All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
February 20, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm surprised they even reported it, Snerdly.
Snerdley's in there having a cow right now for what CNN's doing.
CNN's got a graphic up there.
Jesse Jackson Jr. pleads guilty.
Sad day for the civil rights community.
Snerdley's uh very cynical.
What the hell did he ever do for the civil rights community?
You ought to be thankful they're even reporting it.
But you realize how few people care.
I mean, by the way, welcome back.
Uh great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh again behind the Golden EIB microphone.
The uh the son of the uh Reverend Dax Jesse Jackson Jr.
And uh and his wife pleading guilty here to the uh inappropriate use of campaign funds, fur capes and um who knows whatever else.
And it's uh sad day for civil rights.
I don't know why it's a sad day.
See, you and I don't think in these terms.
Uh you know, I uh when when Ronald Reagan uh died, oh, it's a bad day for the white community.
People just don't think this way, but but they do, and what so Jesse Jackson Jr. engages in some criminal activities that taint the whole civil rights community.
Not to me it does.
What did he ever do for it anyway?
What how he wasn't a sim.
I mean, I I don't anyway.
But it's part and parcel of the way CNN sees the world.
Bad day for the civil rights community.
Anyway, great to have you back here, folks.
L Rushball behind the golden EIB microphone, telephone number 800 two eight two two eight eight two, the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
If the Reverend Jackson had a son, wouldn't he look like Jesse Jackson Jr.?
Ha ha ha ha!
I wonder, you know, I say these things, you know, the left's out there they go outrageous, uh, get outrageous reactions.
They just have no sense of humor, and they don't understand that we relate things to things other people have said months or years ago.
Because that's you people listen every day, you're up speed, you know the context, things in this program.
But if you happen to be a Democrat and you just turned the radio and you heard me say that, you are probably smoking now, writing letters to the FCC and whoever else.
Low information voters to scratch their ears.
He does have a son.
And it is Jesse Jackson Jr., and Jesse Jackson Jr. looks like Jesse Jackson.
What is Limbaugh mean?
Anyway, uh, ladies and gentlemen, uh the Pentagon has just informed Congress that it will be furloughing its civilian workforce of 800,000 employees if sequestration goes into effect on March 1st.
Now the sequestration is $85 billion, so roughly half of that is defense.
$45 billion.
We've spent $50 billion on Hurricane Sandy Relief efforts in the area we're going to.
I think Obama proposed in his State of the Union.
$83.4 billion in new spending.
People have forgotten this.
The sequester's $85 billion, roughly.
The world is going to come to a screeching halt.
All kinds of pain and suffering will result.
$800,000 civilian employees furloughed.
Defense officials have warned lawmakers that sequestration will devastate the military and will lead to a hollow force.
But the civilian furloughs will be one of the first major impacts felt by the across the board cuts.
The Pentagon furloughs will affect civilians across the fruited plain.
Pentagon officials have said that civilians could face up to 22 days of furloughs, maybe one per week through the end of the fiscal year in September.
The employees received 30 days' notice before being furloughed.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wrote in a message.
We're doing everything possible to limit the worst effects on Department of Defense personnel, but I regret that our flexibility within the law is extremely limited.
The president has used his legal authority to exempt military personnel funding from sequestration, but we have no legal authority to exempt civilian personnel funding from reductions.
800,000 defense workers Civilian defense workers basically laid off.
If the sequester happens.
Now they have known that the sequester was coming since August of 2011.
This is all such smoke and mirrors.
It's so classic, it is the fear tactics, the fear mongering.
I got grab the soundbite.
I want you to hear it.
Obama's own words, November 21st at the White House 2011.
Obama speaking about the budget and talk of the Congress passing a bill to not have the sequester.
Congress, in fact, the Congress has passed a couple of bills.
That would that would prevent the sequester, but they haven't gotten anywhere in the Senate.
And here's what Obama said about anybody who might try to stop the sequester.
My message to them is simple.
No.
I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending.
There will be no easy off ramps on this one.
That's a year ago, a little over a year ago.
That's Obama, the White House talking about the sequester.
And anybody tries to stop it, he's going to veto the bill.
There'll be no easy off ramps, so today the Pentagon says, yep, 800,000 civilian workers furloughed.
Obama says, well, that's just the way it's going to be.
Will they collect unemployment?
Of course they'll get unemployment insurance.
There is no problem.
It's just a scare tactic.
It's you.
No, come on.
What if nobody notices anything is different in a sequester?
That's one of the things I'd like to see.
I'd like to see the sequester happen.
I want to see all these 800,000 furloughs because I don't believe it.
I want to see the sky fall.
I want to hear.
Let's go back to Obama.
You just heard November last year where he promised to veto any effort to stop the sequester.
This was Obama yesterday.
Emergency responders, like the ones who are here today.
Their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded.
Border patrol agents will see their hours reduced.
FBI agents will be furloughed.
Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go.
Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country.
Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off.
Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care, like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.
This is not an abstraction.
People will lose their jobs.
The unemployment rate might tick up again.
Now, this is what F. Chuck Todd was asking.
How long can they get away with this before people stop paying attention?
Because the sky never does fall.
The sky's going to be blue.
None of this is going to happen.
I'd like to see the sequester just to see no emergency responders show up at a fire.
I would love to see Border Patrol agents go home.
I would love to see FBI agents furloughed.
I'd love to see food stamps not be distributed.
Maybe not okay, not authorized.
Somebody goes in to buy a six-pack and some lottery tickets with the food stamp card, and it's it's it's it's rejected.
I'd like to see that.
I'd like to see air traffic controllers and airport security all see cutbacks, delays, No, no, don't.
You know what's going to happen now.
That's right.
The headlines, Limbaugh wants to see.
You know, that's what they're gonna do.
Limb you're gonna limb agrees With the Romney wants to see people fired.
Limbaugh eager for people's homes to burn down.
Limbaugh wants sequester to happen.
Limbaugh wants people to starve.
Limbaugh wants people to deny health care.
Limbo.
Limbaugh wants you to die.
That's right, Mr. Limbaugh.
We heard you say it, and now we're hearing you laugh about it.
You have no heart, Mr. Limbaugh.
This is what we've been thinking for decades about you.
The voice of the new cast, hundreds of a hundred thousand, eight hundred thousand Pentagon employees to be furloughed, then he said employment unemployment might tick up.
Look, let me tell you something.
This I just I was given an apt description of what this is.
This is a visual aid.
You put this up as a Pentagon informs Congress, 800,000 civilians furlough if sequestered.
You put that up on CNN as a Chiron graphic, and you've got a visual aid.
It doesn't matter if it's true.
Remember where people are on this.
The sequester is the Republicans' idea.
And it's the Republicans' idea because they hate people and they want people to suffer, and they want people to starve, and they want people to be kicked out of their homes.
They don't want people to get in the country.
They want people to get health care.
They don't want people to have any money.
So you put that up there, 800,000 Pentagon employees furloughed because of sequester.
The automatic assumption will be that's what the Republicans will.
That's that's why Panetta put the story out.
Not because it's really going to happen, but because it's a great visual aid.
Okay.
What's what is happening here?
These furloughs is uh just an attack on the defense.
It's aimed at the Republicans in Congress is all of this is about politics with Obama.
None of this is real.
And you got F. Chuck Todd in the media saying how long is this chicken little stuff gonna fly?
How many times are people gonna fall for this?
And of course, the answer is F. Chuck, as long as you tell them it's real.
Every time the president says this stuff, if you don't question the truthfulness of it, if you don't question the validity of it, if you just report it, and if you amplify it, all you have to do is echo it.
People are gonna fall for it, F. Chuck.
Particularly people who are the recipients of all these benefits.
They can't take the chance their stuff's gonna be taken away.
800,000 people furloughed from it.
I didn't know we had that many people left.
And the civilian side was Anyway, if the sequester does happen, none of this is actually gonna happen.
None of this, not none of these horror stories are gonna are going to take place.
And that then becomes the question.
When when the low information voters see that we can cut government spending and the world doesn't end, that that's something I don't think Obama can afford.
You know, he's he's not in a precarious position.
I don't care what the media says, but he does face some some dilemmas.
On the one hand, he would love the sequester because don't doubt me on this.
Obama as a classic leftist despises the military.
In any country, but particularly the American military.
It's the focus of evil in the modern world.
Not just Obama, the whole American left.
Military suffers a defeat, they're happy.
Military succeeds, it's not a good day.
So defense cuts, and with Obama being able to blame not on the Republicans, folks, that is made to order.
And then on the other side, all this other stuff, Republicans getting blamed for a head start, first responders to all that, it's made to order.
On the other hand, none of these horror stories are actually going to happen.
Air traffic control's not gonna shut down.
The firemen are not gonna start up, the federal government doesn't even pay them.
The cops are not paid, teachers are not paid by the federal government.
Doctors are not gonna stop treating people.
This is not going to happen.
But we've been through this.
The budget battle of 1995, the school lunch cuts, the mythical school lunch cuts, it's it's the same tactic that the Democrats have used.
The Republicans know that this is coming years in advance.
And, you know, Obama knows that all he's got to do is go out there and make a couple of really tough speeches like he did yesterday, and the Republicans will cave.
I mean, that's the history of this.
Now we take the Byron York story and the Washington Examiner, the GOP's astonishingly bad message on sequester cuts.
In a Wall Street Journal op ed today, House Speaker John Boehner describes the upcoming sequester as a policy quote that threatens U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more, close quote.
Boehner echoing Obama in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
Then Byron York said, wait a minute, it leads to a question here.
Why would Republicans support, I mean, the Republicans support the sequester?
They're on record as supporting it.
Even though it's Obama's idea, they support it.
It's the only way we're going to get some budget cuts, and they're infinitesimal anyway.
But the question is, why would Republicans support something that does what Boehner says it's going to do?
Threatens U.S. national security.
Thousands of jobs could be lost.
Vahner's calling the cuts deep when they're not.
No, I do not have an explanation.
I don't think that there is a reasonable explanation for that.
I don't understand it.
Don't have an answer for you.
It's too simple to chalk this up to incompetence.
It may be that, but that's too simple.
I don't have an answer.
I can't explain it to you.
All I know is that it doesn't make any sense.
All right, let's take a brief timeout.
We'll get your phone calls in on this.
And we'll continue with a sound roster roll right after this.
Don't go away.
Ladies and gentlemen as a public service.
I have been pondering the question raised by Byron York in his piece, uh, GOP's astonishingly bad message on sequester cuts.
Why would Republicans support a measure, a sequester that threatens national security, thousands of jobs?
Why would Boehner do this op-ed today?
As a public service, I've been thinking it makes no sense to me.
Sorry, I have no clue.
I've been thinking about it.
Because I realized that answer was not sufficient for you.
So here's my stab at this.
I think that what is happening here is that Boehner wants to deal with Obama.
I think Boehner writes this piece today because he does not want the sequester to happen.
He does not want to stand fast.
He does not want to hold the line.
I think in writing this piece, Boehner is attempting to blame Obama for all of this.
And it is Obama's idea.
The sequester is Obama's idea.
So I think what Boehner's trying to do is paint Obama with this.
Now I also know that the ruling class, the ruling elites in both parties in Washington, think that all this limited government stuff is caca.
They don't believe in it.
They don't think it's possible.
They don't talk about, they're not serious about budget cuts.
They're certainly not serious about reducing the size of government.
They're not serious about limiting its scope.
On the Republican side, the establishment side, what they're interested in is controlling the government and doing it smarter, they say.
And you've got the consultant class.
Don't forget them.
They advise these people.
And the consultant class, these are people that like big government, folks.
Republican consultants, They like big government.
They don't like this limited government stuff.
They think that people want big government.
They think that Bill Kristol said it a long time ago, and others believe that people we got to understand that we have to come to grips that Republicans have to understand that people want big government.
They want government services benefits.
They just want it done wisely.
They want it done smartly.
And they think don't go conservative.
Conservatives we can't start talking like conservatives are going to be cooks or going to lose that way.
They live in a bubble up there.
So they reinforce their own fears and their own weaknesses.
See, you and I, we don't think like liberals.
And we don't think like rhinos either.
And that's why my initial reaction, I don't have the slightest idea.
But I thought about it, and that's my theory.
So to close the loop, I think Boehner writes his piece to Wall Street Journal today to try to pressure Obama into making a deal.
I think Boehner writes this piece trying to paint sort of reverse fortunes.
Paint Obama with this disaster.
Shift the blame.
Force Obama to deal.
Because they don't want to stand pet.
The Republicans simply.
Remember, folks, they don't think like you and I do.
They're not focused on limited government.
And the Republican consultant class clearly is not.
These people are all, I don't know, devoted acolytes.
They are big believers in big government.
Maybe not as big as the left wants it to be, but they're clearly not in what you and I would call the limited government mode of thinking or mindset.
So I think they're also on the Republican side just defensive and maybe a little frightened, because they do get blamed for everything.
And if this sequester happens, you know, we we say we joke about there aren't going to be layoffs and there aren't going to be the Obama, if he wanted to furlough 800,000 defense workers, he could.
He gets to pick and choose on the sequester.
If they want to create photo ops that make it look like disaster is happening, they can do it.
And the media will help them right along with it.
So even though the sequester would not result in 800,000 defense workers furloughed, uh Obama calls Panetta to send them home.
Then just send 30 of them home, get a video shot of 30 people going home, put that up against your headline of 800,000 being furloughed, and you've got your photo op.
You've got your optic.
Go elsewhere through Obama's litany.
All you have to do is you know, go to JFK where they have flight delays every day and just show a flight delay board on the first day of the sequester, and just say, yep, air traffic control is uh really so many people not working today sequester.
They've got the ability to create optics to make it look like real pain is occurring because of the sequester.
The Republicans know this.
So I think they're trying to stop it, get Obama to deal.
Boehner writes the piece in the journal, paint Obama with some of this, shift the blame.
So you've got the ruling class going back and forth here on who's gonna take what percentage of the blame for this next maneuver, which is all designed, the ultimate objective of all of this, my friends, and I'm not trying to be a downer.
I'm educational here.
Trying to be informative.
The ultimate objective of all of this is to spend more.
The ultimate objective of all of this is to frighten everybody everywhere about what will happen if you cut a dime from the federal budget.
This is all about moving the ball forward under the premise that the government must grow and must continue to grow if you are to have any chance in life at all.
That's the ultimate objective here of all of this.
and the secondary objective is for Obama to continue to be seen as the outsider not governing.
He's the outsider campaigning trying to prevent this disaster.
When in truth, it's his policies that are causing it.
Now to the phones, as promised, Somerset, Massachusetts.
Hey Mel, I'm glad you called.
Thank you much for waiting.
Hi.
How are you doing, Rush?
Pretty good, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Listen, I was listening to you earlier about how, you know, Obama made that speech saying all these federal workers were going to lose their jobs and everything.
And it and it hit me really hard yesterday when I listened to the speech because it it infuriated me that this guy could lie this much to the American people and get away with it.
And if this is going to happen with the sequester, I say let it.
Let these federal employees feel exactly what the rest of us have been feeling out there out there for the last four years.
Okay.
I mean, you said earlier that uh in a on another show that I I listen to you a lot, so that government jobs are the only ones expanding.
And it it's like it's how how can they keep expanding government jobs when you don't have enough money to pay with you know pay for the stuff they have now.
So I I mean I I all the stuff you say just I mean, well, I understand.
But see, that's what I'm talking about.
You want the sequester to happen because you want if 800,000 Pentagon civilians get laid off, fine.
Get laid off.
Find out what the rest of us are going through out here.
Find out what it's like.
If your food stamp card is uh disabled, find out what it's like to not have any.
Find out what does it come?
I know you have this visceral desire for that to happen.
The problem is we're not talking about cutting enough money for any of that to happen.
In reality, Obama, look at I don't know the numbers end up becoming gibberish on the radio.
But look, we're talking about eighty-five billion dollars of cuts.
And not all at once.
Obama proposed eighty-four billion dollars in new spending in the State of the Union show.
We just authorized fifty billion on Hurricane Sandy relief.
Eighty-five billion dollars of budget cuts is like somebody making a hundred grand losing a quarter.
You wouldn't notice it, and you surely wouldn't care, and you wouldn't suffer and you wouldn't call a cops.
We're talking chump change here.
That the the disasters that Obama spells out are not gonna happen.
We're not talking about enough money being cut.
There were 800,000 civilians furlough from the Pentagon.
There's not enough money here to be causing that.
But they can make it happen as far as a photo op is concerned.
We're being lied to is the point.
We're being scared to death, fear-mongered.
And every seems like every month and a half, and every every three months, there's a new budget crisis and the same crap gets rolled out.
As I say, does it F. Chuck Todd, nightly news on NBC last night, said how long is this gonna go on?
How long can Obama get away with this chicken little stuff?
The sky is falling.
And the answer is as long as he's not called on it by you guys.
He's gonna get away with it.
Thanks, Mel.
This is Misty in Telford, Pennsylvania.
This Misty's one of my all-time top ten favorite female names.
Thank you, Rush.
You made me blush.
Let me tell you, I've had it a really long time, almost as long as the song's been out.
So here you go.
I remember that movie too.
I was a radio guy.
I will never forget that movie.
Yeah, bit frightening.
Um, as those of us who live in Realville, I want to use my favorite words that you use.
We as a very middle class family of five, three teenagers, self-employed husband, part-time working mom.
We have been sequestering for years now.
What are these people afraid of?
You know what I mean?
Do they act like the the bank is bottomless when in fact it is.
And I always have always told my children just because money is partially made of paper, it doesn't grow on trees.
So we need to un have this country understand that there is a normal balance and the pa the country will not fall apart.
Well, it's an interesting question.
Have you you've noticed, I'm sure, whenever anybody in Washington proposes a tax cut, the immediate reaction elsewhere in Washington is utter outrage and panic, and they say, Well, how are we going to pay for this?
They view a tax cut as the government losing money, and the government can never be permitted to lose money.
If somebody does something it takes money away from government, they go get it.
Now the same does not apply to you.
Of course, they'll come up with policies, take money away from you all day and new taxes, and they don't care what happens to you as a result.
And if you start bemoaning it, they call you selfish and greedy.
Right?
Oh, absolutely.
And you know, as as the mom of three teenagers in a in a day where everybody has every luxury on the planet, we've chosen not to do that.
To teach our children to to live a life of humility and and and to not expect things.
You don't go to the bank and get a lollipop every time you go, because then it's not a treat.
You give it once in a while, and you know, they they don't have every video game or whatever my I can say and have cell phones because we choose to make them I know where you are.
When you drive a car, you'll get a cell phone, that kind of thing.
I mean, life is not just handed over to you.
You need to do it.
But it is to government.
Government gets anything it wants any time it wants.
It gives away whatever it wants.
It can take from whoever, whenever, whatever it wants.
And as I say, the impact that it has on you do you know is another way to put this in perspective.
The sequester is eighty-five billion dollars.
The Federal Reserve is printing eighty-five billion dollars a month.
It's called QE3.
Quantitative easing, it's another stimulus.
The Fed is printing eighty-five billion dollars a month, and that money is being used to buy securities in the stock market, essentially to pump up and prop up the stock market.
They're printing eighty-five billion dollars a month.
You look at I don't get the Republicans, Democrats, they're all in a panic over cuts of eighty-five billion dollars.
The real truth to this, if we were if if we are to ever get on the road to genuine recovery, genuine progress in reducing the debt that is disastrous.
We're talking about cuts of trillions of dollars.
Until we're talking about cuts of trillions of dollars, we're not serious.
Cuts of eighty-five billion dollars over three or four years is inconsequential, and yet you see the utter panic that this is greeted with in uh i in Washington, and then you realize they don't have a dollar until they take it from somebody else.
They don't generate it, produ they print it, they borrow it, but that's it.
They don't produce anything.
And yet they take up an increasing percentage of the gross domestic product of the country.
Thanks for the call, Misty.
I appreciate it.
We'll be back and roll right on right after this.
By the way, c a couple of corrections here on this sequester.
I said that the Fed was printing eighty-five billion dollars a year, apparently.
They're printing eighty-five billion dollars a month.
Federal Reserve is printing eighty-five billion dollars a month.
The money is being used to buy stock.
Essentially, that's where it ends up.
It takes a circuitous route to get there, but it's propping up the stock market.
That's why Wall Street loves it.
That's why Wall, they're getting the money.
They're not concerned with what it's doing to The debt, the deficit, or any of that, because they're getting the money.
So all the big Wall Street Titans love this.
They love it.
It's propping them up.
Because you see, the stock market is a very public indicator of economic health.
As far as low information voters and others are concerned, stock market's doing well.
Everything else must be okay.
And one other number, the sequester.
The cuts in 2013 are not $85 billion.
$44 billion is what we're actually talking about.
So when Panetta puts out this number, 800,000 civilian workforce employees furloughed.
It's it's it just isn't true.
We're talking about 44 billion dollars of cuts this year.
I can't think of an analogy that illustrates how insignificant that is in relationship to our entire annual budget.
But it's pennies, folks.
And yet we're getting this never-ending panic mongering, fear mongering, end of the day, end of the world stuff.
And we're talking about 44 billion.
44 billion dollars is a rounding error on the spreadsheet.
It's not even $85 billion we're talking about this year.
It's it's it's $44 billion.
Grab Audio Soundbites 2223, Rand Paul on Anderson Cooper last night on CNN.
You gotta hand it to Rand Paul.
He's out there explaining the sequester only cuts the rate of growth.
That's another thing.
These are not actual cuts.
They're not cuts from a zero baseline.
They are cuts.
They are reductions in the rate of growth.
We're actually gonna still end up spending more money than we did last year.
Not what was projected is all.
Less than what was projected by baseline budgeting.
Wolf Blitzer says, All right, Senator Paul, are the Republicans willing to compromise to protect vital investments in education and health care?
You people in the media wonder why it is that we are you know the Republicans willing to compromise to protect vital investments in education and health care.
What did Obama write the question for you, Wolf?
The White House write the question, vital investments in education, health care, national security, and all the jobs.
Here's what Rand Paul said.
I'm not really willing to discuss it in the framework that he's made up for himself.
I mean, for goodness sakes, it was his proposal.
He proposed the sequester.
It was his idea.
He signed it into law, and now he's gonna tell us that, oh, uh, it's all our fault.
It's a pittance.
I mean, it's a slowdown in the rate of growth.
There are no real cuts happening over ten years.
And he's saying, oh, it's some dramatic thing where all of a sudden it's still the richest fault.
Didn't he already raise taxes on the rich?
I'm have trouble even understanding what he's talking about because he sets up this rhetoric and this sort of game of let's go get the rich again that really is divorced from any reality.
It's his sequester we're talking about, his bill.
And there aren't any cuts.
Wolf didn't hear a word of what he said.
Wolf says, well, what's the likelihood, Senator?
Congress will agree on avoiding all of these forced cuts.
Is anybody not going to stand up and call his bluff on that ridiculousness?
Cuts in the rate of growth should not have us laying off FAA air traffic controllers and meat inspectors.
This is the emotionalism that's always used to argue against any cuts.
This is not enough cuts.
I would say to the president, stand up and do the right thing and don't ask us to squeeze more money out of the private sector, which we think is bad for jobs in order for you to do the right thing.
Why doesn't he stand up and be a leader and just do the right thing?
And Wolf says, but what about these severe cuts that will happen?
I don't know.
Gotta go, though.
Brief timeout.
Backward more after this.
Folks get this.
The Cybercast News Service yesterday reported that there was an estimated $44 billion in estimated or improper Medicare payments last year.
GAO estimates $44 billion in fraudulent Medicare payments.
And those are the budget cuts we're talking about here?
I mean, this is all so much smoke and mirrors.
We ought to be talking about real cuts.
Significant sizable cuts.
▲
Export Selection