All Episodes
Previous Next
April 18, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:56
April 18, 2011, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program, some of them have been stated for 22 straight years.
And some of those same views will have to be repeated for 22 more years.
Some of these things we just have to keep saying, such as this stuff we're talking about on taxes today.
Our websites had these numbers up.
For 21, whatever it is, 22 years here.
What is it?
It was started in 88.
This is uh 2011.
Yeah, we're in a 23rd year here.
So what's that mean?
A 23rd anniversary comes up August 1st.
Is that which one it's going to be?
Yeah, yeah.
So we've been talking about this tax business for the entire length of time that I've been hosting this remarkable program.
And still needs to be said.
Still needs to be said how successfully Democrats have demagogued all this.
By the way, if you're on hold, you you hang in there, be tough.
We're going to get to your calls here after the after this uh monologue segment's over.
This, by the way, happened after the Reagan tax cuts, too.
The rich saw their taxes go up.
Although that's not quite the way to say it.
Lower tax rates on the rich, Reagan did it, and Bush 43 did it.
And yet the rich ended up paying more taxes.
If you're shaking your head and you've not heard this explained before, I can understand how you think I'm going to start lying to you.
You're going to think the math on that makes no sense.
How in the world can you cut people's taxes and they end up paying more?
It's very simple.
Let me go back.
Here's a Wall Street Journal piece, July of 2008.
Bush tax cuts raised taxes on the rich hugely.
Washington is teeing up the rich for a big tax increase next year as a way to make them pay their fair share.
Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006.
Now remember, the data we've got 2008 is mo is the most recent data.
These numbers have got to be even worse now after two years of Obama.
But the 2008 data, top 1%, 38% of all income taxes, top 5% pay s 58%, the top 10% pay 70%.
That's in 2008.
In 2006, is what this story is in the Wall Street Journal.
The latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes.
It's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do.
The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.
The top 1% of taxpayers, which is defined as $388,000 a year.
If you a if you earn $388 or more, the top 1%, you want to hear another number.
I don't know if this is still true.
This was this was true back in the 80s when I first started educating myself on this.
And I tell you, when I first started educating myself, the white scope was that were going on in my head like miniature explosions.
I learned that if you earn, this is in the 80s, and I did not earn $50,000 a year.
I wasn't anywhere close to it.
Well, take that back.
No, that's true.
I didn't earn $50,000 a year until 88.
Anyway, I get sidetracked.
If you made $50,000, you were the top 10%.
If you earned 50 grand a year or more, you were in the top 10%.
I know you don't believe it, but it was true.
Now I'll give you another statistic.
Back when I worked for the Kansas City Royals, I was in sales and marketing.
The National Football League was big then, but nothing like it is now.
The NFL sent marketing ideas out to all their member clubs.
And the Chiefs are right across the parking lot.
We knew the guys over there.
And one of the Chiefs guys gave me a poster that the league had sent them.
And it went paraphrasing it, but went something like this.
If you know that more people bowl in a week than watch NFL games in a season than you know America.
Yep.
You probably are as shocked to hear that as you are to hear that back in the 80s, if you earned 50 grand, you were in the top 10%.
Now, I I don't know what that 50% or what the 10% number is now.
I'm telling you, snurly, this would be nice, it had to be 79, 1979 or 80.
If you know that more people I can still see the poster, we hung it up.
We thought it was a good marketing thing for us to learn.
If you know that more people bowl in a week than go to NFL games in a season, then you know America.
You can probably say the same thing about NASCAR.
At any rate, at any rate, the data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what made the biggest increase in tax payments.
The top 1%, those who earn above 388 grand, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006.
The highest share in at least 40 years.
The top 10% in income, those earning, ah, okay, at a double, 108,000.
If you made 108,000 year in the top 10%.
Now some of you in this audience, I'm sure, you earn 100 some odd thousand a year, and it's not bad money.
How many of you have ever thought of yourselves as being in the top 10%?
The top if you 250,000 a year, which is where Obama wants to start, and by the way, that 250,000 a year is no accident that Obama chooses to raise tax.
He is his next assault with these tax increases is going to be on small business.
That's who he next wants to destroy.
I know Snardley is complaining to me here that 108,000 in New York, you're barely making it.
And yet you're on a top 10% in the country.
In a top 10%, same thing.
I know, Snurdly, but I know this is my Snerdley's sitting here like he can't believe this.
It's true.
You can sit here and argue with me all you want.
You can say 108,000 dollars doesn't add up to much in New York City or California, but it still puts you in the top 10% of people who earn an income in the country.
Top 10% earning 108 grand a year, paid 71%.
Now, how does this happen?
Let me, and by the way, uh the the this business about taxes and revenue is a misnomer because that's not the purpose for taxes for liberals.
This is another thing that you're going to have to unlearn if this is what if you believe that whenever liberals talk about people not paying their fair share in all that, we got to raise taxes on them because the government's unfunded, underfunded, and they've got to pay that's not at all.
What they just want the money to redistribute.
They don't want to pay it to pay down the debt.
Liberals don't care any.
They and by the way, they don't look at anything other than percentages.
The reason they can say the rich aren't paying their fair share is because they don't ignore all these numbers I'm giving you.
They look at a rate of 35% and say it's unfair.
Pure and simple.
But here's the here's the answer to the question.
How is it can Bush lower tax rates?
They were 39.6 under Clinton.
He took it down to what is it, 35 or 36?
One of those two numbers.
I keep getting confused on it.
Whatever.
How did lowering their rate, let's say from 39.6 to 35%, how does that raise their taxes?
The answer to that is very simple, and it's crucial.
Because there is something happening, something that happens when you lower tax rates.
The first thing you do is create a positive outlook and attitude on people who hire other people.
You create a positive financial outlook on people who invest their money in the growth of their business, or you end up creating more jobs.
As tax rates lower, small businesses have more money to grow.
They're not sending as much to Washington, they keep it.
They can hire more people, they can invest in the growth of the business, which is what they want to do, because that's where everybody involved in the business benefits is when it grows.
When the business grows, large and small, obviously it creates more revenue, and more people are hired.
And that's called the tax base.
So you have more people earning income.
More people paying taxes.
So where it may not be the case that the individual rich guy sees his personal income tax bill go up, there is an increase in the number of rich guys paying taxes.
So that there is more revenue generated, i.e., or e.g., the greater percentage of revenue raised is is paid for by high earners.
By the same token, if you raise people's taxes, small business, whatever, you are going to reduce the amount of money they have to grow.
They're not going to grow at all.
They may have to fire people, certainly not give them raises, and the tax base shrinks.
Fewer taxpayers, but hello unemployment benefits, hello deficit, hello loss of revenues of the government.
There's nothing good that happens from raising taxes other than liberals get to convince their idiots that vote for them that the rich are getting screwed, and that makes them happy, so they vote for Democrats.
Pure and simple.
There's not one good thing that happens when people's tax rates go up.
Not one.
But there are all kinds of great things that happen when they're reduced.
And when tax cuts happen, when tax rates are lowered, more people are hired, businesses grow, the people at those businesses earn more money, they get raises, their income levels go up, they end up paying more taxes as a group.
The way these stories are sort of a misleading thing, rich paying higher taxes.
Bush tax cuts raised taxes on rich huge.
It did, but because it created more rich people paying more taxes at a lower rate.
So if the purpose of the tax code is to raise revenue to run the government, lowering taxes is what you want.
If the purpose is to redistribute income, still lowering taxes what you want.
But if you don't care about the deficits involved, then it doesn't matter.
You raise taxes all you want and make the 90% of people who are not in the top 10% love you because you're getting even your screw in the top 10%.
So the Democrats have opted for what?
No fiscal responsibility, the total redistribution of wealth, making everybody poorer in exchange for what?
More votes for them and entrenched power.
Now my point, I mean, it's in this Wall Street Journal story.
It's documented here.
The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in three years after the Bush tax cuts.
That's why the rich were paying more taxes.
The number of millionaires almost doubled.
Which is why the money from them went up.
There were more of them.
That's how it happens.
Individually, they're paying less taxes.
As a group, the government's making a killing off of them.
And everybody thinks in their civics 101 mode, that's when you have taxes to fund the government.
No, Democrats, that's not why you have taxes.
You have taxes to redistribute the money to people whom the only reason you're giving them money is for them to vote for you.
Not even to improve their lot in life, because it doesn't do that.
Now, individually, folks, the rich still paid more.
And there's a simple reason for that too.
After the Bush tax cuts, and same thing after Reagan.
Because there was less reason to hide income.
If you tell somebody that they're going to get to keep 30% or keep 70% of every dollar they earn instead of 60%, They'll go to a lot less trouble finding shelters, hiring lawyers to come up with ways within the tax code to avoid paying taxes.
Look at it's a marvelous bit of reality.
Lower people's taxes, and all kinds of magic happens.
And we're not anywhere near the point where the there is a point where you lower taxes too much, of course, all this doesn't apply.
Uh by the same token, if a tax rate was zero, government's gonna end up with nothing, we can't have that.
But we're still we're still at high enough tax rates that there's enough room to lower them to still create this boom.
The end of the Wall Street Journal piece spells out why the rich still paid more individually than uh when taxes were high, like during the Carter years.
Because they either worked less, they earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes, so it was never reported to the IRS's income.
And by the way, all these numbers I've given you are IRS numbers.
They're not CBO, they're not tax foundation, they're not they're they're IRS numbers in terms of how many millionaires there are, what their tax rates were, what they what everybody paid, uh IRS numbers.
Some people just stop working at a certain income level.
Okay, fine.
I got enough.
I'm not gonna.
Why if I'm to give up 40% by the time you had federal or state, if I have to give up half or over half what I make to tax authorities, why the hell earn it?
Is what a lot of people do.
So there's no argument for raising taxes, especially now.
Because the example I gave you, you want to choke off whatever lame recovery might be going on, raise of taxes.
That's what Obama's gonna do on 250,000 a year income or higher, and that's small business is gonna wipe them out.
You realize if Obama was a governor of a state, his state would have defaulted by now.
Because states can't print money.
If Obama were a governor, and couldn't raise taxes enough to matter, state would have defaulted.
Here's uh here's Greg in Cincinnati as we kick off the phones today on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rogers.
An honor to talk to you, sir.
Thank you.
I I just had one example for you of your redistribution you've been talking about.
Yeah.
I did my brother-in-law's taxes this year.
Just like last year, about the same.
He paid a hundred dollars in federal taxes.
He's gonna get back almost a hundred, I'm sorry, fifteen hundred dollars back just because of the make work pay credit.
The make work pay credit.
Exactly one of these these infinite number of credits out there that create Democrat voters.
Exactly.
Again, he got the same about the same amount last year, about $1,500.
The make paying nothing.
Yeah.
The make work.
And what did you say?
You said $100, or is that figure no longer relevant?
You $1,500 is the number you meant to use?
Yeah.
Well, he paid $100 in federal taxes.
He's going to get back $1,500.
He paid $100 in federal taxes.
Correct.
God, this is making me sick.
You know, I finally wrapped mine up last night.
I've been all week.
All week, it's been back and forth with the accounting team.
And last night came that moment in time.
Write the check.
No, no, for the first quarter of this year.
That's done.
I've always end up owing a little on purpose.
I don't want a refund.
But it's still.
Spend all week working on it, and then they shoot you the number.
Somebody, I mentioned this on Friday during the radio curaton.
Somebody wanted to know how great must it feel to be able to write a check of the amount I said I was going to donate to the Leukemia Society.
What?
God, Russia, just that's gotta that's gotta feel good to be able to do that for people.
It is.
This was last night.
There is no comparison.
You know, I remember reading, uh, Who was it?
Alan, what was the clown's name at USA Today?
Alan The founder, New Hearth.
New Hearth.
He's a he's uh he's a forerunner to Trump in a way.
He wrote columns about how much he owed in taxes every year, how much he paid, and how proud he was to be able to write that check.
How patriotic it made him feel to be able to write that check.
And I think he was talking about owing a couple or three million and how proud he felt.
By the way, Donald Trump.
We've got the audio coming up.
Mitt Romney's not rich enough to be president.
Trump didn't use those words, but it got close to it up there at Boca Raton on Saturday.
We've got the audio of that coming up.
Plus more of your phone calls, right?
Here's a kick off a brand new week of broadcast excellence here at the EIB network.
By gosh, we do.
We still have a minute.
Now notice the staff did not jump in and try to save me and make me look good here by playing something.
I'm left hanging here.
I thought it's my clock.
Well, never mind.
I'm not gonna make any excuses.
I really did.
I'm looking at the clock from a weird angle.
I do analog clocks, not digital.
Yeah, first refund I've ever gotten of a minute.
I got more, I've got one more minute of broadcast time than I thought that I had.
Uh here's Scrabbite uh took me too long to find the number, and I just ran past the length of time it takes, so I can't even play that.
Nice vamp.
This is this is not a very, very professional vamp here.
It really isn't.
We've got basically a minute that we can't get back of just totally wasted program.
Totally gone.
Just totally gone.
All because I got a stinking clock that doesn't look right.
Ever since Friday, when Donald Trump most recently appeared on the big program here, I have been asked by people, do you think he's running?
And up until Friday, I didn't think so.
I thought there were other things behind this.
And I still don't know, still into wild guest territory.
But now, if I had to put money behind the guests, I would say he's running.
I really think he is.
As of now, I think in his mind he's running.
Now, with Trump, and it can happen between now and that day that he says he's going to announce that.
What is it?
He said that he's going to, he's gonna.
Prior to June, he's got the the the finale of the apprentice.
He's gonna do something.
Not announce it that day.
He's gonna.
Oh yeah, that's right.
He was going to announce what date he's gonna.
So he's obviously promoting the the finale of the apprentice.
I just a couple things out there.
I just I think he's gonna do it.
He was in Boca on Saturday, making a political speech.
He basically said that Romney is not rich enough.
He said Romney's not nearly as rich as he, Trump is.
Trump says he's a billionaire.
Now remember, there was some people at uh I forget who it was.
Magazine or something did a story on Trump claiming he's lying about his net worth.
It's really only 250 million or something.
And he sued them.
And there was a retraction.
And I think Forbes, I think he opened his books for Forbes or something, and Forbes came in and reported that it's a lot more than 250 million.
He sued Trump sued some author a couple of years ago for libel claiming his net worth was less than 250.
I mean, the Trump libel case got thrown out, but Trump did go to Forbes, and they looked at the books and they found it was much more than 250.
Here's the audio soundbite.
This is at a tea party deal on on Saturday in Boca Raton, but this happened to me with Candy Crowley on Sunday State of the Union.
She said to Trump, uh, you're a better businessman, you think?
Uh it's a selling point for you over Romney.
I'm a much bigger businessman, and I have a much, much bigger net worth.
I mean, my net worth is uh many, many, many times Mitt Romney.
I would love to put that ability to work for this country.
So I don't do it for myself.
I'll be doing it for the country.
And guess what?
That's what this country needs.
This country needs me.
Well, now you can laugh at that.
I'm just going to tell you something.
Everybody that's serious about running for office thinks that.
Why else do you almost have to to put up with what that entails?
You have to think the country can't get along without you.
The country, you have to have something driving you.
Trump is just verbalizing it here.
And he didn't actually say that Romney's not rich enough.
That's the that's a caption to a picture of Trump from Boca that the New York Post runs.
That's how they interpret it.
In fact, the New York Post story.
Trump, I'm better for president because my net worth's bigger than Romney's.
Vote for mine, vote for me because mine's bigger.
Donald Trump yesterday fired the opening salvo in a macho battle of bank accounts with Mitt Romney dismissing the former Massachusetts governor as a small business person and saying his own assets are much, much larger than Romney's.
Trump whose approval ratings have rocketed upwards since he started hammering Obama.
Yesterday turned his fire on Romney, considered by many to be the front runner.
I can't wait till he starts taking on Huckabee because Huckabee is number one in some of these numbers too, so these polls.
Yeah, I'm a much bigger businessman.
I'm much, much bigger net worth.
I mean, my net worth is many, many, many times Mitt Romney.
Trump said.
Well, Mitt Romney's basically a small business guy, if you really think about it.
He was a hedge fund.
He was a funds guy.
He walked away with some money from a very good company.
He didn't create.
He worked there.
He didn't create it.
He's talking about Bain Capital.
Trump said that he had created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Here's part of a speech from Trump on Saturday in Boca.
I know a lot about books.
The man that wrote the second book didn't write the first book.
The difference was like chicken salad and chicken sh.
I read both books.
There is no way that he wrote that first book.
His whole aura was caused by the genius of the first book, which was written by Bill Ayers.
Okay, that's birther claim number two.
First you've got the birther claim, and now the claim that Bill Ayers wrote Obama's book.
That is the result of research done by an author by the name of Jack Cashill or Cashill.
I don't know how Jack pronounces his name.
It's spelled C-A-S-H-I-L-L.
It's either K shill or Cashill.
And Jack spent months, and he's got this entire dissertation.
He's gone back, he's looked at previous Obama writings.
He knows the history Obama ran up in a deadline his first book, hadn't got any written, and he did get something written, he turned it in.
It was horrible.
The publishers rejected it, or something like this.
And then finally, when the when the book about his father got got submitted, everybody said, Oh, we've never seen any writing like this from Obama.
We've never seen this.
So then they started comparing it.
Jack did to other writers, and they found what he says is an unmistakable comparison between the way Bill Ayers writes and Obama's first book.
Now, Ayers is out making jokes about this now.
You know, Ayers goes out and tries to speak to these, you know, future little Pentagon bombers.
Little kids out there who aspire to the same things Ayers did, blowing up people and things.
And uh one little person said, I understand that you wrote Obama's first book.
And here said, Yeah, I wrote it.
You know, which is and then that person put that video all over YouTube.
Ayers admits to writing Obama.
So here's Trump bringing this up.
Next, Trump's gonna be talking about David Rockefeller and a new world order and the trilateral commission.
And how they picked Obama.
But despite all that, I still think I I don't know.
Just right now, I think Trump is running.
Did you also hear Obama said that he's uh when he signed uh uh piece of legislation, he also signed a signing statement that he's not going to abide by any of the legislation.
Signing statements.
You know, he hated Bush for this.
And Obama himself, back in May of 2008, Grand Junction, Colorado, he was at a campaign event, he promised, because every Obama statement has an expiration date.
He promised to never use signing statements.
Here's what he said then.
Yes.
Congress's job is to pass legislation.
The president can veto it or he can sign it.
This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he's going along.
I disagree with that.
I taught the Constitution for ten years.
I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.
We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.
He just did one.
He just issued a signing or promised to issue a signing statement.
Okay, I gotta take, yeah, better take a brief time out because I don't know what the clock says here.
I've either got a minute more or less than I thought I had.
Wonder what's gonna happen.
If Bill Gates decided to run for president, his assets are bigger than Trump's and Romney's.
I don't know, maybe he wouldn't run, but if he did, his assets are bigger than all of them.
The End Here it is in a statement issued Friday night, President Obama took issue with some provisions in the budget bill.
And in one case simply says he's not going to abide by it.
He basically issued a signing statement indicating he will not abide by a provision in the budget bill.
Even though, oh, I'm never gonna write mission statements never gonna happen.
I believe in the Constitution.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Recent wave of tobacco tax increases designed to pump revenue into cash strap local governments by the same thing as taxes here, folks.
They raise taxes on cigarettes, and guess what?
They raise them so much they create a black market in them.
And now smuggling cigarettes has become almost as big an operation as smuggling drugs and guns.
USA Today story, violent criminals expand into cigarettes.
Now I would think, given the way cigarettes are treated, that everybody who sold them are already criminals.
The 7-Eleven guys, the gas station guys, whoever you can buy them, they're already criminals.
But now, hardened criminals, smugglers are getting into the act.
The real crime here is some tax revenues not being collected.
That's what they're really worried about.
That's what they're really upset about.
Yep.
Recent wave state tobacco tax increases designed to pump revenue into cash-strapped local governments is inspiring an increasingly dangerous cigarette smuggling industry where big profits lure violent criminal gangs into the booming illegal market, according to law enforcement officials and court records.
We predicted it all.
Raise taxes, raise doesn't matter what you raise taxes on, just doesn't matter, folks.
This is what you end up creating.
A lack of activity.
If you want a tax, if you want to get rid of something, if you want less of something, tax it.
If you want more of something, tax it less.
So if you want more economic growth, lower taxes.
If you want less economic growth, do what Obama's doing.
Raise taxes.
Works every time it's tried.
The son of the Reverend Jackson.
Jesse Jackson Jr. is blaming the iPad for killing jobs.
He says he owns one.
He says he owns one, by the way.
Is blaming the Apple product for eliminating thousands of jobs.
Well, how do you think, Snerdley?
Stern.
Well, yes, you can think like an idiot.
Not that you are one, but I mean we all can think like liberals do.
Look, if you you heard just now he's blaming the iPad for killing jobs.
Okay.
I saw that before I read the rest of the story.
I do these things as brain exercises.
Rather than read the story and find out, I try to I try to figure out myself what these lunatics mean.
Okay.
So Reverend Jackson blames the iPad for killing jobs.
What jobs would the iPad be killing?
I got to think I I struggled with this.
I I I couldn't think of jobs that was killing.
So I I gave up.
And I finally read he's upset at electronic books.
Electronic books are going to close.
Barnes and Noble and all the people who work there.
He's upset at electronic newspapers.
Newspapers aren't going to exist.
They're going to shut down newspapers.
Yep.
No more borders.
Borders is closing stores.
Why do you need to go to borders anymore?
Why do you need to go to Barnes and Nobles?
Buy an iPad, download your newspaper, download your book, download your magazine.
He said this on the House floor.
Friday afternoon.
Just last month he was promoting the iPad and Amazon on the House floor, but now all of a sudden the iPad's killing jobs in the media.
They are idiots, no question.
Who's next?
Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Andre, glad you waited.
You're up next, sir.
Happy to have you here.
Happy to be here.
Thank you so much for all you do, Russia.
You better Megametegadetto, sorry.
Thank you very much, sir.
Uh you know, as you talk about the whole tax situation, everything you say is completely logical.
It's factual, it's it makes total sense, and it frustrates the heck out of me every time I hear it, because we're at a point in our in our country where we can no longer have rational debate with with Democrats or liberals that maybe we never could, but there's no point of rational debate anymore.
We're at a point where now we're in a battle between makers and takers.
And what worries me so much about this country at this point is that the makers will continue to vote themselves ri large out of the treasury.
They'll continue to vote themselves the money out of the government, which means they'll continue to vote for Democrats.
And as we keep going and the bo baby boomers are aging, the the proportion of makers to takers will continue to increase.
And so there has to be something done to bring that balance back because there won't be enough takers in the future as to as the wealth continues.
I mean, there won't be enough makers.
You you had them reverse throughout your example, but there are more and more takers.
And so that requires more and more redistribution.
Which my point today about that is yes, spending is bad enough on its own, but it's how it's being spent.
It's being spent in ways that stifle the creation of wealth that stifle uh uh individual prosperity.
We're we're we're we're spending money to depress economic activity and to keep people stupid.
The takers are up now to 47% at least.
Forty-seven percent do not pay any income tax.
Forty percent get money back on all the various earned income credits of various kinds.
So the takers are on a roll.
Takers are making a run for it.
You know, I uh I I I appreciate your comment, too.
The uh first hour and a half here on taxes, the economy, it ought to be on a DVD that's taught in schools.
Ought to be.
I mean, it's just pure common sense, pure mathematics, pure economics.
It's just a it's not even arguable.
Other than ideologically.
Uh he talked about we've got to change the way we deal with these people.
This is interesting.
Guy named Joe Walsh, a Tea Party guy, Tea Party freshman in the House, was on with uh Christiana Manpour on this week with Christianamonpore on Sunday.
And he's from Illinois.
She said there's so much evidence, even going back to Reagan, where he did tax cuts, and in fact, the debt increased.
Then he had to make tax increases.
I mean, can you really cut public spending by that amount and just expect to balance the budget?
In the 80s, government revenues went up.
We didn't cut spending.
Revenues went up in the eighties.
Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up.
The economy is growing.
Look, Christiana, I've said this before.
The President of the United States ought to be ashamed of himself.
And I don't know why your pre your uh profession hasn't gotten on anymore.
Two months ago, he presents a budget and doesn't even talk about entitlement reform.
And then all of a sudden, last week he gets a redo.
The Republicans are leading on this, perfectly prepared to take whatever political hits we have to take because the crisis is so severe.
i wish she'd be a part of this christianity still walked in her own narrative just like schieffer was earlier in the program well what do you mean well you you you uh cut taxes like reagan did and look at what happened the deficit went through the roof it didn't Federal revenues to the Treasury doubled in the eight years of Ronald Reagan.
The amount of money generated via income taxes doubled during the eight years of Ronald Reagan.
That's what he said.
You know, you you ought to know a little bit more about this, Christine.
You ought to know a little bit more about what you're talking, is what he was essentially saying to her.
Wall Street Journal.
Wall Street Journal has a piece here called When Unions Get Desperate.
It is about the California Teachers Association.
That's California's largest teachers' union.
They're planning a week of activities in May.
Their goal is to pressure Democrat Governor Moonbeam Brown and the state legislature to raise taxes.
Rather than cut spending.
And it says here, they plan to work with Ben and Jerry's to create a labor union flavored ice cream.
Now, what flavor would that be?
I'm open for suggestions.
▲
Export Selection