All Episodes
Previous Next
May 2, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:12
May 2, 2014, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You are tuned to the most listened to radio talk show in America.
You are tuned to the most talked about radio talk show in America.
You are tuned to the most talked about host of the most listened to radio talk show in America.
You are where you should be.
It's Friday, so let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open live Friday.
Yes, Sariva.
The last exciting busy broadcast hour hosted by me.
Most listened to host, most talked about host.
Program, all of that.
And when you appear on the program on Friday, you can talk about anything.
For the most part.
I mean, don't want to listen to the high cost of utility bills and that stuff, but it doesn't have to be Benghazi.
It doesn't have to be Obamacare.
It doesn't have to be stuff that we've been talking about today, is the point.
Observations.
If you don't like your uncle, you can call us on Open Line Friday and say so.
If your kids are bugging you, you call us on Open Line Friday and say so.
Well, you just turned away somebody who wanted to rip their family.
Well, it that won't happen since I've said you can.
Again, 800-282-2882.
One big exciting hour to go.
I mentioned yesterday before the program.
Wait a minute.
What is this?
Big CEO.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's fascinating.
Somebody just sent me a gentle reminder note that I was going to talk about this, and I just did.
I put it top of the stack here in the break at the top of the hour.
Washington Post Story.
It's actually a column by a far-left fanatic by the name of Harold Myerson.
Does that name ring a bell?
It should.
He dates back to the Clinton years.
Uh and he's um is it some think tank or was.
He's now a columnist at the Washington Post.
And just one of these, you know, occupy Wall Street types.
He may not be an actual occupier.
California's bid to tax CEOs who don't share the wealth.
Last week a committee of the way, no, I'll skip that for just a second.
Last week a committee of the California Senate not only talked about economic inequality, everybody's doing that, he says.
But a California Senate committee actually did something about it.
By a five to two vote, the California Senate Committee recommended to the full Senate a bill that would cut the state's taxes on companies with lower ratios between their chief executives' pay and the pay of their median workers,
and it would raise taxes on companies with the kind of insanely high gap between chief executive and media worker that has been become the norm in American business.
To the best of my knowledge, the bill, SB 1372, is the first in the nation that seeks to mitigate economic inequality through corporate tax reform.
At a time when all the traditional institutions that enabled workers to win raises have broken down.
It offers a way forward for those who'd like to see workers make a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
The proposed legislation would not exactly plunge CEOs into poverty.
The proposed legislation would reduce on a sliding scale, California's corporate taxes, which are currently 8.84% of net income.
So it would reduce on a sliding scale California's corporate taxes for any company paying its CEO less than 100 times the pay of its median worker, and it would raise taxes also on a sliding scale for any company paying its CEO more than that.
Under the terms of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, the Securities Exchange Commission is required to publish the CEO median worker pay ratio for every publicly listed company, the SEC expected to begin this practice this year.
Did you know that was part of Dodd Frank?
I died, I'd forgotten it.
So no company has published.
Myerson's a proud socialist.
If you're still scratching your head over who this guy is, he's a very proud card-carrying socialist.
Now, you know, they tried this and go back to the first term of the Clinton administration.
If you'll recall, and I need to bring this up because I need to ask everybody why didn't this work?
The same subject, income inequality.
It's one of the things that Democrats constantly go back to when they need turnout.
Minimum wage, war on women, Republicans are racists, they're all Donald Sterlings.
This kind of thing.
That's what income inequality is.
And that's why they're so excited about this Thomas Picardy book from France.
But of course, where has there ever been income equality?
And what is it actually?
Who gets to decide what income will be equal?
Who gets to decide the number?
Who gets to decide what everybody earns?
And how do we determine it?
Uh, do we term an income equality on a family four?
Uh family of uh 4.8, family of six, single parent family, because there are more and more of those.
Uh gay family.
How do we determine what is income equality?
Do you realize there never has been any income equality history of the world?
Not really.
The closest that you get to it is communist countries where everybody's poor and totally dependent on government.
That's the closest you ever get to income equality.
Chicoms are trying it.
Cubans have pulled it off.
Vladimir Putin trying to reconstitute Soviet Union for the same reason.
But you'll always notice that in those places where they try income equality, there's always an oligarchy of gazillionaires that lead everybody.
Well, let's go back just to remind you.
Back in 1993, 94, part of Clinton's first big tax act.
He put a limit on the tax deductibility of corporate CEOs.
And that limit was one million dollars a year.
So a business could deduct as a legitimate business expense only one million dollars of the salary paid to its CEO.
And people applauded, well, that's fair, man.
That punishes old companies.
That is really good.
All right, fine.
So why don't we have income equality because of that now?
Why are we talking about that?
That was 1992, 92, 22 years ago.
Why?
Well, they did, but but but even so why why don't we have income equality?
How come the CEOs are still, in fact, doing better than they were back then?
Well, here's what happened.
Have you ever heard of stock options for you heard of stock options?
You have.
Do you know how they came to be?
It came to be right after Bill Clinton limited the tax deductibility of CEO salary to one million dollars.
Boards of directors still needed to hire the best people they could find.
And when you're in the market for the best, it's gonna cost you because everybody wants the best.
Everybody serious about their business wants the best.
If you are a judge to be the best at what you do, there's gonna be a lot of people pulling for you.
So you need to be very creative as you offer work to the best.
So these crafty chief financial officers came up with a trick.
Stock option, the old stock option trick.
They offered CEOs most of their compensation in stock options that would vest as the years went by.
And as the stock price went up, there was always that incentive.
So the CEOs took very little of their compensation every year in salary.
But then it was reported at the end of every year that they were earning 30 and 40 times, 50 times their salary with stock options, which were not subject to the law.
So it didn't work.
And we still don't have income equality.
And we still have people like Harold Myerson ticked off at how much CEOs make.
So he's all happy that this California Senate committee's come up with a new way to make sure we spread the wealth.
But it isn't going to work that way.
What'll happen is exactly what happened in 1993.
A company, a CEO, board of directors, a CFO, whatever, will find a way to lower that ratio between the CEO's pay and the median workers' pay, and still compensate the CEO at the same amount of money he was earning.
They will find a way to do it.
They'll find a way around Sarbanes Oxley.
They will find a way that's what always they find a way around wage and price controls.
I love telling this story.
Nixon placed wage and price controls on everybody during one of the oil shortages 1972.
And of course, companies gladly froze wages.
You go in and ask for a raise.
I'm sorry.
You know what?
We really were thinking about giving you a raise, but our hands are tied.
There's a federal law, and your salary is frozen.
But you would go to the grocery store and the prices didn't seem to be frozen.
The prices were going up.
So you go back to the boss, say, wait a minute, you told me that you really wanted to give me a raise, but you can't because the federal law says that wages and prices are frozen.
That's right.
We would love to give you a raise, we can't.
Well, would you explain to me why the steak I wanted to buy at the grocery store costs more today than it did last week?
No idea.
I don't know.
I'm not in charge of the grocery store.
Well, what was happening was this.
The butchers, the people that run the supermarkets just invented new cuts of beef, like the red-eye B. Or the on-the-bone fillet red-eye cut 14, whatever, something that didn't exist that was not subject to any price control and charged to the nose for it.
Since they couldn't raise prices on anything else.
Because the wage and price controls went into effect on existing goods and services.
But all you needed was a new size of can of peas.
Just a couple more ounces.
You could charge whatever you wanted for it.
A new cut of beef, a new mutton chop, whatever.
There were ways around.
It never works.
Command and control never works.
And this thing in California is not going to work.
They're going to find a way around the ratio.
And even if it did work, even if it did work, they are not going to make the ratio work by raising the median pay of the workers.
They'll do it by playing games with what the CEO makes.
Market forces are what they are.
You pay people what you have to pay them.
You're worth what somebody will pay you.
It's that simple.
That's why you have to make yourself really valuable to people.
You make yourself Indispensable as best you can.
I gotta take a brief time out.
I just they're all excited it's income inequality.
That's part of the election vote turn up turnout and promoting socialism, the government in charge of all this stuff.
They're just excited they can't see straight.
But there never has been income equality.
And by the way, the gap between the rich and the poor.
If you want to say that it's it's growing, you have to make the point that the rich are getting richer under Obama.
Far faster than they did under Bush.
You gotta ask yourself why?
How?
Back to Don in Naperville, Illinois.
We own Naperville, Illinois.
Naperville, Illinois, one of the best test markets in America, by the way, because of its cross.
Well, it used to be.
Now I don't know if it still fits the mode, but back in the old days, Naperville was America, and we owned it.
Hello, Don, great to have you.
Hello.
Thanks for having me.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for having me on.
You bet.
Uh the question I asked Mr. Snerdley was does the law of supply and demand still apply?
President Obama said that we've had job growth for 50 consecutive months, and he wants to raise the minimum wage.
Well, if we've had job growth for 50 consecutive months, that means that the number of workers should be shrinking, which would make the uh labor costs, I would think go up.
Why don't you need to raise the minimum wage?
Wait a minute now.
What did you say if we had if we've had 50 consecutive months, that would mean the number of workers would be shrinking?
Well, because you would think there'd be a higher there'd be a higher demand, so some of those spots would get filled, and the number of workers would go down.
The number of unemployed workers, you mean.
Right.
So the if the supply goes down, the cost of those workers in the supply should go up, correct?
Well, supply and demand if yeah, the more people working, um yeah, theoretically, yeah.
I I think I'm not sure where you're going here.
So how can what well it isn't true?
The the you're talking about his com his comba combining wanting to raise a minimum wage with supposed job growth?
Exactly.
Why would he need to raise a minimum wage if we got so much job growth?
Exactly if we got job growth, we've got wage growth.
So why do we need to raise the minimum wage?
Exactly.
The two things don't go together.
Oh, but as a political point they do.
Remember, Don, do you realize how many Americans could off top of their heads explain the theory you just explained?
No.
Well, it's very few.
Why did Obama talk about he he talked about we've had 50 consecutive weeks of jobs?
That's supposed to say, Oh, wow, country's great.
And and I'm gonna raise a minimum wage.
Oh, wow!
Minimum wage, good, people making more money.
And then he added, I'm gonna create more construction jobs.
What the hell?
Those are union jobs, though.
He would want to increase those.
Yeah.
Uh and of course, that's code to the people that work in unions to know he wants construction jobs.
My point is that with Obama, the laws of supply and demand don't matter.
No.
Is there a full-time job anywhere in America that pays the minimum wage?
Oh.
There may be, but it is not the primary wage supporting the family, if if it is.
Okay.
The minimum wage is not, does not, is not intended to support a family.
No.
Minimum wage is entry level.
That's why it's already been destroyed.
That's that's that's why it loses.
It causes jobs to actually be lost.
You know, maybe that Democratic Congressman from Wisconsin could hire some people at minimum wage to make the uh to make the KKK hoods for them.
I like that.
Instead of doing it himself.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
Spread the wealth.
Go out and make sure that uh and hire some people to make the KKK hoods to pass out to the Republicans.
Don, I appreciate the call.
Thank you so much.
This is Alex in Augusta, Maine.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you.
Hello.
Thank you.
Um my question was uh what was the major difference between a Democrat and a Republican?
And I had uh some sort of perspective on it, and I think one side is more or less helping America, and one of them is more about helping themselves.
Okay, you are it says here 14, is that right?
Yeah.
You're 14.
And that is what you think the primary difference in the two parties is that one side is more for themselves, the other more for the people.
Yeah.
Interesting.
I'll ask.
I'll go waiting into the pool.
Which party, in your opinion, is which?
Did you ask that again?
Which party is out for itself and which party is actually trying to help other people.
I think the majority of Democrats are for themselves.
And the most of the Republicans are for the American people.
Blasphemy.
Blasphemy.
But hallelujah.
Can you Alex, I I misread the clock when I took your call.
I thought I had a couple minutes that I don't have.
Can you hang on to the break just a couple of minutes, three minutes here?
Yes.
Good.
Thank you.
Interesting, isn't it?
We'll be back in just a second.
Back to the phones on open line Friday.
It is Alex, 14 years of age in Augusta, Maine.
And it's interesting that you uh the vast majority of people would conclude the opposite because of the the the way they've been educated and taught media perception that it's the Democrats that care about people, and it's the Republicans that are selfish enough for themselves.
Why do you think it's the other way around?
Um, well, just from what I hear you saying sometimes, uh, and what my father says, he listens to you all the time, and it was just I I think about it because it's more I think that it seems like they're they're making more problems.
Democrats are making problems, and that kind of got me the impr under the impression that they were more for themselves because they were making problems.
But I wasn't sure.
Well, no, I think you're you know your instincts are exactly right.
Uh I'm just I'm I'm really fascinated that that you would uh at your age think this.
It's uh it's a testament to your to your parents.
For for example, uh in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican.
Of the ten richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen.
Eight of the ten richest are represented by Democrats.
Uh both coasts.
The rich districts seem to prefer Democrats.
The ten richest House districts are New York 12, California 33, New York 10, California, 18, Connecticut 4, Virginia, 8, New Jersey, 7.
You take a look at the wealthiest counties in America.
They're all, most of them, not all, but the vast majority are close to Washington, D.C. But Alex, that's you're you're you're you're very shrewd and very perceptive.
Because uh let me change one thing.
Because the Republican Party really can't be said right now to be a conservative party.
In fact, Republican Party is doubling down on its efforts to get rid of the Tea Party.
But Alex, conservatism, throw out Republican and Democrat, and let's use the terms liberal and conservative.
And when you do that, you are right on the button.
And this is the thing that's so frustrating to all of us conservatives.
We love everybody.
We want the best for everybody, and we happen to believe that that happens with people working for themselves, using their God-given talents and desires and ambitions to be the best they can be.
And when everybody's doing that, you have a great neighborhood.
You have a great town, great city, a great country.
The Democrats, the Liberals want everybody depending on them.
They don't want people to be self-sufficient or self-reliant.
Those people threaten liberals and Democrats.
You're not going to vote for them.
Liberal Democrats get away with this notion that they have all the compassion.
They have all the tolerance.
They are the ones that care for they're the ones that came up with the speech code of for political correctness.
They're the ones that are exhibiting fascist-like tendencies and shutting up trying to ruin destroy people that don't agree with them.
It is the exact opposite of the conventional wisdom.
And I applaud you, Alex.
And there's going to be increasing pressure on you as you get older to change your mind on that.
But you watch.
Nevertheless, congrats.
Def in Orlando, Florida.
Glad you called.
You're next.
Hello.
I call Rush.
Hi.
Something I was listening to the interview yesterday with Brett Baer and Tommy.
I can't pronounce his last name.
But something really popped out to me in it, and that you know, he said at one time he was in the Oval Office, and then he said, Brett Bear said he was in the White House, and he said he made the comment.
He said, I don't have a tracker on him in the residence.
Right.
Which basically he knew he was in the residence.
He wasn't in his work environment.
He wasn't in an office.
And I'm just taking it from people I know in as executives or anything that's a person in in position of power if somebody is missing, and he said, he goes at that time the ambassador was missing.
And I'm thinking, how can a leader of a country or a leader of a corporation or any leader, if one of their people is missing, you go home?
Well, yeah, it might have been dinner time with the daughters.
He's a family man.
Don't you understand?
He's spending time with his family.
There's nothing more important than that.
And then the next day he went to the fundraiser.
And I'm like, I guess.
Yeah, in Vegas.
It's just a thinking.
Did he go home to get rest?
I I don't know.
But I think it was more telling that they they do know where he was.
But let's grab the somebody, let's listen to it together.
Grab somebody number three, that's the one you're talking about.
This Tommy Vitor, who's the former spokesperson for the National Security Council in the White House.
And they're talking with Brett Bear, and they've already, Brad Bear is already uh got Vitor to explain that Obama was never in the situation room.
And Vitor said, well, he won where I was.
I was never in the same room I was.
I was in a situation.
I don't know where he was.
So but Bred Bear kept pressing, and here's the sound bite.
Where was the president?
In the White House.
He wasn't in the situation room.
Uh at what point in the evening?
I mean, he was clear.
Any point in the evening.
When Hillary Clinton talks to him by phone at 10 P.M., he's where?
I don't know.
I don't have a tracking device on him in the residence.
But you were in the situation room and he wasn't there.
Yes.
I was in the White House.
And the president was not in the situation room.
Not in the room I was in.
Now there's more even to this bite than just that, Beth, because this guy if a lawyer, if this were taking place in a cross-examination, Vitor would be in big trouble here.
Yeah.
Because not only your point, well, I don't have a track advice.
It is it in the residence.
A lawyer, it's well, well, you know he's in the residence, you just don't know where.
No, I didn't say that.
I said I don't have a tracking device on the residence.
Well, what?
Do you have a tracking device on him in a situation room?
Well, I'll no tracking device on him, period.
Well, then why did you say you'd have a tracking device on him in the situation room?
Well, I just and then Mr. Vitor, you said you said that uh you were in the situation room and he wasn't there.
No, I said I was in the White House.
Yes, I was in the White House.
Well, and the president wasn't in the situation.
Well, not the room I was in.
Well, wait a minute, Mr. Vitor, where were you?
You were not in the residence.
You were in the White House, you were or were not in the situation room, and you don't know where the president was at any is not I really don't know what he wanted to go eat my peas.
So you're Very shrewd to pick up on this.
Well, it just I just don't understand.
As I said, I don't know anybody in that situation.
He appointed Ambassador Stevens, if I remember correctly.
That's right.
And how, if somebody you appointed is missing, how do you go home?
I don't care if your home is in the in the same.
How do you not sit in there with everything you're doing?
Maybe.
Well, but look, home is the second floor of the White House.
If they have to get you, they can.
The point is he didn't he they he was off the grid.
He was never this guy, he's never in a situation.
Well, I was there.
I don't know where he was.
They he wasn't anywhere around at the point.
You're trying to cover that up and make it look like it's no big deal.
And your point stands.
It it it really does.
I mean, if this guy, you know, the embassy of the consulate's under fire, the ambassador, nobody knows where he is, everybody knows it's trouble, and Obama's basically handed it off.
He said he said the Hillary and Penn, you guys handle it, and he's gone.
And he was gone from five to ten o'clock.
On 9-11, anniversary nine, the next day off to Vegas, and he's not packing because valets do that.
Presidents do not pack their own bags.
Do not doubt me on this.
Back to the funds of Buff.
Oh no, he hung up.
Okay, well, I'm gonna answer his question anyway.
The first part apparently Ambassador Stevens, who was killed in because he was gay, is that right?
That's all we hear.
So the caller was uh wanted to know why isn't a gay community upset about that.
That you're a gay ambassador appointed by Obama, Obama doesn't seem to care.
Where's the gay community?
Perfect, perfect question to once again make the point.
Obama didn't mean for him to get hurt.
He didn't mean for it to happen.
Obama didn't do it.
Now, if a Republican had appointed the guy and done this exact same thing, there might be some pressure from the militant gay political apparatus over a Republican president, didn't care enough because the ambassador was gay, is what they would say.
Oh, wait a minute, but he appointed it doesn't matter.
He's gay and the Republicans don't care.
But there's none of that directed towards Obama because Obama didn't want it to happen.
Obama's our friend, so forth.
This is differing standards.
What else did the guy?
What was the second part of it?
Oh, yeah.
Well, Obama be an activist after his term.
Damn straight.
When I heard that Obama is going to live in Washington, can you name for me a former president that stays there?
He's gonna live there, and the reason why.
This isn't not hard to figure out.
Whether the next president's a Democrat or Republican, if either of whoever it is, begins to dismantle what Obama's done, he's gonna go on television every day.
He's gonna have a press corps supporting him just like they do now.
He is gonna be president in exile.
This this whoever the next president is had better figure out do you want to put up with this before you win?
Because you're gonna have Obama every day, or at least every week on TV, questioning what you're doing with the full support of the media.
From down the street.
Folks, that's it.
We are out of time for today, but thank you so much for being with us each and every day.
We always appreciate it.
Never take for granted that you're here.
And we hope you have a great weekend, and we'll be back on Monday, a full week of broadcast excellence.
Pay no attention what happens over the weekend.
I will.
▲
Export Selection