All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 4, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:56
January 4, 2013, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hi, folks.
How are you?
Great to have you here.
El Rushbo, your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tomote ignorance, and everything else out there.
And it's Friday, so let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
Yes, sir, Rebob, Open Lion Friday, where your host, El Rushbo, that's me for you low information voters, takes the biggest show business career risk since Beyonce left Destiny's Child, the biggest career risk since Snoop Dogg changed his name to whatever it is, Snoop Lion or whatever.
And that's because when we go to the phones, the content portion of program is all yours.
Monday through Thursday, this program is devoted exclusively to what I care about, to what I'm interested in.
And Friday, it doesn't matter.
Whatever you want to talk about is fine and dandy.
And try extra hard to give everybody, no matter how uninformed, a chance to ask me a question that might start them on their journey to becoming a high information voter.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
And the email address, El Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Thank God, folks.
Thank God the Sandy Relief Bill has passed the House about half an hour ago.
It's on its way over to the Senate now.
I was afraid there for a moment that the gravy train was slowing down, that the Pork Express might have some problems in it.
Of course, they were requesting something like $60 billion for this thing.
It ended up being $9.7 billion for Sandy Relief and whatever else they can fold into this.
I guarantee you, there's going to be a lot more than just Sandy relief that will be bought and paid for with this money.
Now, another way of looking at this, and it's going to disappoint some of you, it's going to shock and surprise many of you.
Another way of looking at the Sandy relief bill, $9.7 billion, is that it automatically takes about one-sixth of all the money that Obama raised by taxing all those millionaires and billionaires who make over $400,000.
That money was supposed to balance the budget.
$60 billion.
Obama, and it was a brilliant political move, now being praised by the inside-the-beltway media, including the conservative media, is now praising Obama and praising the Republicans as losers.
The inside-the-beltway conservative media seems in unison to be saying, hey, when you lost, when you got skunked, you got to do the best you can.
And that's what Boehner and the Republicans did.
And how enthusiastic do we receive that?
How heartwarming and inspiring is that?
They did the best they could, and anybody complaining about it ought to just shut up.
And that means you.
So anyway, the president goes out there, and with his new tax increases on the rich, and that is everybody making over $400,000 a year.
I mean, that was going to give $60 billion, folks.
Deficit reduction.
Now, the deficit is over a trillion dollars, but that doesn't matter because low-information voters, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
The numbers don't matter.
All that matters is the president said that the tax increases on the rich were going to be balanced and lower the deficit and all that.
Didn't matter if it really happens.
It just, the president said it on TV, it made it real.
But now one-sixth of that $60 billion is being taken from deficit reduction and spent on Sandy relief.
That money was supposed to balance the budget.
This isn't fair.
So the Sandy Relief Money is going to take away from the funds that were going to balance the budget out there.
I don't care.
No matter what happens, every day you get up and you just still get depressed as you can be.
California law that nobody knew existed except a bright-eyed lawyer, allows a convicted rapist to go free because the woman he raped wasn't married.
This, I'm not kidding you, this is Channel 7 Eyeball NEWS.
In Los Angeles, an obscure state law on rape has freed a convicted rapist from prison.
The law is controversial because if the victim was married during the rape, the suspect would remain guilty, but because the victim was not married at the time of the rape, the suspect was not guilty.
You think i'm making this up.
I am not making this up.
The the, the appellate judges admitted that they did this reluctantly, but that their hands their hands were tied by a law that many people didn't even know existed.
Here's what happened, after seeing her boyfriend leave late at night, a man enters the bedroom of an unmarried woman, has sex with her while pretending to be her boyfriend.
That must happen all the time in California.
So well it was.
It was.
It was consensual, but under subterfuge.
The woman didn't know that it wasn't her boyfriend left.
The rapist came in, had sex with her and while pretending to be her boyfriend which I know must happen all the time out there.
According to the California appellate judge's ruling quote, has the man committed rape?
Well, because of historical anomalies of the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes.
But this rapist was smart enough to know that that the woman wasn't married.
He simply had to impersonate a boyfriend and then it wasn't rape.
This provision of the law, where it only applies to a married woman as a victim, really dates back to the mid 1800s, and while the legislatures had many opportunities to amend and revised the rape statute.
For some unexplained reason, they never got around to amending this particular one.
So the night began for the victim.
By the way, she's been identified as Jane Doe.
The night began for the victim at a party.
She consuming several adult beverages.
She left the party with her boyfriend, who's named Victor Doe.
Well, no, not Doe, because they're not married.
Just Victor.
She left the party after having consumed adult beverages with her boyfriend Victor.
Then they grabbed some fast food and they headed home where friends joined them.
According to court documents, Jane invited her boyfriend Victor to spend the night.
But since he didn't have a condom, they decided against it.
And she fell asleep.
Victor then left to go home, all because they didn't have a condom.
And see, this is where, this is where Republicans don't understand.
They have opposed condom distribution.
They've opposed contraceptive giveaway, contraceptive giveaways.
If the Republicans had not stood in the way of condom distribution, condom machines in every apartment complex, well, this wouldn't have happened.
So you can trace this probably back to some thing that Bush refused to allow because there was no condom.
Victor, Jane didn't have a condom.
So Victor leaves, probably depressed.
Victor wanted to have sex, but there wasn't a condom.
So he leaves.
The friends leave.
They'd all had fast food.
Jane Doe had also consumed adult beverage.
Victor leaves.
And the prosecutors say that Jane then went to sleep.
And after Jane went to sleep, she woke up to the sensation of having sex.
And again, this is probably a very common occurrence in California.
So Jane there consuming adult beverages, fast food, wants to have sex with Victor.
Victor doesn't have a condom.
The evening's blown, so to speak.
Victor leaves.
Friends leave, she goes to sleep and wakes up to the sensation of having sex.
And when a light goes on, and only when the light goes on, this is not good news for Victor, only when the light goes on, she discovers it isn't Victor.
Can you imagine poor Victor in this story?
Some guy off the street impersonates him, gets away with it.
Anyway, she then screams, shouts rape.
The Victor impersonator, having accomplished most of the task, then extricates and exits the scene.
She then guesses saw enough of the guy to make him apprehended, get him apprehended and charged.
And then the law said, nope, she's not married, therefore it's not rape.
And no, this is not Sharia.
Oh, it sounds like it could be, but it's not.
And so that's that.
So now, because the law hasn't been changed, rapists in California, all they have to do is figure out whether a woman is married or not, keep a sharp eye on boyfriends who leave because there aren't any condoms around and make their move.
It's a precedent here.
Ali Velshi, the CNN economics editor.
Ladies and gentlemen, interesting.
Let me take a break here because I don't want to have to break this up.
But Ali Velshi, a bald hell, Yule Brenner looking guy on CNN.
He's their economics editor.
Last night on Anderson Cooper 3, did you, by the way, did you see what happened to Anderson Cooper on New Year's Eve night of CNN?
You didn't see this?
You didn't hear about, holy smokes.
Okay, so Anderson Cooper every year anchors the ball drop on New Year's Eve with a purported D-list celebrity named Kathy Griffin.
And every year, Kathy Griffin tries to do something to shock the sensibilities of the mainstream CNN audience, which takes quite a bit.
And this year, what Kathy Griffin did, everybody saw it, and it has been seen since.
And it has been replayed.
And she's been on an Anderson Cooper.
They've been on the letterman.
They've talked about it.
They've laughed about it.
Nobody, nobody involved has a problem with this.
Kathy Griffin went down on Anderson Cooper on New Year's Eve.
Well, it was not totally out of frame.
It was, I mean, half her head was in frame.
Where her head was was in frame.
And Anderson Cooper with a big smile on his face looking down at her was in frame.
What do you mean out of frame?
His clothes were on, but what she did is all over the e-Entertainment Network.
It was all over TMZ.
I saw it entertainment tonight, too.
She was smooching Anderson Cruz.
Well, below the belt.
She was smooching Anderson Cooper's crotch with his clothes on.
And he was, and yeah, Anderson was giggling and saying no.
And of course, everybody knows when a guy says no, he means yes.
And so she kept it up.
And it's been the talk of the entertainment industry.
It's all over.
It's CNN, folks.
With Jeb Zucker now in there to straighten out CNN's image, have it more news-oriented and so forth.
Meanwhile, over at Fox, Bill Hemmer and Megan Kelly look like a 30-year-old married couple that wish they were at home.
So this was happening.
Anyway, Allie Velshi is the economics editor at CNN, and he was on Anderson Cooper Show.
As Anderson Cooper wasn't there, they had a guest hostette, Ashley Banfield, who used to be over at MSNBC, and she had a part of a Troika show with Mika Zezhinsky, and there was one other babe in there, and they discussed things like childbirth and contraceptions, real, real interesting stuff.
And so she's now the co-host of the Anderson Cooper show.
And Allie Velshi was talking about economics.
And he was saying that Americans now finally understand it.
There aren't any low-information Americans on economics now.
They all get it.
Every American understands it.
Which means, according to Allie Velshi, that Americans now understand that Republicans are the bad guys who are trying to tie the debt ceiling to spending.
It is Allie Velshi who made the point on CNN last night that the debt ceiling has nothing to do with spending.
Did you know that?
Yeah, the debt ceiling has nothing to do with spending.
And it's outrageous that Republicans say that it does.
And Americans now know that Republicans are wrong, that the debt ceiling has nothing to do with spending.
So we have that soundbite and thought we would illustrate with other soundbites how, in fact, low-information Americans actually do now understand economics.
Velshi may be right.
All that coming up after this.
This is hilarious.
I have CNN on one of my monitors here, and you may have heard that Hugo Chavez, the dictator and communist leader in Venezuela, is nearing room temperature.
And I guess this is the CNN people distressed.
He's a great socialist leader.
He's done great things to impoverish his people, but everybody's equal down there.
That's cool.
And of course, with Chavez nearing the great reward, the great socialists in the sky, they're bringing on in advance of his expiration a bunch of tributes.
Normally they wait till people die to do tributes, but they want Hugo to, I guess, see this.
You got Oliver Stone, who did a documentary on Hugo Chavez three years ago now, two years ago.
Very laudatory.
And Oliver Stone, who doesn't like America much, is telling a very interested Suzanne Malveaux all about Hugo Chavez.
Just, I don't know, fascinating to me.
You have an American television network celebrating the life of a socialist Marxist dictator as he nears death with an American movie director on to sing his praises.
A network that's in last place and is supposedly making vast moves to become more mainstream.
And who knows, this may be it.
This may be what.
Anyway, Ali Velshi.
Ali Velshi, obviously, ladies and gentlemen, a low information reporter.
Ali Velshi, the economics guru at CN, tweeted last night, Republicans need to understand the difference between a debt ceiling and debt.
He's saying that you can't use the debt ceiling to try to control spending.
He said the Republicans are making a big mistake.
He said, the American people understand that economics now.
There aren't any low-information Americans on the economy.
This thanks to Obama and the recent debt deal and the fiscal cliff.
The American people now get it.
And what they get is that the Republicans are the bad guys who are trying to take everything away from them.
The Republicans are trying.
When Republicans want to get a handle on spending, what that means is trying to take food out of the mouths of babies.
They're trying to take medicine away from the elderly and doctors and treatment away from everybody.
That's what the Republicans want to do.
And Ali Velshi says the American people now understand this.
And of course, the debt ceiling is the next big budget fight coming up.
And Velshi is saying that you can't use the debt ceiling to try to control spending.
And that's where the Republicans are making their mistake.
They shouldn't be trying to control spending.
That the American people don't want spending control.
The Republicans need to understand this.
And so the debt ceiling, they should let Obama just name it.
Let Obama have control of it because you can't use the debt ceiling to try to control spending.
This presumes people know what a debt ceiling is.
Debt ceiling is exactly what it says.
At that level of debt, when you've reached the ceiling, you can't legally borrow any more money.
And of course, that limits spending.
But Ali Velshi says that the debt limit and spending aren't related.
And the American people understand this.
We're going to prove to you that he's right about this, by the way, in mere moments.
We'll have the Ali Velshi soundbite and the corresponding soundbites to establish this.
He says the debt ceiling being raised has nothing to do with credit ratings.
Nothing at all.
The debt ceiling doesn't matter to anything.
And we're back.
Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Now, for those of you out there who have credit cards, some of you have limits, spending limits on your credit cards.
Some of you don't.
Some of you have the American Express Black Card.
Some of you have the American Express Platinum Card.
And of course, there's no spend.
You can charge as much as you want, the 30-day cycle.
But most Americans have a limit, a monthly limit beyond which you can't charge.
Think of the federal budget as much the same.
Think of the debt limit as your monthly credit card limit.
And you can't go over it on your credit card.
And the United States government can't spend more than what its credit limit is or its debt limit.
Now, Allie Velshi, CNN, says that has no relation to spending.
The CNN lead economics guy said a credit limit, the debt limit has nothing to do with spending at all.
Here is his soundbite last night on CNN.
And Ashley Banfield says, look, we're all tired of it.
And yet you say we've got the Valentine's debt ceiling, St. Patrick's Day sequestered, and the budget deal after that.
Is there any reason to believe, Allie, it's going to be different than the last few fights?
The only good thing here is that everybody's engaged.
Americans know more about their economic issues and their budgetary issues than we have in a long time.
Again, I think Congress seems to be getting a message.
Don't worry about the media.
Worry about your constituents who are actually mad.
They just want something to get done.
The GOP needs to learn the difference between the debt and the debt ceiling.
Using the debt ceiling and the ability to pay our bills for things we've already spent is just outrageous.
It was outrageous in August of 11, and it continues to be outrageous, but the Republicans continue to use this language that somehow it's to control spending, and it's just incorrect.
See, the debt limit, you're an idiot.
You're absolutely stupid.
The Republicans are, if they think the debt limit is to control spending.
Now, just like your credit card limit is not meant to control your spending.
It's just arbitrarily set because the credit card companies are a bunch of creeps and they're mean.
They don't like you.
And they just assume you go broke.
So they set a limit on what you can spend.
And after that, you can't spend anymore.
And the federal government does the same thing.
But it doesn't matter in the federal, because Ali Velshi just said that this language, that the debt limit is being used to control spending is just stupid.
And most Americans now understand this, which I believe.
So we thought we'd put the theory, the American people understand economics now, Ali Velshi's theory, to the test.
So we went to Entertainment Tonight.
We have a portion of Christina McClarty.
She is the info babe at Entertainment Tonight.
She had a report about speculation that Kim Kardashian may pose nude while pregnant.
Will she pose nude like so many other famous moms have?
And if she does, the big question, what will it do for her brand?
Of course, Kim's no stranger to posing in the all together.
This shoot for Playboy Magazine was in 2007.
I'm doing it with clad.
Because I got a big ass.
I think people would love to see her do some kind of a high-fashion, sexy shoot while she's pregnant.
Of course, a pregnant Kim would be joining the likes of Jessica Simpson for L, Mariah Carey in Life and Style, Christina Aguilera, Marie Claire, Brittany, Harper's Bazaar, and the original trendsetter, Demi Moore, on the cover of Vanity Fair.
I think if a celebrity does a nude photo shoot while pregnant with the right magazine, then it's great for their brand.
There you have it.
Entertainment tonight illustrating that the American people sure as hell understand the economy.
If Kim Kardashian does a fashion shoot while posing nude, it'll help her brand.
What does that mean?
She'll make more money.
And so the American people understand.
You get a deal to get pregnant and then pose nude on the cover of a magazine under the guise of doing a fashion shoot, you can get rich.
Voila, the American people understand the economy.
Allie Velshi may be onto something.
Let's give it another shot here.
This is NBC's Access Hollywood.
Here, the host is Michelle Beadle and her report on Lindsay Lohan and how she made some money on New Year's Eve.
Did you know Lindsay Lohan went to a New Year's Eve party in the UK?
She paid $100,000 just for showing up for this thing.
And here's the report.
Lindsay Lohan, how we love you.
And so does the Sultan of Brunei, who paid Lindsay $100,000 to attend his New Year's Eve party in London.
She rang in 2013 with a nice chunk of change, and now she gives her new home a whole new look, courtesy of the Million Dollar Decorator.
Being rich doesn't mean you have good taste.
Typically, the more money you have, it seems to be the worst taste you have.
That was Catherine Ireland there.
She's the host of Bravo's Million Dollar Decorators.
So American people watching Access Hollywood clearly learned Lindsay Lohan made money on New Year's Eve by charging $100,000 to show up, and they learned she got lousy taste when she decorates her house with the money.
Allie Velshi at CNN says the American people understand the economy, and I think he's onto something.
Good morning, America.
A portion of the correspondent Tanya Rivero's report on the fashion trends for 2013.
I'm going to hear a couple of unidentified male models here in this report.
And a GQ magazine correspondent named Will Welch.
Now, Meggings or leggings for men are hitting the streets and the runways as one of the hottest new fashion trends adopted by celebrities like Justin Bieber, Russell Brand, and Lenny Kravitz.
But are guys really ready to squeeze in?
I gotta say, I feel like you're missing your pants.
So what's the underwear situation like?
No underwater.
There is none.
Okay, Commando.
I think it was a slippery slope with skinny jeans.
I kept buying like skinnier and skinnier pants, and then here we are.
We brought in an expert from men's fashion Bible GQ to weigh in.
These guys were saying they kind of like mid-thigh.
Do you believe that?
Well, yeah, there's some basic anatomical practicality to that.
American men were just wearing everything entirely too bad.
And as part of that adjustment, we're seeing some like extreme sort of outlier situations.
Only time will tell if this trend has legs.
There you have it.
Meggings for men, leggings for men called meggings.
And of course, this leads to profits for the manufacturers.
Who knew that there was a market for this?
But good morning, America, has revealed a brand new fashion market.
In this faltering and weak economy, manufacturers of meggings for Hollywood guys obviously doing quite well economically and therefore understanding how the economy works.
Allie Velshi, CNN, may be onto something.
One more here.
CNBC's squawk box.
This is Jared Bernstein.
He's the former economic advisor to Joe Biden.
And they're having a discussion about the December job numbers.
By the way, we'll get into details on that.
The job numbers for December are out.
And this is Rick Santelli and Jared Bernstein.
They had this little exchange about what it all means.
This is an okay jobs report, as folks are saying, at a period when you might have expected, you might have worried about something worse.
The fiscal cliff was a little scratch on your hand compared to breaching the debt ceiling.
That is a self-inflicted wound that is far, far deeper.
We need to grow up.
You need to be a man when you look at the debt.
If it means uncomfortability, if it means going over the business, it means a government closing.
My kids will thank me someday for it.
Yeah, I don't think so.
I'd like to see if you run your personal finances like that.
Yeah, personal finances and government finances are different.
See that?
Personal finances and government finances are different.
That's Jared Bernstein, former economic advisor to Biden.
And he's exactly right.
And this is what Ali Velshe says: the American people understand.
Your credit card limit is nothing like the United States debt limit.
The United States debt limit doesn't mean anything.
Your credit card limit does.
So government spending, personal finances, and government finances are totally different.
And the American people get this.
They're totally on board with it.
And there you have it.
A brief timeout.
We will continue with much more after this.
No, I wouldn't.
No, no, no, no, no.
Somebody's trying to get me to call Lindsay Lohan a party girl.
That's not what that's.
It's just an economic move that she made.
By the way, Kanye West was pulled over by the cops in California.
West Hollywood Police stopped the rapper and the dad to be.
This is a late Wednesday night.
He was outside the Chateau Marmont Hotel.
He was driving his baby mama's car.
It's a Mercedes SUV, one of those safari things.
The box, the G63 of him.
Well, the G550, but Kim Kardashian, she's got a souped-up version.
She's got the AMG, the G63.
But you're right, G550 is what ordinary people would buy.
But the stars go out and buy the souped-up stuff.
And Kanye would drive, and he got picked up for speeding, driving his baby mama's car.
She bought it some months ago.
The officers decided to let him off with a warning, and he sped off.
It helps to be Kim Kardashian's baby daddy in those situations.
I mentioned Oliver Stone moments ago on CNN as Hugo Chavez nears the end, great socialist Marxist dictator.
Oliver Stone on CNN singing his praises and having a discussion here.
He did a documentary Stone did called South of the Border in 2010.
And the ever-rapped glued in admiring fashion to Oliver Stone was Suzanne Malveaux, who asked, How do you think it will change Venezuela moving forward if, in fact, Chavez is not able to take the oath of office and dies?
What does it mean, Oliver?
What does it mean?
What does it mean?
What does it mean for the people of Venezuela?
As I say, the majority of the people truly benefited.
The standard of living went up.
Not all.
There's a very vocal minority that is against him, but they never won the elections.
In fact, I think Chavez won 13 of 14 elections.
I think he's going to be mourned as a national figure who changed Venezuela forever.
You have no idea how bad it was before him, the per capita income dropped for like 20 years straight.
People were fed up.
He represents hope and change, the things that Obama stood for in our country in 2008.
There you have it.
Chavez raised the standard of living in Venezuela just like Obama is doing in the United States.
And the low information viewers watching CNN, that's the message that they got.
What a great guy Hugo Chavez is.
There is expanded poverty.
The standard of living in that country has plummeted.
He's nationalized oil wells, oil businesses.
He's nationalized as much as he can.
The opposition is about as worthwhile as the Republicans in this country.
He's getting everything he wants.
And here's Oliver Stone to how life has so improved under Marxist socialism in Venezuela.
And it's exactly what Obama is doing here, raising the standard of living in America.
And because Allie Velshi, CNN, says that the American people totally understand economics, that's exactly what they think.
A New Hampshire legislator, New Hampshire legislator, wants her constituents to know that she thinks conservatives are the single biggest threat her state faces today.
She wants to use her powers to legislate to pass measures that will restrict the freedoms of conservatives who live in New Hampshire.
In a blog post made last month on the left wing site Blue Hampshire, 3rd District State Representative Democrat Cynthia Chase, and there's a picture of her here.
And that's all I'm going to say.
There's a picture here of Cynthia Chase.
And she advised her fellow legislators to use their positions to make New Hampshire less welcoming to any conservative or libertarian planning on moving in, not to mention those already in residence.
Now, for those of you who are unaware, a conservative project of sorts has been underway in New Hampshire since 2001.
And the idea is that Americans of conservative ideals are to move to New Hampshire, gather in communities, run for office, and work to drive the state toward libertarianism and conservatism.
There's a movement that has been orchestrated throughout the country to convince conservatives to move to New Hampshire and to make inroads politically and to try to wrest control of the state in a democratic fashion.
And that's why this state legislator, Cynthia Chase, is all upset.
And she thinks, and I've told you in the past that liberals consider us the biggest threat that they face.
Bigger threat than al-Qaeda, bigger threat than any terrorist group, bigger threat than any other nation.
The weak conservatives are the biggest threat they face.
And Ms. Chase here is making this abundantly clear.
So she wants to purposely use her powers to write laws to target individuals with whom she disagrees, take away their freedoms and liberties, and all in the hope that the citizens that she is oppressing might ultimately leave.
That's what her objective is.
Cynthia Chase wants conservatives to leave New Hampshire, and she wants to affect this by writing legislation that targets their liberty and targets their freedom.
Steve McDonald, the New Hampshire resident, says, you know, this sounds like tyranny to me.
Now, imagine, if you will, imagine if a state legislator had written a blog post targeting the freedoms of gays or targeting the freedoms of women, some other minority.
What if some legislator wrote a blog post said, we are never going to allow Justin Bieber into our state?
Can you imagine the hell to pay?
But people are now actually considering this since the target is conservatives.
Brief time out.
Open Line Friday.
We'll get to your phone calls quick, folks.
Don't go away.
Open Line Friday.
Great to have you.
El Rushbo here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Cynthia Chase, the legislator in New Hampshire who wants to target conservatives and limit their freedom so they'll leave.
I said there's a picture of her.
She looks like a Teamster.
Best way to describe it.
We'll link to it.
New York Times.
This is amazing.
This is absolutely amazing.
New York Times has a story.
Headline really says it all.
A gigantic sigh of relief as tax uncertainty ends.
Oh, yes.
Yes, my friends.
All across America.
Smiles of relief, sighs of relief, exhales.
Everybody can relax.
Taxes are going up on everybody else, but not you.
And there's no more uncertainty.
There's no more reason to worry.
No more reason to fret.
You see, raising taxes on everybody.
Well, I'm sorry, that did happen.
It's just that you don't know it yet.
Raising taxes on everybody normally would be horrible political news, rotten political news.
It would be bad for the party that did it.
But no, for the New York Times, it's a marvelous achievement for the Democrats and Obama because they've taken uncertainty off the table.
People can now relax.
It's done.
And it's fixed.
We've balanced the budget.
We've closed the deficit.
And everybody but your taxes are going up.
▲
Export Selection