All Episodes
Previous Next
April 11, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:51
April 11, 2011, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Last hour, I asked, what changed?
What changed from the day they promised $100 billion in cuts to Friday, where we agreed to $38 billion.
What changed?
I have the answer for you, by the way.
And CBS News in Chicago is reporting $5 a gallon gasoline by Memorial Day.
Now, certainly that's going to have to be a tipping point.
$5 a gallon gasoline by Memorial Day during a Democrat presidency.
Let's see how that shakes out.
Anyway, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Great to have you.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushball at EIBnet.com.
Okay, on Wednesday, let me tell you what his kabuki dance is leading up to.
At least this is one of the many things I think it's leading up to.
The news media, the Democrat Party, as you know, in unison, Fox News, everybody.
Friday night all weekend.
What a big win for Boehner.
What a huge, embarrassing defeat for Obama.
Why, the man of the hour is John Boehner.
Why?
Why, this, there's no question about it.
And if that's the case, you can bet that it's not the case.
Grab audio soundbite number one, just to illustrate.
We have a little montage here, just to remind you of how the media was reporting all of this.
Many analysts say that the winner was Speaker John Boehner.
John Boehner being a winner.
I think John Boehner was a big winner.
That is a big win.
John Boehner was able to get a pretty good deal for them.
John Boehner, everybody is pronouncing him the biggest winner.
This government shutdown deal was a victory for, by and large, Speaker Boehner.
Yeah, right.
I'm sorry.
I just, they too eager to say it.
All these libs in the media.
Now, where's this going?
Now, it's certainly in their interests, the Democrats and the media, to pretend that we have just experienced draconian cuts.
That's what gets me.
They are acting like this $38 billion is the equivalent of $1 trillion.
They're acting like the federal budget has just been iced.
That's what's wrong with this.
There's no sense of proportion.
They are acting like the bottom's been cut out of this.
They are acting like their aorta has been split open.
And it hasn't.
This isn't even a stubbed toe, and they're acting like they got stabbed in the heart, my friends.
So on Wednesday, Obama's going to give his big speech here.
And you know what he's going to say?
Among other things, Obama's going to say, okay, we've listened to Republicans and we've cut spending.
He's going to talk about how monumental the cuts are.
He's even going to take credit.
He's going to say, I was there.
So now it's time for compromise.
Hello, tax increases.
Now we got to get serious.
It's a campaign issue.
It's time to get the left on board for the 2012.
So acting like they've just been wounded to the heart with these cuts and then going after tax cuts on the rich.
All of this is a ruse designed to reignite the fire under the Democrat base, which is not happy.
They're not energized, but this is the ruse to get them that way.
And that's what this kabuki dance is all about.
We got to keep the government going somehow.
We've done draconian spending cuts, but that will not be enough.
Now, we have to raise taxes.
Obama will probably go on to say in his best Bill Clinton impersonation that he's worked as hard as he's ever worked on this.
But there's no way we can avoid raising taxes now, especially with all of these cuts.
You wait.
See if I'm right.
On Wednesday night, Obama is going to talk about these cuts as though they're 30 times as large as they really are.
And Obama warned us, he warned us when he had the Bush tax cut extensions forced on him.
He told us at the time he would never stop fighting to raise taxes on the rich.
And by rich, he means anybody with a job.
Not $250,000, but anybody with a job.
So whatever he says on Wednesday is going to boil down to direct or indirect taxes on the rich as a means of paying for this.
But it's all about reigniting his base.
Now, to show you what I mean, I told you I got a bunch of stories here that indicate this is all a ruse.
I mean, they're just beyond the bounds of sensibility.
R.J. Esco or Escow at the Huffing and Puffington Post.
Why progressives keep on losing and the right keeps on winning.
Congratulations, the Grand Compromise will cut nearly $39 billion in needed government spending, which proves how serious everybody is about reducing the deficit.
The Grand Compromisers could have canceled the next 10 years of tax subsidies for oil companies and cut the deficit by $40 billion, but apparently that's not how serious people do things.
If the Republican Party were singing to its base today, the song would be the theme from Friends, I'll Be There For You.
And the Democrats would be singing, you always hurt the one you love.
We're being told we should celebrate a compromise in which Democrats gave up $38.5 billion in spending cuts when the original Republican demand was for $32 billion.
Well, what he means by that, it was actually not 32.
I mean, the original was 100.
But forget that.
What this guy's talking about was that at some point in the recent negotiations, the Republicans said, look, just give us $10 billion.
And Daly said, no, we'll add 20.
Anyway, that means the Democrats only gave the Republicans 20% more than they originally demanded.
Okay, guys, you got an extra 20%, not a penny more.
Once again, the unpopular views of a minority have been imposed on the majority.
But progressives in this country should be asking themselves a serious question.
Why does the Tea Party seem to be so much more effective than the left as a movement?
It's a complicated question that deserves in-depth discussion, but some of the things that may be impeding progressives include excessive party loyalty, the desire for a charismatic leader, and the urge to prematurely celebrate accomplishments that are flawed and incomplete.
Why?
Why did the Tea Partiers win such a major victory?
Money for starters.
The Tea Party is generously funded by billionaires like the Koch brothers.
I mean, I'm telling you, the longer I read this, the more ridiculous it's going to get to you.
And this guy is just beside himself at how big the defeat was and how the Tea Party shellacked his side.
And why does it keep happening?
Progressives can't be blamed for helping to elect a president who either misrepresented his positions on a number of issues or reversed himself once he was elected.
A sample, the health excise tax, which he opposed and later actively worked to enact.
The individual mandate for healthcare coverage, which he opposed and then supported some matters of civil liberties and science policy.
But it's not as if progressives don't have any cards to play.
Their policies are very popular, while those of the Tea Party and the Republicans are equally unpopular.
Really?
Well.
What about the elections?
Mr. Escow, last November.
More people would like to see more done to end poverty.
That we would.
Your policies have exacerbated it, Mr. Escow.
Despite the naysayers, the nation elected a president who presented himself as an unambiguous progressive and gave him both houses of Congress so it can be done.
So what keeps going wrong?
Over and over and over.
These guys ought to be the ones throwing a party.
This guy is unhappy over $38.5 billion in cuts and somehow doesn't realize all that his president has done to destroy the private sector of this country, the engine of capitalism, which people like this hate.
This is what they want.
They're getting what they want and they are miserable.
If progressives want to identify and work within the Democrat Party, it's a worthwhile endeavor, but their relationship to the party should mirror what Thoreau said about his relationship to the world.
Be in it, but not of it.
Anyway, this thing just keeps going and it descends into more and more.
I know they're in an alternative universe.
Listen to this: the progressive inclination toward premature exhilaration over flawed Democrat bills is often matched with a flawed sense of what's politically possible and politically popular.
The right likes to call the health bill Obamacare.
A better name would be Baucus, Conrad, Nelson, Lincoln, Lieberman, and some other senators care.
The left was eagerly applauding a bill before it was finished, despite the fact that it was and is seriously flawed.
A lot of progressives have been waiting for the next Kennedy-esque figure to lead them out of the gloom and rescue a suffering nation.
This charismatic figure has no name, face, race, or gender.
He or she is an ex to be filled in with the dreams and yearning of a movement that longs leadership.
Some thought it might be Hillary Clinton or even John Edwards.
Whatever your feelings about Obama, he ain't XFK.
XFK never existed and he ain't coming.
Say what you will about Representative Ryan's budget proposal.
It's a vision.
May not be a good vision, but it's a vision.
What's the progressive vision for 2021?
We don't have one.
How about this?
Increase Social Security retirement benefits by 15% across the board.
Lift the payroll cap.
Impose a financial transactions tax.
Increase income taxes on a sliding scale goes up to 60% for the highest earners.
Third, add $500 billion to stimulus spending over the next two years and keep adding it until unemployment is down to 4%.
I'm serious.
This is a guy from the Huffbow.
He's so ticked off about the $38 million in cuts.
He's got his own recipe for what ought to be happening in the alternative.
Fourth, immediately add a public option to Obamacare, Medicare for all, that's voluntarily available to Americans of all age brackets.
Dream, then demand your dream.
It's working for the Tea Party, and it can work for you.
So I read this, it's got to be a ruse.
This has to be a ruse about how we're getting the Democrats are getting shellacked here.
How many of you think Obama's losing?
How many of you think the Democrats are getting shellacked at every turn?
Unemployment still 9%, and it's really higher than that.
Gasoline heading up to $5.
Housing market is a disaster.
People can't find work.
The opportunity for prosperity is dwindling.
These guys are getting everything they want.
What their misery is rooted in is a mistaken belief that Obama policies will spread happiness around, make everybody equally happy and content.
So it doesn't do that.
It makes everybody miserable.
And what these guys are unhappy about is they are looking.
I mean, they're staring it straight in the face.
Their policies don't work.
Never in the history of the country has so much abject socialism been foisted on a culture and society at such a rapid rate.
And it isn't working.
And that's what's really royal him.
I mean, it really is, it's hilarious to hear the media tell it.
You would think Obama has joined the Tea Party.
Obama's, he's celebrating the budget cuts.
He's out there at the Lincoln Memorial.
He's doing all this.
This is not an accident.
And it's so far from reality that it's a ruse.
Paul Krugman in the New York Times: the president is missing.
Obama is conspicuously failing.
What have they done with President Obama?
What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected?
Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn't seem to stand for anything in particularly?
Paul Krugman.
I realize that the hostile Republicans controlling the House, there's not much Obama can do, really get done in the way of concrete policy.
Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit, but he isn't even using that, or rather, he's using it to reinforce his enemies' narrative.
Maybe that terrible deal in which Republicans ended up getting more than their opening bid was the best he could.
They really believe that $38 billion was more than the opening bid.
They really think Obama added to the original Republican demand.
So, Mr. Krugman, you're just like this poor guy from the HuffPo.
You are realizing he never was what you thought he was.
You helped create a template of a phony.
You created this Messiah.
We've got somebody about whom there are legitimate citizenship questions here serving as president.
That's what the birth control thing means or the birth certificate thing means.
That's what people are really wondering about.
It's a citizenship issue.
You've guys pasted up an illusion.
You created a fictitious character in the image that you hold dear.
And now reality is showing you that you lied to yourselves and everybody else, too.
And now you're asking, where's Obama?
Where's the guy you elect?
Hey, he was at Lincoln Memorial Saturday.
He's going to be making a speech Wednesday.
He's the guy.
He is who you elected.
You guys created a lie and you fell for your own lie.
Now, the country's waking up to it, so you somehow have to gin the left base up here to get their reelection efforts back on track because you can't go back to 2008 anymore.
You can't recreate those days.
So the best you can do is to say poor old Obama got rolled.
Boehner's a hero.
The Tea Party is just ruling this country and getting its way with everything it wants.
It's worse than an alternative universe.
It's worse at telling you It's a ruse.
And Boehner knows what's coming, by the way.
He just this minute tweeted: tax hikes means more uncertainty, fewer jobs must cut spending.
D.C. doesn't have revenue problems, spending problems.
He knows what's coming.
He just tweeted that.
All right, I got to take a break here.
We'll get to more of your phone calls and other excitement when we come back.
Don't go away.
Okay, I asked earlier what changed.
What changed?
Last campaign, the Republicans promised $100 billion in cuts if they are elected to run Congress.
Then the $100 billion became $61 billion.
And by the way, the $100 billion was, if we are all honest.
In fact, when that was first announced, $100 billion was first announced even during the campaign.
We all kind of scratched our heads and said, what?
Just $100 billion?
That's what?
$100 billion?
That was the pledge.
But regardless, let's stick to the subject for just a second.
That was the pledge, $100 billion.
Then it became $61 billion prorated.
Ends up $38.5 million.
What changed?
The answer is very simple.
What changed is the DC ruling class uniting in its effort to neuter the Tea Party.
That's what changed.
And I remember we spoke about it on several occasions on this program.
I warned you people many times: the ruling class of Washington, including the Republican element of the ruling class, doesn't like the Tea Party, doesn't like something they can't control.
The Tea Party doesn't have a leader.
It's genuine grassroots.
It consists of people who've never prior been active in politics, but they're so upset and they're so alarmed and they're so concerned.
Do you ever stop to think of this?
Intellectually, you and I know that the Democrat Party and the mainstream media hate John Boehner just as though they would hate any Republican leader.
They hated Reagan.
It's nothing personal with Boehner.
They just hate him.
And all of a sudden, they're praising Boehner, the hilt.
Now, all of a sudden, and you've heard it all weekend along, Boehner, the big winner, this doesn't connect intellectually.
You know it, and I know it.
You may not have been able to put your finger on it at first, but you knew it didn't sound right.
You knew it didn't make sense using intelligence guided by experience.
These guys don't like Boehner.
$38.5 billion, big win, snookered.
Obama.
Wait a minute.
No, this doesn't add up.
Unless, unless this is seen as Boehner's victory over not Obama, but the Tea Party.
And isn't it the case that the Democrats and the Rhinos look at $38.5 billion as a victory over the Tea Party?
Remember, Democrats, media, liberals hate us.
They fear us more than they fear Al-Qaeda.
They think we are the biggest enemy they face.
Anything that marginalizes us, they celebrate.
They think Boehner has marginalized the Tea Party.
If they think the Tea Party has been neutered within the Republican caucus, then, yeah, makes all the sense in the world to praise Boehner.
Right?
Okay, back to the phone switch.
We go to Lumberton, Mississippi.
This is Jack.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
It's an honor to speak to you.
I've been a member since 89.
Thank you, sir, very much.
I am a Tea Partier, and I am a power of one.
And I have called Speaker Boehner's office today after seeing that disgusting performance on the morning news that he had.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
You mean the speaker on Fox this morning?
Yes.
Okay.
And to me, this was a put-on.
It was a put-on put on by the rhinos and the Democrats to discourage us, to get us ticked off.
But wait, but wait.
Everybody's portraying this as a big victory for the Tea Party.
No, it's not.
It's a farce.
It is an absolute farce.
$100 million when you have a $3.5 trillion budget, that's a farce.
That ain't going to save our country.
You know, when I called Boehner, I said, you know, believe it or not, 2-2 is 4, and $38 billion is closer to $30 billion than $100 billion.
$38 billion is closer to $30 billion than $61 billion.
So, you know, you are trying to play numbers, and you're dealing with the wrong people.
We are educated out here.
We are not illiterate.
And you guys are making the biggest mistake in your life.
I encourage Michelle Obama to start talking to her Tea Party people.
And I encourage every person out there to call Boehner's and tell him how disgusted you are with this deal and to encourage your Congress people.
But what are you going to do?
What are you going to do if they end up thinking you're just a bunch of kooks?
They do that now.
They do that now.
I call up my senator.
I never get a straight answer.
I get a written document about another subject.
And my senators are both Republicans.
And it's disgusting.
They are not, you know, it reminds me of the old days, good cup, bad cop.
And that's what it appears to me.
George Bush Sr., New World Order.
That's the first time you ever heard of it.
George Bush.
No, no, no, it's not.
No, it's not.
No, a lot of people were talking about the New World Order before Bush 41.
Yeah, but Bush emphasizes it in his speech that year.
George Bush, compassionate conservatism.
That is a farce.
You know, I get so upset every time we get into power, we don't have a person up there that has the gravitas to enforce it.
And that's John Boehner.
When you get up there and cry on national television, are you going to take that guy serious?
Come on now.
He's a wimp.
He is a wimp.
And he caved.
He caved in because he was afraid that closing the government down was going to ruin the Republicans' chances.
Let me tell you what it did.
Cabin, he ruined the Republicans' chances in 2012.
Because right now, speaking as a power of one, I see us as a demised party.
We need to separate ourselves from the Republicans.
That's what they want us to do anyhow.
They do, but not for the reasons you think.
Oh, I know.
I don't know at all.
Believe me, I don't.
But I draw my own conclusions based on what I see on the news, what I hear.
I listen to your show every day.
I have to go out in my truck and turn it on and listen to it because I live in a remote area.
But I'm telling you, this is a farce.
Watch what happens when we go to raise the debt limit.
Just watch.
It ain't going to happen.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think Donald Trump has gravitas?
Yeah, but he's doing it for the wrong reasons, Rush.
He's doing it for publicity.
I don't take him that seriously.
I like him, but I really, truly do not believe he wants to be president.
I really don't.
Okay, so you watched Boehner on Fox today, and you're not buying his claim that what they ended up really doing was cutting $100 billion because you can count $40 billion from Obama's budget and add the earlier continuing resolutions.
And if you add it all up, you've got $100 billion.
You're not buying that.
No.
And I'll tell you, the only thing John Boehner got out of those meetings with the president, arrogance.
That's what he got.
Arrogance.
To sit there on national TV to think that we're so stupid out here, we don't know what's going on.
He's so wrong.
He is so wrong.
I have people that we have meetings that we talk about this.
We have 200, 300 people.
Wait a minute then.
You're not a voice of one.
I am.
Oh, yes.
Everybody speaks for themselves.
You know, do they have a right to disagree with me?
And sometimes they do.
But we all talk about it.
But we all are against what's going on in this country.
You know, I sit here and I listen to Mr. Boehner today.
I said, oh, did he trade in his Amani suit for one of them little communist brown jackets now?
Now, now, wait a second.
Now, I mean, understand your peak.
Understand your peak out there, Jack.
But you're talking about the wrong guys wearing the Mau jackets.
Everybody knows that it's Hillary that wears the Mao jackets.
And look, you're forcing me to step in here.
There were some budget cuts here.
Now, you're acting like we've added $38 billion, which we have on the debt side, the interest and so forth.
Nobody's talking about that.
But I got your message, and I know that you're not alone.
You say you're a voice of one, but I know you're not alone.
What was his message?
Oh, I don't need to repeat what his message was, Snerdley.
Everybody knows he's not happy with the deal.
He thinks the Republican leadership takes a tea party, for example, and thinks they're a bunch of rubes who can be spun with all this language here about $38 billion being serious budget cuts.
He's just, he's not buying it.
Aaron in Detroit, Michigan.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Thanks, Rush.
How are you?
Very well.
Thank you.
Can I give a ditto to my dad listening in Naples, Florida?
He listens every day.
Absolutely.
Hey, Rush, I wanted to just say that I think the deal was really bad, not because of the dollar amount per se.
The dollar amount was going to be small either way.
The problem that I see is that we didn't shut the government down.
So the one-half of one-third of the government that we control just showed that we don't have the spine to do what it takes.
And I guess what my point is that we're going to go into negotiations to raise the debt limit and then look at Ryan's budget after that.
And even Ryan's budget at $6.6 trillion in cuts over 10 years doesn't get us to a balanced budget until sometime 10 years or more out.
So we're going to talk about carrying at least a $14 trillion debt, most likely more, in perpetuity.
And if they don't say to themselves or if they don't put something in legislation that says, hey, we're going to balance the budget, and if there's a surplus, we're not going to spend it.
We're going to go to debt reduction.
We're going to continue to carry this $14 to $15 to whatever trillion-dollar debt going forward.
No, no, wait.
Ryan's plan is to eliminate the national debt.
Not until at least 10 years out.
Yeah, well, no, it's longer than that, but there's nobody else with a plan to do that.
But his plan won't even get the deficits to balance until 10 years out.
Well, that's not all that out of the realm of possibility.
I mean, these deficits are huge.
There's going to be some major restructuring necessary because so much of it's entitlement spending, which is supposedly untouchable.
But, you know, this is why you use the leverage points when you have them.
And we had a leverage point here.
It could have shut the government down so we could put to rest once and for all the fear of that nonsense, take away that threat from the Democrats for a long time.
Maybe go ahead and shut it down and show the world has not come to an end.
Make your point.
Get what you need out of it and then retool.
I agree.
We just put that bullet back in the gun form for the next fight.
Yep.
Well, plus, we've, I don't know, have we shown we're willing to pull the trigger, though?
I mean, what good's a bullet being in the chamber if you're not going to pull the trigger at any point?
Okay, my preliminary read on the situation after doing an in-depth study of callers today and a voluminous amount of email, approaching a record amount of email, is that there is a serious backlash that has begun, and it is going to swell.
The entire weekend was spent trying to tamp it down.
The entire weekend media coverage was an attempt to eliminate or to tamp down any kind of a backlash.
But it doesn't appear that it is working.
It doesn't appear that the rank and file are buying any of the spin that was featured throughout the Washington media over the weekend.
And there's a reason.
You know, you don't go in and promise $100 billion of cuts, which is not that much money.
It's not that hard to do given those election results.
It's not that hard to do when every spending, every dollar spent originates in the House.
Nothing happens unless it originates in the House of Representatives.
That's constitutional.
Some people may not know that.
Every spending bill must initiate in the House of Representatives, the people's house.
So it's not altogether true to say that, well, we're just one half or one-third of one-half of the much more control than that.
The latest Rasmussen poll, Obama has hit a new low in his strongly approved 19%, only 19% strongly approve Obama.
You know, Obama's in a free fall.
It's like I said Friday night.
Never have we had a greater opportunity to contrast who we are with what they are.
Never have we had a greater opportunity after this election to just make them pound sand.
But you go out and you start promising $100 billion and even you reduce it to $61 billion.
You raise these expectations.
And then to try to explain that, well, something's changed and we really couldn't get that.
It's not flying out there.
And now from the White House AP has a story.
Obama regrets his vote as a senator against raising the debt limit.
The White House says that Obama regrets his vote as a senator in 2006 against raising the debt limit.
The press secretary Jay Carney said today that Obama believes his vote was a mistake, said Obama now realizes the debt ceiling is too important to be trifled with.
Now, isn't that hilarious?
You remember, if you don't, I will remind you.
We were told during the campaign that while Obama might not have much real-life work experience, he had great judgment.
He had that great moral compass.
Is there anything he has not changed his mind on?
We had our boot on the throat of federal spending.
We had our boot on the throat of federal spending starting with that November election.
And we removed the boot from the throat.
We did it on our own.
Nobody forced us.
We did it on our own.
You had Obama in freefall.
David, San Diego, California.
Great to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
You bet, sir.
I have a different take than you do about the thing that has changed since the Republicans promised $100 billion in cuts.
All right.
And I think the thing that has changed since then is the fact that we did not gain control of the Senate.
And so I believe that given that, the deal that was made this weekend was the best deal that we could make under the circumstances.
And I also think that by changing the subject from how much more to spend to how much less to spend, that in and of itself is enough of a victory to take us to the next discussion.
There's no question we turned the boat around.
I hope it's not temporary.
We've turned the boat around from spending to cutting.
And you do have to do that first.
I will acknowledge you do have to turn the boat around.
You have to even start the process.
You just don't go into reverse automatically.
You don't have to turn the boat around.
You know, Rush, if we had managed to swing the Senate to Republican control, I think the conversation would have been even that much more different.
And the agenda would have been different.
And, you know, in the Senate, the Prime Minister controls the agenda.
With all due respect, I disagree and I cite Governor Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat who is siding with the Republicans every chance he gets.
The Democrats have more vulnerable re-elects up in 2012 than we do, and they are petrified that if they stick with the Obama agenda, they are going to be vulnerable.
They're already vulnerable.
They got 23 seats they have to defend.
We only have 10.
And I think since all spending bills originate in the House, we had more power than we were willing to use.
There's no question we had more power than we were willing to use.
You know, Obama would have vetoed the budget.
Clinton shuts down the government.
Obama would have shut it down, too.
The difference is this is not 1995.
We had more ammo than we were willing to use.
Now, whether we weren't confident of it, I don't know.
But there's, you know, we turned the boat around.
We could have gotten a lot more out of this and pleased a lot more people at the same time.
It's not just what Obama said about the debt limit as a senator.
It's what Dingy Harry said about the debt limit back in 2006 from the floor of the Senate.
And I got that coming up too, as well as many more phone calls from you.
▲
Export Selection