was indeed a one-night stand.
They didn't even get names.
Apparently, not even a discussion over who's going to pick up the hotel bill.
Speaking of one-night stands, how many dates was it before Clinton remembered Monica Lewinsky's name?
Probably Katie Couric says there were one-night stands at the State of the Union.
Got together for one night of civility, and that was it.
And we haven't heard any reports of date rape, by the way, during the one-night stand.
So apparently everything was fine.
Sheila Jackson Lee, this may be the understatement of the century.
Last night, Sheila Jackson Lee was on Follow the Money, that's Eric Bowling's show on the Fox Business Network.
And he said to her, every time I have you on, I have people from Texas.
Her district is in Houston.
Every time I have you on, I have people from Texas emailing me saying, by the way, in her district alone, there are medical centers, hospitals closing since the Obamacare law has been passed.
They're saying doesn't seem to be working for them.
Now, this, he's asking her about her constituents.
And in the understatement of the century, she replies.
I love my constituency, but they're obviously ill-informed, and they need to show me the tale.
Henrik Hewitt, they're obviously ill-informed.
They elect her.
Here's the rest of it.
Well, in total.
I love my constituency, but they're obviously ill-informed and they need to show me the facilities that are closing because we have the opportunity to expand.
I have informed them.
They're not closing, and I look forward to hearing from them because they're not closing.
If you live in her district, you've got to be satisfied, right?
Pleased as you can be.
Joe Biden.
Joe Biden, I loved it, State of the Union.
He got caught tightening his tie twice, the tie knot.
Very, very nervous.
It's like I said yesterday.
I really believe I hadn't seen a video shot of Biden from behind until the State of the Union always have a camera behind there.
And I am convinced his head is rejecting the hair plugs.
Because I can swear there used to be a lot more hair there on the top and in the back.
But I'm sure finally, after all these years, there's a bunch of rejection going on.
And he needs to take steps to fix that.
Now, the media is obsessed with Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, and how inept or incompetent they are.
Yesterday in Mount Comfort, Indiana, at a plant called Enner One, that's E-N-E-R-1.
Ener1, Vice President Joe Biden introduced State Senator Beverly Gard.
Yes, State Senator Beverly Guard, a woman.
Senator Gard is here.
I want to recognize him.
I was told he was here.
I wonder if she stood up and says, yeah, I'm here.
And then he wasn't finished.
The name of the company is Enner1.
E-N-E-R-1.
This goes by in four seconds.
You got to listen fast.
Enron One leading the way.
We're certainly going to come pretty close.
Enron One leading the way.
It's Enner One.
So he introduced State Senator Beverly Gard as him and called the company he was visiting Ener1 Enron One.
Who's next?
Oh, no time to take a call.
We'll get to the phones right after this brief but profitable EIB timeout here at the bottom of the hour.
Don't go away.
Serving humanity simply by showing up Rush Limbaugh in Los Angeles with the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies and to San Francisco.
This is Jim.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello.
How are you today?
Thank you very much.
Very well.
Thank you.
Excuse me, I'm a person that has a tendency to try and find logic in situations.
And this new CBO deficit report doesn't make sense to me because, one, in order to know that there's a deficit, don't you first, number one, have to have a budget?
And they never pass the budget.
Exactly right.
There is no budget.
You're right.
No, no, this is, I don't want to gloss over this.
This is salient.
There is no budget.
There's barely a continuing resolution.
Exactly.
And so now they try and say because the Bush tax cuts were extended, therefore there's additional budget deficit.
But if there wasn't a budget, how is there a deficit?
And how do they blame it solely on that unless they had assumed previously that they were going to recapture all that money, which seeing as how they never knew, how could they now say it?
They can't.
I know.
And this, and this from, don't forget now, this is the beloved nonpartisan CBO.
Non-partisan.
Now, as to these Bush tax rates, remember now, these things predate.
They go back to 2001, 2003.
Whatever budget impact they have has long been on the books.
There is no new budget impact by continuing those rates unless you fiddle around with baseline budgeting and raise it.
If you are going to pretend that those tax rates were going to be sunsetted and it go back up to 39%, for example, at the high end, if you're going to assume that, but you're right, there's still not a budget.
If you're going to assume that, and you start making budget plans based on it and to figure the revenue you're going to get because of that increase, all of a sudden you don't get the raised tax rates, you've got to stay the same.
Then you can tell yourself, oh my gosh, we're going to be losing a bunch of tax revenue, but you were never going to get it in the first place.
And this is typically how the U.S. budget is done.
This is baseline budgeting to a T.
It does.
In other words, every budget item is guaranteed an 8% to 10% increase.
And if it only gets 4% to 5% once they do the budget, then they claim a 4% to 5% budget cut after an increase of 4% to 5%.
So you're exactly right.
Your logic has nailed this precisely.
No, it does.
And it's also, if they were only projecting $1 trillion, which still you'd have to have a budget, they would have to have already said, we are assuming we are now capturing this money, which they never did.
No, they never were going to capture it.
They could only plan on capturing it, but it was always tentative, and it was always based on the tax rates going back up.
So you're right.
The money's never been captured.
They can't lose what they didn't get.
Exactly.
But yet they write a report saying they are going to lose that money.
And therefore, the deficit is going to be a total lie.
It's a total sham.
Thank you.
You're right.
He's right into money.
That's Jim in San Francisco.
The LA Times on the opinion page today, CBO lays out the harsh reality.
The economy will push up revenue slightly in 2011.
But the real culprits on the spending side are rapid increases in spending on entitlement programs, Medicare, and servicing the growing federal debt.
And later in this story, they talk about the revenue from the tax breaks.
They're not going to tax rates that they're not going to get, which will push the deficit at all.
But really, the main point is there isn't a budget.
So all of this is smoke and mirrors.
All of this is irrelevant.
They publish a report on the budget when there isn't one.
Less in Fridley, Minnesota.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Megadittos from friendly, Fridley, Minnesota.
Thank you, sir.
Great to talk to you, and thank you for taking my call.
You bet.
I want to take you back to, I believe it was in the 90s when Clinton released oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve when we had a big spike in gas prices.
Yeah.
And people were going from SUVs to the smaller cars getting away from luxury, et cetera, to save gas.
Some did, yeah.
Yeah.
But there was a lot of talk at that time, if that trend continued, that there was going to be no way to collect the gas tax for the state and federal governments to maintain the roads.
And then there was talk about going to some type of satellite tracking and paying instead of a gas tax by the gallon, paying by the mile.
Right.
In California, you're exactly right.
But now we're talking about electric cars and hybrids, and you hear no discussion about how we're going to pay for the roads when people aren't using gasoline.
And I just don't understand how, you know, it's like a tax cut.
We're revenue short, but now we're not going to discuss how we're going to collect that.
Of course, they're not going to discuss it.
But do you think the taxing authorities are just going to say to themselves, oh, gee, we got the gas tax, but there's no gas here.
So I guess we're going to miss that revenue.
Well, what I'm wondering is if in all these new hybrid cars that nobody's telling us that they're planning satellite tracking in there for the future.
Well, they're going to do something.
They'll raise the gasoline tax anyway.
Here's the way it works.
The government tells us that we're destroying the planet with fossil fuels.
And they then tell us and guilt us into buying smaller cars that use less gasoline, less fossil fuels.
Ergo, some people get sucked in and go do it.
Enough do that less gasoline is purchased.
So tax revenues from gasoline in the states goes down.
This is an unintended consequence because these people do not plan dynamically.
They plan statically.
It's too late.
Then they realize, oh my gosh, the people have believed us.
The people have believed that they are destroying the planet.
The people have bought the fact that they need to drive smaller cars and use less gasoline to save the planet.
But unfortunately, we're getting less revenue.
So they come along and raise the gasoline tax to make up for it.
And so the original purpose of getting everybody into more efficient cars is blown out the window because nobody saves any money.
You might be buying less gasoline, but you're going to end up spending the same for it because they've got to raise the tax.
In North Carolina, when they had a drought, maybe it wasn't even a drought, people were using less water.
Oh, it was a drought.
And the state authorities were warning people to use less water because it was a precious resource that was dwindling because of the drought.
So people did.
They followed the directions of the supreme leaders in North Carolina and they used less water.
Well, the public utilities realized soon thereafter that with less water usage came less public utility tax revenue.
So they said, this won't do because government never does with less.
No pun intended here, Les.
So what they do, they raise the taxes on water while urging people to use less of it.
So every time your government comes along, urges you to be more economical, and you follow along, think you're going to be saving money, you're driving a smaller car, using less gasoline, you're going to get one of these hybrids or one of these electric vehicles, they're going to come back at the end and recapture what they've lost because you followed their instructions.
So however, whether they have to raise gasoline taxes on other people to make up for the shortfall of people not buying as much.
But look, the dirty little secret is that every one of these electric cars has got a gasoline tank in it.
I think the Volt, they're selling it as 40 miles to a charge and 275 miles or something like that on the reserve gasoline tank.
Now, I know the Obama Motors people do not like me mentioning that.
And I'm not definitely sure that the number is 270, but I do know that the gasoline tank will get you more mileage than the 40 miles of the original electric charge.
There's no question.
Les, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
It's a good lesson to learn.
Whatever advice you get from the controlling legal authorities at your state, county, city, whatever, or federal government.
You need to cut back.
You need to save money.
We need to save money.
You do it, and they get less tax revenue, and that won't stand.
So they'll got to find a way to recapture it somehow, and they do.
Okay, here are the stats.
The Obama Volt, first car ever built by the government, 25 to 50 miles on a charge of electricity.
There is a nine-gallon gasoline tank.
When you run out of juice in the battery, the gasoline kicks in.
The nine gallons will get you about 300 miles.
Pardon the sniff.
A new revolutionary Obama technology, 25 to 50 miles on the battery, 300 miles on the backup gasoline engine with a nine-gallon tank.
The regime's own experts say that proposed new coal mine regulations to protect streams would eliminate thousands of jobs across the country.
Obama's own experts.
7,000 more jobs killed.
The documents say protections in the regime's preferred plan would trim production to the point that 7,000 of the nation's estimated 80,600 coal mining jobs would be lost.
No sweat off Obama's back.
Remember, during the campaign, he was very clear.
I mean, he's not going to stop anybody from opening a coal-fired power plant, but you're going to lose money if you do it because we're going to try to put it out of business.
I don't know what he expects to power his car, the volt.
And by the way, there are, I check this too, there are already discussions in Washington of a new electricity tax to make up for the shortfall of gasoline tax revenue among people who go out and buy an electronic vehicle.
Chris in New Hampshire, I'm glad you waited.
You're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Yes.
Hey, Rush, live-free or die dittos from Mark Stein's EIB Northern Command state of New Hampshire.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Last week, there was a story that circulated a bit about some violence, unfortunate, at Walmart in Washington.
There were some shootings involved.
And I'm wondering if you thought that Target's violent marketing rhetoric with bullseyes on everything might have had any influence on that, if that outbreak of department store violence might have been a problem.
Actually, no.
If that were true, people would be firing at Target.
I mean, the Target logo is on Target stores.
That's true, but it does create an atmosphere, if you will, kind of a shopping climate.
Well, but except now, nobody's shooting Target stores.
They're shooting Walmarts.
So you can't look at Target.
So we looked it up.
We found some anti-Walmart rhetoric from the New York Times.
Frank Rich just routinely rips into Walmart.
The left frequently rips into Walmart.
What do they do?
They destroy mom and pop.
Grocery stores and department stores.
They destroy Main Street.
They destroy unions.
They don't pay health care.
I mean, the left has gemmed up all kinds of hatred at Walmart.
And in fact, after in Washington, the union was urged to go out and protest on the lawn, on the street in front of the Walmart executive's house.
And it was after that happened that the shooting incident at Walmart in Seattle took place.
So, I mean, you do the math.
Yeah, I suppose you're right there.
One other comment, if I have a moment.
The situation with Obama talking like he's or trying to be portrayed as the new Ronald Maximus.
I'm thinking that if you listen to the clip you played a while ago, it's the influence Ronald Reagan had that he's trying to emulate.
They were very careful to distance him from the content.
It's just the style he's interested in.
So I think it's...
Well, not entirely.
I mean, I know what you're saying, but not entirely.
I mean, there were parts of that State of the Union speech, in fact, the deadest parts where he was trying to sound like Reagan.
And I'm convinced the reason that he sounded dead was because he can't fake it.
He really doesn't believe that stuff.
Not too many people can fake passion.
I mean, the actors can do it, but not too many people can really bring off genuine passion when they don't feel it for something.
And I think that's one of the problems that Obama had.
Sam in Taylorsville, Kentucky, your turn.
Hello, sir.
Thanks, Rush.
Dave McCall.
I need to get you back.
At this point, I know time is dwindling.
Caught my attention this morning's GOP invoked 1700s doctrine and health care fight.
Thomas Jefferson fought that, and I'm very proud that he is from Kentucky and carried that fight from our state.
I'm a member of a constitutional study group, and I'm excited about this, heard about it before.
We support the Tea Party every chance we get.
Yeah, that's true.
Nullification, it's a 18th century idea.
Thomas Jefferson didn't start.
There are 11 states that are exploring nullification.
Basically, Jefferson believed the states needed authoritative power to effectively resist the federal government when it was not in their best interest to follow what the federal government was mandating.
And so, look at all this just, it means, folks, that the evidence continues to mount that there's more and more opposition to Obamacare everywhere you look.
And that's it, folks.
Thanks so much for being with us today.
As always, it really is highlight of my day, highlight of my life to be able to do these three hours with you.
And I look forward to each next day, which for me is Monday.
Mark Stein will be here tomorrow as we wrap things up here from Los Angeles.
I hope you have a great next couple days and a weekend, and look forward to being back here on Monday.
▲
Export Selection