All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 26, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:04
February 26, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my good friends all across the fruited plane, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists.
I am your guiding light Rush Limbaugh, with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair, serving humanity simply by being here.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
We had a nice lady call from Colorado Springs, curious about how the budget just expands and grows, even though there hasn't been a budget.
And the short answer is there's nobody to stop them, folks.
They don't have any self-discipline.
They're not spending their money.
They have an endless supply.
Most people in Washington obviously are not concerned with the annual deficit every year.
Obviously, most people of Washington, as of yet, not concerned with the growing national debt.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing this.
More likely scenario, the explanation is they don't think anything drastically bad's gonna happen anytime soon.
And when it does, they won't be here.
They won't be in office anymore, so they won't catch any heat for it.
But they don't have any discipline, they don't limit themselves.
It's not their money.
They don't have to earn what they're spending.
They get to spend your money.
They get to it's monopoly money to them.
There's absolutely no effort expended in earning it or producing it.
From the moment you're old enough to understand if you've had good parents, they tried to teach you the value of a dollar.
They taught you about earning money.
If you got an allowance, the purpose was to teach you how to spend it.
Teach you how to use it, how to conserve it.
It was to teach you about it.
And then when you got your first job, that was to teach you how hard it is to earn money.
And that it's up to you.
Now some people didn't get that lesson, but the members of Congress who did, none of that applies because this isn't their money.
Something called the tax code collects that money for them.
And even money that isn't collected, they get to spend because countries like the Chicoms and Japan lend it to them.
And as far as they're concerned, they're doing great things.
They're buying your health care, they're giving you food, they're buying you telephones.
They are giving you your retirement.
They're doing wonderful things.
And in the process, they're making you totally dependent on them.
As time has gone on, they have become the government, members of government, have become, in many cases, the dominant provider in people's lives.
Not the people themselves.
So all the lessons that you got growing up and that they got don't matter now.
But in your personal life, they do.
I doubt that most members of Congress, now everybody spends more than they earn.
It's done by borrowing and some people are irresponsible about it.
Some people aren't, but nobody handles their own money the way elected officials handle ours.
No matter how in debt they are.
They may even file chapter 7, chapter 11, bankruptcy, but they're they they do not handle their own money the way they handle ours.
And it's no more complicated than nobody's there to stop them.
And if you don't have leaders who are disciplined and understand the importance of proper budgeting, and making sure that we don't spend too much more than we take in, we're gonna have situations like this.
Now you can make it even worse.
If you have leaders who think this country was unjust and immoral as founded.
And if they believe that the rich in this country are rich because of secret deals that they had as powerful people with previous leaders in government who saw to it that they got all the spoils, then you see your role as making sure that this country is knocked down in size a couple pegs, because it hasn't really earned superpower status, and that's where we are now.
We have a president who doesn't believe in the legitimacy of this country as founded.
And he thinks 99% of the people in this country have been screwed and given the shaft by virtue of the kind of country this is since its early days.
And his job, as far as you're concerned, what he wants you to believe is that he is making it fair now.
He's going to take all that money for all these years that these rich people grabbed from government, and he's going to redistribute that money back to you and give you what has rightfully been yours all along.
In the process, he's going to inflict pain on these powerful rich people who've benefited from the rigged game in the stack deck.
He's going to inflict pain on them.
They're going to suffer now.
That's what he wants you to think.
And then you're going to get some of what they had, he wants you to think.
You're really not, but that's what he wants you to think.
So that's where we are.
And as far as the current president is concerned, he couldn't, obviously, he couldn't care less about debt, deficits, budgets, whether the country has the money to do that.
He couldn't care less.
In fact, the more we spend and the more irresponsibly we spend it, the better.
As far as his plans for the country are concerned.
The current services baseline was set up to allow government to have a guaranteed mechanism to grow every year.
Thank you.
The government's budget year begins October 1st.
So beginning October 1st, in the days that we actually governed ourselves with a budget, the current services baseline for the next year, starting October 1st, will be whatever we spend this year, with automatic increases for inflation and population growth.
However, those are calculated.
In addition to those automatic increases, there are built-in increases of anywhere, and these are arbitrary, anywhere from four to ten percent on each line item in the budget.
You say, how can they do it?
They just can, they just did.
Well, why does one department get 10% and one get four?
I don't know.
There's no answer.
It's just how it works out every year.
In the days we did a budget, there were negotiations.
It's like any piece of legislation.
House and Senate committees would put together the budget, they would uh end up with their own versions, they'd have to combine the two and come to an agreement, and we say this department's gonna get X, and that department's gonna get Y, the president signs it, we're off and running.
And that whatever that agreement is is the baseline for the next year.
Now, if you happen to be in a department that you expect to get an 8% increase, let's say health and human services, you're expecting an 8% increase, but somehow the negotiators only give health and human services a 5% increase.
The way that is positioned or portrayed is a 3% cut.
You're expecting an 8% increase, you only got five, so you got screwed.
You got a 3% budget cut.
When in reality, you got a 5% increase.
And that's whenever I'm telling you, you can bank on this.
Whenever you hear anybody in Washington talking about severe, drastic draconian cuts in food stamps, in school lunch for whatever it is.
Rest assured, it is not a cut at all.
It is a reduction in the rate of growth that was expected.
And that's what the sequester is, Folks, there are no real cuts here in this sequester.
When it goes into effect on March 2nd, we're not going to spend any less.
We're just not going to spend as much as was expected.
And thus we're being told we're facing massive cuts.
The government is going to spend, even with the sequester, more money this year than it did last.
That is thanks to baseline budgeting and thanks to baseline budgeting.
We're going to spend with whatever cuts there are in the sequester, they're merely reductions in what was the expected increase.
Otherwise known as the rate of growth.
But don't take my word for it.
Go ask anybody you want, or if you have initiative, go to the internet and simply do a Google search on federal budget.
Find the numbers.
And I will promise you, within your lifetime, you will never see an annual budget smaller than the previous year.
Not in total, not total government spending.
You will not see it.
Every year we spend more.
Despite all these draconian cuts that you've heard about.
Despite all the massive cuts in child health programs, despite all the massive cuts in senior aid programs, there aren't any cuts, as you and I know cuts.
There are only reductions in the rate of growth.
How does it manifest itself in your life?
Very simply, you do it yourself.
Usually on the spending side.
Let's say that you and a family decide you're going to get a new car.
And you look at what you can afford.
And basically what you look at is the monthly payment you can afford.
That's what you determine, not the overall price of the car.
You want to know what the monthly payment is.
So let's say you budget a monthly payment.
You got a car and it's running, everything's cool, but you just want a new one.
So you budget, let's say you can afford a new monthly payment of $500 that you're not paying now.
You determine you can afford that.
So you go out and you find a car that fits.
And in the process, you actually find a car you like that costs less.
You find a car that you can get for $300 new a month instead of $500.
What do you tell yourself?
You just saved $200.
But you didn't.
You're actually spending $300 a month that you weren't spending before you started the whole process of getting a new car.
But because you told yourself that you were going to spend $500, you found something you like for $300 that you're actually saving $200.
You're not.
The only way you'd be saving $200 is if you actually made the deal for $500 a month, started spending it, and then found a new deal that reduced that $500 to $300.
But you've never spent it.
Well, turn that around, and that's exactly how these clowns in Washington do their own spending.
They're allocated X amount every month or every year to spend, and they spend, then they're going to get less than that.
It's still an increase.
They tell tell themselves they just got a massive cut when they didn't.
Now, TARP is a separate TARPS and a TARP was a supposed one time expenditure that was theoretically off budget.
And it was for bailing out banks in distress and uh number of other things.
But it still ends up being added to the entire ledger.
Whether it was supposedly off budget or not, it's still what was spent.
And as such, it does, In a very trick analogy sort of way, end up in the baseline, even though it's off budget.
And even though not all of it has been spent yet.
And even at that, folks, remember what TARP was?
If we didn't do this in 24 hours, the world economy was going to collapse.
That was the nature of that crisis.
This was August September 2008, right before the election.
If we don't spend this money, if we don't bail out these banks, if we don't bail out these financial institutions, we're going to have a world collapse of the economic system.
Well, the Republicans initially opposed it.
They didn't agree to it for two weeks.
So a crisis that we were told would manifest itself in 24 hours.
Actually, we went through two weeks with no pain.
Then the Republicans finally agreed to it.
We needed $800 billion to stop a world financial collapse.
We still haven't spent $200 billion of it.
Now obviously there was no imminent world financial collapse.
That's just how we were frightened into supporting and agreeing with it.
And that's what they're doing now with the sequester.
And that's why I'm ashamed.
I'm I'm I'm ashamed that that leadership in this country has devolved to Neanderthall type insults to everybody's intelligence.
I'm ashamed we cannot honestly and intelligently from government to citizen deal with things honestly and straightforwardly.
That we have to create these phony contrived rivalries and crises.
That we keep people in a perpetual state of fear and crisis.
That leads to never-ending dependence.
And we're in the process of destroying the potential for greatness in a country, greatness upon individuals.
We're destroying people's humanity, their integrity, their dignity, slowly but surely chipping away at all that.
It makes me ashamed.
Greatest country in the history of humanity is devolving.
This TARP really was the first of this endless series of crises.
Maybe the budget battle of 95, actually, or the or the Bork hearings.
I mean, it's it's you can go back and find a logical explanation for when this whole technique began because it works.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, a brief timeout where we here at the EIB network, we still are very much into profit, obscene and otherwise.
A break right here, back in a moment.
Back to the telephones we go, Tallahassee, uh, Florida, this is Bob.
Great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Greetings, uh, former Marine Corps greetings to you.
Now, you say $15 billion more this year than last year.
Okay, now considering baseline budgeting, they get $15 more for every $3,700 they were spending.
Now, the question is if you're getting $15 more for every $3,700 you were spending, why are you laying anybody off in the first place?
Well, and that is another great question, and I have the answer if you can deal with it.
Are you ready?
Uh, we got the technology.
Go for it.
The president has total authority when the sequester happens as to what is cut.
Okay, so then that goes to the next question, the White House.
Do they have any particular departments targeted for cutbacks and consequences due to the sequestering?
Yes.
In fact, the the the uh associated press is reporting that the uh Department of Homeland Security is already releasing illegal immigrants who are held in immigration jail right now.
See now, Congress, if they had the backbone, they could make the White House explain all these specifically directed cuts in these various departments, and it would kind of go against Obama's uh what should we say, history of taking credit for anything.
Bottom line is is that that Obama and when you ask me why rush wide, it's the way the law is written.
Obama has the authority to allocate what or or decide where the cuts mandated by the sequester take place.
Okay, that's a good point.
So if he wants 800,000 civilian employees to Pentagon furloughed, he orders that done.
Now, is he Congress going to make him take credit for it rather than his standard history of voting presentable for anything?
They can't keep up with what's happening, much less Well, you and I are praying that they do, but you know, hey, we don't exactly have the confidence they will have, do we?
Well, not only that, let's say that they had somebody could go up and explain to the American people what I just told you.
Correct.
How many would believe it?
They'd say, oh, he's making that up.
They're making it up.
Obama's not governing.
Obama's camp.
It's just a Republicans doing this.
Obama is fighting these guys.
Obama's trying to prevent these cuts.
Well, it's just like when they were campaigning, Rahm Emanuel, what was he doing on the news?
All the time he's telling them, hey, never let a good crisis go to waste.
Exactly, right?
And that's exactly exactly right.
That's exactly where where we are right now.
And he he hasn't governed anything.
He's campaigned from one crisis to the right.
In fact, you know what?
Common cause, which is not a conservative bunch, common cause has just demanded that Obama shut down his permanent campaign.
The actual campaign organization, organizing for America, it's now been renamed organizing for action or organized for they've demanded that he actually just shut it down and start governing and stop this perpetual campaigning.
The limbaugh theorem proven once again.
The Daily Caller, ladies and gentlemen, has an interesting story.
It's actually a new report by Gallup suggests that the Republican Party is unlikely to boost its support among Latinos to much more than twenty-five percent.
No matter what.
Especially if they go for amnesty.
It appears that young Hispanic adults are going to remain lopsidedly Democratic throughout their lives.
And there is also no generational evidence at this point suggesting that they'll ever become Republican.
Says this report from Gallup.
It's out yesterday.
It combines data from Gallup's daily tracking polls of 26,000 Hispanics.
Yeah, yeah, this is not your usual sample of a thousand twenty-four.
Majorities or near majorities across all age groups among Hispanic adults identify with or lean toward the Democrat Party, including fifty percent of mid middle-aged Hispanics, fifty-nine percent of older Hispanics.
Now, you might say, why?
By the way, you might also, well, when was the GOP high point?
When did they have largest percentage of the Hispanic vote?
Actually, 2009 four.
2004, George W. Bush got 40% of Latino vote.
Now my thinking, well, if we did it once, we could do it again.
And it he got that without amnesty, by the way.
Wait a minute, 2004.
Yeah, he was he was no.
He pushed Amnesty 2006.
He was not pushing Amnesty in 04.
It came later.
Uh folks, there's a reason for this.
I have shared with you the scholarly research data, which proves, at least according to the data, that the Hispanic population of this country is not basing their vote on whoever's position on immigration.
It just so happens, according to the surveys done to these 26,000 Hispanics, and then extrapolating that across the U.S. Hispanic population.
They just happen to believe what the Democrat Party believes, and that is that the government's the primary source of prosperity.
They're liberals.
Now, I have to tell you that for most of my adult life, I have been hearing people like Jack Kemp, and not to single him out, but I'm just that far back, 90s, late 80s, I've heard Republicans say that Hispanics are natural conservatives.
Family values, uh particularly on social issues, uh hard work and so forth.
And I've always wondered why.
They don't vote that way.
Why does anybody think that?
Because the Republicans always said, well, they're there to be had.
We just got to improve our outreach effort.
Well, you know, we've been conservative pretty consistently here.
And I've just, it's a it's an it's a I think it's been another not-nut trick, but it's been a way the Republicans have been fooling themselves.
Anyway, the point now of all this is that the Republicans can author and be the sole sponsors of amnesty, and it isn't going to matter.
It's not going to win them the Hispanic vote.
And if the Republicans are, you're like the gang of eight Republicans or any of the others, if they are engaging in changing their position on illegal immigration primarily to attract Hispanic voters, it isn't going to work because that's not the primary issue they vote on.
They vote on economic issues and the belief that the government is the primary source of prosperity, not themselves.
I am not offering a criticism of the Hispanics here.
Do not anybody misunderstand me.
So the way to reach out to the Hispanic vote is to become big government Republicans.
And then somehow convince the Hispanics that you're better big government guy than the Democrats are.
According to this, now I happen to believe, and I have never changed it.
I happen to believe that an honest legitimate, genuine, cheerful, in his heart conservative who knows it, believes it, doesn't need notes to explain it, will attract a majority of every group.
I think conservatism is the answer to the Republican Party.
You know this.
You know that that's what I think.
But with Gallup putting out stuff like this, that there's nothing the Republicans can do, they're still going to think, because the Republican consultant class, and by that I mean that the group of people that are campaign consultants, they're going to be telling every Republican candidate, you're going to have to moderate on amnesty.
You're going to have to moderate on immigration.
You're going to have to get rid of this image you have of want to deport everybody and build a giant electric fence and keep everybody out.
And they're just going to ensure Republican defeat after defeat after defeat.
As according to this, the Republicans, there's no way they can outdo Democrats on big governmentism.
And they count, they can't outdo Democrats on amnesty.
All they can ever be is Johnny come lately on any of that.
They can't be the real deal.
The Democrats are.
All they can be is the tag-alongs.
It would seem to me, why don't you try?
Because it really hasn't been since Reagan.
Why don't you try?
Instead of nominating Northeastern liberals, nominate conservatives.
That's the one thing that has worked.
It's what worked in the 2010 midterms was the rejection of liberalism, the rejection of Obamaism.
I still maintain that that's what happened in 2010.
I know different electorate two years later in the presidential race than in a midterm electorate, I know, but still, you look at polling data, the American people, policy by policy by hollow by policy, disagree with Obama.
By the way, The limbaugh theorem is picking up traction.
It's gaining traction, although I'm not being named in it.
But I got sound bites here.
Republicans are demanding, Mr. President, stop campaigning.
Start governing.
The limbaugh theorem is.
I'll tell you how I arrived at it.
There's a lot of things that have never made sense to me.
How is it that Obama wins elections and has massive public approval when everybody disagrees with his agenda?
When a majority disagree with his agenda, when the majority think the country's headed in the wrong direction, and yet he wins election and is a positive approval number.
How's this happen?
And there's only one answer.
And that is that people do not associate Obama's agenda with conditions in the country.
People do not associate Obama's policies with the status of the country.
Because Obama is never seen as governing.
Obama is constantly seen as campaigning.
He is fighting these powerful forces that are making all these things happen.
Obama's the guy.
Like Obama said when he did the stimulus and he did health care, he's not going to do anything that adds a dime to the deficit.
Well, a lot of dimes are being added to the deficit, but people don't think Obama's doing it because he said he wasn't going to.
So it's got to be the Republicans that are doing it.
They do not blame Obama.
They see we're talking about the low information voters, and they are a majority of people who vote, folks, and they see Obama as fighting all this stuff.
They see Obama trying to create jobs.
They don't care it never met.
He had a council.
He talks about it.
He talks about the need to create jobs.
He's obviously trying.
He's working very hard.
That Bush created such a mess.
These other Republicans don't want Obama to succeed.
They don't want jobs created.
That's how this is all happening.
And he pulls this off by occupying this perpetual campaign position.
He's not governing.
And the meaning of that is he's not responsible for anything that's happening.
He's still fighting the people who are responsible for it.
And so common cause today, and but I got again, Eric Cantor, all these Republicans are now saying, get off the campaign trail, Mr. President, start governing.
I wonder where they heard that.
Doesn't matter.
And now common cause is demanding that Obama shut down organizing for America, which they've changed the name to organizing for action.
But they're now charging 500 grand.
You pay Obama 500 grand and you get to visit with him in the White House once.
He's still campaigning.
He's still raising money.
He's still running for office.
He's not occupying it.
As far as the low information voters are concerned.
That's how he's pulling this off.
And more and more people now are wising up to it.
And you can't negotiate with somebody who's not in power.
Stop and think about that.
But Rush, but Rush, he isn't.
No, no, we're talking perceptions here.
Low information voter perceptions.
Low information voters elected the guy, so that's who we're talking about here.
Back in a moment.
Ladies and gentlemen, Obama's out campaigning, and he just said, and I'm sorry I do not have the context of it, but I wanted to have it established that I mentioned this.
He's out, he said you can't do things by yourself.
Now I don't know who he was talking about or who he was talking to.
All I know is he has said you didn't bill it.
You didn't bill it on your own.
And now you can't do things by yourself.
So I don't know if he was talking to people and suggested you can't earn a living by yourself, or he's talking to the Republicans about the sequester.
You can't do things by yourself.
But what I know is that he's Well, I guess here he's saying you can't do things without government.
But I don't know who he was talking to.
I just saw this during the break, and I didn't have enough time to find out any context on this.
Okay, I understand.
Obama was once again saying he's not a dictator.
He's learned that he can't do everything by himself, that he needs a helpful Congress.
When he said I can't do everything by myself, or you can't do everything by yourself.
And folks, I'm sorry we're out of time, but we'll be back tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection