All Episodes
Previous Next
April 4, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:45
April 4, 2011, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying for a simple reason We're right The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 99.6% of the time.
It's great to have you here Happy to be with you.
It's all a big thrill for me telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbow at eibnet.com.
I alluded to it in the previous hour of the program, but it's an even-numbered day, November or April 4th.
And Obama has justice, well, Eric Holder, but it's Obama.
We're going to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at a military tribunal at Club Gitmo, which will obviously advance our licensed merchandise business, which is a very thriving business down there.
But no longer are we going to try him in New York City.
Must have something to do with that re-election announcement, folk.
And make no mistake, that's all it is.
This is not a coincidence that the very day we get this announcement is the very day Obama announces that he's going to run for re-election.
And there's a big push out there, and I have this.
We're getting to it in the stack.
Sit tight, be patient, hang in there, be tough, and all that.
A big move on the part of Hillary Clinton supporters to get her to run.
It's a story about how all the Democrat Hillary supporters have not fallen in love with Obama.
They still have animosity.
They still think she got a raw deal, and they don't want any more of Obama.
All that's coming up.
I want you to listen, however, before we get to all the rest of today's program, the soundbite that I quoted in the last hour of the program, it was a hardball episode.
Chris Matthews, the fill-in host was F. Chuck Todd, and he was speaking with Time Magazine deputy international editor Bobby Ghosh about a Florida pastor burning the Koran and Afghan Muslim protests and killings as a result.
F. Chuck Todd said, basically, we have two sets of extremists here.
We've got this extremist in Florida and a couple of extremists that took advantage of the moment to stir people up in Afghanistan.
How much has this spread around the Muslim world?
The thing to keep in mind that's very important here is that the Quran to Muslims, it's not the same as the Bible to Christians.
The Bible is a book written by men.
It's acknowledged by Christians that it is written by men.
It's the story of Jesus.
But the Quran, if you're a believer, if you're Muslim, the Quran is directly the word of God, not written by man.
It's transcribed.
It's directly the word of God.
That makes it sacred in a way that it's hard to understand if you're not Muslim.
So the act of burning a Quran is much more potentially attacking God than if you were to burn a book.
Directly.
Directly attacking God.
And the Bible, yeah, it's just Jesus written by men and so forth.
Well, you can do your own analysis and fill in the blanks on that one yourself.
My only observation is that we keep hearing that Islam is reforming.
Well, you sit in there sternly and you laugh, but you know we keep hearing about this.
I mean, this is, we just, we need to be patient.
We need to understand that there's a reform movement within that understands that killing people because of cartoons is a little bit over the top.
There is a reform movement in Islam.
Well, I would just ask Mr. Ghosh, who, by again, as a reminder, wrote the phony story on the Haditha massacre.
The guy you just heard made up that story about Marines raping women and children in Iraq.
That's the source authority for this Chuck Todd sitting in for Chris Matthews.
So if Islam is the, if the Quran is the direct word of God transcribed, and yet there's a reform movement within it, who's going to tell God that they're messing around here with it.
There are a lot of apologists that tell us Islam will reform and that they will start embracing freedom of conscience, equality, and the reform movement, there will be no more jihad.
Well, how's it going to do that if their scriptures are not like ours, but written by Allah himself?
What are the reformers going to say that God got things wrong?
I mean, the reformers are going to have to do this.
They're going to say, God, got a couple of things in here we've got to fix.
Is that how they're going to do this?
Somebody's going to have to tell God they're going to reform it.
Anyway, my friends, how are you?
Again, 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
Paul Ryan's budget, a plan for the 2012 budget, starting in October, would cut more than $4 trillion over the next decade, maybe as much as $6 trillion, more than even the President's Debt Commission proposed, with spending caps as well as changes in the Medicare and Medicaid health programs.
Now, one of the things that, you know, I spoke with Congressman Ryan on the phone this morning, and one of the things that he made clear to me, which is very wise, by the way, he's very much aware how they're going to demagogue this.
He's very much aware how they're going to lie about it.
He wants them to.
They're throwing so many balls in the air at this thing that they're not going to know which to attack first.
Virtually every sacred belief, every one of their talking points of criticism is met here.
Now, one of the reasons nobody wants to get anywhere near Social Security, the third rail of American politics, is because Social Security is paid out to the most active and participatory voting members of our culture and our population, the seasoned citizens.
They vote.
And one of the things that is going to happen in this budget is that there will be no cuts whatsoever, no reductions whatsoever anywhere, anytime for current Social Security recipients.
Ain't going to happen.
And Congressman Ryan said, I expect some people on our side of the aisle are not going to like that.
It's a concession, however.
Look, it's reality is reality.
And he's a brilliant guy.
He really is.
He's fully aware that the independent voter voters moved to the Republicans in November not because of anything the Republicans did.
They moved to the Republicans because they were just fed up with Obama, fed up with the Democrats, fed up with all this big spending, fed up with all, and they want to make sure they don't do anything to drive them away, policy-wise, or what have you.
Not to mention that in any reform of Social Security, in any reform of Medicare, Medicaid, it's always been the case that current recipients would not be included.
They're living under the deal that was made.
And they have never been targets, if you will, of any of the necessary reforms.
He wanted to make that plain because the Democrats are going to demagogue that.
Democrats are going to tell seasoned citizens, ah, this budget, this Republican budget is going to take your house away from you.
It's going to take your Medicare away from you.
It's going to take your health care and total away.
They're going to say this.
None of it will be true.
But what Ryan is doing, he is taking the battle right to Obama.
He's taking it right to Harry Reid.
He is taking it right to him.
He is just running face to face.
He's in, here it is.
This is who we are.
This is what must be done.
We have got to roll back our spending and freeze it to what it was in 2008.
We have to have legitimate cuts.
We are going to reduce the baseline on which all this stuff is based and takes place.
This is what he was sent here to do.
He told me, you know, Washington is a place of ideas.
If you believe in them, you fight for them.
If you don't, get out of town.
There's no other reason to be there.
If you lose interest or passion in your ideas, then scram.
Washington's not the place for you.
In an interview on Fox News Sunday yesterday, Ryan said that budget writers are working out the 2012 numbers with the Congressional Budget Office, but he said the overall spending reductions would come to a lot more than $4 trillion.
This is over 10 years.
The debt commission appointed by Obama recommended a plan that it said would achieve nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction, which Obama totally cast aside.
The Democrats and Obama totally threw it away after asking for it, after ballyhooing it, after making a big deal of it, when they finally came in.
Because you see, the whole point as far as Obama was concerned was not the results of the commission, not what they said to do.
It was just that he was forming one.
You just form a commission.
That is all you do.
That's all you have to do.
That shows that you care.
That shows that you take it seriously.
So here are some of the broad items.
And of course, all the detail is forthcoming tomorrow.
There will be what's called a premium support system for Medicare.
In the future, older people would choose plans in the marketplace, and the government would subsidize those plans, not fully pay for them, but subsidize them.
Ryan said that that would differ from the voucher system that he's proposed in the past.
Those 55 and older would remain under the present Medicare system.
They don't get touched.
But people who will get there in the future would choose a plan, and the government would subsidize part of it, which is the deal Paul Ryan gets, by the way.
This deal is what every member of Congress, House, and Senate gets.
Ryan acknowledged that the premium support system would shift more costs to Medicare recipients, especially what he called wealthy seniors.
He didn't define at what level someone would be considered wealthy.
But means testing, in a sense here, if you can afford it, you're going to have to pay a part of it.
It only makes sense if you're serious.
You know what else he said?
He said to me, if this thing can be made to happen, and it's a long shot because you write a one-year budget, but you always do 10-year projections when you write your one-year budget.
If If we could win the White House, and if we could have a nominee who really embraces this, if we have a nominee who can explain it, who supports it, who's energetic, passionate about it, and will implement this stuff, we could reduce, eliminate the national debt in 10 to 15 years.
We will not balance the budget for a host of reasons, but we'll get much, much closer than these obscenely high deficits that we have now.
He was dead serious when he told me that we could eliminate 80%, almost all of the national debt over a period of time with a commitment to this.
Block grants to states for Medicaid.
Ryan disputed reports that his plan would seek savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from Medicaid, but he would say only that the details would be in the plan.
He said Medicare and Medicaid spending will go up every single year under our budget.
They just don't go up as much as they're going to go up right now.
In fact, I think there is spending.
There's new spending in Ryan's budget, $35 trillion new spending versus Obama's $49 trillion.
I mean, there's new spending.
This is again another great way that Ryan has stumbled upon to illustrate just how outrageous the spending on the Democrat side is.
Now, Ryan was a member of the bipartisan debt commission.
He voted against its final recommendations because they failed to reduce spending on health care.
How can you be serious about deficit reduction in this country if you're not going to deal with health care costs?
You can't.
Now, what Ryan's doing essentially is clawing back all the spending the Democrats have done since they took over Congress in 2007.
That's the point of freezing spending at 2008 levels.
This is my words, not his, this is a clawback.
This is an attempt because what's made to order here for the Republican presidential nominee, if whoever he or she or it is, will just embrace this.
The problems that we face are traceable to 2007.
It's not to let the Bush munch off the hook.
They spent two, but it's not comparable to what has happened since Pelosi, the Democrats, took over Congress 2007 and Obama, the White House in 2009.
And what Ryan is doing here is trying to claw back all of that spending that started in 2007.
The deficit of the national debt was $9.5 trillion when Obama took office.
Today it's just over $14 trillion.
So $4 trillion, a reduction of $4 trillion over 10 years, is a natural number.
That's the clawback.
That takes us back to the national debt of $9.5 trillion when Obama took office.
That's how much, almost how much Obama has increased the budget in two measly years, folks.
Two measly years.
The national debt has gone from $9.50 to $14 trillion.
In two years, $14 trillion is what it took since our founding to get to, or $9.5 million, $9.5 trillion national debt since our founding.
In two years of Obama, that number becomes $14 trillion.
And we can reduce that much in 10 years.
And people are going to say, oh, we can't do that.
They're going to say, you budget cuts.
This is draconian.
Who's going to starve?
It's all BS.
And as I say, it's about time.
We'll be right back.
Don't go anywhere.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Yes, we are going to get to your phone calls in the next half hour.
This is a commitment I make to you.
Okay, so military trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Now, on the day Obama announces that his regime will seek another four years.
Let's put this in perspective, shall we?
By going back to military trials, which is the right decision, is the right decision all along.
Isn't it true that Obama has now adopted all of George W. Bush's major national security policies?
Isn't that true?
So the question to be posed to Obama's supporters on this wonderful celebratory day of his announcement of four more years is this.
If George W. Bush was so stupid and Barack Obama so smart, how do you explain Obama continuing every one of President Bush's national security policies and doubling down on some of them?
We're not just in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We are in Libya.
We were in, well, in a manner of speaking, Egypt.
We might be going into Yemen and who knows about Syria.
So you Obama supporters, you're faced with a dilemma here.
You either owe George W. Bush an apology or you must admit that your guy is also an idiot.
Those are your two choices.
There isn't any middle ground.
If Bush was an idiot and Obama has doubled down on Bush, then Obama's an idiot.
Or you need to apologize to Bush.
Paul Ryan has said on Fox News Sunday, Paul Ryan said they will have to lie and demagogue.
Talking about the Democrats and their approach to governing.
He said, we are giving them a political weapon to go against us, but they will have to lie and demagogue to make it a political weapon.
Ryan knows exactly what he's doing.
He knows how to push their buttons just as I know how to tweak the media.
And if you look at Chris Van Holland's knee-jerk, cliched reaction to what he was told Ryan's budget is, then Ryan is exactly right here.
They are going to have to lie and demagogue.
How must it feel to be a Democrat today?
I'm going to make an assumption that in this audience, some of you are normal Democrats, not the extreme, kooky, anti-American, leftist bunch that now seems to represent your party.
Some of you people, some of you people are just old-fashioned Democrats.
And did you sign up for this when you voted for Obama?
Did you sign up?
Are you comfortable knowing that your state and the federal government is bankrupt?
Is this what you thought you were getting when you voted for this guy?
Mountains of debt, assaults on liberty, assaults on capitalism and the free market private sector?
Do you believe Harry Reid and Pelosi and Obama have a plan to slash the deficit, get us back to 5% unemployment?
Is this really what you signed up for?
All of these jobless people, gasoline higher now than at any time in the last 10 years, oil price skyrocketing up again.
Does Dick Durbin actually represent your views?
What's it going to take?
Gasoline, five bucks a gallon, inflation at 15%?
At what point are some of you Democrats going to say, no, no, no, this is not what we signed up for?
Now, one thing here about the military trials, and let's just get this out there and have it stated as fact.
This decision to try the 9-11 terrorists.
Let me make a prediction.
Isn't that going to be a peep?
You might have a couple of commenters or posters.
You might have some, just for show, radical leftists get all out of whack.
You might have some tweets, a couple of Facebook posts at disgruntled Democrats and liberals over the fact that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and the boys are going to be tried at Club Gitmo.
But the very fact, excuse me, the very fact that Obama is going to try these guys at a military court in Gitmo proves to me that he has no fear whatsoever about the left not voting for him or even sitting out the election.
He knows that their complaint against Bush on this Club Gitmo military tribunals, all that was just a pose.
That was just posturing propaganda.
The vast majority of them don't care where the terrorists in Gitmo are getting civilian trials or not.
You have some ideologues and lawyers who would have loved for the trial to take place in an American courtroom in New York City.
But in terms of the mass of leftist voters, it's like, folks, it's like Abu Grab.
You know, there's a story of some genuine atrocities American soldiers have committed in Afghanistan.
Have you heard about it?
No, but the pictures from Abu Ghraib, you remember the excrement storm that pictures that look like a fraternity prank caused?
And how CBS and the New York Times led with those photos and went on and on and on and talked about the moral decline of America's standing in the world.
On and on and on and on.
It was all posture.
It was all posing.
I mean, for the left to care about any morals, anybody's morals at any time is a joke.
To be worried about America's standard in the world, all a crock.
It was all posturing.
It was all posing.
It was all just a vehicle to attack this country, to gin up negativity about George W. Bush, reduce his approval numbers and so forth and so on.
Now you've got, sad to say, you've got some genuine military atrocities.
You have to look hard to find it.
And you certainly don't see the New York Times or CBS outraged by any of it.
And it certainly isn't on the front page anywhere.
And there certainly isn't any demand of the regime to explain all of this.
And you haven't seen the defense secretary be frog-marched up to the Senate for a committee hearing to explain all this.
And you haven't had any of the soldiers.
None of this, none of it.
And it's arguably what happened at Abu Grab pales in comparison here.
So all of this is posing.
If Obama was really seriously threatened by loss of support, he would not publicly change the trial.
In fact, what it proves is that if he wants to get re-elected, he's got to get that trial out of New York City.
You know, he was doing his own posing.
He's sending his own message to the American-hating left that supports him.
And they knew what a college Sheikh Mohammed trial of New York City was all about.
It was all about a never-ending display of trashing America, which is what they want, but couldn't bring it off.
But the effort was there.
So now they get trial at a military trial in Club Gitnow.
Ho-hum, no big deal.
Just like ho-hum, no big deal.
Any military atrocities under Obama are.
Or Obama and his hawk hens waging war all over the Middle East.
Ho-hum, no big deal.
So Bill Maher gets a hair follicle out of whack.
So Michael Moore puts on a few pounds.
Big deal.
Whoopee-doo.
Just go back to Pritikin, eat cardboard for three days, and it'll be fine.
And now as promised, back to the phones, or to the phones, because we haven't been there yet.
Bruce in Detroit, you're up first.
Bruce, I got to ask you, did you show up at the Charlie Sheen Torpedo of Death tour on Saturday night?
No, I didn't think he had much to offer for my hard-earned money.
Well, he got roundly booed.
You know what he said when they booed him?
Go ahead and boo me, man.
I got your money, dude.
Exactly.
Yeah, he did.
He said.
And then so they booed Lauder and walked out.
But the dollars in Chicago liked him, so I guess he's doing all right.
Yeah, he did.
They changed it up a little bit.
Well, there's some adults got together, I think, in the production side of the show and made it somewhat passable.
Anyway, no, you didn't call about that.
What's up?
Well, I called because I'm a UAW retiree, and you mentioned them getting $200 and some million out of the government.
But yet, in the last year, they've raised what they take out of my retirement check.
They've raised my copay to doctors, and they've raised my copay on prescription drugs.
Meanwhile, we appointed former Governor Blanchard to our medical advisory board on our retirement system.
I'm a little miffed here on finding out that they got that kind of money.
Yeah, I would be miffed too if I were.
You say you're a retired UAW worker?
Yes.
Okay.
This money is going to pre-retirees.
This money is going to people who, here's the deal.
Little known provision in Obamacare allowed the federal government or allowed, allowed the federal government to pay nearly $2 billion to union state public employee systems and big companies to subsidize health coverage costs for early retirees.
The UAW, your union, got $202, $206, I should say, million dollars.
Early retirees are funded by the fund I'm speaking of.
Okay.
So they're funded by the fund I'm speaking of, so they got $200 million to cover them, and then they raise my rates.
Well, the money has the money.
Now, I don't know if it has been spent, but it has been allocated.
The total amount of money here is $5 billion.
They've already gone through $2 billion of it.
The $5 billion is supposed to last through 2014.
They're not going to make it at this rate.
So they'll have to print more.
But it's still fasting.
You are part of a group that's supposed to be having your health care subsidized, and it's not being subsidized.
Right.
How much is your copay?
Our rates are going up.
Our copay at a doctor is $35.
It's $10 for a generic drug and $30 for a non-generic.
And they tell us we got the best health care plan in the world?
Not really.
Not really.
We are.
Wait a minute.
What do you hold it a second now?
I find that interesting.
What do you define as the best health care plan in the world?
Well, probably the school teachers got a better plan than we do.
They pay very little, especially here in Michigan.
Was $35 a lot for a copay?
Well, no, not for me.
For a doctor?
No, no, no, no.
It's $25 for a doctor.
They deduct $35 a month from my retirement check.
This originally started out at nothing, but when we went to a retirement trust, it's been going up.
It started out at $25, went to $35.
Our copay for doctors started out at $10, went to $25.
What does your typical doctor's visit cost you?
Do you know?
I mean, without the copay, what's it cost?
What's a typical doctor?
No, I'm really, I'm not sure.
Because you don't pay for it.
Exactly.
I don't see a bill on that.
I just got $25.
I don't know what kind of a deal Blue Cross has made.
I'm sure.
Well, that's my point all along.
Reason number one why the health care system is out of whack is the consumer, the patient, has no idea what it costs.
Believe me, if you knew what it costs, you'd be shopping around for the best deal you could get.
Right, absolutely.
And some things we do see the cost on, like the cost of drugs.
I do see that.
Now, you have to.
And don't get me wrong.
We have a great health care plan.
I'm not knocking it.
I'm sure you do.
That's why I was asking you earlier what's wrong with it.
But now, you have to pay $35 a month for your insurance.
Right.
Copay.
Right.
Now, and you know that.
You know that.
And that bothers you.
You know that, but you don't know what the actual doctor visit costs you.
And you would know it if you had to pay it.
This is my point.
If we all had to pay, you would know what your doctor cost is.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
We're just allowed to pick from a list of doctors on an HMO system.
And don't get me wrong.
We do.
We have a great health care system.
But I'm just making a point.
Believe me, we're paying for them.
We know.
Why did they give them $200 million and they raised my rates?
You know what I'm saying?
If we got $200 million.
Well, who are we talking about here, if I may?
The UAW is a very good question.
All right.
Here's your answer.
That money, where do you think that money is going to end up?
Where do you think most of this $206 million is going to actually end up, Bruce?
Politics.
If I had to guess.
It's going to end up at the Democrat Party.
It's going to end up at the party, various candidates.
That's the whole point.
Whenever money goes to a union, that's where it goes.
It's a money laundering operation.
I'd like to make one statement about my president of my union, Bob King, stood on TV the other day and said what the Michigan legislature was doing was I'm Democratic.
Not one president of this union has ever run for election by the membership.
They're anointed by a group.
Now you tell me he knows about democracy?
Run like the Teamsters do.
I'll give Hoff a credit.
His members all vote for him.
Not the UAW.
They're anointed by the Pilot Bureau.
Yeah, I know.
Let me tell you something else.
No, you're exactly right.
It's not about democracy.
It's about you are just a pawn.
You're like Mongo in Blazing Saddles.
You are just a pawn in the game of life of shifting money from one group to the Democrat Party and back and forth.
And you're the middleman, and you're supposedly the hardworking, beat-up, disrespected blue-collar working guy that every other, these other people looking out for you.
So they come up and announce this big plan of $206 million to help you pay for your health care costs.
And it finds out when all the money is spent, your premiums are still going up.
And you know why?
They raised your rates.
This is something for you and everybody within the sound of my mellifluous voice needs to hear and don't doubt me.
They raised your insurance rates because even with all of this bailing out, they still can't give you free health care.
They want to pitch it as free health care.
They've got $206 billion, $206 million bailout at UAW, and your rates still go up.
Now, I have to say, the average doctor visit, I looked it up while I was talking to you.
The average doctor visit is $400.
When you couple it all, when you take an average nationwide, you're looking at, depending on what's done, you could spend as much as $400 going to the doctor, and your copay is $35, which is pretty damn close to free, but it isn't free.
It never will be.
Just a little point that I want to bruce thanks for the call.
We'll be right back.
Talent on loan from God.
Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh, with half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, Stephen Moore in the Wall Street Journal, this was on April 1st.
If you want to understand better why so many states from New York to Wisconsin to California are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic.
Today in America, there are nearly twice as many people working for the government, 22.5 million, than in all of manufacturing.
11.5 million.
This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960.
There were 15 million workers in manufacturing, 8.7 million working in the government.
And it gets worse.
More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining, and utilities combined.
We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers.
Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion a year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees.
Is it any wonder so many states and cities can't pay their bills?
Every state in America today, except for two, Indiana and Wisconsin, has more government workers on the payroll than people manufacturing industrial goods.
Consider California, which has the highest budget deficit in the history of states.
The not-so-golden state now has an incredible 2.4 million government employees, twice as many as people that work in manufacturing.
New Jersey has just under two and a half as many government employees as manufacturers.
Florida's ratio is more than three to one.
So is New York's.
Even Michigan, at one time the automobile capital of the world, and Pennsylvania wants the steel capital, have more government bureaucrats than people making things.
The leaders in government hiring are Wyoming and New Mexico, which have hired more than six government workers for every manufacturing worker.
And remember now, vast majority of these people are union, which means the vast majority of their dues goes to the Democrat Party, which is one of the reasons state payrolls are swelling as they are.
Money laundering operation for the Democrat Party.
Now, Mr. Moore writes, certainly true that many states have not typically been home to traditional manufacturing operations.
Iowa and Nebraska are farm states, for example.
But in those states, there are at least five times more government workers than farmers.
West Virginia, the mining capital of the world, yet it has at least three times more government workers than miners.
New York is the financial capital of the world, at least for now.
That sector employs roughly 670,000 New Yorkers, less than half of the state's 1.48 million government employees.
And don't expect a reversal anytime soon.
Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government.
Why?
Well, because in recent years, only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near-lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence, when 23-year-olds aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands.
Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Now, the employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as farming, manufacturing, financial services, and telecommunications.
These produce far more output per worker than they did in the past.
Typical farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive than in 1950.
So my question, ladies and gentlemen, is when can we start shipping some of these government jobs overseas?
What do women really want in Politico Today by Joan Kuriensky and Celinda Lake?
And they start their piece by saying the question has vexed men for ages.
What do women really want?
But for Democrat and Republican Party leaders now jockeying in the budget debate, failure to understand women's concerns could have major implications in 2012.
Female voters are focused on the economy, but women care about kitchen table issues, investments in public education, affordable health insurance, social security, equal pay.
In other words, to hell with feminism.
Women want to be taken care of by government.
▲
Export Selection