All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 23, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:39
February 23, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi folks and welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
This is the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
We have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here.
And we are happy to have you be part of it each and every day already Wednesday, the fastest three hours and the fastest week in media.
Our telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address LRushbaugh at EIBnet.com.
You probably heard by now.
If you haven't, I'll tell you about the prank call to Scott Walker from a leftist journalist, an obscure, wacko, extreme leftist publication, a journalist pretended to be David Koch.
Now, I know David Koch.
A little disclosure here.
I know David Koch.
I know his brother Charles Koch.
The so-called evil Koch brothers are nothing of the sort.
They are, as is typical, the exact opposite of the way the Democrats and the media portray them.
They're just like any other people.
They have organizations that are designed to influence and shape the country in ways they believe in.
They happen to be constitutionalists.
They happen to be conservatives.
They happen to have a strict moral code and they're very concerned about what's happening in the country.
And they have organizations that defend and protect their beliefs as they relate to the founding of the country, pure and simple.
They come from the Koch petrochemical and oil family from Wichita, Kansas.
Charles Koch still lives there.
David Koch lives in New York.
David Koch is the man who bought Jacqueline Onassis' apartment on Fifth Avenue after she died and it was put up for sale.
He has since sold it and moved to another place in town.
But I've met them at charitable events.
I've met them at prostate cancer charitable events.
I've met them at a number of charitable events.
And they are, as is typical of people who are not in line with the American left, they are maligned in ways that in no way close approach who these two men are and their families.
Now, you've probably heard by now that this prank call from a journalist at a fringe extremist leftist little rag newspaper pretended to be David Koch, who is referred to as a fat cat conservative donor.
So this guy calls the governor's office in Wisconsin, claims to be David Koch.
That name rings bells in the governor's office amongst the underlings.
He puts the call through, assuming it's David Koch.
So the governor ends up talking to David Koch, and now the AP has this story.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, is it the AP?
I want to make sure it's the AP, the Yahoo News.
Yeah, it's AP.
In fact, it's the top story of AP now.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has been lured into a conversation about his strategy to cripple public employee unions by a prank caller pretending to be a billionaire Republican donor.
Walker spokesman Colin Werwe confirms the governor is on audio of the call posted Wednesday on the website of the Buffalo Beast of left-leaning New York newspaper.
The governor believes the caller is David Koch.
He talks about plans for layoff notices and what can be done to punish lawmakers who've left the state.
The caller suggests that Walker take a baseball bet when meeting with Democrats.
Walker jokes that he's got a slugger with his name on it.
Now, the brothers, David and Charles Koch, have given millions to support Americans for Prosperity, which has launched a $320,000 ad campaign supporting Governor Walker.
I have spoken at Charles Koch's event in Vail a couple, three years ago.
I forget which.
And I met people there that I had previously met at other groups in organs.
The creme de la creme of conservative philanthropy.
There's hardly any subversives at all.
Now, funny thing is, if you listen to the tape, and it's been made available, it's a long tape.
We don't have it yet.
And if we get it, well, we will.
It's going to take a long time to pare this down to the essentials.
But if you listen to it, if you read a transcript of the phone call, Walker says in private to this prank caller exactly what he says in public, even to a possible fat cat donor.
He doesn't say anything he hasn't said publicly.
He was not entrapped into saying something.
Yeah, what I'm really doing here, David, you would belove me.
What I'm really doing here, that's not none of that.
He was just being upfront.
I guess that's shocking to the left and the Democrats and their media minions, is that there's not something surreptitious going on here.
It is just a typical, this is a journalist.
Well, if you're going to talk about the ethics of posing as somebody else, then you're going to have to indict 60 Minutes.
I mean, that's how 60 Minutes put themselves on the map.
Well, I mean, 60 Minutes and going to some gas station ripping people off.
You know, had a Jesus on the cash register.
They put a hidden microphone in there, send in fake customers to rip them off.
I mean, this is a common journalistic ploy.
No, the real question here is: why wasn't this properly vetted in the governor's office?
How did this call?
I mean, anybody can make a prank call.
You can't sit here and condemn what happened because Pray call.
Hell, I do this on the radio for crying out loud.
I never call governors and stuff, but I mean, I did this kind of stuff as bits, comedy bits, back in the early days of radio when you could do this without having to get permission of the person you were talking to to put them on the radio or tape record them.
Oh, gosh, I did all when I pretended to have a picture phone.
The fun I had doing that, the phone calls I made with my non-existent picture phone when I was in the video phone when I was in Pittsburgh.
No, that's not the question.
You can't, I mean, you can say, yeah, okay, typical journalist, false misrepresentation, attempt to entrap and so forth.
The thing is, the guy failed.
What they're trying to get, Scott Walker, he dared talk to a Republican donor.
Meanwhile, you got Obama meeting with Richard Trump three times a week for crying out loud.
I'm going to tell you something, folks.
A vision of America, David and Charles Koch versus Richard Trump, Trump doesn't even rate a consideration, in my mind, in terms of a vision for America.
So you can sit here and talk about this all you want and try to make hay out of the fact that he took a call from David Koch.
If David Koch called me, I'd take the call.
If Charles Koch called me, I'd take it.
If Bill Koch called me, I'd take the call.
Hell, if Freddie Koch called me.
Freddie Koch, their brother, lives over there.
And if Freddie Koch called me, I'd take the call.
There's nothing wrong with the Koch's.
They're great people for crying out loud.
I'd much rather spend time with them the Richard Trump.
Much rather go to a conference about what's wrong with America with those guys than I would with Richard Trump, who's meeting with Obama for crying out loud.
We've got some people trying to subvert capitalism.
We've got an administration that is leveling an assault on the free markets of this country each and every day, and now we're all out of whack because the governor of Wisconsin, well, nobody's out of whack, but the left is acting like some moral transgression of the highest order is taking place here because Governor Walker talked to David Koch, big whoop, be no different than if, let's see, who's take a donor.
Doesn't matter, pick a name.
George Soros, George Soros, for crying out loud, calls all these leftists and they take a call for you.
There'd be an accompanying story rooted in controversy over it.
I mean, I think it's a sign of just they've got nothing to hold on.
They got nothing of substance on their side to promote their case.
This is typical of the left trying to discredit and impugn the people who oppose them.
Don't argue with them on the merits.
Don't by any stretch.
In fact, go so far as to leave the state and then fake a call, pretend to be somebody you're not, hoping that the governor steps in a pile of it.
We've heard so much more about the Koch brothers in the mainstream media than we've ever heard about George Soros.
And compare how little they do compared to Soros.
They don't, I mean, the Koch brothers, I don't, I don't think they've, well, I know that who funded Media Matters?
Who funds Americans for whatever?
George Soros is at the root of all of the problematic Democrat liberal things in this country.
So anyway, that's, if you haven't heard about it, you have now, and that's that's the hay that they're going to try to make out of all this.
The other news item that happened in the previous hour that just now being commented on out there, ladies and gentlemen, the Defense of Marriage Act, the regime, Obama has told Eric Holder to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act.
Obama's decided that it's unconstitutional.
So is Eric Holder.
He's asked the Justice Department to stop defending it in court.
A person briefed on the decision said, yeah, the president believes that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the first and second circuits.
The administration will formally notify Congress later today.
The story I have here from the National Journal says the act sought to restrict single-sex unions.
That is a pathetic explanation here of what this is.
The Defense of Marriage Act, correct me if I'm wrong.
And the Defense of Marriage Act goes back to the Clinton era.
Clinton signed it.
The Defense of Marriage Act allows states to not recognize same-sex marriage if they choose not to.
Pure and simple.
An act of Congress, duly passed and signed into law by the president allows states to not recognize same-sex marriage if they don't want to.
What's going on here?
Well, one of the things that's happening is that the union situation for the Democrats is in trouble.
And make no mistake, this is not coincidental here.
There are no coincidences in politics.
The union as a money laundering operation, public sector unions as money laundering operations for the Democrat Party is now under assault.
In Wisconsin, in Indiana, coming in Ohio, in New Jersey, it's going to be happening because the states don't have any money.
And now people are learning that the collective bargaining of public sector unions is simply stealing from the taxpayers of that state.
There's no corporate interest here that's taking advantage of anybody.
This is simply public sector unions stealing from taxpayers under the guise of collective bargaining.
So they're looking at this and they say, we might lose this.
We might have the flow of money from taxpayers who don't want to contribute to us, who end up donating to us via union salaries.
Let me give you, here's how this works, to put this all in perspective, just so you understand.
Start at the very beginning.
You, Mr. Taxpayer, go out and you earn your salary.
Pick a number.
You earn $50,000 a year.
You pay taxes on that.
Your tax revenue goes to the federal government, goes to the state, goes to the city, wherever.
The amount of money goes to the state is then used for a bunch of reasons.
One of the reasons is paying people who are members of unions that work for your state.
So your tax dollars are the sole source of income for state union employees.
Your neighbors, they just happen to work for the state.
They're a union member.
So your tax dollars are the sole source of their income.
And you've now learned that their annual income and benefits package is twice what you who are not in a union make.
And you are paying them.
But after you pay them, it doesn't stop there.
After you pay via your taxes the salaries and benefits of all these unionized workers in your state, they are paying dues to the union.
Those dues end up as campaign donations to Democrats.
So even if you are a Republican non-union member in a state, your tax dollars are going to the campaign coffers of the Democrat Party in your state, in Washington, and perhaps the Obama regime as well, via union dues, which are also being paid for by you.
Well, people are starting to realize what this is now.
It's a money laundering operation.
How many of you who are not union in the state of Wisconsin and who are Republican are learning for the first time that your state income taxes, a portion of it, is ending up in ad campaigns and other spending for Democrat candidates in your state and nationally.
Obama and his bunch are figuring out now that people are going to start learning this.
They're going to start figuring out the money laundering aspect of what's going on here.
And they're thinking, well, maybe this, you know, maybe we might lose this collective bargaining business.
They might lose this source of revenue or a portion of it.
So where do they make it up?
Hello, gay people.
Hello, gay marriage advocates.
Hello, you are our new best friends.
And guess what?
We know that you hate the Defense of Marriage Act.
We know that you don't like it.
And we're going to agree.
We're going to find the whole thing is unconstitutional.
You want to get married and there are states out there that won't recognize it.
Well, we're going to say they can't.
We're not going to defend it anymore.
Send us some money.
That's what this is.
In part or in total.
This is about either replacing what they think might be some lost union money down the road or just adding to it.
But here's the thing, folks.
Irrespective of your view of the Defense and Marriage Act, it is the duty of the executive branch, the Justice Department, to defend in court the laws the U.S. Congress has passed.
They can't do what they've done.
Obama can't declare it unconstitutional and stop defending it.
He can't do that without the Supreme Court arriving.
Determining the constitutionality of a statute is not the job of the president.
It's not the job of the Attorney General.
They can't do legally what they're doing here.
They cannot do it.
These are the new left out laws back after this.
To the phones.
People have been patiently waiting, and let's reward them.
Starting in Columbus, Ohio, this hour with Jeffrey.
Hello, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello, how are you?
I'm very well.
Thank you.
Why are you always attacking the First Lady, man?
What's up with that?
I've never attacked First Lady.
Oh, so no saves you say it about her what?
Satire?
No.
I'm simply asking, where is the leadership on her suggestion how I'm going to eat?
Well, obviously you're not listening to it because you.
Well, but I'm not telling anybody else how to eat either.
She is.
She's trying to make it a federal law what we can and can't eat.
And I'm just pointing out that it doesn't appear she's taking her own advice, does it to you?
What you fail to realize is not what you eat, is the amount that you eat.
Don't you realize that?
You can eat anything you want in moderation, sir.
I don't care what you think about it because you can't make me eat or not eat anything.
I'm not going to attack you.
It's a cowardly thing you're doing.
Your wife is no cowardly thing to do.
I have not attacked the First Lady.
I didn't, you know, these guys amaze me.
Look at how they have attempted to destroy Sarah Palin.
I mean, you can say whatever you want about Sarah Palin.
You can insult her family.
You can insult her brain.
You can insult her looks.
You can insult her intelligence.
You can insult.
But let me simply observe that Alex Rodriguez would not date the First Lady.
Well, this is all I said.
You know what?
All I said was, Jeffrey, is what everybody's thinking.
It's that simple.
Okay, if somebody's going to tell us what we can and can't eat, got a big obesity program out there.
We're going to save people.
We're going to demand that schools not serve X, Y, and Z. Schools must serve this.
Everybody must serve.
You must eat that.
You must eat that.
We're going to have calorie counts on all kinds of food.
All right, fine.
Show us some leadership.
It's that simple.
But if you're going to make the rules for everybody else and exempt yourself, I think people are going to scratch their heads over that.
Now, we're told, you know, what the original report was, that the short ribs and so forth that Michelle My Bell ate out there in Vail were 1,500 calories and 141 grams of fat.
Then the owner of the restaurant came along and said, no, no, no, no.
These are perfectly healthy ribs.
These are low-carb, low-fat, low-calorie ribs.
They were low-carbon, low-fat.
It's what the chef at the Vale restaurant is claiming.
Well, everybody knows they're low, fat, low-calorie ribs.
We all know that.
No way.
And we're back.
Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh, talent on loan from Gandhi.
Previous caller said, and I ought to know this, that it doesn't matter what we eat, but how much.
Well, okay, fine.
But Muchel Obama is trying to tell us what we can and can't eat, not how much.
And the point is, it just, if you're going to do this, if you're going to tell everybody to eat twigs and berries and gravel and all this other stuff, you had better look like an Ethiopian.
You'd better look like that's what you eat.
Otherwise, it's going to fall on deaf ears.
It's just that simple.
Not even her husband believes, ladies and gentlemen, that the government ought to be in this business.
I have a little excerpt from his book, The Audacity of Hope, on page 36, wrote Barack Obama, we all agree society has a right to constrain individual freedom when it threatens to do harm to others.
Likewise, we all agree that there must be limits to the state's power to control our behavior, even if it's for our own good.
Not many Americans would feel comfortable with the government monitoring what we eat, no matter how many deaths and how much of our medical spending may be due to the rising rates of obesity.
Yeah, well, put us down as one of those Americans.
And yet his wife is out doing exactly what he acknowledges in his book that nobody would put up with the government doing.
Telling us what we can and can't eat.
For what it's worth, the only short ribs on the menu at that Vale restaurant are from Buffalo's Encho chili braised bison short rib, wilted Tuscan kale, hominy and wild mushroom sauté, brazing liquor.
And since the chef mentioned kale, that must be what she ate.
Sweets for the sweet, buffalo for the buffalo.
Now, I don't know about you, folks.
I've known that there are low-calorie ribs and low-fat ribs all over the place out there.
You just have to go to Vale to get them.
But they're everywhere.
You know, this is, they also caught up on something else.
Yesterday I opened the program.
I didn't think they'd catch it because I did this at the opening of the program, but they did catch it.
What's this from?
Mediaite website.
Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh made some derogatory comments about the first lady's weight.
Today, he registered how shocked he was at the uproar they caused.
Of course, the word shocked in the above sentence should be read as completely unsurprised, as that was clearly what Limbaugh intended to happen the whole time.
So now he's happily compounding the issue by making some more comments.
Here's what Limbaugh had to say.
These were highly civil comments for crying out loud.
I mean, this is what I did.
I opened the program with this yesterday.
People are going nuts.
USA Today, Politico, and some people were suggesting my comments were below the belt.
We'll take a look at some pictures.
Given where she wears her belts, I mean, she wears them high up there around the bus line.
Given where she wears her belts, it's just about everything below her belt when you look at the fashion sense that she has.
So that's how we opened the program yesterday.
And so they're always a day or two behind on the media tweaks of the day.
So this guy, what did this guy originally wanted to talk about?
He was like a prank caller to the governor.
What did he say?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
This guy told Snurdly he wanted to ask me about my hypocrisy.
I'm always talking about civility of the left, but when my guys are uncivil, I never talk about it.
Then he starts out with, oh, oh, why are you attacking the First Lady's wait?
Oh, okay.
Trying to trick the host, but the host is not trickable.
Countless.
I can't tell you the number of people who've tried this.
Trickery, trichinology, outright lying.
It never works, but yet they try.
Who's next?
La Crosse, Wisconsin.
Hi, John.
Great to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Oh, what a supreme honor, Mr. Limbaugh.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much.
You know, I was just wondering, if you had the opportunity to speak to every Wisconsinite, including the WPR listeners, what would you say to them?
Why would you say that collective bargaining rights are so important to include in this other than just the give-backs for the pension and the health care and why that's critical to do that?
What would I say the collective bargaining rights are so important to include?
To include in Scott Walker's bill that they must be taken away for public workers.
I mean, my understanding is that the contributions, the additional contributions for health care and pensions only applies to state workers, and that this is the best tool that the local governments have to get a handle on their budgets.
I mean, especially since they're not going to get as much money from the state.
Well, it is critical.
The state is out of money.
Wisconsin can't afford to pay for union members Viagra.
You know, Viagra still.
Here's the thing about collective bargaining rights for public union employees.
I think, you know, I agree with James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal.
Let me read to you how he has categorized it.
Collective bargaining in the public sector is less a negotiation than a conspiracy to steal money from taxpayers.
You know, there's no evil corporate interest here that you're collectively bargaining with.
Public sector unions are collectively bargaining against taxpayers, the taxpayers of the state.
And so in essence, it becomes an effort, okay, how much can we score?
How much can we steal from these people who are paying us?
And they end up paying us more than they make themselves.
Yeah, I feel like a peasant that's paying for these new aristocrats that have excellent job security, and it never ends.
I mean, the nine months, the job security, the benefits that no one else gets.
Well, in the case of state public employees, you're right.
But it's not that no one else gets them.
It's that who's paying it?
Absent here is some evil corporate entity.
There is no, traditionally, the way unions have succeeded is to create sympathy.
Well, yeah, they're up against these rich guys, these fat cats in the boardroom who want them in poverty, who don't want to pay them any money.
While they are getting rich as sin, they are members of the country club.
They're the ones that fly around the corporate jets.
They're the ones that have the lives of Riley.
But in this case, collective bargaining against the tax, the taxpayers are not flying around in private jets.
They're not the members of country clubs.
They are not living the lives of Riley.
A lot of them are out of work.
A lot of them have lost their homes, and the union is ungiving.
It is unwilling to compromise at all on some of this.
The unions almost said, I don't care if the state goes bankrupt.
I'm keeping what I've got.
So in this case, the whole notion of the traditional contract negotiations thrown out the window, you're asking John Q citizen, you're asking Joe Sixpack to pay you twice what he makes.
And you want a collective bargaining process which allows you the right to strike, to walk away from your job, which is to teach his kids.
You expect him to agree with this?
He doesn't see himself as a CEO of some giant company running around playing golf half the year, drinking fine adult beverages, smoking cigars, cognac from the corporate jet at 51,000 feet.
He doesn't see himself there.
He sees himself barely able to make ends meet in this economy.
And yet his neighbors, who are for some reason, have no compunction.
They'll either leave the state to avoid voting or they'll walk off the job teaching the kids or they'll walk off the job of whatever else it is.
John Q. Public's finally said, the hell with this.
I'm already paying these guys twice what I earn and they're coming in and treating me this way.
So that's the difference.
Public sector union.
It's money laundering.
I don't know how else to say this.
It is just a highly sophisticated money laundering operation.
Add to it, John.
What people are now figuring out is these John Q citizens in Wisconsin are figuring out that at the end of all of this, at the end of this timeline, a portion of their state taxes is ending up in the Democrat Party campaign coffers via the unions.
Because all of these state employees are unionized.
They pay dues.
The dues go to elect and re-elect and buy ads for Democrats.
Let me try this one more time because this is important.
Let's look at it in terms of the stimulus.
The stimulus bill, as I said from the get-go, I think was nothing more than a slush fund.
Now, it was presented as something to rebuild our roads and bridges and our infrastructure and keep our teachers working and create a whole bunch of jobs.
Jobs would, 8% unemployment would be the max.
We're going to get it down to 8%.
Nobody going higher than that.
We're going to put people to work.
The federal government can do this.
Well, where'd the money end up?
The money ended up in state budgets.
And who did it help?
It helped state employees stay employed while everybody else was losing their jobs.
Now, if you're Barack Obama and you would like to get your hands on $800 billion for your campaign war chest, you can't propose a piece of legislation and go to Congress and say, pass a bill $800 billion for the Democrats.
It wouldn't pass.
Plus, it's not legal.
So what do you do?
You propose a stimulus bill to put Americans back to work, to fix the circumstances that evil, rotten George Bush left us all in.
We're going to rebuild the roads.
We're going to rebuild the schools.
We're going to get middle-class employment hopping, and we're going to all make sure all this happens.
All we need is $787 billion.
Yeah, almost $800 billion.
That's all we need.
People go, yeah, yeah, yeah, because Obama's living off the love of the inauguration.
Nobody knows anything about him yet.
I still believe in all the mythology about Messiah this, Messiah that.
Yeah, yeah, man, yeah, man.
Okay.
So the year goes by, and there haven't been any new roads, and there's no new schools, and the bridges haven't been rebuilt.
In fact, the Metrodome roof collapsed, and no money to fix it.
How can this be?
Yet, nobody's raising any questions about it.
Where'd the money end up?
Where'd he go?
I told you, in fact, most of the money wasn't spent until 2010.
Most of the money wasn't even scheduled to be spent until 2010, which is an election year.
After the first year of the stimulus, a full 70% of it remained because it was a slush fund.
So that money, the vast majority of it, went to keep public sector union people employed.
Because as they are employed, they pay union dues.
And their union dues end up back in the Democratic Party.
So pretty good sleight of hand.
Obama gets his $800 billion stimulus bill and what, maybe half of it ends up in the hands of Democrats across the country, state, local, national.
Pretty smart move.
All because it went to state public sector union employees who kept their jobs.
Have we heard yet of the massive layoffs in the states?
Have we heard of foreclosures on homes, people who live in states that work for the government, public sector union?
Have we heard this?
Have we heard these stories?
We heard the sob stories about this.
Have we heard one state talking?
I've got a layoff only in Wisconsin.
1,500 layoffs may happen this Friday and look what's happening.
It's intolerable.
So the $787 billion is a slush fund, takes a circuitous route, and a portion of it ends up the Democratic Party.
Same thing here in Wisconsin.
Average citizen, non-union, pays his taxes.
His taxes keep union people employed.
They pay their dues.
As we all know, public sector unions 100% support Democrats.
Where's the money going?
Why is the reason that they get raises?
The more they make, the higher their dues are.
Voila.
Bottom line: all of this stimulus spending, all of this spending to keep public sector union people employed is nothing more than a money laundering operation to make sure that campaign donations continue to flow to the Democrat Party.
It's that simple, folks.
Don't doubt me.
From the Milwaukee, that's Wisconsin, from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
October 13th of 2009, state public sector jobs benefit from stimulus.
Look at me.
Look at me and listen.
The first solid, if still incomplete, employment numbers for federal stimulus spending by Wisconsin state government show that retaining government positions was job one.
75% of 8,200 stimulus-related jobs accounted for so far were public sector posts protected by the federal infusion into state and local government coffers.
This from Governor Jim Doyle's office.
That included teachers, police officers, and other government workers.
Of the remaining one-fourth, it's not clear how many are private sector jobs and whether the jobs were retained or newly created.
So a full 75 percent of 8,000 stimulus-related jobs accounted for so far were public sector posts.
So Milwaukee got a portion of the stimulus.
75% of the stimulus was spent on maintaining public sector jobs.
Exactly what I just told you the stimulus was for.
The main effect, this is from the story, the main effect of the stimulus money that went to state and local governments was to prop up health care and education spending so the state could balance its budget without huge tax increases.
The main effect of stimulus money that went to state and local governments, prop up health care and education spending for state employees, not private sector employees, so they could balance their budget without huge tax increases.
The stimulus bill in Wisconsin, 75%, I don't have the amount of money at my fingertips, 75% of it went to protect 8,200 public sector jobs in Wisconsin and their health care plans.
You thought the stimulus was about building a road or a bridge or refurbishing something, shovel-ready jobs, right?
You thought it was all about reducing the national unemployment or fixing the recession.
It wasn't.
It was about making sure union people stayed employed so they can continue to pay dues to the Democrat Party during a horrible recession.
Wisconsin got $701 million from the stimulus, $701 million.
That means $632 million of the federal funds was used to pay for public sector employees.
▲
Export Selection