All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 18, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:15
January 18, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, we're back and we've got broadcast excellence for you here at the EIB network.
And we have more fun than a barrel of money.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
And the email address, illrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Let's grab Soundbites 2728.
I'm going to be a little bit out of order here.
But then we'll get back to In Order at number 11.
This is Mitt Romney in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
This afternoon at a campaign event, he was speaking about Newt Gingrich.
The speaker the other day at the debate was talking about how he created millions of jobs when he was working with the Reagan administration.
Well, he'd been in Congress two years when Ronald Reagan came to office.
That'd be like saying 435 congressmen were all responsible for those jobs.
Government doesn't create jobs.
It's the private sector that creates jobs.
Congressmen taking responsibility or taking credit for helping create jobs is like Al Gore taking credit for the internet.
Ooh, Mitt getting tough out there with the fisticuffs, comparing Newt Gingrich to Al Gore.
Oh, and Jim Clyburn of the Congressional Black Caucasians this afternoon on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell NBC reports.
We're having a discussion about Clyburn's criticism of Gingrich.
And by the way, we've got soundbites coming on this.
The long knives are out for Newt on this food stamp president and janitorial work for school kids.
It was racist.
Oh, the media is going nuts over this.
When you hear some of these bites coming up, this is one of them.
It's a little out of order, but I wanted to get to it.
James Clyburn, the former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucasians.
And Andrew Mitchell said, tell me what you think is wrong with the way that Gingrich characterized his outreach jobs for young people.
People who are poor are not suffering from any kind of a work ethic.
I grew up pretty poor, but I got up at 4 o'clock in the mornings and delivered milk on a milk truck before going to school at 8.30.
And I don't need Newt Gingrich to tell me what it is to have a work ethic.
What he is talking about is stratifying people.
He's saying that the poor children in their schools ought to be the janitors in their schools so that the other people in the schools who aren't so poor can see them as their servants.
Talk about what his daughter may have done.
His daughter was never a janitor in the school that she attended.
And that, to me, is a double standard.
And I understand what he's saying.
And most African Americans understand what he's saying.
And we're not going to stand for it.
So it's all about servants.
The white kids want to see black kids as servants.
And that's Newt's hidden agenda.
Now, we sit here and laugh.
I guarantee you, folks, the sad thing about America today is that there are a significant number of people who will hear James Clyburn say that and agree.
And they're Democrats, and they will think exactly that.
All he's got to do is put the thought in their head.
And so, yeah, what he's talking about is stratifying.
Poor children in schools ought to be the janitors so that the other people who aren't so poor can see them as their servants.
There is literally intellectually no way to get there from what Newt said.
Zilch Zero Nada.
But they're servants.
All of this for just mentioning food stamps.
Isn't Clyburn a public servant?
Clyburn's a public servant, frankly, not doing a good job either.
Not for me.
You know, Clyburn was one of the Obama supporters that played the race card on Bill Clinton in South Carolina in 2008.
And Clinton, Clinton, did not like it.
Here's, let's stay in.
Let's go back to Joe Scarborough this morning on MSNBC.
They're talking about Romney and his taxes.
Get this.
This is a problem on a lot of levels.
Campaigns are sometimes defined in a moment that the candidate doesn't realize.
We can go back to Michael Dukakis and the tank.
We can go back to 1980 and Ronald Reagan saying, Mr. Green, I paid for this mic in Nashua.
In this case, you've got a guy worth $250 million talking about how he's paying a lower tax rate than most secretaries.
Yesterday is a day that I suspect the Romney campaign is going to be regretting for some time.
How is this Dukakis in the tank?
Dukakis was a joke.
Dukakis was a failure.
Dukakis is a loser.
Romney was and is a success.
Achievement's a scandal.
15% tax rate.
He explained it.
Sad thing is, few people understand it.
They don't know what earned income is versus capital gains.
Well, half the people don't pay income taxes.
What do they care?
You know the class envy thing.
You know what the Democrats are trying here.
Romney did step it.
I have to tell you something.
There are better ways for Romney to have done this.
This is one of my, this is one of the, when I said that you did have a good debate on Monday night, this is one of the things I mean, frankly, he should have said, I'll show you what my taxes are when Obama releases his academic records or do what Boone Pickens did.
Boone Pickens, I have paid $600 some odd million dollars in taxes since I turned 70.
Is that not enough?
Remember what the media said?
Well, it doesn't count till you tell us what you earned.
But Mitch should have transmitted 15% into dollars, what dollars he's paid, and then had the MO.
John Kerry paid 12%.
You know, this is what I mean.
We have this our party, if you will, has this tendency to always be defensive about success.
You know, Wall Street Journal, let me find Wall Street Journal has a great piece on this.
It's here somewhere.
I ought to find that right now.
It's all about how Romney could have turned this thing into a great teaching moment.
And they say, the Wall Street Journal in this piece, that Romney came by and talked to them at their editorial meeting and said that he didn't think that he as president could spearhead a program of tax cuts because of his own wealth.
He wouldn't have the credibility to be able to pull it off.
Let's see.
I'm having trouble finding it.
I guess I ought to wait until a break to find it because I know I've got it.
Here's Christie.
Chris Christie's calling for a 10% income tax cut in New Jersey.
And of course, the Democrats are saying, well, that's $7,266 a year for somebody earning $1 million.
And it's only $275 for somebody earning $100,000.
That's not even a grocery bill for a family of five.
So here's a 10% across-the-board tax cut.
The Democrats in New Jersey automatically oppose it because of the dollar amounts involved.
This is pure demagoguery.
This is how it happens.
And all Christie's trying to do is take the next step in economic growth for New Jersey.
He wants that money kept in the private sector.
That $7,000 that that millionaire will not have to give to government is going to be put to use somewhere in the private sector.
And the Democrats just can't stand that.
But it's going to be put to use somewhere in the private sector and it might be spent on hiring somebody.
What did I do with this thing?
I know I had it here.
Don't tell me I put it aside.
I couldn't have put it aside.
It's got to be here.
I'll have to find it during the break.
I know I can find it because it's really small font, printed very small, which ticked me off.
So maybe I made other adjustments for it.
But they did say that Romney has, and I'm going to find it because there's a way here to have turned this into a great, great, teachable moment.
It's not there.
This is entirely frustrating.
I had it.
Now I don't have time to go this day.
I'm not going to waste your time looking for it in a different stack.
I promise I'll find this.
Well, I know he paid his taxes, unlike Tim Geithner.
Of course, there's all kinds of ways to have done this.
He just came across as defensive.
Here, this is MSNBC, Sergeant Schultz speaking to somebody named Joy Ann Reed.
No clue who Joy Ann Reed is.
I don't know why she's on television, but she is.
And Sergeant Schultz said, Do you think the president would beat Mitt Romney in the Rust Belt states today, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois?
Because the economy is so terribly important.
Talk radio is a tiny sliver of the universe of the 300 and plus million American people.
So Mitt Romney, I think, has made an error trying to run to right-wing talk radio, which really isn't a majority view.
So I think the president has that advantage.
Number two, the Occupy movement has really done one great thing: it's focused people on inequality.
And if anybody represents the 1%, it's Mitt Romney.
So I think that the president is looking pretty good going into 2012.
The Occupy movement is a dismal failure.
Even Pelosi's running away from it.
But you see here that she's out there saying that he's making a mistake trying to impress us, as though that's what Romney's trying to do.
Is Romney trying to impress talk radio?
Does anybody get the idea that's what he's trying to do?
Here is Chris Christie, by the way, who has endorsed Romney with some advice.
This was on MSNBC this morning.
Bob Woodward, the Washington Post, was on there and asked Chris Christie, what's your reaction to Governor Romney saying he paid only 15% effective tax rate?
I've released all of my tax returns and I did it during the campaign.
I went back a number of years and released my tax returns.
And I release them every year after I file them, right after I file them to the public in New Jersey so they can see everything.
Let's get all the facts out there, see what the tax returns say.
And I think everybody will know that this story is really probably much ado about nothing.
Quick timeout.
Back with much more after this.
Don't go away.
Here's that Wall Street Journal piece.
Mitt Romney's 15%.
After his tax rate news, he needs a big reform proposal.
And here's a pull quote from the story.
When he recently visited the journal, Romney all but said he didn't think that he could propose a tax reform with lower rates because he'd be attacked as a rich guy.
Well, he is a rich guy.
And with 15% news, you're going to be attacked anyway.
What matters is how you respond to this kind of thing.
What matters is what you do with it.
This is what, if I might say, without choosing sides here, this is what Newt did with Juan Williams' question the other night at the debate.
He turned it into a teachable, inspirational moment.
And he got a standing ovation and he flummoxed Juan Williams and he flummoxed the media and they're still tied in loops and trying to figure out what happened to him on it, trying to mischaracterize it as racism.
And as I pointed out on Tuesday, Newt didn't attack anybody.
He didn't go after Juilliams.
He simply used that question, bouncing off his food stamp comments and young kids doing work, janitorial custodial, whatever, as great training, as great character building, all of these kinds of drew a standing O. Here's the journal piece and excerpts.
Mitt. Romney hasn't yet made the case for lower, flatter tax rates as a boon to economic growth, but maybe he'll be inspired by the power of his own example.
South Carolina yesterday, the former Massachusetts governor said his effective tax rate's probably closer to the 15% rate than anything.
Let the mayhem begin.
Romney said this week that he'd release his 2011 tax return in April, at which point you can expect Tim Obama to howl like Occupy Wall Streeters, demand that people like Romney pay higher tax rates.
Rather than play his usual defense by saying he doesn't favor cutting taxes on anybody making more than 200 grand, Romney could use the opportunity to make the moral and practical case for lower rates and fewer loopholes for everybody.
He might start with a tutorial on tax policy using his own return as exhibit A.
It's likely that he enjoys this low rate because most of his income is derived from investments, which are taxed at 15% for individuals.
After, and this is crucial, after they are first taxed at the business level.
And that's the corporate rate, which is 35%.
Now, a big reason that rates on wages are so high is to offset the loopholes and carve outs in the tax code, such as the mortgage, interest, and state tax deductions.
Why not save on compliance costs billions of hours in paperwork by eliminating loopholes and taxing all wages and salaries in Romney's 15% neighborhood?
Why not make the case for the 15% flat tax?
Now, Romney has proposed cutting the corporate tax rate from 25% or 225% from 35%.
And on Monday, he showed a little more reform leg, said he thinks no one should pay more than 25%.
That's a start, but he and the rest of the GOP field missed a chance to explain why.
Is it morally right for the government to take more than a quarter of anybody's income?
Does it hurt the economy?
Does it really raise more revenue with all these loopholes that Congress inevitably writes on behalf of the powerful?
When he recently visited the journal, Romney all but said he didn't think he could propose tax reform with lower rates because he'd be attacked as a rich guy.
Well, Governor, you are a rich guy, and with a 15% news, you're going to be attacked anyway.
What matters is how you respond.
Newt Gingrich jumped on the news yesterday, called it Mitt Romney's flat tax in mock homage to the former speaker's proposal for a 15% voluntary flat tax.
Team Obama won't be so witty or kind.
It'll spend a billion dollars assailing the Republican as a morally obtuse fat cat who doesn't understand the problems of average Americans.
If Romney doesn't want to spend the campaign defending his 15% tax rate, he'll get out front and propose a serious tax reform.
Go on offense, in other words.
Explain this at the teachable moment.
Income tax and capital gains are not the same thing.
And Romney needs to start by discussing the difference between income tax and capital gains tax, investment tax.
Capital gains tax is an additional tax on money that's already been taxed once at the highest level of 35%.
It's not 15% instead of 35%.
It only becomes that if you cut out a step, people can be taught.
Who's next?
Joan in Kingman, Arizona.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Mega Diddles, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
Rush, I cringe when I hear people say they primarily support Romney because he's a successful businessman and they perceive that's what our sick economy needs.
Jimmy Carter was a successful businessman and financially independent, and I'm old enough to remember what he did to our economy.
I just want to say that being a successful businessman and being a good president don't necessarily equate.
Ronald Reagan wasn't a businessman, and Governor Scott Walker had very limited business experience.
And look what they've done.
Right, and look at all of the big successful businessmen who are commie bastards.
All these leftists.
Look at Obama's Jobs Council.
All these clowns that agree that central planning is the way.
Can you imagine the chairman of General Electric agreeing to chair a government panel or committee on job creation?
No.
What in the world does the government have to teach GE about hiring people?
I think all of this is absurd.
You make a good point.
You really do.
Jimmy Carter, he was a successful business.
He ran Grade B peanut form in Georgia.
I want to take the Wall Street Journal analysis of Mitt Romney and his 15%.
I'm going to take it a little further.
Some other things that Romney could say.
And look, it's easy for us sitting here at a distance to come up with things.
I resented it.
Still do something.
You know what you should have said?
But still, I'm going to offer my two cents anyway.
When all this kerfuffle starts about Mitt Romney and his 15% tax rate, he can say, look, we live in America, not some failed Soviet satellite.
I favor a flat or fair tax.
I want to get rid of the IRS, or most of it.
I favor denying big spending Obamacare liberals our income.
I favor putting Obama and his reckless spending radical on a diet.
A diet we call private property rights.
We call it limited government.
We call it taking our country back.
Start shouting a little conservatism here.
Turn this around and go on offense.
It's class warfare garbage.
It might work.
And he's cloistered campaign circles surrounding Obama, but this is not our country.
This is not a country that has been living under class envy all of these years since its inception.
It's not about having have-nots.
It's not about protecting all of us from a bloated federal government.
It is about that.
It's about protecting us from everybody who benefits from bloated federal government and never-ending federal spending.
Now, here's what Romney doesn't do.
All this talk about Romney 15% and his speech income.
He doesn't know how much is how little and so forth.
Let me do what Romney doesn't do.
Romney has not played over 90 rounds of golf in three years while everybody is suffering.
Romney has not flown all over the world on the federal government's dime.
Romney has not had lavish parties and concerts on the public's dime.
Romney has not lived like a king on other people's money.
He has not set his wife on government jets four hours ahead of him to the same destination.
Romney is not responsible, nor is any other Republican, for the 16% unemployment, real unemployment in this country.
Romney is not responsible for increased fuel and food costs.
He's not responsible for any of this.
That would be Obama, who pretends to care about the middle class, but lives like a king at the public trough.
Mitt Romney's not the problem.
Newt Gingrich isn't the problem.
Rick Perry, Rick Zantorum, not the problem.
We find ourselves in this mess because of Barack Obama.
And here come some people who want to dramatically change course, reverse course.
And all we get in the news media is what a bunch of reprobates they are when every one of them is a fine human being.
Every one of them is a decent person.
Every one of them is an average American in their own ways.
Obama is not.
His wife is not.
Now, if the left wants to discuss this kind of thing and the media wants to talk about it, let's talk about it.
What financial sacrifices have the Obamas made?
What money of theirs do they have that is theirs, that they have earned?
How many no-show jobs has Michelle Obama had?
How many people get to spend other people's money like they do and then act like they're entitled to do it in the midst of so much economic suffering throughout the country?
Mitt Romney's not up there telling people don't go to Las Vegas, don't go to resorts.
Mitt Romney's not up there promising to focus laser-like on jobs and then not do it.
Mitt Romney hasn't grown the federal budget by $5 trillion.
Do you realize that Barack Obama has already spent the federal budget for the two years of the next administration, whoever's in charge of it?
He's already spent it.
The entire federal budget for fiscal 2013 and 2014 is already spent.
That's how much money Obama spent.
Romney hadn't spent a dime of it.
Nor has Newt Gingrich.
The entire federal budget for two years after Obama loses in 2012, already spent, folks.
How much money did Mitt Romney throw at Solyndra?
How much of your money did Mitt Romney throw at Solyndra and all of these other green energy companies?
How many automobile companies did Mitt Romney take over with your money and then demand they start making cars that nobody wants?
Did Mitt Romney turn down the Keystone pipeline?
Is Mitt Romney responsible for rising energy costs and depleting energy supplies?
Barack Obama, all of this is Barack Obama.
Every ounce of misery, economic misery in this country is directly traceable to the Oval Office and the offices of Pelosi and Reid and every other Democrat on Capitol Hill and every Democrat staff member.
Mitt Romney had had anything to do.
Mitt Romney's tax rate is not responsible for one deleterious thing that has happened to any person in this country.
Mitt Romney has done more to empower and enrich individuals with Bain Capital and the other things he's done at the Olympics than Barack Obama could ever hope to do because Barack Obama's done nothing but ruin people's lives.
And we want to talk about Mitt Romney's 15% tax rate, how much he makes on speeches.
Well, we don't talk about Bill Clinton's $82 million in speeches, his average fee of $181,000 a speech.
Mitt Romney had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis.
Mitt Romney had nothing to do with the bottoming out of the housing market.
Mitt Romney had nothing to do with half this country losing the value of its number one asset, its home.
And nor did Newt Gingrich, and neither did Rick Perry or Rick Santorum.
What are we talking about here?
Mitt Romney has not traveled to a foreign country and apologized for America anytime, anywhere, any place.
Nor has Newt Gingrich, nor has Rick Santorum or Rick Perry.
Not one decision that has led to economic disaster in this country, the decline of this country, has been made by Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney or Rick Perry or Michelle Bachman or John Huntsman, any of the others that have sought the Republican nomination.
And in all of this economic downturn, I ask you what financial sacrifices the Obamas made.
See, one thing Romney could say, if I'm elected president, I will actually be taking a pay cut.
But for Barack Obama, the presidency was a path to becoming a millionaire.
The presidency is going to cost Mitt Romney money.
The presidency was a path to wealth for Barack Obama and for Bill Clinton.
Now, you want to talk about morality and decency and who's a good guy and who cares about the little guy and so forth.
This is all a crock, folks.
This is all the way this silly game is played.
And of course, it's frustrating for us that there's apparently not a candidate that thinks like I am articulating things here.
I know it's frustrating.
But this is what happens when there's not a genuine conservative.
Newt comes close in his moments where he shines.
I know.
If somebody said something like this in a debate, the standing O would never end.
The moderators would lose total control of the debate.
And plus, everything I said has an added benefit.
It's all true.
None of it's made up.
In fact, I just scratched the surface.
Nobody ever says this kind of stuff to Obama's face.
They asked him yesterday, well, I asked Jay Carney.
Well, what about the college transcript?
It's not important.
What do you mean he's a king?
I have to tell you that.
Which is their attitude.
Now, the Keystone Pipeline.
Here's John Boehner this afternoon on Capitol Hill, a portion of his remarks learning after learning that the regime will reject the Keystone Pipeline.
This is not good for our country.
The president wants to put this off until it's convenient for him to make a decision.
That means after the next election.
The fact is the American people are asking a question right now.
Where are the jobs?
Well, you know, let's hit it a little harder than that.
But basically, here's now Rick Perry says Americans should be unhinged by this decision.
Asked about the decision expected from the State Department that sources say will call for a rejection of the Keystone pipeline.
Rick Perry says, no surprise, it doesn't make a decision any better.
Doesn't surprise me, but it's again, the president's focus more on the next election than on the next generation.
Getting his country independent of foreign sources of crude from countries that are not our friends is problematic.
This is Canadian oil.
There's a possibility we could lose it to China with that decision.
I hope Americans will really become unhinged with this decision.
It's a really bad decision for our country, for energy independence.
It sends a horrible message at a time that we're headed to $4 and $5 oil, or excuse me, $405 gasoline.
To have a neighbor who's willing to sell us crude that's available, but we won't take it unhinged.
In a sane world, people would be.
So, in spite of what is Romney's crime, what has he done?
All he's done is invest in America.
He's taken his money, he's invested in people's companies, jobs, and so forth.
Why in the world should he be punished for this?
If you go after Romney, why don't you go after everybody else on Wall Street?
Oh, we all know the answer.
I got to take a break, folks.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
Marcus in Omaha, glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Thanks, Rush, and I'm very appreciative of you taking my call this afternoon.
Piggybacking on your comment a few minutes ago about how we're looking for a candidate that echoes the conservative principles that you share with us on the radio.
Yes, sir.
I am a Michelle Bachman supporter and clearly disappointed that she's not in the race.
So as I'm looking at Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry watching many of the debates, I am, as you've been talking about, drawn to Gingrich when he's on his game plan, when he's speaking and echoing the kind of things that you talk about on the radio.
However, as you mentioned, I think it was yesterday, there is that Eisenhower part of his brain that needs to be lobotomized.
I remember, I think it was Dick Armey on your program years ago, passed along some uncomplimentary comments about Newt, and for the first time made me aware of that half of his brain, I suppose.
And my question to you is similar to the comment you've made about Romney, how he needs to be pushed to the right.
If Gingrich is the nominee, is it possible to keep him on the reservation?
And if so, how?
Not only during the general election campaign, more importantly, in office.
Can he be kept in the conservative game plan, or is he always going to wander off like that?
Is there a way to keep him on the reservation?
Not that I know of.
For anybody that's not a thoroughbred conservative, I don't know how you have a constant bit of pressure.
Not from here.
Like, could he surround himself?
Is it any way to surround himself with the kind of personalities that can keep him on the reservation again, if I can use that phrase?
It's not, I don't know, it's so much a matter of that with Newt as it is a matter of circumstances in which he finds himself.
When he is lone wolfing it, he's okay.
When he decides to go committee and branch out, that's when the other half of the brain kicks in and the ideas start gurgling forth with no editing on them.
And you never know when it's going to happen.
Yeah, and that's obviously a thing that makes people like myself uneasy.
I mean, we're clearly drawn to the performance like he gave Monday night.
And like you said, we thirst to hear that kind of message, but we've got that nagging reservation that he's, again, during the general campaign or in office, he'd wander off the reservation and we go, oh, my gosh, this isn't what we voted for.
There's always going to be, I don't care who it is, there's always going to be the temptation in Washington to seek the favor of the leftist media.
It's always going to be there, no matter who it is.
I can only think of one exception, and that's Reagan.
It's the rule rather than the exception.
As if we don't have enough trouble already, Keith Ellison, Democrat Congressman Minnesota, let 16-year-olds vote.
Let's lower the voting age to 16.
Folks, that could tell us that they think that they are in trouble, and I don't doubt that they are.
Have a wonderful day.
▲
Export Selection