All Episodes
Previous Next
July 27, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:26
July 27, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, I knew I knew this was coming.
And there it is.
Tea Party members are suggesting Speaker Boehner be replaced.
I can't tell you how I knew this was coming, but I knew it was coming.
I knew it was coming.
The Tea Party people are serious.
There's about 100 of them in the House.
Maybe, well, close to 100 of them and a 57 somewhere in there.
But rank and file Tea Party voters understand something.
Despite the massive landslide that occurred last November, both parties still have the same leadership.
Nothing has changed.
And I knew this was coming.
When I say I knew it was coming, because I have been told, I can't tell you by how many people who consider themselves Tea Party people, Tea Party members.
Short leash.
Leadership doesn't reflect what the election results indicated.
Get rid of them.
Now, the leadership thinks Tea Party is a bunch of kooks.
The leadership, both parties thinks the Tea Party is a bunch of kooks.
It's not that they're Tea Partiers, it's that they're outsiders.
They're not of the establishment.
In Washington, it's really not that hard to be a kook.
You want the word cut to mean cut.
You really, when you start talking about cuts, you mean cuts.
That makes you a kook within the ruling establishment in Washington.
It's really no more complicated than that.
Now, I don't know how this is going to manifest itself, but I do know that this has been effervescing out there.
And it's now effervesced, or for those of you in Rio Linda, bubbled up to the surface.
Greetings and great to have you back.
Rush Limbaugh doing what I was born to do.
So are you.
I was born to host.
You were born to listen.
I love this.
I love the opportunity every day to be with you.
It's the greatest thing that ever happened to me is to be able to do what I love doing.
If I could wave a magic wand, if I had one piece of advice for anybody asking the question, what do I do with my life?
Find out what it is you love.
You probably already know it.
You just have to figure out a way to do it.
Find out what you love.
And nothing's work after that in the sense of drudgery.
It's got its moments, but when you're doing what you love to do, by definition, you'll be willing to do it all the time.
You'll want to do it all the time.
And you'll get divorced a bunch of times.
But still, you'll be doing what you love.
I shouldn't joke about that.
But you do what you love.
No, I wasn't talking about me, Snurdley.
I had other people in mind.
Don't start playing games like that with me.
Anyway, here's the phone number: 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, lrushbo at eibnet.com from Scott Rasmussen.
Voters are more convinced than ever that most congressmen are crooks.
It's a new high.
46% think that most in Congress are corrupt.
46%.
A whopping 85% of voters think that most members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping other people.
That is a record high for surveys stretching back to early November 2006.
Only 7% believe that most of the members of Congress are more interested in helping others.
What is this helping others' business?
How about just doing the job?
These findings come at a time when voter approval of the job Congress is doing has fallen to a new low.
Only 6% of voters now rate Congress performance as good or excellent.
61% think the national legislators are doing a poor job.
But nothing.
Well, I take that back.
There were big changes last November.
This polling data is starting to be relevant now.
It's starting to matter.
General Electric, they got their big CEO, Jeff Immelt, he's out there telling all these people, you better hire people.
Went to the Chamber of Congress, you better hire people.
Stop complaining about government.
GE has fired 50,000 people last three or four years.
And now, General Electric, with its CEO, telling everybody in business, you better start hiring people.
Stop complaining about government.
They're moving their global X-ray headquarters over to the CHICOMs.
And thereby, they will escape further U.S. taxation.
General Electric CEO is on Obama's private sector job creation commission or whatever.
I think what they ought to do, if they're going to move the X-ray unit over there, move MSNBC over there.
You know what?
I would love to see.
Have you seen these promos MSNBC is running?
Rachel Maddow's out there sitting in front of some dam somewhere.
Sergeant Schultz is walking through a dilapidated train yard with empty railroad train car containers.
And after he finishes walking through, some fleabag diner.
Yeah, a weird, weird rank.
Well, he's trying to look like Peter Jennings, you know, the official journalist trench coat.
That was part of the journalist uniform.
I remember watching Peter Jennings when he was a foreign correspondent, Beirut or wherever, before he would go out and have drinks with that al-Shwari babe.
He'd do his reports wearing the official trench coat with the belt and everything, the journalist uniform.
And Sergeant Schultz got one on.
It looks dirtier and older than Colombo's.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
Certainly don't, I wouldn't take it that far.
I wouldn't say Sergeant Schultz looks like a flasher.
You have to have other characteristics along, not just the trashy raincoat.
But anyway, he goes trekking through the dilapidated railroad car yard, ends up in some dilapidated diner, drinking a cup of coffee, saying, we can do better than this.
We can do better.
And he's talking about MSNBC.
Thinks he's talking about the country.
So GE, now they don't own a majority stake anymore of NBC, but they still have a take, a stake in it.
Move NBC over, MSNBC over there.
And Sergeant Schultz can go, you know, wandering through the graveyard or wherever, which is where many Chinese people end up because of government policies.
So, ladies and gentlemen, the discussion subject of who runs a Republican Party all of a sudden surfaced again when the Republicans somehow will not come up with a deal that Obama wants to sign.
And by the way, Jay Carney yesterday admitted Obama didn't have a plan and acted incredulous that people would want to see it.
What do you mean?
I'm up here at the podium every day.
What more do you need?
He said.
They don't have a plan.
You know what I would do?
Folks, it's real simple.
I just, and I've mentioned this before, stop presenting a plan.
All we're doing is compromising with ourselves.
Just stop presenting the plans.
Just sit around and say, well, wait for yours.
Say it to Obama, say it to Kearney, you know, whatever, but we're through.
Anyway, Democrats are all ticked off now.
And by the way, Dingy Harry's plan, nobody has seen it.
Yeah, Democratic lawmaker, nobody I know has seen the Reed plan.
And they're still opposed to it.
They're opposed to it.
They haven't seen it.
So the Democrats are not presenting plans, which is the tactic.
And we ought to stop.
You know, it's pointless.
I'm sure our leadership thinks that they're gaining points with the American people by behaving morally.
We're not going to default.
We're going to make sure this country is credit rating.
I'm sure they think the American people appreciate hearing that.
But in the process, they're simply compromising with themselves.
Come up with plan A. Go up there.
Obama says, nope, don't like it.
Okay, we'll be back.
Here's plan B. Nope, don't like it.
Come back with plan C. Obama says, I like that, but I'm going to add 400.
Nope, okay, Republicans walk up.
Plan D, plan E, F goes on and on.
What are the Republicans doing but revising their own plans?
Just stop.
That's my advice.
Last night, by the way, on Sergeant Schultz's show on PMS NBC, the guest was Steve Israel, Democrat member of Congress from New York.
Sergeant Schultz said, let's go to the Reed Plan, which we now know that nobody has seen.
Do you think the Reed plan has a chance?
Would you go along with the Reed Plan?
What you know of it?
How do you negotiate with a group of people when they believe that it is Rush Limbaugh who should decide the future of this country?
Well, look what's back here, folks.
I've once again have come back from the graveyard of just being an entertainer to now being the titular head of the Republican Party.
I am the guy who is deciding the future of the country, and they're wondering how do you negotiate with a group of people who believe that I should decide the future of the country.
This continued on Wolf Blitz's Situation Room show on CNN.
Wolf Blitz and Alex Castellanos and James Carville had a discussion about me.
Rush Limbaugh is obviously a very influential conservative radio talk show host.
Anything wrong with the speaker calling Rush Limbaugh, briefing him on his proposal, trying to generate support among Rush Limbaugh and his listeners out there?
It's not wrong, but it's an interesting piece of relevant information that this is who he's reaching out to.
I would be interested in Mitt Romney's position.
I would be interested in T.Paul's position.
I'd be interested in Rick Perry's position.
But Boehner, so they're upset.
What he's really saying is, what Carville's really saying is, well, it got me ticked off, Wolf, and nobody cares about what my position is.
Nobody call me.
Rick Perry doesn't call me.
T. Paul doesn't call me.
Hell, Mary don't even listen to me anymore.
I can't get anybody to listen to my opinion on what we ought to do.
He got Boehner called a Limbaugh with my Gumbo.
This continued Alex Castellanos.
Now, he is a Republican strategist.
James, you wouldn't make a very good Republican.
This is going to come as a shock, I guess.
Right.
And James, just because you make stuff up does not mean it's true.
For example, when you said that Speaker Boehner called to get directions or instructions from Rush Limbaugh, no.
I think Wolf just pointed out he's the largest radio audience in the country, and it's the Republican base.
And explaining our position to them is a pretty good idea.
Okay, so Castellano says, hey, he's Boehner just calling it a Limbaugh show.
There are a lot of people listening to it.
And Boehner's explaining the idea.
Carville replies.
Rush Limbaugh is the most powerful person in the Republican Party.
I think he's probably the person that has the greatest intellectual sway in modern Republicanism.
Again, probably should call him.
I just think it's an interesting thing to see who the speaker is speaking to in the middle of this crisis.
That's all.
And I think the public will find this interesting.
I know I do.
I don't say it's wrong.
I don't think it's immoral.
It's illegal.
I just think it's interesting.
So apparently they've got some polling data that shows I'm really polling negative out there.
Mention my name is the theory here that they can really do damage to the Republicans.
And Boehner is calling Limbaugh.
He's calling everybody.
Boehner's talking to a lot of people about this, as Carville knows.
Now, yesterday afternoon on PMSNBC, the Dylan Ratigan show, the guest is former chief economist Joe Bitemey.
Name is Jared Bernstein.
During a discussion about the federal debt negotiations, there was this little exchange.
They're backing away from the Boehner plan because it's not conservative enough.
They're afraid there's a tax increase hidden in there somewhere.
And Boehner's on the radio explaining to Rush Limbaugh.
No, no, no way.
Can't happen.
It is a massive movement away from governing.
I believe voters send people here to govern, but when you sign a pledge like that, you stop governing.
And it's extremely detrimental to the economy and to the debate.
Jared Bernstein there, Bite Me, Joe Bite Me's former chief economist, and he's basically making the case we've got to have tax increases.
We've got to have tax increases.
And Boehner's calling Limbaugh and Limbaugh saying no tax increases.
Well, that isn't governing.
Mr. Bernstein, you're not governing.
You are destroying you and your pals and your method of budgeting.
I mean, you are destroying the golden goose, whatever you want to characterize it.
He's certainly not governing.
And if you want to say you're governing, you certainly are not doing it well.
Jared Bernstein, by the way, just so you know, Jared Bernstein is the guy who promised that unemployment would never go above 8% if they got the stimulus bill.
He's the chief economist who started that statistic and everybody picked it up.
Obama picked it up and Biden picked it up.
A lot of the Democrats.
Jared Bernstein is the guy who promised that the unemployment would never go above 8%.
Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer wrote the stimulus bill.
This guy that you just heard is who wrote the failed stimulus bill.
This morning on the daily rundown on PMSNBC, the end of the show, during the shameless plugs segment, the host F. Chuck Todd said very quickly, shameless plugs, Karen Finney, your turn.
Column in the Hill on Grover Norquist, the unelected head of the Republican Party.
Just want to remind people about his history.
He's going to have something to say.
I know he will.
F. Chuck says that I am the head of the GOP, not Grover Norquist.
But remember, we're racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes.
This is yesterday on the Dylan Radigan Show on PMS NBC, Democrat strategicist Jimmy Williams.
person is controlling the agenda of the United States of America and his name is Grover Norquist.
Grover Norquist was New Gingrich's butt buddy.
He was Jack Abramoff's close friend.
They can't make up their mind.
Norquist or me.
Norquist Newt's butt-buddy.
That's the lingo that passes for reasoned political analysis on PMS NPC.
America's real anchorman, Rush Limbaugh, and now back to being titular head of the Republican Party.
All plans and ideas apparently are run by me first.
We go to the phones starting in Queens.
Bill, hello, sir.
Great to have you with us.
How are you?
Good.
Thank you.
Okay, I thought maybe you could get Governor Andrew Cuomo, son of former Governor Mario Cumo, on to explain baseline budgeting because when he became governor, he discovered that in New York we've been baseline budgeting for years, that he wrote about it in the newspapers, and the newspaper men were startled, quite frankly, to hear about it.
And all the local politicians were startled, too.
And he actually got off it for this year and actually, I think, reduced spending a little bit in the state of New York, of all places.
So maybe you could get Governor Cuomo on, and he could discover it for the federal government.
Well, I don't think anybody needs to discover it.
I think they know exactly what they're doing.
The lesson here is, you know, Governor Cumo has, we must admit, he's balanced that budget, right?
It is remarkable.
And what did he do to do it?
He had real cuts in spending.
He got rid of the whole concept of baseline budgeting.
I mean, that's the lesson.
I mean, everybody in Washington knows what's going on.
Every member of Congress understands the baseline.
They live and die by it.
I mean, it's, my gosh, it's their lifeline, particularly Democrats.
It is how they are guaranteed to spend more money each and every year.
And it gives them this automatic lingo of cut, cut, cut and accuse the Republicans of being heartless when there are never any cuts.
They know exactly what they've got.
It's going to have to be written out of the law.
Roger, Vero Beach, Florida, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Well, thanks for the titular head to showing back up for us again.
Thank you, sir.
You bet.
You bet you.
And I just want to point out, I learned about baseline budgeting in a great interview you did with Lawrence Kudlow in the Limbaugh Letter.
I'm going to say 15, 16 years ago.
That's exactly right.
That's exactly.
Kudlow explained it to me on a cocktail napkin at 21 at the 21 Club in New York as I was in there with, well, I don't want to get anybody else in trouble.
Kudlow and I were having dinner, and he had just come.
He was working to Bear Stearns.
He'd just come from his bonus meeting.
We hoped he was going to get it.
It was around Christmas time.
And he said, I'm going to tell you a little dirty little secret I just learned about budgeting in Washington.
And he laid it out for me.
And yeah, you're exactly right.
So we did an interview with him in a limbaugh letter.
Yes, and I remember that.
Very well done.
I just wanted to say I'm probably like a lot of people on the phone today with steam coming out of my ears and like many people who were probably driving in their cars yesterday when they heard Boehner on their program and didn't roll into the ditch.
You know, here we go again.
We're like where the Democrats are Bugs Bunny and we're Yosemite Sam and Bugs Bunny keeps pulling that little line in the sand and we just walk until we fall over the cliff.
And you talked before about, you know, we can't win the war of words.
We certainly can, but our problem is our leadership and most of the talking heads that are put on TV that have an R next to their name can't talk or articulate a very good thought around.
Can't.
Hang on.
Hang on through the break here, Roger.
Hang on.
We're back.
Roger and Vero Beach, are you still there?
Did he hang on?
Hold on.
I forgot to say fifth time caller ditto.
Okay, you're still there, right, Roger?
You betcha.
Okay.
You said that the, if I heard you right, the Republican leadership can't win the war on words because they can't, they got an R next to it and they just can't talk the right way, right?
Correct.
I believe they can.
I just think they don't.
I'm going to respectfully disagree.
Okay, tell me why.
Because when we won this election and we had our good sweep in the House and came so close in the Senate, I turned to my wife, who's not overly political, and I said, I hope that they have the foresight to have Speaker Ryan and minority leader Rubio, so somebody who can stand up on a moment's notice, no matter how flustered the press tries to get them, and I can articulate a clear conservative message that the average person who doesn't pay attention to this stuff can understand.
By the way, that misunderstood.
I misunderstood you.
Of course, Rubio and Ryan can do it, and there's a reason.
They're conservatives.
The others aren't.
That's the whole point.
They are establishment Republicans, ruling class, but they're not really movement conservatives.
They're not liberals, and they do believe in the whole business of smaller government and tax cuts, but they're not movement.
They can't go out and articulate on the fly conservative.
You're exactly right.
But the war of words, I thought you meant be able to beat back this talk on cutting the school lunch program.
They know how to refute that.
They just.
Absolutely.
Well, I know that Rubio and Ryan do.
I've not seen it from the likes of a Mitch McConnell or, quite frankly, a John Boehner or, you know, God forbid, a John McCain or an Orrin Hatch.
These guys can't spit out a word when they're pressed on anything like this.
Yeah, well, okay, I know what you're saying.
To your point, you've got to be able to think on your feet, and these guys can't do it.
We just have to win more elections.
That's exactly right.
We have to get a Senate majority leader, Rubio, and we have to get a Speaker of the House, Ryan, and things are going to go a whole heck of a lot better.
I know.
We do need to win more elections.
That's precisely right.
You need these kind of people in the leadership.
So I imagine everybody on hold right now probably almost drove their car in the ditch yesterday listening to Boehner talking to you.
Tell me why you did.
What did he say that caused you to theoretically drive into the ditch?
Well, it was I-95, so that's never a good place to do that, as you well know.
The thing was when he said that they would give him the debt increase limit now and the cuts, although I think a lot of us walked away from the various discussions and negotiations we've had with ourselves as to what they are, would be spread over 10 years, and there's no guarantee that anything's going to happen.
And I mean, again, being salient on the point, you were like, so Obama gets to spend a trillion now, and these cuts happen over 10 years.
And, you know, he took that big gulp of variants.
He said, well, that's right, Rush.
That's how we do things.
And I'm sure a whole large swath of your audience who stays informed on this stuff, if they weren't driving into the ditch like I tried not to do, were probably taken back saying, whoa, I don't remember signing up for this as the solution we were going to war on.
No, you're right.
That's most of my email regarding the Boehner interview focused on that.
And you've characterized it pretty well.
I said, so Obama gets a trillion dollars to spend tomorrow on our trillion point two in cuts over 10 years.
And there was a pause.
And he said, Rush, yeah, I know.
Russia, it's hard.
Or something like that.
I think if they'd sent, if he and McConnell could have done the smart thing and let Ryan and Rubio do all the talking, and to your point you made earlier, which is one I'm surprised, well, I can't say I'm surprised anymore, but disappointed we didn't do early on is say, look, we spent out of control the last two years.
We can't have a shock to the system.
We're just going to go back to 2008 spending, which was grossly over what we needed to do, not horribly over what we need to do, and then make the Democrats defend how what was perfectly fine in 2008 isn't going to work now.
Yeah.
Well, Jim DeMint is saying this.
He's a member of the Senate, South Carolina.
He is saying it.
If you don't know it, it just means that he's not being covered.
It's not being amplified.
It's not resonating.
But you're right.
I've even said, you know, these guys, the Democrats continually talk about how robust things were during the Clinton years.
Well, cool.
Well, let's go back to 1997 spending levels.
Let's do that.
If everything was hunky-dory then, you could really put them on the spot.
But see, that's the kind of thing where I thought you meant that.
Our guys are totally capable of saying it.
They just won't.
They just, well, I don't know if it's the truth.
Snerdley shouting in my ear, they don't believe it.
They like spending the money every bit as much as the Democrats do.
There are Republicans on that wavelength.
There's no question.
But still, in terms of, you know, Boehner is in a battle here.
He is trying to win this thing with Obama.
There are things that he could say.
But the conversations I've had with Boehner that you've heard on the air, the one where we were in Los Angeles last week, I said, what I took out of that was, I mean, he said a couple of times, my parents told me that you must always do the right thing.
And that's when he was making the point: I will not allow, I don't care how irresponsible they are.
Now, these are my words.
This is what I heard him say.
I will not allow this nation to go into default.
I will not be the one presiding over a default or a lowering of the credit limit.
So what he was saying was that if the situation calls for an adult, he's going to be it and let the chips fall where they may.
So it was an attempt, as I heard it, to occupy the moral high ground and then hope that that's appreciated by people and garners you support.
That's how I interpreted the whole thing.
But on the other hand, Boehner has walked out of there and he's told these guys, he says that dealing with this guy is like dealing with a bowl of jello.
But I'm convinced Boehner really does think that he's being the grown-up.
But you're right, too.
Any cut in spending is a cut in their power.
That's how they look at it.
And there's nothing that's going to change that other than new leaders.
You're not going to reform the way lifers up there think and believe.
Just isn't going to happen.
All right, Roger, I'm glad you held on during the break.
I got to move on to Wilmington, Delaware's.
Jerry, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Rush.
Hi, good speaking with you again.
Thank you.
Listen, I want to talk about this dead fight, but if you don't mind, I couldn't get through Open Line Friday.
So after our talk on the dead fight, if we do have time, if you're interested, I want to talk about our last talk when I spoke about my liberal wife who has meetings with liberal women and talk about complaining about men and talk politics.
I did tell her we spoke and I wanted to tell you what happened.
Go ahead, what happened?
Can I say it now?
Yeah.
Oh, okay.
Well, anyway, if you recall, she holds the meetings with the liberal women and they complain about men.
They talk politics.
And we had a talk about it.
And I did tell her we spoke.
And she seemed unfazed, surprisingly, but I know deep down she was like, you know, she really doesn't like you.
And she was.
What is the point?
What's what point?
Why does it matter what she said?
Well, I'm just saying.
So anyway, so I said to her, because she's the one who was also considering about Romney.
So I said to her, look, I said, your next meeting, if you don't mind, do a frank lunch at the meeting and see what you think about Obama.
Because I was really thinking these hardcore liberal women, what they think.
So she did her frank lunch, and she came back.
It was right after the bin Laden thing.
And, you know, one said, well, he's a shoe-in now.
Two or three of them said they still want Obama.
And then a couple of them said the only Republican they would consider is Romney.
So I don't know in Romney's case, that's actually good or bad for Romney, if you know what I mean.
That's just an assessment of his looks.
Yeah.
What else can it be?
Anyway, so anyway, anyway, one of them gave me, they're so hardcore.
One of them gave me a say no to Fox magnet.
So, you know, I like Mel Brooks.
I like funny things.
And I didn't clear this externally.
If you were good enough to send me an autographed picture of yourself, I would frame it.
And at their next meeting, I would sneak it into the room.
And I would, I don't know.
I think it would be funny.
But that's, you know, I hope you don't think I was too flored to ask you that.
But I think it'd be hilarious if I sneak your picture into the group meeting and these women would have a cow.
But anyway, what do you think?
I don't know.
Let me think about it.
Hi.
How are you?
And welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
One of the big problems for Speaker Bain, a caller from Vero Beach almost drove in a ditch when he heard the speaker on the program yesterday.
The speaker called here to tout the plan.
And then what happened?
He called here and touted the plan, and then the CBO said, this doesn't work.
And so he had to go back, and now they're rewriting the plan.
Now, that, unfortunately.
Well, you know, the message it conveys.
People said, well, what the fuck?
Call up here and announce this great plan and this and that.
And then at the end of the day, the CBO says, well, wait a minute.
No.
That doesn't work.
There's no cuts here.
There's no that doesn't work.
So I have to go back and rewrite it.
Meanwhile, Obama doesn't present a plan.
Reed doesn't present a plan.
And if you I don't know if you do this or not, but if you subscribe to what I call mainstream conservative Washington media publications, and I would, you know, the Wall Street Journal is one weekly standard national review.
They're all now behind that Boehner plan, even after CBO blew it up.
They are still behind that plan in principle.
And they're writing to each other on their blogs about how smart they are and about how brilliant the plan is.
Now, CBO scored it against Obama's February budget.
Yeah, they used a different baseline, but still, instead of, you know, Boehner didn't say, hey, you used the wrong baseline, they went back and they're rewriting it now.
So what's happening here is the rank and file out here, you and I, those of us who make up the lack of a better term, the Tea Party types, the real movement conservatives, we are not stupid.
And we're not going to buy a bucket of spit just because it's warm.
We're not in the mood for it.
So what's happening now is, and this is predictable, and I've warned you about it on several previous occasions.
Republican establishment is now lashing out at the Tea Party and conservatives for being resistant and obstinate and unwilling to recognize the best deal we can get when we get it.
You're going to let the perfect stand in the way of what can be done.
I just, it's easy to see what's happening.
This is just, it's a continuation of what I have been suggesting, warning you, ever since before the November elections.
The Republican establishment's opposed to conservatives, so is the Democrat Party.
Ruling class.
We've been through all of this.
Now, Boehner, what Boehner was doing with his plan, Boehner was using the January baseline numbers just as everybody else has been because the negotiations have been going on since January.
It wasn't, per se, a mistake on Boehner's part.
Reed's plan has been corrected by the CBO too.
It's off by $500 billion because Reed is non-existent on paper plan.
Everybody's using the January baseline numbers because that's when all of these negotiations started.
CBO, in scoring all these things, is using the May baseline, which includes the cuts that Boehner and the GOP got.
So the media have tried to make it sound like the CBO was watching over Boehner's shoulder and caught him trying to fool the American public.
When what happened was Boehner asked the CBO to score his plan just to make sure that it did what he said it would.
And of course they came back and said it wouldn't because two different baselines are being used.
Boehner's plan just used the January baseline that everybody else has been using during these negotiations, but this CBO scoring used the May baseline numbers, which include the earlier $38 billion in cuts.
Remember those?
Those are the $38 billion in cuts that Boehner and the House pushed through that actually ended up being $900 million in cuts by the time it was all stripped away.
So the news media trying to make it look like it was a screw-up on Boehner's part that he doesn't know what he's doing.
They were just using two different baselines.
But that doesn't change much in truth because, as I said at the top of the program, if Boehner proposed a freeze,
next year's budget did not spend a dime more than this year because of the baseline and the projected spending increases already on the books as a matter of law.
The caterwalling in Washington would be that the Republicans have cut $9.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
That's how much baseline budgeting guarantees spending over the next 10 years.
So a freeze, not a cut, a freeze in spending would be scored the way the government budgets itself as a $9.5 trillion cut over 10 years.
It's so out of whack, folks, that all of this, all of this is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that doesn't and doesn't re-equal real cuts, reduced anything yet.
We have not yet gotten there.
Okay, two exciting hours of busy broadcast excellence in the can, but there's much more to go, my friends.
You sit tight and be patient.
After all, it only seems like 10 minutes has gone by anyway.
▲
Export Selection