All Episodes
Previous Next
March 1, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:23
March 1, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out which soundbites I want to use here as we get started here in the final big hour of broadcast excellence today.
I guess I don't really want to listen to the media push their bogus poll on collective bargaining.
We got a bogus poll on collective bargaining.
We got bogus polls.
I'm just tired of pushing these bogus polls.
I'm tired of these people trying to tell me that what happened in November, that people now regret that there's been a majority opinion shift since November.
I just know that's not true.
Anyway, great to have you back, folks.
L. Rushbaugh and the Golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number for you if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address lrushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
The poll, by the way, showing that the people of Wisconsin vastly prefer the union position, collective bargaining.
Vastly, vastly prefer it.
The poll says that there are more independents in Wisconsin than Republicans or Democrats.
That's public policy polling.
That's that bunch out of North Carolina.
That's just preposterous.
To assert that there are more independents, because they had more independents in their poll than Republicans and Democrats.
And that's even part of a trick.
You know, the Democrats have lost independence.
They lost big independence in November.
And now they're trying to come back and say the independents have swollen in size.
And that they're now all voting Democrat.
They're now back to liberal thinking.
It's just all bogus.
It is as unprofessional as you could get.
Yet they sit there and they smile at their results as they recognize the tool they have at their disposal.
From the Financial Times from yesterday, Congress near's deal to avert shutdown.
The new Republican majority in the House of Representatives appears to have won the upper hand in negotiations about the U.S. budget as a government shutdown is likely to be averted by a short-term deal with the Democrats.
Analysts said that Democrats' agreement to cut $4 billion out of the U.S. budget over a two-week period, keeping the government funded until March 18th would make it more difficult for Democrat lawmakers to resist big spending cuts as they seek to reach a final deal about the rest of the 2011 budget.
And then we move on.
There's a Washington Post story by Laurie Montgomery.
GOP spending plan would cost 700,000 jobs.
Do you realize the point of this story is that a $61 billion cut in the budget will result in 700,000 lost jobs.
Folks, it is almost a trillion dollars in federal spending, which led to the loss of millions of federal jobs.
But let's go with the flow here.
What does Laurie Montgomery at the Washington Post say?
She says, first off, she's a stimulus cheerleader.
A Republican plan to sharply cut federal spending this year would destroy, wipe out 700,000 jobs through 2012, according to an independent economic analysis.
The report by Moody's analytics chief economist Mark Zandi.
Wait a minute, Mark Zandi.
Mark Zandi, Mark, that name rings the bell.
Mark Zandi, Mark Zandy, Mark Zandy.
Oh, here it is right here.
Yeah, I knew it.
Get that Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package, who has advised both political parties, predicts the Republican package would reduce economic growth by one-half a percentage point this year and by two-tenths of a point in 2012, resulting in 700,000 fewer jobs.
Really?
Mark Zandi, the architect of the stimulus, says Republican budget cuts, we'll lose 700,000 jobs.
Well, Shazam.
Shazam.
So I take it that if we spend $61 billion, then we'll create 700,000 jobs, right?
Well, if we cut $61 billion and we lose $700,000, doesn't it stand to reason that if we just spent $61 billion more, we would create 700,000 jobs?
If that's the case, how much would it take to wipe out our 10% unemployment?
Shazam!
There's the solution.
Okay, so the Washington Post cheerleading.
From the Hill, Doug.
Now, this is funny.
This is a teachable moment here from theHill.com about the template-driven narrative that the drive-bys have.
You wonder if they will ever have an original thought.
This is a poll that they commission, and they are shocked by the results.
However, we all predicted it.
Their poll shows that more voters would blame Democrats for a government shutdown than Republicans.
29% of likely voters would blame Democrats for a government shutdown compared to 23% who would hold Republicans responsible.
And this shocked the people at the Hill.
The results are surprising, they say.
Surprising.
Because most people blame the Republicans for the last one.
A week before the 95 shutdown, polls showed the public blame Republicans by two to one margin.
So here you see what passes for in-depth analysis.
The Republicans got blamed in 95.
We got away with it then.
Why wouldn't they get blamed this time?
That's the extent of the depth of analysis at thehill.com.
They are just stunned.
And people at public policy polling might be interested in this little ditty.
Republicans have a substantial edge among independents.
34% of independents would blame Democrats.
Only 19% would blame the Republicans.
That's a 15% edge for Republicans for what?
Not reaching across the damned aisle.
The independents are applauding the Republicans for not going across the aisle and reaching an agreement with the Democrats on this.
And yet, public policy polling tells us that there are more independents in Wisconsin than there are Republicans and Democrats, and that they all support the Democrat position now.
However, the Hill says with some comfort, there are dangers for both parties.
A plurality of voters, 43%, would blame both Republicans and Democrats if the lights go out at midnight, March 5th.
45% of respondents said neither party would benefit politically from a shutdown.
Well, that would thrill the No Labels crowd, but I doubt anybody else.
So there they are, stunned and shocked.
They can't believe that the Democrats will get the blame, but they have to know it's true.
That's why the Democrats are angling here to make a deal.
Ras Musson, 58% favor government shutdown until spending cuts are agreed upon.
This is a huge C.
I told you so.
I have been saying with confidence people would not blame the Republicans for a shutdown this time like they did in 95.
So many things are different.
Now, one big difference is people favor a shutdown.
Now, these people in the press really are shallow.
Well, Republicans got blamed in 95.
Of course they'll get blamed in 2011.
No, sorry.
You have a much more informed public today than then.
And you have a public fed up with the size of government, the size of government growth, all the spending.
They want it shutdown.
76% of those in the political class would rather see spending continue at current levels to avoid a shutdown.
70% of mainstream voters, that's you, would prefer a shutdown until Democrats and Republicans can agree on spending cuts.
So the political class, basically Washington and people that work in government, want to see all this spending continue.
That's how they want to avoid a shutdown.
The voters prefer a shutdown.
That's in Rance Music.
So you compare this poll with all that rot gut coming out of Wisconsin on the Malarkey going on there.
Now, I want to put a see if I'm going to have time to show you this.
We're going to have to put this chart up at rushlimbog.com.
It's from business insider Henry Blodgett, the only chart you need to see to understand why the U.S. is screwed.
You've seen the charts, nerdly.
We're still working our way through here.
Mary Meeker's excellent analysis of the financial condition of the U.S. We're going to be breaking out some key sections in the next few days.
In the meantime, this all from Saturday.
In the meantime, here's one chart you need to see to understand why the U.S. is screwed.
That's the income statement of the U.S. in 2010, revenue on the left, expenses on the right.
Note a few things.
First, revenue is tiny relative to expenses.
Second, most of the expense is entitlement programs, not defense, not education, and the other line items most budget crusaders normally howl about.
Third, as horrifying as these charts are, they don't even show the trends of the two pies.
The expense pie is growing like gangbusters, driven by the explosive growth of the entitlement programs that no one in government even has the cojones to talk about.
Revenue is barely growing at all.
And what is obvious as well when you look at this is that there's no way to solely grow our way out of this.
There's going to have to be major spending cuts in entitlements.
So what I'm going to do here, folks, I just turn the Ditto Cam off while I zoom in.
I'm not going to go through the process of having you watch me zoom in, but I'm going to zoom in on this.
All right.
If you're watching on the Ditto Cam, here we go.
As you're looking at this, the chart on the right is expenses.
The pie on the right is expenses.
The pie on the left is income.
Now, look at that pie on the right with the blue, orange, and red slices.
Those are the entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security expenses.
The others are defense, education, much other stuff thrown in there.
And the point being made that the big pie is continuing to grow.
I mean, these expenses just continue to grow, grow, grow.
The income on the left pretty soon, the comparison is going to be size of the earth to the moon as it keeps going.
When you get this chart, we'll have it up at rushlimbaugh.com, link to it anyway.
And they're right.
You see this.
You see this.
And it's all you need to see to illustrate the problem that we have and to be able to recognize that growth alone is not going to equalize these two pies in size.
It's going to require spending cuts.
Now, somebody on the big pie, of those three, the blue, the orange, and the red, Social Security is 20%.
Medicare is 22.
Medicaid, 22.
Oh, the unemployment compensation, 16%.
Social Security is 20%.
22% is Medicare and Medicaid.
Unemployment compensation is, this is striking, three-fourths as big as Social Security.
The amount of money we are paying people not to work as an entitlement on this chart looked at as an entitlement is three-fourths the size of Social Security.
Just like what?
Just like Europe.
Just like Europe.
On the income side, individual income tax rates are 41% of all income.
Social Security tax, FEMA, FICA, is 40%.
Corporate income tax is 9%.
There's 10% other varied sources of income.
So we'll link to that chart.
And you'll be able to see it at rushlimbaugh.com.
And we'll be back right after this.
You won't believe this.
A 102-year-old woman, 102 years old, is one of two people who have fallen victim to a man wanted for forgery and ID theft.
Josephine McBride lost money when Mark Hollis Hilliard used her checking account number to buy stuff at one store and return the stuff for cash at another store.
Police say that Hilliard used ID info from a Norfolk resident and the bank account information of several others to create counterfeit checks.
A 102-year-old babe loses her identity.
You've been who you are for 102 years old, and then some slime named Mark Hollis Hilliard comes along.
And after 102 years, you don't exist.
She's got to go all kinds of trouble putting her life back together at age 102.
These people are heartless folks.
They don't care whose identity they steal.
Make sure it isn't yours.
Life Lock can help.
Nobody's going to totally stop identity theft.
But you hear stories like these, it makes sense to make a mad dash for Life Lock at 800-440-4833.
Sign up, become a member.
Not very expensive at all.
Save even 10% more off the price if you mention my name when you call.
That's Rush.
The offer code, Lifelock800-440-4833.
Seriously, if you've never had it happen to you, and if you don't know anybody who's been victimized by this, it's a mess you don't want.
Go to the bank or go to anywhere and have them tell you.
They know you.
Have them tell you, I'm sorry.
You don't live there.
Sorry, we have no record of who you are.
But you know me.
I know, but the computer says I can't do anything about it.
To put that back together is not something you want to go through.
Bernard Madoff.
I don't quite know what to think about this.
By the way, that chart I just talked about, we just reactivated the website, and that chart should display soon.
The two pies that I was just talking about at rushlimbaugh.com.
I don't know.
Bernard Madoff said his victims are greedy.
Now, he may have a point here, folks.
He may have, if you know how Madoff worked, I mean, Madoff patrolled this area.
I'm a little familiar with this area.
And the way Madoff did this, he had a couple showrunners running around spreading the news that people getting all kinds of great returns with old Bernie.
Well, how can I get it?
Oh, you can't.
You can't.
I mean, do you know Bernie?
No, I don't.
Well, he only takes friends at me.
Well, can you do something?
Well, I don't know.
I mean, well, you got to get me in.
You got to get me.
Well, let me try.
They dangle a carrot out there.
And what was the carrot?
Never-ending market returns that nobody was getting, even in downtimes.
They really played on the belief that somebody, some individual knows something more than anybody else and is manipulating.
It's like some people believe that there is a wizard in the Emerald City determining the price of gasoline.
So he may have a point here.
Bernard Madoff told a reporter that his victims were greedy and that the U.S. government is a Ponzi scheme, all the while saying he's a good person.
Lawyers are making millions off of the Madoff mess.
He blamed the government for being part of the problem.
He said, the whole regulatory, this regulatory reform bill, that's a joke, he said.
The whole government is a Ponzi scheme.
He claimed that the hedge funds and the banks were all complicit in this.
I know he ought to just shut up here.
What more harm can he do to himself?
He's already been beaten up.
He's not getting out of jail for the rest of his life.
But of his burned investors, Madoff reportedly said, if you listen to them, they're living out of dumpsters.
They don't have any money.
And I'm sure it's a traumatic experience to some of them, but I made a lot of money for people.
Does it justify it?
No.
He loaded the interview with a lot of caveats, claiming he told investors they were better off investing in government bonds, and he warned them that, hey, he said, I could go crazy and do something stupid, but they didn't want to listen.
They were so caught up in being part of something special, being part of something exclusive.
I think all these big returns.
Michelle Obama's press agent, Politico reporter, accused of flacking for First Lady.
This is Matthew Boyle talking about the reporter at for the Politico, Amy Parnes, who runs around with fawning coverage of the First Lady.
Claims this Amy Parnes is who it is trying to stir things up between me and Palin and Huckabee and so forth over Moochell Obama's forced feeding habits on everybody.
It's not just her pressure tactics.
She's a hypocrite about this as well.
We'll be back.
No, go away.
We have a story here from the Politico.
The headline of the story, Eric Holder, Black Panther case focus demeans my people.
Hmm.
Attorney General Eric Holder finally got fed up today with claims that the Justice Department went easy in a voting rights case against members of the new Black Panther Party because they're African American.
Holder's frustration over the criticism became evident during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing as Representative John Culbertson of Texas, a Republican, accused the Justice Department of failing to cooperate with a Civil Rights Commission investigation into the handling of the 2008 incident in which Black Panthers in intimidating outfits and wielding a club stood outside a polling place in Philadelphia.
The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment Culbertson read in which former Democrat activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had ever witnessed in his career.
Not in history, but his career.
Think about that, Holder said.
When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia, which was inappropriate, to describe it in those terms, I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people, said Holder, who's black.
Holder noted his late sister-in-law, Vivian Malone Jones, helped integrate the University of Alabama.
To compare that kind of courage, that kind of action, to say some Black Panther incidents of greater concern to us historically, I think that just flies in the face of history.
He said his career, not history, that Bartle Bull, who was a former Democrat activist, Bartle Bull is not a Republican.
Bartle Bull, Democrat, saying, I've never seen any worse in my career than this, meaning it's the stonewall of justice.
And here's Holder saying, well, focusing on the Black Panther case, why that demeans my people.
I wonder what Holder would say about the comparison to slavery.
Everyone has heard about this.
Charlie Wrangell has compared abolishing collective bargaining rights as being close to slavery.
Yep, got it right here.
It's at the Hill.com.
State governments taking steps to abolish collective bargaining rights for workers is similar to slavery, said Charlie Wrangell, speaking yesterday, Congressional Black Caucus event about Republican proposed budget cuts.
Man, these guys are panicked.
Playing a race card everywhere.
My people.
My people.
Let Pap Buchanan say that.
Oh, my friends.
They dig, I mean, they'd, who knows who they'd have to go get to declare anti-Semitism against poor old Pat Buchanan if he were to ever to talk about, oh, you can't do this, my people.
For you people, yes.
You people, James in Ripley, Ohio, as we go back to the phones, I'm glad you waited.
You're on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
How you doing, Rush?
Good, sir.
Thanks very much.
Hey, I just wanted to call because I heard your interview with Donald Trump, and it excited me.
In that he has no need for fame or fortune, and it sounds to me like he wants to do what's good for the country, good for the people.
And I wanted to ask that you put him back on, and let's hear some more from him.
You want more from the Trumpster?
Absolutely.
We need some common sense.
And he's talking common sense.
He's talking truth.
He has no agenda that I could see.
You know, he just wants, and it's all about the money.
And we need a money man and somebody who ain't afraid to step on some toes.
Wait, so you don't think he doesn't need fame or fortune, so you think that his motives are pure?
Well, yeah.
I mean, why wouldn't they be?
Well, I'm not challenging you.
I'm just asking you, because it's an interesting point.
I know a lot of people, and I shouldn't say this, because I'm not saying it about Trump.
I want you to understand this.
But it's a whole, you've kind of interested me with your point that some people could be satisfied with enough money or fame.
Most people I know don't have enough of each.
Whatever amount they have, they want more.
And particularly fame.
I don't know much of anything more destructive than that.
And it pains me when I see it.
But I'm not talking about Trump at all.
I don't know if he's satisfied with his level of fame or not.
But I'm not questioning his sincerity about the ChaiComs.
He's clearly irritated.
He's clearly irritated what's happening to the country.
He's clearly irritated with the leadership.
So, all right, well, we'll make a note.
You want to hear more?
I got a bunch of people here wanting to be a guest host.
I've got that too.
So we'll put it in the hopper.
Jennifer in Bel Air, Maryland, your turn.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Gosh, I'm nervous.
My heart is in my throat.
So I am steamed about the Donald Trump interview, and I will tell you why.
Mr. Trump is free to do whatever he wishes with his money.
He can give it to anyone he wants.
But my vote belongs to me.
And if he thinks I'm going to give it to him, he's crazy.
Basically, this is why I feel this way.
Okay.
The connection of the Emmanuel brothers, Rahms, and his brother Ezekiel, to Obamacare legislation, I will not give my vote to anyone who supports the Emmanuel brothers and the travesty that they brought us through Obamacare.
Now, I remember, I'm pretty sure that you read on your show in the summer of 2009 when all of the town hall protests were going on, the paper that Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, I don't even like to call him that because it's just an outrage to me.
Yeah, I know what you're going to talk about.
Wrote about care for people and how it would be given to certain people and withheld from other people and how that's been worked into Obamacare.
I'm sorry.
Mr. Trump can say that he's loyal and that that's why he gave the money to Rahm's mayoral campaign.
I'm loyal too to my family and my fellow Americans and we cannot go other places for health care.
We will be stuck or should I say stabbed in the back with the Obamacare that the Emmanuel brothers delivered to us.
I don't want to hear one thing that Donald Trump has to say.
Well, I can't argue with you about that.
I mean, the whole healthcare business is an abomination.
And I know Ezekiel, he was the guy really making the case of death panels, if you want to get it right down to it.
He was the guy arguing about the, in totally impersonal terms, what is the value of investment in giving health care to the aged versus providing it to the young who are going to be more productive with the care than somebody who's at an advanced age.
Now, he did, you know, Aerie Emmanuel is his agent for all of his television work.
And in addition to that, he did say that in Chicago, there's never going to be a Republican with a chance to win anything.
And politics is what it is.
And he's got a bunch of projects in Chicago.
I'm not trying to talk you out of anything.
Don't misunderstand.
But he did give another reason other than being loyal to Aerie.
But I'm not going to disagree with you about that.
Well, I would have, if I were him, obviously I'm not, but I would have withheld my money, and I would have given it to a much worthier cause.
I'll tell you what.
So many people in the Tea Party, and I went to town hall protests in 2009.
I live in Maryland's first congressional district.
And we had a lot of heated town hall debates here about the health care legislation.
We are tired of politics as usual.
And this is the same thing that we see all the time, especially from the Republican establishment.
I'll do this, but then behind the scenes, I'll do that.
And we're sick of it.
And if that's what he's going to do, he's not going to get my vote.
You're basically talking about you want an ideologue.
You want a conservative.
You want somebody to whom that means something.
That's exactly right.
And you just don't think that Donald is a conservative.
He's not an ideologue.
He's a practical politician.
Pragmatic or whatever you want to attach to it.
I suppose, but I don't view Obamacare as practical for any of us.
And especially for those of us who are going to be stuck with it.
I mean, I have my father will be 84 this month, Rush.
He is a World War II Navy veteran.
He is on full-time dialysis.
He is just the kind of guy that Ezekiel Emmanuel would want to get rid of.
And I'll tell you what, not in my America.
Absolutely not.
I will not stand by and watch something like that be implemented on our seniors.
I will stand by and watch it.
And I cannot, cannot, from a conscientious point of view, support anyone who will back those who push this legislation on us.
I can't do it.
Totally understand where you're coming from.
150%.
I'm glad you called.
Thank you.
All right.
That's Jen.
By the way, you didn't sound nervous.
Quite the opposite.
Didn't sound nervous.
They're all applauding you, by the way.
Jennifer on the other side of the glass in there.
Hi, welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
Still going through these soundbites.
I know there's got to be one in here.
I was looking at earlier that I thought, there's more than one.
We got Muamar Gaddafi warning America and Obama that the Middle East uprisings will come to America.
That's no surprise to Obama.
Why is warning him?
Let's see anyway.
Oh, how about that clown?
I don't know if you watch the Epidemic Awards.
Did you watch them Sunday night?
I saw a little bit of them.
This guy has this documentary, Inside Job, about the financial crisis.
He won the Oscar for some documentary on Inside Job.
And he gets up there with his acceptance speech.
He's his sniveling little liberal.
Not one financial executive has gone to jail since the 2008 economic meltdown.
That is just wrong.
The audience applauded.
Wall Street finances your business.
And have you ever heard of Bernard Matoff, who is in jail?
Fannie Mae is still running for crying out loud.
Not one financial executive has gone to jail, and that is just wrong.
And his look of pride, like he really said something profound and brave on his face.
Daisy in Los Angeles.
Glad that you called.
You're on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yeah, thank you, Rush, for taking the call.
I wanted to ask you a question.
If Governor Walker would declare Wisconsin bankrupt, file state bankruptcy, would this then nullify the union contracts or require them to renegotiate them?
I have no idea.
I don't understand.
I don't know bankruptcy law.
Let me pretend to be another host.
No, I can't do that to you.
I don't know.
I'm not even sure states can go bankrupt.
I think cities can declare bankruptcy.
I'm not sure a state can.
In fact, the reality is, Daisy, that before that ever happened, the federal government would bail them out.
And especially this federal government.
If it meant the union going signara, they'd bail him out.
Yeah, well, I certainly hope Governor Walker will not give in because this is kind of a problem.
Everybody's hoping that, Daisy.
Everybody is hoping.
And he doesn't show any signs of it.
But, Rush, there's a lot of pressure out there on him.
Yeah, but there's some moderate Republicans in the Republican Assembly in Wisconsin.
Some of them might cave.
Yeah, but I know the pressure is intense on these guys.
And I'm like you, I hope he maintains his spinal integrity, as it were.
Right.
And even if some of the citizens could start the recall for their senators that are out of town.
Yeah.
Because they can't pass the budget with them out of town.
That's true.
Look, this is going to come back and bite these guys, you know, running out on the job, running out on this.
They are not.
There's no valor here.
There's no courage and bravery here.
They're not standing up for the people.
They're making it clear who matters to them.
And it isn't the people.
It isn't the voters.
It is their paymasters.
And that is becoming more and more obvious to everybody.
So, yeah, I think I'm right about that.
Cities can go bankrupt, but I think New York did.
States cannot.
States cannot declare bankruptcy.
Daisy, thank you much for the call.
Brief timeout.
We'll come back and wrap it up after this.
Okay, one more time.
The big finale of the Haney Project tonight starring El Rushball at the 9 o'clock Eastern on the Golf Channel.
I know it's on Direct TV Channel 218.
I don't know your individual cable channels or Dish Network or anything else, but I do know Direct TV Channel 218.
And it's a doozy, the big payoff.
Did any of it matter when it was on the line?
I happen to know.
And I'm not going to tell you.
You might be able to guess.
So 9 o'clock Golf Channel, the finale, and we will be back tomorrow to wrap it up 21 hours from now.
Look forward to it.
▲
Export Selection