All Episodes
Previous Next
March 12, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:52
March 12, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limboy here behind a golden EIB microphone, and I must say there are times where I think it's just hopeless.
It's it's we're just lost, and they're just we're broken irretrievably.
And now is one of those times.
They just closed the doors to the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican.
I mean, literally minutes ago, they just closed the doors, and every cable network has a camera focused on the smokestack with a graphic that says waiting on papal smoke.
They just closed the doors.
How can you imagine a low information voter tuning into the this is just it's it's just the Academy Awards for the Catholic Church.
Who's gonna get best film, best director?
It's just we're just choosing another celebrity here.
There's no speaking of gravitas, there's no gravitas to this.
It's just another celebrity watch.
Yeah, man, it's really cool, like all those guys in those long red coats who just walked in that room, man, and they're gonna vote, they're gonna send smoke up, and then we're gonna know where we got a new one.
Wow, really cool, man.
That's it.
It's just it's I don't know.
To me, it's maybe I'm showing my age.
I don't know.
It's just a cheapening of the whole process and and turning it into what everything else seems to be turned into these days, and that is a celebrity event.
Look at right the CNN waiting for papal smoke.
They've got the the chimney and a little screen within a screen.
And the lower right hand corner.
Cardinals now locked away.
They've been in there for two minutes.
They probably haven't even finished saying hello to each other.
Have even begun to pray yet.
We're already waiting to see if the new Pope will acknowledge homosexuality and gay marriage and bring the church into modern times and once again make it relevant.
Anyway, that's just me.
Welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh 800 282282, the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Paul Ryan is the Republican in the House who is the budget expert.
He is in charge.
Essentially, he leads the team that writes the Republican budget, the Republican blueprint.
In this case, it is a document that seeks to balance the federal budget in ten years.
This is something the Democrat Party has never proposed.
They have not proposed a budget in four years.
Obama has, but it's never had a prayer.
His budgets have been so unrealistic that Obama's budgets have yet to get even one vote from any Democrat.
Not one Obama budget has ever gotten a vote from a Democrat.
The Democrats in the Senate have never presented a budget.
We haven't been operating on a budget.
The Republicans at least accepting the responsibility, and Ryan once again has presented a document that balances in ten years if it were to be adopted.
Now, there are people that don't like it, even on the Republican side, because it has tax increases in it.
Some would say tax increases on the rich.
It leaves some of Obama's big tax increases in it.
But it would totally repeal Obamacare.
Let's first get into this by listening to Congressman Ryan himself from this morning in Washington.
He had a press availability where he explained the first thing he did was show a chart, which can't see it, obviously, it's radio, but he shows a chart that tells us the path that we're on.
And it is inescapable to anybody who sees it.
We're headed to ruin.
We are headed to absolute financial collapse.
And he's got a charts that a chart that illustrates it, and then he said this about it.
This is the picture that should scare everybody.
This is the picture that shows you the path we are on today.
We know, without a shred of doubt, we are consigning the next generation to an inferior standard of living.
We know, just like in Europe, we are facing a debt crisis in this country.
And a debt crisis hurts everybody.
But the people who a debt crisis hurts the most are the poor, the elderly, the people who need government the most.
They're the ones who get hurt the first and the worst in the debt crisis.
Now, Obama has uh the press has categorized Obama's outreach as a charm offensive.
He's invited the Republicans to dinner, talk about the sequester and any number of things.
Charm offensive.
I thought Obama had natural charm.
I didn't think it took an offensive in order for the charm to be seen.
I thought people wanted to hang with Obama regardless, whether he invited them or not.
Anyway.
What in this next bite, uh Ryan characterizes his plan as an invitation to Obama.
This is not only a responsible, reasonable balance plan, it's also an invitation.
This is an invitation to the President of the United States, to the Senate Democrats to come together to fix these problems.
We don't think it's fair to let critical programs like Medicare go bankrupt.
We don't think that it's fair to take more from hardworking families to spend more in Washington.
The most important question isn't how we balance the budget, but why.
A budget is a means to an end.
An end is the well-being of the American people.
An end is a growing economy that produces opportunity and upward mobility.
What he means with the objective, not the end of times, the end.
The objective here is a growing economy that produces opportunity and upward mobility.
The objective is the well-being of the American people.
It's it's it's a means to that end.
And it's an invitation to Obama.
Obama said he's willing to talk to anybody who's got a good idea.
He never does, but he says he's willing to.
So here's Ryan with his invitation.
Senate reporters got in on the action, and they are still outraged because his his budget by the way, you may wonder, he always references the Senate Democrats, but never the House Democrats.
Why did anybody consider them?
They don't have the votes to stop anything in the Senate right now.
That's really a crucial point, by the way.
But the Democrats in the Senate are going to have to sign on to this if it's to even have a chance.
It doesn't need a single Democrat vote in the House, because the Republicans have a large enough majority that they can they can dictate what comes out of the House.
The Democrats can't stop it there, but they can in the Senate, and that's why the focus on the Democrats in the Senate.
But his budget does call for the full repeal of Obamacare.
And the media is outraged that he's still trying to do that.
A reporter said we always hear the generals sometimes fight the last war.
Why are we going to go through this again, Congressman Ryan?
Or is this just a key tenant because it's such a big part of spending?
Did you feel you had to include the repeal of Obamacare?
Otherwise it wouldn't pass the House of Representatives.
Why why why do you care about this still?
When Americans see exactly what this law entails, which they have not seen all of these details.
Those of us who work on these oversight committees who know what's going to happen to the provider networks, who know what's going to happen to people when they lose their health insurance at their jobs, they're not going to like this law.
This is why we're not only repealing this law, because we don't think we can afford to borrow 1.8 trillion dollars in extra spending this law entails.
We think we can replace it with a better health care system.
And that's also something we're going to be proposing.
Not only are we saying here's how you save and strengthen Medicare for current and future generations, but here's a better patient-centered system to replace Obamacare.
What they're saying, and and in Ryan's case, he's totally serious, and he's being apolitical in this.
Obamacare is unsustainable.
Obamacare is an absolute disaster.
And he's right.
Most people don't yet have any idea how it's going to affect them once it's fully implemented.
Did you see the story of the uh one of the franchise owners for that that hamburger chain, five guys hamburger chain or whatever.
Uh uh we're we're we're we're gonna have to get rid of a whole bunch of employees, get down to mostly part-timers.
We can't afford Obamacare.
We can't stay in business with it.
The prices are gonna go up and the consumer's gonna pay for it.
That's the only way my employees can have health care is if I raise the price of the food here and the customers pay for it.
And he's worried the customers aren't gonna have any money, nobody is, because of the budget situation and the economy.
So Ryan is saying here, look at we've read the bill, we've studied it, we in the subcommittees here.
We know what's gonna happen to people when they lose their health insurance at their jobs.
Most people don't know yet.
Hasn't happened.
It's down the road a year, a year and a half.
Most people aren't gonna like it when it happens.
Now, as it stands, a growing majority don't like Obamacare.
An increasing number of people don't like it, but there's nothing that can be done about it other than try to repeal it.
And there are some Republicans still trying to do that.
They deserve full-fledged support.
Ted Cruz, here Paul Ryan.
Um a number of them are refusing to accept defeat on this.
And what's frustrating is there are conservative media figures and even elected Republicans who think they're being magnanimous.
And they're out there saying, well, you know, it's the law of the land now.
And we lost the election.
And they get to do what they want.
And we gave it our best, but we conservatives abide by the law, and that's the law of the land, and we shouldn't try to do anything about it.
Now we do the same thing when Democrats are elected, we say, well, they're entitled to the judges they want.
That's what winning elections means.
So if they want some communist despot to be on a Supreme Court, nothing we can do about it.
They won the election.
And part of that, as I'm sure it is now, is there is this blind faith hope that by being nice and magnanimous, that when the tables are turned and the Republicans win the White House, that the Democrats will let us have our judges.
But of course, never happens, does it?
They not only prevent or try to prevent the confirmation of the judges, they set out to destroy them.
As they did with Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork and uh uh uh Samuel Alito.
They try to destroy, and they say these judges are out of the mainstream.
What do we do?
We say they won the election, they get their judges.
Well, you know, Obama won.
He gets Obamacare.
Thankfully, there are three or four Republicans who are saying, uh sorry, we're not through trying to get rid of this.
And Ryan is one of them.
Well, long as I say with Ted Cruz.
Because it's utter disaster.
May cause a revolt when people start figuring out what's gonna happen here.
Health care, uh, aside from gay marriage is the most important thing to people in their lives.
It is, snurdly, I'm telling you.
The we you remember the call we had from the um the army wife who's been shut out.
Husband's deployed in combat.
She can't.
She's pregnant, she can't, got some cysts, she's told us she can't get treated.
Nobody will cover her.
People think health care is a right.
And even those who don't consider it a right think that you ought to be able to go to the doctor and get treated and be able to pay for it.
And believe me, the day's coming where it's gonna be far, far more complicated than that it already is.
So let's stick with the soundbag.
Let's go to Jay Carney, the White House spokesman.
Jay Carney this afternoon got a question from Jim Acosta, CNN about the Ryan budget.
He said it does away with Obamacare.
And I was just curious, Jay, does the president of the White House view that as bargaining in good faith?
Some people call this delusional.
Number twenty-six.
House Republicans have voted more than thirty times to repeal Obamacare.
That seems at some point to be time not well spent.
There's a choice here.
Either you uh reduce the deficit or balance the budget, as he says, uh by uh having to raise taxes on the middle class and voucherizing Medicare and all the other uh deep cuts and unnecessary programmatic changes.
The result is that the middle class ends up paying for tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
After all, those in the top bracket would see something like a 37% tax cut.
37% tax cut from 39.6 to 25 percent.
That's pretty hefty.
I am I'm sorry to have to tell you that that's not part of the Ryan budget.
In fact, the Heritage Foundation has done a deep analysis of this.
One of their problems with the Ryan budget is, and they do have problems with it, is that hefty tax increases of Obama's are maintained.
They're kept in it.
They are not done away with.
You know, if I were Jay Carney in the White House, and this may never happen, but I'd be a little worried.
They got one song now.
Tax cuts for the rich.
If that ever stops working for them, where are they gonna be?
Because that's the only song they sing now.
Everything that the Republicans do is tax cuts for the rich.
And if the public stops buying that down the road, then what do they have?
We shall see Ed Henry at Fox News, then zinged Carney.
He said, Jay, how can you attack the Ryan budget?
When you stand here, you don't even have an Obama budget.
How can you attack his?
The President will be putting forward a budget in the next several weeks.
As you know, Ed, the President has put forward uh a proposal that will be reflected in his budget and the principles uh will be reflected in his budget.
Uh and that proposal, as you know, because you covered it, that he made to the Speaker of the House, demonstrated his willingness to find common ground with the Republicans on both revenue and entitlement cuts.
Sadly, the Speaker has not taken it up.
In fact, he declared he would never negotiate with the president again, which was uh uh a rather stark proclamation.
Uh, why don't you just take everything out of context?
You people up there are so dishonest and disingenuous, it's it's silly to even try to keep up with them.
That's a good point.
You guys don't even have a budget.
You haven't submitted, you haven't we haven't had a budget in four years.
What are you doing ripping this one to shreds?
At least somebody's trying to balance the budget, Jay.
No, you're just trying to cut taxes for the rich.
The five guys hamburger franchise owner, you know, he said, he said his employees, when he told them his employees had no idea what was involved in Obamacare.
He sat them down and he explained what the rules are for his business and what he's gonna have to do in staying business.
He didn't know.
They didn't know.
His employees had no idea what was involved.
He said they did not know that there were penalties if they didn't buy health insurance.
The employees at Five Guys Hamburgers did not know that if they don't buy health insurance, they get fined.
They didn't know it.
And I'm telling you, folks, low information voters have no idea about that.
They have no clue.
They don't have the slightest idea.
I'm Mount Vesuvius is waiting to erupt.
Now, you people watching TV, the papal smoke and all that, so eager to see smoke, go light up instead of cheapening this episode here.
By the way, folks, why are we worried about watching smoke?
Anyway, isn't Michelle Obama gonna announce the new Pope?
That's how we'll find out.
Be patient.
They'll set a camera up there in the diplomatic reception room.
Novatican will tell her, and that's how we'll find out.
Beverly in Melbourne, Florida, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello.
Hi.
Hi.
Don't tell me we got a bad sell canim.
Are you there, uh, Beverly?
Yes, I'm here.
Okay, well, go.
Okay.
Well, I just wanted to give my opinion about how the government could save some money on this research about fat lesbians and skinny uh homosexuals.
Okay.
It's like the lesbian woman, really, she doesn't have to deal with a uh visual, uh shallow man.
She just has to please her partner, and usually women are uh less concerned with physical attributes and and more concerned with a uh internal like um you know their the way they speak and their personality and so forth.
And the homosexual man, he has to please a man who is visual and shallow.
Therefore, if a woman doesn't want to give up all your cookies and it's okay with our partner, no big deal, okay.
So just just to make sure I understand this.
You think the reason that there are fat lesbians is that women are not that concerned with the physical attributes of the object of their love.
Exactly.
And men are.
Men require the body, men require the good looks, men require all so gay guys gotta stay in shape for the potential partner, but lesbos, it doesn't matter as long as there's tea and cookies and a and a warm bed and uh and and love and intellectual intimacy, emotional intimacy.
Yeah, right, intellectual intimacy.
Intellectual intimacy.
There you go.
And big boobs.
Intellectual intimacy.
Yes, I've never thought of it that way.
But well, you may have a point.
Who really knows?
You know, folks, our last caller may have really nailed a point.
Because I think women will agree with me when I say that in an in just in a normal ebb and flow of things, appealing to men takes a lot of effort.
You you could say that if it weren't for shallow men, everybody'd be fat.
But these shallow men focus only on looks.
And so women work very hard to appeal to these guys, but women don't care as much.
That's her point.
And she said, I just give me the million and a half now, because I can tell you why lesbos are fat.
It's other women are not nearly as judgmental, it's not nearly as hard to please them.
She may have a point.
In um in New York, a judge yesterday invalidated the city's plan to ban large sugary drinks from restaurants and movie theaters and other establishments.
One day before the law was to take effect today.
State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling said in Manhattan rule that the uh the new regulation was arbitrary and capricious.
He declared it invalid after the American Beverage Association and other groups sued the city challenging the uh the ban.
Now the mayor, Mayor Doomberg got all this started.
He's not a legislator, he's a mayor.
If he wants to make sugar a controlled substance, be able to ban the size of soft drinks, he needs to get the legislature to pass such a such a bill to that effect.
And then he needs to get the governor to sign it.
The judge said he can't just do this by executive order.
And Doomberg is not happy about this.
But here's a guy, Doomberg, he said, Well, we you know, people aren't gonna control their lives right.
We got to do that for them.
And he started talking about things like portion control in in regard to weight loss and nutrition.
And don't you just love hearing somebody who violated New York City's term limit law to run for mayor a third time, lecturing us on portion control.
When it came to the portions of terms he could serve, he was insatiable.
Now we've got some sound bites.
I've just crossed up the broadcast engineer.
Let's find them.
Let's start number six, seven, and eight here.
We have Mayor Doomburg.
This is Face the Nation yesterday.
Bob Schieffer talking to Mayor Doomburg.
He said, let's let's talk a little bit about guns.
Where do you see this going and where does it need to go, Mayor?
The truth of the matter is only about 400 people a year get killed with assault weapons or high capacity magazines.
That is 400 too many, and they're all tragedies.
But you compare that to uh handguns, uh pistols are gonna this year gonna kill 12,000 Americans, and uh 19,000 Americans are gonna commit suicide with uh handguns.
Right.
So we gotta we can't allow that.
We've got to stop that.
The way to do this is buy ban guns and buy up all the ammo.
Now, late yesterday afternoon in New York City City Hall, the mayor held a press conference to discuss this court ruling striking down his ban on sugary drinks.
And he had a little back and forth with the CBS correspondent.
People are dying every day.
This is not a joke.
This is about real lives.
You've expended so much personal political capital on this.
Do you see?
I'm trying to do what's right.
I've got to defend my children and you and everybody else and do what's right to save lives.
Obesity kills.
There's just no question about it.
And I'm gonna stop it.
And I'm not gonna let you get obese, and I'm gonna stop you from getting obese.
It kills, and it's my job, and if I have to do it, I'm gonna do it.
It's my business whether you're fat.
So back to Face the Nation, Bob Schiefer said, I want to ask you about sugary drinks, because your ban on these things goes into effect next week.
This is before the judge ruled.
This is in the country's interest.
This year, for the first time in the history of the world, more people will die from too much food than from too little food.
More people will die from the effects of obesity than from starvation.
And uh we've got to do something about this.
This is going to bankrupt the country.
Our medical system cannot handle it.
And all we're doing in New York is reminding you that it's uh not in your interest to have too many empty calories.
You can have some.
We're not banning anything.
It's called portion control.
Right.
It's called portion control.
This the height of arrogance here.
And by the way, could I see some sites for this uh for this evidence here?
I'd like for him to cite for me the evidence that this is the first time in the history of the world that more people will die from too much food than from too little food.
Could we end all hunger programs then?
Could we close all the soup kitchens?
Could we start saving money and not spend it on all the people who are starving because apparently more people are diving dying from too much food than too little?
Where's the evidence?
Just throw this stuff out.
And you don't cite any of the data, any of the research, you just throw it out there.
More people will die from the effects of obesity than from starvation.
Who says?
How do we know this?
And if that's true, let's shut down again all of these programs that feed people.
Let's get rid of school lunch program.
Let's get rid of school breakfast.
Let's just get rid of it all.
We're killing people.
With all these anti-hunger programs.
But they just grab at straws, throw this stuff out there, people nod their heads.
Sounds good.
Sounds plausible.
Right.
It's unbelievable.
Can't have that.
We can't have more people dying from too much food than too little.
We're not banning anything.
We're just telling you you shouldn't have too many empty calories.
It's none of his business.
This is not the role of a mayor.
Not in a free society.
Because it's not going to stop here.
Then we sit around and laugh about sugary soft drinks, but wait.
Once it becomes easy and people stand aside, let this kind of stuff happen.
It's just an invitation to start controlling people's lives even more.
We'll be back.
Much more straight ahead, folks.
Don't go away.
One more, one more soundbite here.
Just to show you how pernicious this is.
This is uh last night on Letterman.
Doomberg is the guest.
And they're talking about Doomberg's ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces.
And listen, listen to this.
I've had this argument with various people over the years.
And I believe that it's the corporate food industry, not the individual that is at fault here.
I think that it is incumbent on government to tell people what they're doing to themselves and let people make their own decisions.
They're going to be able to do that ban on bigger cup sizes was a ways to remind you if you wanted 32 ounces, you'd have to take two cups, and maybe it only take one.
Now, first off, Letterman says it's the corporate food industry does the problem.
And the audience, this is a low information audience, applauds.
That's what's instructive.
Letterman bashes the corporate food industry.
And his audience applauds that.
And in Doomberg's right in there, well, you know, we got to tell people what they're doing to themselves, and then let people make their own decisions, except you're not letting people make their own decisions.
But this is how this garbage gets spread, and how these low information voters get sucked in and think they're doing the Lord's work by believing this garbage.
Here's uh here's Eve in Augusta, Georgia.
Eve, welcome to the program.
Great to have you.
Hello.
Hi.
Yeah, this train is going by it.
Okay.
Yeah, um, I was just calling because well, I've heard I heard your program some time back.
And um mostly by others who I didn't identify with, so I could I wasn't able to listen objective objectively.
Are you there?
Yeah, I'm listening.
Anyway, um you talk about independence a lot, and I I just uh want to say that um I can hear your message.
I mean I'm I'm able to hear you more objectively now.
And in the in other words, you you you listened to other people who did listen to me, but you didn't care for their opinion, so that you didn't like me.
Right, exactly.
Well, I totally I just tuned you out.
I mean, I wouldn't I couldn't hear your show because I would m I was like I was hearing through them or but were were these people suggest were these people who people who do listen to me and and were suggesting that you also do it?
No, I just didn't identify with them.
So it's not like I would turn on the show to listen because I didn't identify with their opinion, so I wouldn't take it upon myself to Oh, I see.
And so because of I was I was sort of proclaimed guilty by association in your eyes.
In a sense.
Um, but then you tuned in for yourself and I have um I think a lot differently now.
I think um once see once you've been, ladies and gentlemen, we engage here in the low information outreach.
Not not not that Eve here is low information.
No, no, no.
Not at all.
But that's why we engage in it here.
Well, that's it, folks.
Sadly, we have to make way here for what comes next.
Uh, here we are, show prep for the uh rest of the media that follows.
However, we'll be back in uh in twenty-one hours.
Great to be uh with you, great to be back here.
Uh, and I sincerely apologize to anyone who was disappointed in any aspect of the program today.
And we'll try to do better tomorrow as we try to do better each and every day.
And we'll see you then.
Twenty one hours.
▲
Export Selection