All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 6, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:49
February 6, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
I am Rushlin Boy.
This is the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
It's a thrill to be with you each and every day.
I look forward to it.
I can't tell you how much.
I literally get up every day and I can't wait to get in here and get started with all this.
I just I wish everybody could look at their job the way I look at mine.
It's not a job.
It's just something you can't wait to do.
And it's such a blessing.
It really is.
Telephone number 800 282-2882 in the email address Lrushbaugh EIBNet.com.
I mentioned in the first hour I was told I had not seen the story that I have made a top ten worst people in America list at the Huffing and Puffington Post.
I didn't know who else was on it.
I didn't know where.
Well, I knew I was number ten.
So naturally, somebody on the staff went and looked it up and sent me the others on the list.
I'm number ten.
Wayne Lapierre is number one.
And I just saw, look at all these celebrities joining the gun control fight now.
Tony Bennett and Chris Rock and all these other who have armed guards everywhere they go.
Armed security everywhere they go in public and probably in private as well.
At any rate.
You know, my New Year's resolution was to try to be less noticed, a little lower profile, be less controversial.
Here's already February.
I'm already number 10 on the worst person.
Doesn't say why.
Well, at least what I have here doesn't say why it might, they didn't send me that.
Here are the people on the list.
Wayne Lapierre.
Chris Brown.
Subway.
Is that the restaurant or the actual It's the restaurant?
Lance Armstrong.
The woman with the Have you heard about this?
The woman in Brazil who poisoned her husband.
She attempted to poison her husband.
Have you heard about I uh you know it this comes on the heel of this sickening story about the school in Carson, California that was closed down.
A five-year-old.
By the way, if you're just joining us, I uh I this we don't want to shock you here, and I'm gonna mention this again.
If you don't want to if you don't like discussions of a sexual nature, then I'm gonna count down from five and you can turn the radio down for a minute or so.
If you don't, you're flying on your own here and you can't complain because you've been warned.
All right, five, four, three, two, one.
Folks, I don't create the news, I don't live the news.
I'm just telling you what's happening out there, and it is a depraved world.
Five-year-old girl performing oral sex on a four-year-old boy, the father of the boy said, Yeah, it happened a lot.
They've shut down the school.
It's a Lutheran church school in Carson, California.
And of course, Snerdley, how in the hell does this happen?
Where does a five-year-old girl?
Well, one of two things.
She's seen it somewhere, or she's the victim of sexual abuse herself and knows of it that way.
Whatever.
It's uh it's depraved.
Uh five-year-old girls, four-year-old boy, and there were a number of shall we say, victims of this treacherous five-year-old girl.
Five years old.
Remember how how you felt when when um a ten-year-old killed an eight-year-old twenty years ago in Chicago?
So this is in the meantime, while all this is going on, we can't let them look at pictures of guns, these kids, and we can't let them play soldier.
That's dangerous stuff.
The woman in Brazil, a woman in Brazil attempted to poison Her husband by putting poison in her vagina and then luring him into oral sex.
That woman is on the Huffing and Puffington Post, top ten worst person in the world.
Pat Robertson is on the list.
Whoever started the uh uh the the feed on the dolphin that swam into the Gowanus and didn't die due to pollution, contrary to media reports, whoever did that, um Ranaya Tuyasopo, the guy who made up the fake girlfriend for Man Taiteo, he's on a list.
The Westboro Baptist Church is on a list of the worst people in the in the country, and then me on number 10 on this list.
So that's that's who's on the list.
And as I say, there's a growth opportunity here at number 10, and this is just February.
I mean, there's a chance if I play my cards right, by the end of the year could be in the top five.
You uh never know.
Phil Mickelson, I mentioned him in the last hour.
Last night, the Fox News channel with Neil Cavuto.
Uh Stuart Varney guest hosted, and he had Kate Keith Ellison, a congressman from Minnesota on.
Stuart Varney said, let's deal with the fairness question.
I want to talk to you about the case of Phil Mickelson.
California resident.
On every dollar that Phil Mickelson makes, he has to pay 63 cents to the state and federal governments in income taxes.
Is that fair?
Fair calls forth the question compared to what?
It's fair compared to allowing somebody who is surviving on minimal income like a senior citizen to cut home heating oil, which is what we're gonna have to do if the sequester goes into a place.
It's fair compared to asking poor family on food stamps to get by with less.
It's fair compared to say we're gonna cut on the investment that we make into innovation, medical innovation for brand new industries to put even more people back to work.
It's a matter of compared to what NIDAs love the way this floating definition of fairness gets employed by these people on the left.
Fair compared to what?
How about fair compared to Phil Mickelson?
How about fair compared to how hard he works?
How about fair compared to the irresponsibility with which government's spending and wasting the money it's collecting from him?
Anyway, Varney said, so you think that 63%.
The way to look at this, folks, throw the 63 number out.
Phil Mickelson keeps 37 cents of every dollar.
That's the way to put this in perspective.
That's the way to understand.
Keith Ellison just said, yep, totally fair that Mickelson should only keep 37 cents of every dollar that he earns, and he wasn't finished.
Asking Phil Mickelson for a little bit more money so that women and children can have a meal is fair.
Yes, I do.
I think it's fair to ask Phil Nicholson to for a little bit more money to make sure that we can continue to invest in infrastructure in this country and to make sure that groundbreaking research and medicine is paid for to make sure uh that people have the basics that college education is affordable.
It's fair to ask Phil Michelson to help with that.
As a patriotic American, I'm sure Phil Mickelson would agree.
Of course.
As a patriotic American, Phil would agree.
Do you realize how absurd this is?
We are in debt to the tune of close to 17 trillion dollars.
We have spent 17 trillion dollars that we don't have over the course of this nation's history.
But in the last four years, we have spent six trillion of that 17 trillion.
Obama is the owner of six trillion dollars of spending that we don't have.
We have spent six trillion.
I want you to just to visualize that.
We have spent six trillion dollars more than we have.
We have an annual budget deficit of one point Three trillion dollars.
We are spending money like it has never been spent before.
We're spending money two and three and four times on the same items.
Food stamps.
Forty-eight percent or forty-eight million, I've got forty-eight million Americans on food stamps.
There was a story in a newspaper the other day.
A woman was robbed.
She was robbed of her purse.
The purse cost $200.
In the purse was $800 of cash, a bunch of credit cards, and something else that cost $400 and her food stamps.
So a woman with a $200 purse, $800 in cash, and a bunch of credit cards is also on food stamps.
There are a whole lot of people on food stamps that ought not be, but the government is soliciting for them.
They're advertising for them.
In Mexico, we're running radio commercials advising future immigrants how to get on food stamps once they get in America, once they get into the country.
So we're spending $1.3 trillion.
We're spending three and a half trillion dollars a year.
And only two trillion of it do we actually have.
The rest we're borrowing or printing.
And yet here comes Keith Ellison.
Yeah, Phil Mickelson needs to pay more so that we can continue to invest in infrastructure.
So that we can make sure that groundbreaking research and medicine is paid for.
Government doesn't do any of that.
Drug companies engage in their own RD.
What is it but aside?
The government did pay for.
The government's spending all that anyway.
The government's spending all of that and more.
They're not spending much on infrastructure.
What they're spending it on to me is irrelevant here.
What Michelson or what Keith Ellison is doing is trying to make it sound like we're cutting back on all these items.
We're cutting back on infrastructure.
We're not.
We're cutting back on research and development for we're not cutting back on anything.
We're not cutting back on college education.
It's getting more expensive.
It's not becoming more affordable.
Phil Mickelson's money and everybody else's tax money is being irresponsibly spent.
In fact, the point of raising taxes anymore is not even about the money.
It's about punishment.
It's about punishing success.
It's about making sure that people do not become wealthy.
It's about making sure that people cannot build a nest egg.
That's the purpose of taxation.
Here we have a member of Congress who actually wants to make the case that it is patriotic.
That somebody should only keep thirty-seven cents of every dollar that they earn.
Under all of these false premises that we're not spending on infrastructure, that we're not spending enough on medicine, that we're not spending enough on infrastructure, that we're not spending enough on tuition, that we're not spending enough, and it's Phil Mickelson's fault to boot.
And therefore Phil Mickelson would be patriotic and he would agree it's necessary that he should pay 67, 63 cents of every dollar so that these expenses don't get cut back.
There aren't any cuts.
There aren't even any imaginary cuts anymore.
This is just flat out absurd.
This is this is bordering on banana republic totalitarianism.
This kind of thinking.
You know, the low information voters actually think they hear stuff like this, actually think we're cutting back on all these items.
We're cutting back on children's health care.
We're cutting back on research and development.
It's all because of the Republicans, too, don't you know?
And Republicans are causing this.
The Republicans are cutting all this spending.
There isn't any spending reduction.
We are spending money we're never gonna have.
And it's Phil Mickelson's Fault, by the way, and other rich people that all these items are being shortchanged, and they're not being.
This stuff irritates me like I can't begin to tell you.
This kind of demagoguery, this kind of lying to the American people, misrepresentation of things that are happening.
In the meantime, the amount of spending we're engaging in is unsustainable and it is causing great harm to the very fabric and foundations of this country.
The institutions, traditions, and all that that have made this country great, they're all under assault now.
And they're still not happy with all of this spending.
It's still not enough.
They still have to lie and misrepresent and try to tell people that all these precious items are being cut back.
And until we take 63 cents from Phil Mickelson and others like him, we're not going to be able to continue to fund these programs.
If we in this country only spent what we collected like everybody else has to in their life, we would still have plenty of money to do everything we're doing now.
I don't know.
If we only spent two trillion in 1987, we weren't even the federal budget wasn't even, what was it, 900 billion dollars?
I mean now we're up to two trillion, three and a half trillion is what we're the budget's three and a half trillion dollars.
This is absurd.
And in the midst of all this, they insult our intelligence and tell us that we're not spending enough yet.
He mentioned the sequester.
Ellison mentioned the sequester, and he said that the sequester is going to result in senior citizens having home heating oil cut.
That is just so untrue anyway.
The media is getting concerned about the sequester and the way the Republicans are playing it.
They're very worried about it.
I have a couple of sound bites to illustrate what I'm talking about.
We get back for the break.
Don't go away.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time.
I think the time is right to tell you the details, the relevant details about this sequester business.
Because it's another it's another news story or budget story that is being misreported.
It's being presented as the next crisis.
We may not be able to survive it.
It contains massive spending cuts.
Oh no.
And none of that is true.
Hey, Keith Ellison.
We need 63 cents of every dollar Phil Mickelson makes so that we don't cut back on infrastructure.
We just authorized 50 billion dollars for recovery efforts after Hurricane Sandy in the Northeast.
50 billion, it's infrastructure.
We're not shortchanging anybody in this country on anything.
The only people being shortchanged are the people that produce.
But here's another thing that just really gnaws at me.
Who the hell is Keith Ellison to dictate all this?
He's a congressman from Minnesota, big whoop.
Where is the constitutional authority for some hack federal politician to judge what anybody should or shouldn't have?
Who is he to get to sit there and say, other than he was asked the question, but he's some one of four hundred and thirty-five members of the House, big whoop.
So Keith Dellison thinks it's unfair for for Mickelson to pay anything less than sixty-three cents out of every dollar.
Well, where's his constitutional authority to judge what anybody should or shouldn't have?
What do you mean fairness in compared to what?
So he comes up With his own definition of fairness.
He comes up with his own theories on who ought to have what and who ought not have what.
And who has more than what they need, and then be able to use the law to impose that.
I'll tell you folks, it irritates me.
All of the lying and all the misrepresentative demagoguery that goes into all of this.
We're not cutting back on anything.
And the sequester is not that big of a cutback on anything either.
We're not reducing spending.
We never have reduced spending, and there's no reduced spending on the table.
Nobody's even proposing any.
And this guy runs around and talks about, tries to make people think that we're going to close down colleges, we're going to close down hospitals, we're going to close down repairs on roads and bridges.
And Obama does it all the time.
Using all of this fear.
Now this newspaper says Brunswick, Georgia, or Brunswick, Maine.
Here's the little blurb in the newspaper.
A woman said she noticed her purse missing from her car just before five o'clock Sunday afternoon.
The car was parked at her residence on Hornet Drive.
The woman said the car had been locked and that the purse was in the back seat.
The purse was valued at 400.
Her wallet was valued at 200.
And she said there was $800 in cash in the purse.
This, according to the police report.
Also missing were the woman's food stamp cards.
Oh, poor woman.
Oh, isn't it just the case, folks?
$400 purse, $200 wallet, $800 in cash.
And her food stamp cards are missing as part of the theft.
L. Rushball, having more fun than a human being, should be allowed to have.
All right, um, look, I'm really short on phone calls.
I've only taken one, and I'm gonna get to the phones in a second, but I've got, since I mentioned, squaring this whole business on the sequester, because it's another thing it's being demagogued, and it's another thing that's being portrayed as draconian spending cuts that people may actually get really hurt by.
And we go back, we got to avoid the sequest oh gee.
You know, it was Obama who told us we would never go do to go through the sequester, but now they're getting concerned over at NBC.
On the Today Show today, the co-host Savannah Guthrie spoke with the White House correspondent F. Chuck Todd.
And she said, the sequester.
The sequester, those automatic spending cuts.
Oh no, they're set to go into effect in a few weeks, F. Chuck.
And for a while, both sides seemed to fear them equally.
We're supposed to push them to the bargaining table to sequester automatic cuts in Medicare and defense.
But now Chuck hearing the Republicans say that maybe these defense cuts that they can live with it.
It'd be big deal.
Chuck, are the Republicans Republicans negotiating?
Is that what they're doing?
Or do they really mean it?
You think that would possibly happen?
Chuck, do you think the Republicans are serious?
They don't care if the defense budget's cut and a sequester could go into effect, Chuck, could that really happen?
You have a lot of newer members, Tea Party conservatives, those folks who have come to Washington last four years who simply said, hey, if this is the only way President Obama's gonna cut spending, then why not?
Maybe we're not happy that it's on the defense fund.
Why not?
So if Republicans go in that direction, I don't see how it is stopped.
I don't see how if House Republicans decide to let him go, not sure where the president has leverage here.
Oh no, Obama doesn't have any leverage.
Oh no!
There might actually be some spending cuts.
Oh no!
Savannah Guthrie was asking if Chuck, the Republicans mean this, Chuck.
They really not care there would be spending cuts, are they just negotiating?
Could this possibly happen, Chuck?
Chuck says, yeah, it could really happen.
You got these Tea Party kooks and these fruit cakes in there, and they don't care.
They don't care about anything.
They don't care about the country, they don't care about themselves, they just want to cut spending.
These people are insane.
And if this is what it's gonna take to cut spending, then yeah, they're all for it.
And I don't see how it stopped, Savannah.
I don't see how it stopped.
I don't see how.
If the Republicans in the House decide to let them go, I don't know what leverage our president has here.
So they're in panic.
The drive-bys are actually showing some concern here in a way that they haven't in past battles between Obama and Congress.
They're really worried here that the Republicans might win this because they just don't care anymore.
Now we move over to CBS this morning.
The co-host Nora O'Donnell spoke with the political director, John Dickerson.
This is the guy who wrote that piece about how Obama should just annihilate the GOP while he can.
And Dickerson's worry is Obama seems nervous now.
Nora O'Donnell said, another deadline in Washington, John.
Another proposal for a short-term fix without any specifics in how to do it.
Thousands of people facing job losses, John.
They're actually talking about spending cuts.
You know what people might starve, they might lose their jobs, people might lose their health care, they might lose their cars.
We might have to close some highways, the schools might be shut down.
What are we gonna do, John, if the House Republicans don't wise up?
I mean, this is serious.
The House Republicans gonna be able to gain the political upper hand here, John, or is the president going to be able to?
What Republicans see in this latest move from the president is a little bit of nervousness on his part, which is to say that the economic damage of these constant battles is actually something he's now more worried about than, say he was in the last fights we had over the debt limit and the fiscal cliff.
Oh, my heart bleeds.
I am I'm so sorry for Obama.
I feel really bad here because John Dickerson just said here that uh President is a little nervous of the economic damage of these constant battles.
It's something he's now more worried about.
He ought to be worried about the economic damage that he has wrought, and the fact that he's not worried about it convinces me that he's not worried about this.
Now, here is best I can explain this to you.
And there may not be anybody better.
By the way, Snerdley thinks I've moved up to number eight on the Huff Poll.
Worst person list because of my story on the woman who lost her purse and her food stamps.
I'm only halfway through the show may have moved up two points.
Really?
What was what what what was bad about I read what was in a newspaper.
Well, she a poor woman, she lost everything.
She lost her purse, she lost uh uh the wallet, she lost eight hundred dollars in cash.
And of course, in journalism, I tell you what's in the last part of story is most important, she lost her food stamps.
Poor woman.
I was I was mocking her.
I was mocking her loss of food stamps.
What I was mocking was the absurdity that the woman has food stamps.
Okay, moved up to number seven with that list.
Okay, I'll keep going if that's all it takes.
Anyway, here's the sequester.
As you know, the sequester is a form of punishment or threat.
When the two sides a year and a half ago or two years, whatever, Boehner and Obama were arguing about the that the debt limit extension at that time.
They came to an agreement that said if they don't get together and come up with some serious compromise on spending and debt limit and so forth, then X is triggered.
And that would be it's called the sequester.
And what gets triggered are automatic I think it's $500 billion in defense cuts and $500 billion in Medicare cuts over like 10 years or 12 years or some such thing.
And the reason this was supposed to have worked is because the Republicans just love the military.
They just love launching missiles and firing bullets and killing our enemies.
And the Democrats love giving people health care and curing them of sickness and making sure that life is utopia.
And since neither party would like to be denied what it really likes doing, killing people and saving people, that they would come together and there'd be an agreement and the sequester automatic spending cuts would not happen.
Now, and Obama promised in one of the debates, sequester is not gonna happen.
He promised it's not gonna happen, don't worry about it, it won't happen.
Meaning that he was intent on coming to some kind of a deal with the Republicans in the House that come up with other ways to control spending the debt, so sequester wouldn't get triggered.
Now the media's all worried that that isn't gonna happen.
A sequester will get triggered, the Republicans have the upper hand because they don't care that the military will get cut.
That's all it takes.
All the Republicans have to act like they don't care.
And the other side, the media says Obama's feeling nervous now.
So where we are now is that the thing the Republicans supposedly love the most, uh big, vicious, armed, mean, killing machine, the U.S. military.
Okay, go ahead and cut it.
We don't care.
That's making a Democrat's nervous.
So what is this really?
All of these spending cuts, defense, Medicare, social spending, whatever, they're being portrayed as draconian, as every spending cut always is.
And it's going to be really painful.
I mean, a lot of people really hurt by these spending cuts.
I mean, they're really big and they're really drastic.
But as usual, they aren't.
See, the current services baseline is the magic that makes sure there is never ever a real budget cut.
And so it will be in this case.
Now the current services baseline calls for the federal government to spend forty four point eight trillion dollars between now and twenty twenty two.
In other words, they go ten years out with all these budget projections.
The budget every year is done for that next year, but there is always a 10-year projection.
Nobody's ever held to it because you can't constitutionally bind future Congresses in items like the budget.
That's why there has to be one every year.
There has to be a vote by law.
Democrats have not done it, but there has to be.
So in the latest 10-year projection calls for, and this is Obama, CBO, doesn't matter what, the 10-year projection, current services baseline calls for the federal government to spend $44.8 trillion between now and 2022.
That is on the books.
Now, you know what the baseline is, current services baseline.
It is the magical device by which every line item in the budget automatically increases anywhere from 3% to 8% every year, regardless how much money was spent on that line item the previous year.
It just automatically goes up.
So let's say that spending on road repair, just to give you an item here, was scheduled to go up 8% next year, but it actually only goes up 5%.
That's when the Democrats start howling about a budget cut.
And they accuse the Republicans of massive, draconian budget cuts, when in fact, we're going to spend 5% more than we did last year, just not the 8% that the baseline called for.
So the baseline says that for the next 10 years, we're going to spend $44.8 trillion.
The sequester that everybody is panicking over, the sequester part of the debt deal, the sequester, these automatic spending cuts, would reduce the increases to the baseline budget by $1.16 trillion.
So instead of spending over 10 years, $44.8 trillion, we would spend $43.7 trillion over, ten years.
Amortized over ten years, it is a rounding error.
It is inconsequential, like every supposed spending cut always is.14 trillion dollars more in 2022 than it does today in inflation adjusted dollars.
So even if the sequester happens, the federal government's gonna spend more money.
The annual spending on discretionary programs will still increase by $90 billion over the next ten years.
After ten years of the sequester, by 2022, spending will consume 23% of GDP.
And the sequester was Obama's idea, by the way.
Don't forget that was his proposal to get everybody to come to the table, negotiate in good faith.
So, yes, there are reductions in spending, but they are as always for the most part reductions in the rate of growth, and they're amortized to spread out over ten years.
It's chump change that we're talking about here, as every spending cut always is.
Emily in the state of Washington.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi, Emily.
I'm glad you waited.
Hi, Rush.
It's an absolute honor to talk to you.
I'm so excited.
My dad's been listening to Rush as long as I can remember, so I guess I'm technically a Rush baby, but.
But um, I have three babies of my own, so I am fully engaged in this battle and trying to get conservative values back onto the platform for most of America.
Excellent.
So my question is, as I'm as I was awfully discouraged of the election results, and I'm just trying to hone in on something I can do, and it's like who can we reach?
So I'm wondering, isn't there some classification of Obama voters?
They're not on the government dole.
They just aren't rational.
They're just not seeing the rational, reasonable conservative.
Yes, this is one of the reasons, it's a great question.
It's one of the reasons that I remain optimistic.
I do not believe that every Obama voter voted for this.
I don't believe people, a large number of them.
I don't believe yet that a large number of people who voted for Obama actually voted for what's happening and what's going to happen.
I think there were other factors that that led them to it.
Uh and they're gonna be shocked and stunned.
That's what I firmly believe.
Gotta take a brief break here at the top of the hour, local news, whatever else happens, and we will be back revved up, ready to go for our final busy broadcast hour.
▲
Export Selection