All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 23, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
September 23, 2011, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away, and this is your undocumented anchorman sitting in.
Great to be with you.
Rush returns live on Monday, and he will have his own take on the presidential debate.
I'm sure he was saying at the end of yesterday's show that he was disappointed he couldn't be here to go through it, go through it with you live, but he will have his take on Monday, including perhaps some observations on whether Gary Johnson of New Mexico using his line about shovel-ready projects and dogs.
So, Rush returns live on Monday.
If you go to rushlimbore.com, you can enjoy all the benefits of Rush 24-7 membership, audio, print, video from the old TV show days, everything you need on there.
You can live in a Rush 24-7 world and you no longer have to be discombobulated by sinister foreign guest hosts.
Rushlimbore.com, but Rush returns live for Monday show, and he will take you through his, give you his take on the presidential debate.
I want to, by the way, oh, by the way, it's the end of the week, and of course, you know what that means.
Live from Ice Station EIB, it's open line Friday!
Yes, indeed, the economy has recovered sufficiently that the Excellence in Broadcasting Network was able to commission a brand new ident for Open Line Friday live from IceStation EIB in northern New Hampshire.
Oh, wait a minute.
I'm just told it comes out of my salary.
Great.
Wonderful.
I wonder if JC Dugard will give me a bit of her $20 million sex offender settlement to cover the cost of my Ice Station EIB ident.
Oh, that's that's terrible.
There must be a I'm that's that's that's that's a big that's a big problem.
The I station.
We are the.
We are the furthest northernmost outlet of the Excellence in Broadcasting Network until the entire operation is forced to flee to Canada, which it probably will during an Obama second term.
Either that or the Turks and Caicos Islands just offshore.
It'll be like pirate radio in Britain in the 1960s.
There'll be a rust bucket off coast that we'll be coming to you from.
1-800-282-2882, you know how it works.
Monday to Thursday, a highly trained broadcast specialist tightly controls, ruthlessly controls the content of the program.
But today you can talk about anything you want to talk about.
Lay it on me.
You want to talk about JC Dugard?
You are free to do that if you want to.
If you want to talk about Greek default, Greece is apparently within days or weeks, weeks or even days of default.
If you want to talk about the European meltdown, you can do that.
If you want to talk about Rick Perry's answer, which I thought was spectacularly bad on what he'd do if he got one of those 3 a.m. calls that told him that Pakistan's nukes had been seized by Islamists, I thought that was the worst answer that Perry gave out of several bad answers in the debate yesterday.
So you want to talk about any of those or anything else that's on your mind?
1-800-282-282.
I'll tell you what I want to talk about, and that is an Associated Press story that I think is a large part of the problem with the way we discuss issues in this country.
Washington, with the economy sputtering, the warring factions of Congress have lurched toward gridlock over the usually non-controversial process of approving disaster aid and keeping the government from shutting down.
You know, just as a general observation here, I don't want to do a whole literary criticism number on this piece.
It's by a chap called Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press.
But it's talking like this, by the way, that's got us into the $15 trillion hole.
What he calls the, quote, usually non-controversial process of approving disaster aid and keeping the government from shutting down, unquote.
It's the fact that so much of what the federal government does is, quote, usually non-controversial, unquote, that has got us into the $15 trillion hole.
When your government model, your government budgetary model is to spend $4 trillion but only raise $2 trillion, and when there is no way of closing that gap, not even if you tax Warren Buffett at the same rate as his largely mythical secretary, you cannot close that gap.
You can never close that $2 trillion gap.
You can never get enough revenue to close that $2 trillion gap.
When that's your model, a lot more of how government spends actually ought to be controversial.
But suddenly, as Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press writes this story, you'd almost get the impression that there's something wrong about all this government spending suddenly appearing to be controversial.
Here it is: the GOP-dominated House early Friday muscled through a $3.7 billion disaster aid measure, along with a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running past next Friday.
Because by the way, without that, the government would have government funding was only paid for through September the 30th.
The narrow 2192 and 3 tally reversed an embarrassing loss for House GOP leaders that came Wednesday at the hands of rebellious Tea Party Republicans.
So they've got those rebellious Tea Party Republicans under control now, and they've muscled through a $3.7 billion disaster aid measure.
Even before the House votes, however, the leader of the Senate promised that majority Democrats will scuttle the measure as soon as it reaches the chamber on Friday.
Democrats there want a much larger infusion of disaster aid because, like, this $3.7 billion disaster aid measure.
Now, that would be a lot of money in most countries.
$3.7 billion measure would be an awful lot of money in Greece and Portugal, be a lot of money in Canada, be a lot of money in Australia.
But here, it's nothing.
It's a pittance.
It's insulting.
It's a rounding error to Harry Reid.
He wants no part of it.
So he's going to scuttle this $3.7 billion bill because it's peanuts.
It's trivial.
It's nothing.
$3.7 billion?
Why, that's barely three times what Warren Buffett owes the IRS in back taxes.
It's nothing.
It's not worth even talking about $3.7 billion.
Democrats there want a much larger infusion of disaster aid and they're angry over cuts totaling $1.6 trillion from clean energy programs.
Excuse me.
Excuse me.
I'm about to have a stroke here.
Can this be right?
By heart, you get called cold night one.
I need a doctor.
$1.6 trillion from clean energy cuts totally.
So just a minute.
This is the state we're in now.
The United States budget is not $1.6 trillion.
The clean energy program's budget is not $1.6 trillion.
Just the proposed cuts from the clean energy programs of the United States budget are $1.6 trillion.
I can't read that.
I can't read that.
I can't read that without getting heart palpitations.
Get me my heart medication.
Just shoot the juice.
Put me on the drip now.
I can't handle this.
One point, this is, we now have, it's not just, this is how bad things are.
It's not just that the budget of the United States government is $1.6 trillion.
It's not just that the clean energy program budget is $1.6 trillion.
It's that the proposed cuts from the clean energy program are now $1.6 trillion.
Do you know what $1.6 trillion is, by the way?
It's the entire Canadian economy.
It's the entire Indian economy.
You read all that stuff in the paper.
You know all these sensible, moderate guys, the Council of Foreign Relations type.
You know that guy who does that show on CNN?
I only ever see it if I'm stuck in an airport on Sunday mornings.
And Wolf Blitzer is having 20, there's 20 minutes in between gate changes at LaGuardia that Wolf Blitzer isn't on CNN.
And they put this guy, Fareed Zakaria, on there, who does some unwatchable show on Sunday mornings.
All very reasonable and moderate.
It's all the reasonable, moderate people.
It's the Thomas L. Friedman types.
That's the kind of person.
They're all moderate and reasonable and moderate and reasonable back and forth with each other.
And people like Fareed Zakaria always telling us, isn't it inspiring, you know, the way it's not that the US is getting smaller.
It's that all these other countries are getting bigger.
They're all coming up now.
They're all raving about the Indian economy.
Look at India.
India's going to be, do you know, by mid-century, the Indian economy and present projections will be bigger than the US economy.
China will be the world's number one economy and India will be the world's number two economy.
We take the entire economy of India and we throw it down the toilet just in part, just in part of the budget of one boutique niche clean energy program from the Barack Obama administration.
And you know, by the way, what the clean energy program is?
That's this business where they set up a program.
It was supposed to spend $38 billion encouraging in clean energy jobs, one of these green jobs programs.
So far they've spent $17.2 billion and they've created a little over 3,000 jobs, which works out to $4.8 million per job created.
Okay?
That's a world record.
Previously, previously, the world record for government subsidized green job was held by the Spaniards.
They had a solar panel assembly plant.
It was like Solyndra, but a lot cheaper.
So a lot less money sunk into it.
And every single job on that sonar panel assembly line was subsidized by the Spanish government to $800,000.
And I thought, wow, that world record will stand for some time.
That's quite impressive, throwing $800,000 down the toilet per solar panel assembly job.
But no, the superpower came along and said, I'll see you, your lousy $800,000 subsidy per green job, and stick $4 million on top of it.
So we subsidize jobs, clean energy jobs, $4.8 million per green job.
So now Harry Reid is saying he's upset about cuts totaling $1.6 trillion from clean energy programs.
So he says the House plan is not an honest effort at compromise and it will be rejected by the Senate.
This combination of events promises to push the partisan war into the weekend.
I don't even know.
This is from Andrew Taylor at the Associated Rest.
Promises to push the partisan war into the weekend.
Well, isn't that a pity?
If you're a member of the partisan warriors union, you're not allowed to have partisan war in the weekend.
Is it triple time or whatever?
We're fed up with this, said Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic Whip.
They know what it takes for us to extend stopgap funding and keep the government in business.
And this brinksmanship, we're sick of it.
$1.6 trillion in cuts to clean energy programs.
And so because of that, the Senate is not going to, the government's main disaster aid account will run out of money early next week.
Now, I assume this is to fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
As of Thursday morning, there was just $212 million in FEMA's disaster relief fund.
The House now adds another $3.7 billion.
Do you know this president, by the way, has declared more disasters than any other president in history?
He has declared a federal emergency every two and a half days on average since he took office.
If something happens every two and a half days, it's not an emergency.
It's not an unusual event.
You can set your watch by it.
The president declares a federal emergency every two and a half days.
If he's doing it every two and a half days, it's not an emergency.
And this is not an emergency management agency.
We may now be at the stage where this president has declared more federal emergencies than every other president before him in the previous two and a third centuries of the Republic.
So if he's doing it every two and a half days, it's no wonder they're running out of money because it's not an emergency.
So this isn't even a disaster fund bill, the 3.7 disaster fund bill.
The disaster here, the federal emergency, the federal disaster area, why doesn't the president declare the United States government a federal disaster area and just cut to the chase?
Because that would make a lot more sense.
1-800-282-2882, Open Line Friday on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Markstein in for Rush, more to come.
1-800-282-2882, Mark Stein in for Rush on Open Line Friday.
Let us go to Mike in Harker Heights, Texas.
Mike, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, Mike.
Are you there?
I'm here.
Great.
Great to have you on the show.
What do you want to talk about this fine Friday?
Well, the lady that you had on the segment earlier, she was talking about the candidates and Lisa from southern New Hampshire.
Yeah, it just drives me nuts when people say that they're just going to stay home and not vote.
And I hope maybe she was just talking about the primary or something, but it just absolutely drives me crazy.
Why would you sit home and not vote and essentially give us four more years of what we've had?
It just, you know, people like that, it's almost like voting for a third-party candidate.
You just cannot sit home and not vote in the general election.
Well, I suppose Lisa's defense to that would be that sometimes a system becomes dysfunctional to the point where if you have a two-party system, which is what the United States has, and there are structural obstacles to any more parties getting in the mix, because it's not a parliamentary system.
You know, new parties pop up relatively frequently in other countries under a parliamentary system.
And that's not the way it works here.
There hasn't been a new party of any consequence for a century and a half now.
And maybe the fact, maybe that fact alone is weighing heavy on Lisa.
And if you think, for example, the message, what happened with the Tea Party is that it decided to work through the zombie husk of a Republican Party it generally loathed in 2010.
So it sort of stuck its hand up the back of the rotting, dead zombie husk of the 2006, 2008 discredited Republican Party that it certainly worn out its welcome with many conservatives and decided to work through that dead husk.
And it caused a huge, and it got a huge victory.
It earned a victory that hadn't been seen since Grover Cleveland's second term in November of 2010.
It elected, it swept a ton of candidates into office in November 2010.
So let me ask you this, Mike.
Doesn't November November 2010 seem a lot longer than 10 months ago, doesn't it?
I mean, what has happened since then?
Well, yeah, but that's my point, is that people got out and voted.
And they voted the way that they believed.
And it's finally happening.
So it's going to turn through the system that we have now.
It's going to eventually give us what we want by the Tea Party rising up as it has.
I mean, it just has to.
But the exact opposite is going to happen if people just sit home.
Well, suppose, just how about this, for instance?
Suppose what her worry is, is that there will be a candidate elected in November of 2012 who will stand there in January of 2013, take the oath of office,
and then a couple of months later will be standing there with some big comprehensive immigration reform surrounded by, you know, doing the George W. Bush thing when he did his education act with his good friend, as he used to always describe it, his good friend Teddy Kennedy and all the rest of it, his good friend Pat Leahy, his good friend, you know, the whole reach across the aisle thing, that whole thing that's epidemic on the Republican side,
the twitchy reach across the aisle disease that is the only disease not covered by Obamacare.
You can't get treated for it anywhere in the country.
It's running, it's an epidemic among Republican legislators.
And Lisa in New Hampshire, Lisa in New Hampshire figures that's not enough when the country's going over the cliff.
But you can't just go 180 degrees the other way and just let the status quo stay the same with what we have in the White House now.
Well, you're right, Mike, that you can't let things stay the same.
But you know, eventually, and I take your point.
Thank you for your call.
But eventually, people often talk about political reality.
In the end, political reality gets trumped by real reality.
In the end, political reality reacquaints itself with real reality.
And it's just a question of how soon you see it coming and how violent and convulsive that reacquaintanceship is, which is why it's better to do it when you can rather than when you're forced to do it.
Hey, great to be with you.
Rush returns Monday.
It's Open Line Friday.
That means you determine the contents of the show, whatever you want to talk about.
1-800-282-2882.
This is from the Associated Press.
Young adults are the recession's lost generation.
Wait a minute.
Lost generation?
I thought they were.
Wait a minute.
Aren't they the Hopi Change generation?
What happened to that?
Young adults are the recession's lost generation.
The lost generation.
Yeah, no, they didn't get screwed.
Mr. Snerdley is giving them too much credit.
They didn't get screwed.
They screwed themselves.
They stood behind.
They thought that if you vote for a guy who's got a couple of monosyllabic abstract nouns, that's a hell of a program.
He's got hope, he's got change.
You can get it in hope, you can get it in change.
You go into the Barack Obama hypermarket, he's got hope, he's got a big shelf load of hope on the left-hand shelf and a big shelf load of change on the right.
And they say, oh, hope change.
It's the hope of change.
It's the change of hope.
It's the audacity of hope.
It's the change of audacity.
It's the audacity of change.
It's the change of hope.
And that was enough for them.
So they didn't get screwed, Mr. Snerdley.
They screwed themselves.
In record numbers, young adults are struggling to find work, shunning long-distance moves to live with mom and dad, delaying marriage, and raising kids out of wedlock if they're becoming parents at all.
I don't quite understand that.
So they're so struggling so much they're having kids out of wedlock.
The unemployment rate for them is the highest since World War II.
New 2010 census data released Thursday shows the wrenching impact of this recession on the lost generation.
Barack Obama's lost generation.
Employment among young adults was 16 to 29 was 55.3% compared with 67.3% in 2000.
It's the lowest since the end of World War II.
The employment to population ratio for all groups from 2007 to 2010 dropped faster than for any similar period since the government began tracking the data in 1948.
It's another fabulous, brand new all-American record from the Obama administration.
The employment to population ratio has dropped faster than for any similar period since the government began tracking the data in 1948.
Congratulations to the United States government.
The latest figures, on the other hand, if you're one of the lost generation and you haven't got a hopey-changy rally to go today, if the president's not doing a photo op in your town, if he's not appearing at a bridge that he wants somebody to rebuild starting in 2022 or whatever his genius photo op today is, so you've got nothing to do because there's no hopey-changy rally.
You're not required to go and stand behind Obama because you're young and photogenic and you sway and you say hopey-changy and you look like a brainwashed cult member.
So you've got nothing to do today and you're having to just sitting around the house listening to the radio.
Here's good news for you members of the lost generation.
The latest figures also show a rebound in the foreign-born population to 40 million.
You know, I can't, if there's one thing I can't stand, I don't know whether I mentioned this before, but it's one thing I can't stand, it's these foreigners.
I mean, let's face it.
The latest figures also, I can stand anything except foreigners.
The latest figures.
Next thing you know, they'll be hosting the radio shows.
The latest figures also show a rebound in the foreign-born population to 40 million or 12.9%, the highest share since 1920.
A 1.4 million increase from 2009.
This is, by the way, a fact that is not widely understood.
You know, when basically about 100,000 new people arrive here every month, officially, 100,000 extra people arrive here every month.
So the economy has to add basically 100,000 jobs just to stay as lousy as it is.
That's just to stand still.
We've got to find enough employment and economic activity for 100,000 new people every single month.
So in effect, when you have a job a month like August where there were no jobs created, where the Obama administration's terrific employment performance on the dead parrot economy was zero jobs created, it's in effect a loss of 100,000 jobs.
100,000 jobs down, because that's that's more who come.
1.4 million new foreigners here.
That's great.
Always use more foreigners.
I mean, I can't keep guest hosting Rush every time, so we've got to get some more foreigners in here to d to do it.
Most immigrants continue to be low-skilled workers.
That's certainly true in my case.
Most immigrants continue to be low-skilled workers.
In other words, they're doing the jobs.
They've come here for the jobs that don't exist, for like doing the jobs, like the checkout jobs at the supermarket that are soon destined to be automated.
This is an insane business model for any company.
In effect, you're taking on more and more and more manpower every single every single month, and there's nothing for them to do.
But they're now calling.
They're kind of getting beginning to figure it out.
The Hopi Change Generation.
In 2008, the Hopi Change, they were the Hopi Change generation.
Now they're the lost generation.
Congratulations to President Obama.
Let's go to Joe in Gurney, Illinois.
What a splendid name for a town.
Joe in Gurney, Illinois.
Great to have you with us on the show, Joe.
Hey, thanks.
I was doing a research paper on crime, and I stumbled onto something, two somethings actually, about violent crime and about corruption in government.
The first thing that I stumbled onto is that nationwide there are about 1,400 people per year who are murdered for their ATM card and PIN.
The second thing that I stumbled onto is probably explains why we have so much trouble cleaning up government.
Each and every city, county, and state in the country has its own system of accounting, which means that to do an effective audit, you have to have an individual accountant with an insider's knowledge of the accounting system to do to walk in and do the research who is not also an insider.
You've got to have a neutral person, somebody who can research the book, show the fraud and corruption.
The thing is, Congress could fix this overnight if they just required all cities, counties, and states to use one standardized system of accounting.
It's called the government called the government accounting system.
It's been adopted by a couple of states.
It's right there.
It's simple.
If you suddenly had hundreds of thousands of accountants around the country who could walk in and just go through the books and say, here's the corruption, you'd have an entire army to clean up government.
Well, Joe, I'd go a bit further than that, though.
You're absolutely right on that point, by the way.
If you ran your company and you said to an auditor, well, you've got to come in and audit my company, and I happen to use the Joe from Gurney accounting system.
It's unique to my company.
It's unique to Joe from Gurney Inc.
They would they wouldn't take that for a moment.
The IRS wouldn't take it for a moment.
You wouldn't be allowed to file your taxes.
Nobody would take your taxes.
Why don't they use, instead of a special government accounting system, why don't they have to use the same system that Joe's hardware store or Joe's feed store would have to use, which is whatever it's called, GAP, the generally accepting what's it called, generally accepted accounting principles.
Why don't they just use that?
I have to use that.
You have to use that.
Why don't the government use that?
Well, the government imposes GAP on banks and credit and financial institutions.
That way it's they can go in and audit the books.
But because you have this this idea of you're a sovereign country, you're a sovereign government.
You have the right to run your internal affairs the way you want to, you get to use your own accounting system.
Back in the 1980s, there was a political effort that was intended to get a standardized accounting system in place.
And you can find it on Wikipedia for crying out loud.
The Government Accounting System Board is what it's called.
And it's there.
Anybody can look it up.
If Congress were to pass a law that said all agencies receiving federal funds must use one standardized accounting system, you'd completely tear the lid off of all of the embezzlement and all of the waste that goes on in the states.
And believe me, it's a lot more than people realize.
You'd probably clear off a good chunk of the debt.
Yeah, I would say, by the way, because we're talking huge sums of money here at all levels of government, Medicare in 2009 handed out, I think it was $98 billion in improper or erroneous payments.
That's like a tenth of a trillion dollars, which would be a significant amount in a private enterprise to just lose.
And yet it's sort of in the line items under miscellaneous, under government-style accounting.
Everyone got excited about Enron, which was an accounting fraud of about the same size of Solyndra.
It was about half a billion dollars.
And the Enron crowd went to jail.
The head guy died, I think, before he could actually be sentenced to jail.
But the Fannie Freddie thing was an accounting fraud 10 times that size.
And nobody pays any attention to it because somehow it's licensed because they're quasi-governmental entities.
They're not supposedly, no one worries about it in the way they would if you tried to do that or if I tried to do that.
Why disparity in the way that they keep track of everything, government information, things that should be public information, things that everybody should know about.
That stuff is basically hidden in plain sight.
But you've got to put in enormous amounts of time doing research.
That's a great point, Joe.
And actually, these are the kind of policies, by the way, that it would be easy for any candidate, just to ensure us that he's in the realm of sanity, to stand up and say, I would impose an agreed accounting system on every public entity for which I am responsible.
If it spends the public's money, that money has to be accountable.
That would be easy to do.
That would be relatively easy to do, relatively simple to do, and it would prevent a lot of this stuff happening.
Mark Stein in for Rush, 1-800-282-2882.
1-800-282-2882, Open Line Friday on the Rush Limbo Show.
By the way, I was in New York a few days ago, and I was talking to John Podhoritz, who's the editor of Commentary Magazine and the son of Norman Podhoritz, whom Rush is often citing on this show.
And John said to me, just casually, do we know the name of Warren Buffett's secretary yet?
Which I thought was actually a rather good point.
We're going to have the president is proposing to entirely change American tax law on the basis of Warren Buffett's secretary.
And nobody knows who she is.
Nobody knows if this secretary actually exists.
I think I was talking about JC Dugard earlier.
They were to come up with a, if they were to institute sex offender monitoring reform in California, which obviously grotesquely failed in Jace's case, they'd pass a law, and as is the want these days, they'd call it Jacey's Law.
Well, I think this, instead of calling this new thing, the Buffett rule, we should have it called, you know, Glender's Law or Darlene's Law or whatever the name of the secretary is.
But we don't know the name of the secretary.
I'm going to call her Della.
I think Della's Law after Della Street on the Perry Mace.
She was the most famous, until Warren Buffett's secretary came along.
Della Street was the most famous secretary in America.
But now we got Warren Buffett's secretary.
And we're going to have tax reform on the basis, by which they mean, of course, tax increases.
That's the only kind of reform they do, folks.
Tax increases on the basis of an entirely fictional human being.
Whenever I hear all this, Warren Buffett's secretary pays more taxes than Warren Buffett.
I'm reminded of John Edwards when John Edwards was.
Remember John Edwards, the guy who's currently facing 30 years in the slammer for using his campaign contributions to buy a bassinet for his love child or whatever it was.
Anyway, John Edwards.
Yeah, well, they don't call it.
Actually, the other thing, Mr. Surley makes a very good point.
Nobody has secretaries anymore.
If I was to call my secretary my secretary, she'd quit in disgust.
They're called, what are we meant to call you?
Executive assistant?
Administrative assistant.
That's right.
Hallmark used to have Secretary's Day, and you'd go and buy your Secretary's Day card.
The last Secretary I had quit when I handed her a Secretary's Day card.
Hallmark cancelled the line and replaced them with administrative assistance card.
But suddenly, secretaries are back from the depths of time.
Why, Miss Jones, you're beautiful without your glasses.
They're back from the 50 years.
They haven't been.
Nobody's seen secretaries.
But Warren Buffett has the last secretary in America, and she pays more tax than anybody.
It's amazing.
And this secretary, I'd like to know the name of this secretary, because I'm beginning to think when John Edwards was running for president, he used to go on about this coatless girl.
He would always be going, somewhere tonight in America, there's a coatless girl going to bed, shivering because her father's been laid off at the mill.
It's like this Dickensian sob sister story.
Nobody identified.
Somewhere in America, he left it at that.
Nobody, we didn't pin it down more.
Was it in, I don't know, was it in Greenwich, Connecticut?
Was it in Palm Springs, California?
Nobody knew where the coatless girl was.
Nobody knew where the coatless girl was.
I think John Edwards' coatless girl grew up to become Warren Buffett's secretary.
That's my theory.
But I would like, if this was Joe the Plumber, the media would have done a number on this guy.
Joe the Plumber, they had his tax liens splashed all over.
They said he hasn't got a license to practice.
He's only licensed to be an associate assistant deputy under plumber.
He's not an official plumber.
Is Warren Buffett's secretary an officially credentialed secretary?
Why don't we know whether she's Della the Secretary?
Where are her tax liens?
Oh no, the media says, oh yeah, Warren Buffett's secretary.
We're going to reform, we're going to reform, by which we mean increase American taxes on the basis of a fictional human being that nobody knows.
This is a fascinating moment in American history.
So I'm not going to call it the Buffett rule.
I'm going to call it Della's Law, Della's Law.
We're reforming American tax law on the basis of a fictional human being.
It's amazing.
1-800-282-2882, Mark Stein Infra Rush.
More to come.
Mark Stein Infra Rush.
We have a name.
We have a name.
Warren Buffett's secretary is called Debbie.
Debbie.
She is the last secretary in the United States of America and she is the highest taxed individual in the United States of America.
Spare a thought for Debbie when you're jetting off in your corporate jet.
Think of Debbie the Secretary riding at the back of the Greyhound all the way, taking you're just jetting off there in your corporate jet, Mr. Fancy Pants, Chief Executive.
And Debbie, the last secretary in America and the highest taxed individual in America, is sitting there at the back of the Greyhound bus.
Debbie the Secretary is Warren Buffett's secretary.
I don't know whether she was also, I don't know a lot about the background of Debbie the Secretary.
Maybe she was also John Edwards coatless girl.
I suggested earlier that John Edwards coatless girl grew up to become Warren Buffett's secretary.
So maybe before she became Debbie the Secretary, she was Debbie the coatless girl.
But so now from now on, I'm not calling it the Buffett rule.
We're going to call it Debbie's Law because every time you pay your new 48%, 73%, whatever the federal tax rate is, you'll know that you're complying with Debbie's Law and you will have Debbie the last secretary in America to thank for the 48%, 73% tax rate, whatever it is, whatever it is you get stuck with.
▲
Export Selection