All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 15, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:22
September 15, 2011, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, I want you to follow me.
I've been doing a lot of thinking here in the mere moments of our top of the hour break.
Because Speaker Boehner, hi Rush Limbaugh back at the EIB network.
You know all that.
Speaker Boehner at the Economic Club of Washington just essentially said that, yeah, there's some common ground in this bill that the president has that we could work with maybe.
Waiting for the CBO to take a look at this and score it.
And we have, just put the parts together here and then I'll analyze them for you.
So Boehner said that.
Eric Cantor has said, there might be some things in there that we like, like some of the extension of payroll tax cut, that kind of thing.
You've had Axel Rodd and a number of other White House advisors, liberal commentators express a little fear over this, that the Republicans are going to cherry-pick things out of it that they like.
Pelosi, Harry Reid have said that they're a little worried about this because the Republicans might see things in it that they like, so forth.
Then you have, now we get to the really interesting stuff here.
Now you have the New York Times not carrying Obama's water on this.
Obama is out saying that he's got this bill that will create jobs and that the Republicans are standing in the way of it.
Yet the New York Times is not following that script.
The New York Times is running story after story naming names of Democrats who don't like Obama's bill.
Here, let me give you the first paragraph of the New York Times article.
President Obama anticipated Republican resistance to his program, but he's now meeting increasing pushback from his own party.
Many congressional Democrats smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, are they?
This is where this gets interesting.
Are they really smart?
This is the first I've heard Democrats are smarting over the 2009 stimulus bill.
Now, they're smarting over election losses, but are they smarting over the 2009 stimulus bill?
Anyway, continuing with the paragraph.
Many congressional Democrats smarting from the fallout of the 2009 stimulus bill say there's little chance they'll be able to support this one as a single entity, citing an array of elements they can't abide.
Then the New York Times names names.
And everybody in the New York Times article is on the record.
Bob Casey, Mary Landrew, Peter DeFazio, Joe Manchin, Kay Hagan, Heath Schuler.
Now, some of those are quote-unquote conservative Democrats.
Now, they have a new push out there saying that the stimulus bill worked because the polling data says that most people think that the porcupine bill failed.
Polling says porcupus failed, so the Democrats try to push that it worked.
The New York Times says Democrats are smarting from it.
Obama, continue to put the pieces together.
Obama's out there with his town hall meetings trying to drum up support for the contention that this thing would be law today if it weren't for the Republicans.
Normally, the New York Times would be doing a story blaming Republicans, citing them by name, but no, the New York Times is writing a story that Democrats don't like the bill and naming names.
Now I'm thinking maybe it's possible that the New York Times is trying to make it look like Obama's bill is centrist because they're saying that the hard left doesn't like it.
But here's my problem with that.
What is there in this for the hard left not to like?
Why would the left not like $450 billion more taxpayer money going to unions, going to the green industry, and bigger government?
Why wouldn't the left like extending unemployment benefits?
Okay, why wouldn't they even like the other, what's in it they don't like?
They don't like the payroll tax cut and they, what, the cut for Social Security, they don't like that.
They don't like the payroll tax cut, the cutting fund.
Well, you see, now that is also by itself an interesting thing in this whole discussion of a Ponzi scheme, because if it's not, how in the world can, here's the president proposing a cut in the payroll tax or a continuation of it.
That's the only funding mechanism of Social Security.
So if you're going to cut the only funding mechanism in half for a year or so, and yet the program is going to remain fully funded, how does that happen?
Now comes Boehner in the midst of all this.
Grab audio, it's on by 25 again.
Here's Boehner responding to a question about whether or not the bill has any chance of passing today.
I think there are some components of it where I think there might be some common ground between us.
The Congressional Budget Office is doing their job of looking at the president's proposal.
And I would expect that the committees in Congress would have hearings on that.
I think it's too early to determine whether some of it ends up being the work of the select committee or whether we would do it separately.
Well, I guarantee you, with this answer, there are going to be tremors out in Tea Partyville.
We're just coming off New York 9.
We're coming off Chris Christie winning.
We're coming off a huge 2010 midterm election.
Nobody wants to work with the Democrats.
Nobody wants to work with Obama.
The purpose of Republicans going to Washington is not working with Obama.
Bob Turner said the reason he ran was to stop Obama, not to work with him.
But here's Boehner.
There are some components I think there might be some common ground between us.
All I can do is put myself in a pretend position where I'm a Republican leader.
And what I would do is, Mr. President, you haven't even submitted that bill.
Not one Democrat's even submitted that bill.
You don't want that bill.
You want that bill to fix blame, not to fix jobs.
You want that bill to do nothing so that you can blame us for it.
This is not about creating jobs.
This is not the way to create jobs.
The first 800 billion didn't do anything.
Why is another 450 billion?
My voters don't want me working with you.
My voters want you defeated.
But that's not what our leadership is saying.
Now, New York Times says that there's a small but vocal group dislikes the payroll tax cuts for employees and small businesses.
That's Peter DeFazio.
No more tax cuts.
And they say his voice rose to a near shriek.
And he said, we have the economy that tax cuts gives us.
And it's pretty pathetic, isn't it?
The president's in a box.
So the Times is not helping Obama here.
Now, it could well be the Times is trying to portray this thing as centrist, pretending the hard left doesn't like it.
Other than the payroll tax cut, this thing is a socialist wet dream.
I don't know what there is to really oppose this thing.
Now, this takes us back to Boehner and whether or not he's playing chess with Obama.
So I firmly believe that Washington Republicans are influenced by polls and commentators and conventional wisdom.
I don't think that they are influenced as much by election returns.
And I don't think they care so much that the public is fed up with Washington because it's fed up with big government and it's fed up with Obama.
For some reason, elected Republicans have it in their heads that if they don't say they want to work with Obama, that they're going to lose independence.
And I think one of the reasons for this is consultants, because that's where consultants live.
That's where consultants make their money.
Consultants go to prospective candidates, try to get hired to run their campaign, say, I'm the guy that can get you to 20% undecideds that'll put you over the finish line.
I'm the guy that can go out and get the independence for you.
And here's how you got to do it.
You can't be too partisan.
You can't sound too partisan.
You can't criticize Obama.
The independents don't like that.
So the Washington commentators, they'll run around and they'll talk about how Congress is held in lower esteem than Obama is.
And they'll be affected by that, even though it makes no sense because Congress is an institution.
Congress doesn't run for office as a single entity.
But Obama is an individual person.
He is the president.
If his ratings are in the tank, it's personal.
If his ratings are in the tank, his election is in deep trouble.
If Congress's ratings are in the tank, it could be because most people don't like Harry Reid, or it could be because Congress is going along with Obama's stuff.
But it doesn't mean that individual Republicans who hold a line are in trouble.
What this country wants is a conservative leader.
Every chance that the American people have had a chance to say so in an election, they have said so.
They thought they were electing a conservative in Chris Christie.
They thought they were electing a Republican in Scott Brown.
They knew they were electing a conservative in Bob McDonnell.
They knew they were electing a conservative in Bob Turner.
They knew they were electing people to stop Obama, not work with him.
I'm sure Obama would love to get this thing passed if he could.
I mean, I don't think he expects it to, but he would love to.
And I mean, he would love to have Republican fingerprints on this.
But on the other hand, I say, no, he wants the Republicans as his main focus of opposition and obstacle to why this thing doesn't happen.
I just wish the Republicans would stop talking and governing to appease the left and the Washington media, reacting to polls and all.
We had elections the other day in New York and Nevada, and they're the things to study and learn from.
Bob Turner didn't say he wants to go work with Obama to get things done.
At any rate, something, Boehner's not being as clear-cut as I would like.
Got to allow that he's playing chess or judo or something with Obama.
Throw the New York Times in the middle.
You can't forget what the New York Times is doing here.
You've got to throw them in the chess game, too.
What do you mean I'm too strident?
This is not strident at all.
I'm just trying to tell everybody how I'm analyzing that.
This is an absolute, this is typical politics mishmash that need not be nearly as complicated.
This is real simple.
Obama is wrong for this country.
He's wrong for any more of what he wants to do.
He's got to be stopped.
Don't want to work with the guy.
There's nothing he's going to want to work with.
So I'm going to hold out hope here that Obama's playing chess.
Boehner, Boehner.
I'm going to hold out a hold of this.
Boehner is playing chess here.
Because I know that Obama is counting on the Republicans saying no to this.
I know that Axelrod and Boehner, I just know I'm right about this.
I know that they expect him to say no to this and want him to say no to it so that they can then accuse him of obstructing Obama and wanting him to fail.
And so maybe the strategery is that Boehner and Cantor is simply trying to deny Obama the ability to use that narrative by acting like they want to work with him.
The point is, the public is not going to pay that kind of meta data detail to this.
The people that count on the Republican side are going to listen to all this.
Oh, my God, why are we talking about wanting to work with this guy?
All we want is guy is stopped.
Anyway, I got to take a break.
You sit tight.
We'll be back.
We'll continue with much more here on the EIB network.
Don't go away.
Folks, I'll tell you, Obama is going crazy with this bridge nonsense.
Get this.
Obama's next campaign swing, jobs pitch, is going to be at the Brent Spent Bridge linking Ohio and Kentucky.
States represented by Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
He's going to be at the Brent Spent Bridge.
That's his next campaign suite.
Now, this, I don't know what he's rolling in there with.
I'm still concerned about this chess business here.
See, folks, you may not believe this.
I am not a political junkie.
I don't get a big thrill.
It's chess playing and a step ahead here and there.
I know a lot of people do and wish that our guys were better at it.
Right now, we are on the ascendancy.
Conservatism.
We've got such a rare once-in-a-lifetime opportunity here, and it's so crucial and so important.
We're on the ascendancy here.
We ought to embrace it.
We just ought to confidently set forth our views.
You know, Truman ran against a do-nothing Congress.
That's 60 years ago.
A do-nothing Congress today might be something people prefer.
60 years ago, a do-nothing Congress might have worked.
Who knows?
Today, a do-nothing Congress might be a winner.
But that's not my point.
We have a conservative ascendancy happening here.
We need, all of our leaders need to embrace it, set forth with great confidence what we believe in, not play chess.
Playing chess isn't a vision.
Playing a chess actually comes from wanting to play defense.
Our views are popular in winning.
Now, take it to them.
Obama's views are unpopular and losing.
So why play chess?
We ought to put him on defense.
Make this election about his record and our vision.
Why play chess?
And I don't know that they're playing chess.
I'm just, this is all my very in-depth analysis here.
Brent Spence Bridge.
That ought to put Obama over the top, right?
Going to another bridge?
Yeah, that's going to put it.
He's really doing things from a position of strength here, folks.
He's going to a bridge.
And even if he says it's structurally deficient, he's going to let people drive over it.
Jeff Hubbard, Ohio.
Hi, you're next.
EIB network.
Great to have you here.
It's nice to meet you, Rush, and this is an honor.
Appreciate it.
I'm happy to make you feel a little better, sir.
Your listeners love you and what you do for this country.
Well, I thank you, sir, very much.
I just had a question, and maybe you could refresh my memory.
We're talking about all of this thing with this jobs bill, and I know that the president had his nice picture, perfect group of people behind him of who he wants to support.
Didn't we just last year or earlier this year have a $21 billion specific bill or part of a bill that went to the teachers to help fund them?
Great, great, great question.
Jeff, it was $26 billion.
But remember, we got reports out of the Los Angeles School District and others.
They didn't use the money to hire teachers.
They put the money in the pension fund.
A lot of that $26 billion to hire teachers, no teachers were hired.
It went to the pension funds.
This chess stuff, if indeed that's what's going on, if the Republican leadership in the House is playing chess with Obama, I guarantee you where this is coming from.
It's coming from inside the beltway, conservative intelligentsia, media consultants, or what have you.
Guaranteed.
Somebody's advising this is the way to go about this.
You trip Obama up here, here, you trip him up there.
Oh, I don't know if it's afraid of what.
No, it's not about what they're afraid could happen in campaign ads.
It's just, certainly, they're not conservatives.
It's just, it's really no more complicated than that.
They're not conservatives.
The people advising them are not conservatives.
They really are wary of conservatives.
They're too strident.
We're too this for too that.
That's what all this is.
If it's a chess game, I must profess it's too inside baseball for me, and it need not be anywhere near this complicated.
We have got a floundering failure putting himself on stage every day.
And anytime the American people have a chance to say we want more of it, they are resoundingly saying no.
That's as simple as it is.
All we have to do is join the chorus and say, we agree with you.
We don't want any more of him either.
Now, I checked email during the break.
What do you mean the money went to the pension fund?
It wasn't hiring teachers.
Here you go.
It's been 23 years, folks.
At some point, you're going to stop doubting me.
New York Times, August 17th, 2010.
Makoto Rich is the author.
Given money, schools wait on rehiring teachers.
This is the $26 billion teacher stimulus fund.
As schools handed out pink slips to teachers this spring, states made a beeline to Washington to beg for money for their ravaged education budgets.
But now that the federal government's come through, some of the nation's biggest school districts are balking at using their share of the money to hire teachers right away.
The economic outlook weakening.
They argue that big deficits are looming for the next academic year.
They need to preserve the funds to prevent future layoffs.
They're investing the money in the pension funds.
Exactly what I told you.
The $26 billion in teacher stimulus money that the caller talked about was not used to hire teachers.
Just like none of the other stimulus money has been used for what Obama told us it was for job creation, shovel-ready jobs, fixing roads, bridges, schools, and all the other rot gut.
Back to the phones.
Kentwood, Louisiana.
Sarah, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hi.
Thank you for having me, Rush.
You bet.
I was wondering, at the end of the year, we had to do our taxes every year, right?
I was wondering, what's the point of doing these taxes?
They're just going to give her some money right back to us.
What do you mean?
Well, every after you do taxes, they send us a bit, a bunch of that money right back to us, right?
I wish.
Because my dad, my father, I just filed my third quarter estimate.
I just had to send it registered, certified to the U.S. Treasury today, and I know I'm not getting any of it back, so I don't know what you're talking.
What are you talking about?
Seriously.
Every year, we do our taxes, right?
And then they send us a portion back to us, right?
You're talking about your refund?
Yes.
You know.
Oh, oh, oh, you're 17 years old?
Yes, sir.
Oh, oh, I'm sorry.
Okay, good.
Let me explain to you what that is.
I am, I'm actually, I'm glad you called.
I misunderstood.
You sound older than 17 to me.
Oh.
If your family is getting a tax refund, and please, Sarah, don't doubt me on this.
It simply means that your family is paying more tax than you owe during the year.
Now, a lot of people do this on pro.
Do your dad work and your mom work, or just one of them?
My dad works.
My mom is on.
Does your dad run his own?
Do your dad run his own business or is he employed someplace?
He's a truck driver.
Okay.
Well, the odds are that every paycheck, money is deducted.
Some for federal taxes, some for Social Security.
That's payroll taxes.
And there are other deductions in there.
Now, your father sets up how much he wants deducted from his paycheck with the employer on his W-4 form.
That's where he claims the number of dependents in his family, like how many children, how many people live in the house.
And then that determines how much money is deducted from his check every pay period.
Then, when you file your taxes, what happens is if you've overpaid based on what you owe, if your father is overpaid, that's what your refund is.
They are giving you your money back, but they're not paying you any interest on your money that they have held.
The fix for this is for your father to readjust his dependence on the W-4 form.
Now, some people like getting the refund because it's a big lump sum of money that they get every year.
Others argue that it's a mistake to let the government keep that money all year so that you can't use it and send it back to you in a lump sum every year without any interest.
But they're not sending you back nearly everything that you have paid.
They're not sending back every tax dollar your father's paid to you.
It's just a portion of it.
Okay.
So your question was, why do you have to pay it in the first place if they're just going to send it back to you, right?
Yes, sir.
Right.
Well, they're not sending nearly all of it back to you.
They're just sending back what you have paid that you shouldn't have.
It really is no more.
You didn't owe that money.
Then why did it take it in the first place if we didn't know it?
Well, because my guess is that your dad wants to play it safe and not underpay his taxes and not have to owe anything.
My guess is that your dad's like everybody else doesn't want the government comehounding him for money.
So he's having more withheld from his paycheck than necessary so that he doesn't become a target.
Because it's all up to your dad, really.
I mean, whoever the employee is, you'll find this out when you get your first job.
I remember, tell you a little story.
I never got a big refund.
When I first started working, I never got a big refund.
And a lot of people I'm working with did.
And every year they're bragging to me about their refund and so forth.
And my father was a lawyer and his secretary did my taxes.
So I'd send her all my credit card receipts.
And I said, look, Joyce, just play every game you can here, William.
Will you?
I mean, I want to get some of these, I want to get a big refund like all my friends are getting.
She said, I can't do any of these credit card receipts.
You don't have any deductions.
It's real simple.
You're not getting a refund because you're not having that much withheld.
She said, you're actually doing it the smart way.
You're keeping control of your money year-round.
These people are letting the government have a whole bunch of their money all year that they don't get to use, and it's coming back to them with no interest.
You may not understand the no-interest business yet, but they take it in the first place, even though you didn't owe it, because they have inculcated everybody with fear of them.
The last thing people want in this country is to get a letter from the IRS saying that they owe money or that they're being audited or something of the sort.
So the best way to do it is to have a little bit more withheld than what you really owe.
And when you file your return the next year, then you'll get that money back.
But it's small.
It's just a very small portion of what your family has actually paid in taxes.
The overpayment is probably pretty small.
Now, your basic question, why pay taxes?
You know, now that would be an interesting answer altogether just from starting from square one.
There are reasons, of course.
Ada, has any of this helped?
I don't want you to hang up more confused than you were when you called.
Yes, sir.
I understand better than before.
Okay, good.
It's real simple.
Your father has determined that it's probably safer to have more money withheld from his check every pay period than is necessary just to be safe, just to make sure that all of his taxes are paid.
And if he ends up having more withheld than was necessary, then whatever that amount is is refunded to you.
But it's nowhere near the total amount your family paid in taxes.
Whatever the refund is, it's nowhere near the total amount.
You still, your family still paid a lot of taxes.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Yeah.
You're frustrated.
It's not even your money yet.
I've already seen how much they're taking out of my paycheck.
Work.
I started last summer, and they're taking $50 plus out of my paycheck.
Well, then you do know about it.
They're taking $50 plus out of your paycheck.
Do you get a refund when you file an income tax return?
Not yet.
I only started last summer.
Okay, well, you haven't earned enough money yet then to legally file a return.
Or maybe you have and you just don't know it and haven't, in which case, we're not going to tell anybody.
Because on the EIB network, ignorance of tax law is fine with us.
But you will, all of this, you will remember this conversation as you get older and you see what's happening.
And my advice would be do what you want.
I personally, once I figured out what was happening, every April 15th, Sarah, I want to either owe them nothing or just a little.
I want complete use of all of my money, as much of it as I can throughout the year.
Because whatever I get back in a refund is never going to have any interest to it.
So that means the government's kept a lot of my money.
And I've lost the value of it.
Some people like the big refund.
Some people, because it's the one time in their lives they're going to have that big lump where they can go out and buy the plasma TV or what have you.
But I appreciate the call.
Thanks for the opportunity to explain it.
Sorry I misunderstood you at first, but I got to run.
A brief timeout.
My objective, Sarah, let me tell you this.
This is the best way to explain this to you.
When I die, which is going to be a long time from now, I want my last check to be written to the IRS, and I want it to bounce.
Yvonne in Wayne, Michigan, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Honor to speak to you.
Thank you.
Yeah, I was watching the House of Representatives today, and they were debating the Boeing issue with the NLRB.
And one of the things that really caught my attention was Pelosi stood up and claimed that the Republicans were wasting time on this bill instead of doing a jobs bill.
Now, my question is, isn't passing restrictions on the NLRB creating jobs like 1,000 in South Carolina?
Now, absolutely, by limiting what, yeah, you're talking about the Boeing case there.
Yeah, and I think it passed.
I think the Republicans did pass the restriction on the NLRB.
So maybe that'll put you in a better mood for today.
Well, good.
Thank you.
I'm glad that that happened.
And the same thing needs to happen at the EPA and the Department of Education and the Department of Energy and, frankly, the Department of Justice, too.
On and on and on.
But, yeah, I know.
You talk about a place that needs to be flushed is the Department of Justice.
Yeah, Obama doesn't want to play chess.
He wants to play checkers so he can say king me.
But thanks for all you do.
Well, I appreciate you being in the audience, Yvonne, and thank you so much for calling.
Anyway, it did pass.
Yvonne Pelosi, the bird brain of Alcatraz.
Back after this, folks.
Don't go away.
On the National Labor Relations Board vote, the House voted 238-186 to limit the NLRB's enforcement power by prohibiting the agency from ordering any employer to shut down plants or relocate work, even after a company may have violated labor laws.
So the House is trying to save and create jobs.
Now, this bill is naturally going to die in the Senate.
Democrat run.
How come we never hear about the do-nothing Senate?
Anyway, folks, Open Line Friday tomorrow, and we will be here.
We will be.
▲
Export Selection