6.19.2003
Monday, June 9, 2003 part one
00:00:00. [01: Tom] [edit]
[ABC News]
[ad: Vision Improvement Technologies]
[ABC News]
[promo: realtors]
[ad: Palm Springs International Airport]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Galen] [edit]
[Promo: Dr. Dean Edell on KTSI]
[Rush Intro]
[Jim Rome Show intro, his telephone numbers, and news on the US Open]
[Rush show breaks in:]
. . . each day, heard here, from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies on almost 600 fabulous radio stations, and over 20 million people eagerly hanging on every syllable, not just every word.
I want to start off today with a little email, "Dear Rush: My husband and I have listened to your show for years. We are conservatives and we own a business. We've heard your arguments against granting the extra tax credits to people who are making under sixteen thousand dollars a year. You note that they pay no taxes.
Rush, I'm sorry, but we just can't agree with you on this one. If you had children, you should receive the same tax credit as anyone else. And we thought we were the only conservatives who felt this way, but our friends see it this way as well. I guess we believe anytime you take money out of the government coffers, it is a good thing. If you were talking about giving straight rebates to these persons, it would be one thing, but when you're talking about not giving the full exemption on children, it's quite another. I saw Dennis Miller on Tony Snow yesterday. He echoed this view as well. I know all about the tax credits they receive, but fighting this one is not a winner for Republicans. Signed J. Roberts."
And I will come back. I said, "Dear J.: It's the initial, not a name, I don't know what it stands for - Thanks for the note, but this isn't the point. The Democrats who are complaining about this are the ones who voted against it after opposing it. Blanche Lincoln and a Republican, Olympia Snowe both voted against the tax bill with this provision after Blanch Lincoln had inserted it in the original bill. She voted for it in committee and then against it on the Senate floor. So let these Democrats get away with blaming Republicans and the President is the mistake.
Now, as to the notion that those who do not contribute - contribute in quotes - to the funding of the government. The notion that those who do not contribute to the funding of the government are entitled to their fair share of a cut or rebates is a slippery slope J. And the whole concept of limited government is going out the window with both parties, and this is but one example how. And in a truly logical sense, and quoting from you, just how is it that anyone with children should receive a tax credit when they pay no taxes?
Why is that the standard? You got kids, you get a rebate? That's all it takes? I'm befuddled on this one, J. Simply having children entitles one to gifts from the taxpayers? Where will this stop? Well, if you're making a purely political calculation, as you seem to be doing, then that's fine. But don't then complain later when the Republicans do the same thing on an issue you disagree with. 'Cuz once you endorse wholly political calculations, you throw principal out the window, and you risk being a hypocrite with the next
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: Mary] [edit]
Thanks for the note and your concern for my mistakes.
You see, the point here is that the Republicans can't win on this. These were poor people And even though they get around...The people we're talking about, they're getting anywhere from 3,800 to 4,000 dollar a year refund even though they pay no taxes. It's earned income tax credit. They get 3,800 to 4,000 dollars back even though they pay no taxes.
If the point here is that we cannot appear to be harsh or cruel to these poor people, we have to-- and then if the Democrats squawk about it we've got to, "okay, here comes the money"...in order to get elected, then what is the point in standing for anything. Because where does this end? Once... This is exactly the kind of thing that is driving the presciption drug business. And I'll tell you what the foundation of that is.
If you've lived long enough to retire in this country, you have contributed and you are owed something. You are owed something simply because you got old enough to retire. And the latest thing that you are owed is somebody else paying for your prescription drugs. And this is going to happen, it's a slam dunk.
Both parties are in a race here to get that done. And then what's next? Nursing home care? There's always going to be something else. Once you establish the principle that if you're poor and have kids you are automatically entitled to gifts from the taxpayer. If you are 65 and have survived the rigors of life in America you are owed presciption drugs?
What's next? And if you can't criticize this politically, because it will lead to your doom and defeat, then I daresay the whole concept of limited government is out the window. The whole concept of government getting smaller... The whole concept of all that is encompassed by limited government is gone. I do not know how people surivived before the earned income tax credit.
And the, the personal stuff in the email J. Roberson even acknowledges "Hey, I know all about the tax credits they receive. It doesn't matter. Fighting this one is not a winner for Republicans."
That may be, but we're not fighting for Republicans on this one. We're fighting for the country. We're fighting for the whole concept of it. It's already been bastardized the notion that the people...Once it's been discovered that you can vote yourself money... It's a slippery slope and we're headed down that path anyway.
It's just a little frustrating to hear... I can understand this coming from liberals. To hear now conservatives wanting to make a political calculation just to -- This has been my problem with the Bush administration on the whole domestic front ever since 2001.
Let the democrats have whatever they want on education so we can't be criticized for being cold-hearted and cruel. Let them have campaign finance reform. Let them have this or that.
The problem is it's never enough. No matter what they get, it's never enough. If we're going to give the exemption to kids, families that don't pay taxes-- It's sort of like the minimum wage. If we're going to raise the minimum wage, say, to $8.00, why not $10.00. If we're going to raise it to $10.00, why not $20.00. If we're going to raise it to $20.00, why not $50.00. Where is? At what point?
And you go through this test with somebody, by the way. And at some point you'll reach a number where it' "no, no, you can't pay that!" And then you've got them, and you say "why?"
What is the minimum wage right now , six something? Five-oh? Let's just pick a number, let's say the minmimum wage is ten, just for the hell of it, I know it's not. Minimum wage is 10 and they propose raising it a dollar. So make the minimum wage 11.
Someone who supports that [you say] "Why stop at 11, let's make it 12."
"Yeah, yeah, good idea!"
"Well, okay, let's go to fifteen"
You keep mentioning a number and at some point they say,
"Well, you can't do that"
And you say, "Oh, really, why?"
"That's simply too much."
"Oh, really, what's the magic of the number being too much?"
At some point, it all breaks down because it doesn't make sense at any number
And...the same thing here. If it's gonna make sense to give people who don't pay taxes a $4,000 tax refund, why not give them an $8,000 tax refund, so they can really enjoy life.
And then why not maybe...give them a car!
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: Mary] [edit]
At some point people, "wo, no, you can't do that. We have to do something reasonable"
And of course "reasonable" is going to differ from person to person. But out the window in the whole discussion has gone the concept of self-reliance and limited government...And what has entered is this whole premise of entitlement. And we have expanded the definition of entitlement in this country to -- It has been so bastardized that there may not be any turning it back.
But I frankly do not believe that it is coldhearted or cruel to suggest "wait a second, this is a tax cut bill, this is not a welfare bill. This is a tax cut bill. This is not the place to start handing out these" "We have to rush. The democrats are going to kills us!" Frankly, let the democrats kills us." The democrats are killing themselves, my friends, they're not killing us. The democrats are in deep deep doo doo.
You ought to see this poll that ABC News has out about Hillary. It's devastating for her. And it's got some other data in it that likewise is going to be astounding to you. Let me do that after this first time out here. We'll take our first EIB operational pause. We'll be right back. Telephone number if you want to be on the program today is 800-282-2882. Stay with us.
[Promo]
[ Rush reading ad for "The General" (General Steel Corporation)]
[Ad -- AJ Golf]
[Ad -- Union Bank]
[Ad -- Product I.D. ran over onto next chunk]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:20:00. [05: Mary] [edit]
[Ad -- National Headache Foundation]
[Promo -- Joey English]
Want to go to the phones, grab a quick phone call. This is Julie in Vista, California.
R: Hi, Julie, welcome to the EIB network. J: Hi, Rush, this is really an honor to talk with you. I'm a long time Rush lover. I went to Dan's bake sale, so that'll tell you how much I really enjoy...and I've listened to you for a long time.
But I disagree with you on this point. I think you're wrong. When you say that low income people don't deserve the child tax credit, just like everybody else. I believe that they do. I own a child care center. I have 45 incredible women that work there. They work so hard. They pay FICA taxes, medicare taxes, they pay state disability, they pay state income taxes, they pay gas taxes. They pay higher prices on products because they're paying for the taxes that business have to raise the price of the products so they can pay their taxes.
They people pay their taxes. And this is not about refunding of federal income tax which they do -- a lot of teachers that work for me do get tax income credit. This is about the government finally saying that we have not given you a high enough deduction for your child. And it costs a lot more to raise a child than the government has given people credit for on their tax returns. And that should be credited back to people across the boards, low income or not.
Rush: Well, low income -- why is that the factor here? This is a tax cut bill. And we're talking about people who pay taxes. What does low income have to do with it?
J: I think that everybody pays taxes. It's not about just low income people
Rush: But this is not a sales tax cut, this is not a FICA cut. This is an income tax cut.
J: This is not a federal income tax cut. This is a child dependent tax credit which basically -- (cut off/edited)
R: It's part of an income tax rate reduction bill. They have increased the child's tax credit exemption $400. From 600 to 1000 -- people who pay income tax.
J: Right. It's not just for people who pay income taxes
R: Yes, it is. In fact, let me ask you this. There are some people at the high end, high income level (over 175,000) who don't get the new exemption.
J: I disagree. They should get it. I think that it's across the boards. The government needs to accept the fact that they have not been allowing enough of a credit on everyone's tax returns, for raising children. It's expensive.
R: That is a statement of principle. I'm not going to disagree with the fact that the president taxes people too much. We're talking here about people who aren't taxed at all when it comes to federal income tax. But look, I'm not going to argue with you because there's no persuading you. And I know where you're quote/unquote coming from. I know what you're point in all this is. My only fear is that this has no end.
I could ask you: why should single people continue to pay for everyone's kids. There are a lot of people who are single, who have no kids, who don't get this exemption who are ending up paying it for everybody else. There are a number of different ways that this can be posed or asked and I know what the answer is always going to be.
And that is, well, raising a child is expensive and the government should allow people to keep more of their money to do that but this particular group we're talking about doesn't have any money taken away from them in the first place. But, look, the political calculation is such that we cannot be seen to be coldhearted and cruel to these people. And I'm being literal and taking the definition of terms and words literally here
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:25:00. [06: Mary] [edit]
...is a bad, bad political mistake. This is one of those things, just throw up your hands and you say, "okay , go ahead". But I'm telling you, the day is going to come where something exactly like this is going to happen where you're not going to agree with it. And you're going to have to. Otherwise you'll be a hypocrite because the political calculation here is what's driving all this.
Ken in Belmont, New Hampshire. Hi, welcome to the EIB Network.
Ken: Hi, Rush, you hit the nail right on the head. I'm not getting any child allotment or tax rebate.
Rush: Why should you? Do you have any kids?
Ken: No I don't.
Rush: That's not fair. Even though you don't have kids you like them, don't you?
Ken: Uh, yes
Rush: And you realize that kids are the future of the country , don't you?
Ken: Absolutely.
Rush: Then you ought to get a thousand dollar exemption for every child because lord knows you've been supporting them anyways.
Ken: Absolutely, absolutely, every day of my life.
Rush: I think I'm going to support this. I'm going to suggest... I'm going to call Grover Norquist. I'm going to say "Grover, you gotta make sure that single people with no kids get this tax credit."
Ken: I'd like that.
Rush: Well, I'm going to fight for it because you people deserve it. You've been paying for others...And you don't have kids but you love them and you know they're the future of the country. Why don't you have children, by the way?
Ken: I chose not to because I'm a selfish person. I --
Rush: That's a mature view! That's a mature view! You're doing it for all the right reasons. You don't want to be a lousy parent. You don't want to be bugged by the presence of a kid. You want to lead your own life. I totally understand that. And yet at the same time with this mature view of yours, you're still being soaked for other people who probably have no business having kids, are doing it anyway. And you're supporting them.
Ken: They expect money from me and people like me. They have since I started paying taxes. It just porks me off to hear them. Because there's always a mouth full of "gimme". We must support the children, we must support them, yes, but how much is enough.
Rush: The thing about this...You know what amazes me about this. We speak of the children. We speak of the poor as though they are a constant group. If you listen to the political discourse in this country, kids never grow up. They're always children. The poor are always the poor. People don't move from income level to income level, as we know that they do. But anyway, we've stumbled into something here, my friends. And I knew that addressing this head-on in a fearless way as I'm known for would bring us to the crossroads and we're going to take the fork. And it is this:
In order to be fair, to extend the fairness of this tax cut to everybody, people without children should be given the child tax credit exemption, the full exemption of a thousand dollars. Because they love kids, their property taxes supporting schools. Some of them are unable to have kids but would love to. It doesn't matter why. But they're being left out. And some of them are poor. Some of the people who don't have kids are poor. And we need to reward poverty. They're trying. So let's move on this now.
[Ad: LifePro (unintelligible) (Life Insurance)]
[Ad: Liverite Liver Aid]
[News Headlines ]
Monday, June 9, 2003 part two
00:30:00. [07: Mary] [edit]
[news]
[KPSI promo]
[more news]
Rush: And welcome back. Having more fun that a human being should be allowed to have.
Three things, ladies and gentlemen. On the child tax credit: The first thing I want to address is, since we have established that people who do not pay income taxes -- and in fact already get a tax refund of anywhere between three and four thousand dollars a year, called the earned income tax credut -- even though they pay no taxes, they get that refund. And now those people should get that 400 dollar additional exemption per child, up to a thousand dollars, because the government should just do this to make it fair.
Then the question is this: where does it stop? At what age do you cease to receive the child exemption? Is it 18? Is it when the child leaves home? I guess it's 18. Kids 18, you lose the exemption. Well, why? You have the child. Unless they're in college, whatever. But why don't you always get the child exemption, no matter where the child is? Whether you're child lives away and has his or her own family. And has his or her own kids? Well, you're hearing more and more about people moving back home at age 30 and 35. 'Cause it's tough out there?
So there's a case that can be made, if we're going to give you an exemption for kids, make it lifetime. We're talking fairness here. You had the kid. And it's important to have children. And we're established a concept here that government is going to pay you to have kids and help you raise them. So there should be no come-off. For as long as you and your kid live you get the exemption.
Now, the second thing, I've been noticing for the longest time, the auto business has been doing anything and everything they can to sell cars. One of the things they do is offer rebates. In addition to zero percent financing, they offer rebates. If you go out and buy a car, someone will give you a thousand dollars, cash back, some two thousand. Some five, whatever it is. But is this fair to people who aren't buying new cars?
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:35:00. [08: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: I don't think so. If we're going to give rebates to people who purchase cars, it's only fair to the people who don't buy them also get that rebate. Now I know we're not talking about the government here but we're talking about big business and we're talking about fairness and nobody can tell me that it's fair, given the current definitions under which we're working.
Nobody can tell me it's fair, that only those who buy cars should qualify for the rebate. The way we're structuring things, everybody gets the rebate whether they buy a car or not. That's only fair because everybody needs the money and especially if you could make a claim that you need the money for your child.
Another thing, I read the note here from J. Robertson and let me run through the note again because I have a question that I would like to further pose to J. Robertson.
Dear Rush, My husband and I have listened to your show for years. We're conservatives and own a business. We've heard your arguments against granting the extra Tax Credit to people making under sixteen grand a year. You note they pay no taxes. Rush, I'm sorry we just can't agree with you on this one. If you have children you should receive the same Tax Credit as anybody else.
Rush: I agree and for as long as the child lives but the point that I would like to make now in the form of a question to the author of the email J. Robertson. You say you are conservative and own a business and lets say that your -- one of your employees comes in says, "Guess what? My wife and I -- my husband and I just had a child. We want a raise." Are you not therefore obligated?
Think about this. If you are going to see to it that your fellow taxpayers pay a child exemption for people who are not paying taxes, isn't it only fair that you as the business owner give your employee or employees a raise or raises when they have kids? I mean it's -- it's something to think about here, if we're going to be consistent, ladies and gentlemen.
Here's Ed Lansing Michigan. Welcome sir nice to have you on the EIB Network.
Ed: Hi Rush. I'm a republican from Lansing Michigan, I have two children myself, I don't understand the cause of that letter at all. That's not a republican view. They're trying to defend a bunch of freeloaders in my mind. When me and my wife decided to have children we never once sat down and said, "Oh now what kind of kick back can we get from the government?" And uhh...
Rush: Now wait, hold it a minute now. Ho, ho, ho -- let's not get to harsh here. Some of these people are indeed working and they are indeed the working poor and I don't know how many of them per say are sitting around calculating the kick back. They surely do have defenders here.
You know I don't think -- I was just telling the staff here, I don't know that this is so much a conservative thing as it is a male-female thing. All of the people I'm hearing from who are in favor of extending the Child Tax Credit to people who don't pay taxes are women and the people who don't think it makes sense are men. This may be a Mars-Venus thing not conservative-liberal.
Ed: Well whatever the case Rush, I mean this is not what conservativeness is based on...
Rush: I agree with you. I -- the whole concept of limited government is out the window when we start thinking like this.
Ed: I mean if you have a couple kids and you're in a low income job instead of looking for the government to figure out a way to help you raise them better and provide more for them isn't it more of a conservative viewpoint that you need to try to do more yourself? Isn't that what we're all about?
Rush: Be very careful here Ed. Tip-toe around this your making yourself sound cold-hearted and cruel. Are you daring to suggest self-reliance in this discussion?
Ed: I'm daring...
Rush: Are you -- are you actually - you daring to mention people rely on themselves because there are many in this audience who are going to carve you up and spit you out for being insensitive.
Ed: Well, I think I can combat my argument Rush. I mean we've had forty years of these liberal programs and you know we're just ready to turn the corner here and I also read everyday, I can't agree with you more. On the domestic side of it I don't understand why we keep giving in because we're scared of what our perception will be.
Rush: I - you're preaching to the choir on this cause they're going to say it no matter what so why not just do the right thing. You know they're going to rip us to shreds no matter what we do so...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:40:00. [09: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...we'll just do the right thing. Anyway Ed, I appreciate the phone call. Thanks very much. Let's see do I have the -- let me try -- this Tia in Newport Virginia. Hi Tia, welcome to the EIB Network.
Tia: Thank you Rush, it's an honor to speak with you.
Rush: You bet.
Tia: Uhm, if I...
Rush: Tia, Tia, Tia, hang on just a -- before you -- I want to find one thing out here. This will not take away from your precious call time, all right. I thought that as a "society" and via the legislation produced by our elected representatives, we were pulling back from this notion that we were going to pay mothers to have more children. I thought even the liberals had agreed with this. Now remember that guy in New Jersey who originally offered the legislation. I thought the whole concept was that no longer are we going to pay people to keep having more children. I guess that's sort of washed up with.
Okay, Tia, go ahead, I just wanted to get that out there. I'd forgot to mention that out a moment ago.
Tia: Okay, thank you. My husband and I were discussing this last night and we expect to be receiving a check from the government and we're thinking maybe we ought give it back. We did not pay any taxes this year. I doubt we will pay any taxes next year. We have three children. We don't get an Earned Income Credit but because of our deductions, our house, our mortgage, our gifts. We got every penny back that we paid to the government, so my husband considers this check Welfare. We don't want to be on Welfare. Should we give it back? What should we do with this money that we're probably be getting this summer.
Rush: Well, I need to ask you some more questions on this. I -- what -- you may not want to answer them. I...
Tia: Okay.
Rush: ... I'll try one question. What is, I'm just curious, what is your gross income?
Tia: About fifty thousand dollars.
Rush: Fifty thousand and see this is fascinating because this ought to be what the focus is. I'm -- I was hoping you were going to be in this forty to fifty thousand dollar range because the truth to all this is that more and more people have been removed from the tax roles precisely because of republican tax policies.
Here is a man and woman with a combined income of fifty thousand dollars and they end up washing out. The deductions that they have on their mortgage and everything else wipe out their tax liabilities so they have a net zero that they owe and that is precisely due to republican tax policy and that's good in one sense.
Yeah, well, it's good -- yes it is. It's good in one sense and it's bad in another, that means the burden has been shifted and shifted and higher, higher and so fewer and fewer people are paying taxes but never the less, I would -- this is -- you're paying taxes.
I mean you had taxes withheld and so forth, your deductions zero. I'd keep the check. You know, you're not the kind of -- you don't fit the category of the subject matter that we are discussing here. I -- don't look at this as Welfare, you're a genuine tax payer here looking at an increase in the child deduction don't -- by the way, sending it back is not easy. I mean you'd have to write them a check after you take that one and deposit -- you can't just refuse it.
Like Social Security recipients can't refuse it. My grandfather tried to do this his whole life on the same theory and he never wanted it because he didn't feel like he needed it. It wasn't fair. He didn't need it, he wanted it to go back to the kitty and it was a hassle. I mean it really was. Don't even -- just keep it and put it to good economic use. Go out there and spend it. As the liberals say that, "Rich people like you wouldn't do."
Got to take a quick time out. We'll be back and continue right after this.
[ad: Rush Store]
[ad: Rush for Sleep Number Beds]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:45:00. [10: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Rush for Sleep Number Beds]
[ad: Unicars Honda]
[ad: National P T A]
[ad: Camelot Theatre]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Yeah, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh here on the cutting edge of societal evolution. Our telephone number 800-282-2882, email address is rush@eibnet.com.
You know this has been an instructive period here because in my email, in a way, not that I take them seriously, these are all republican conservatives and these callers all claim to be republican conservatives who are in support of what in essence is a Welfare bill and the efforts to spin this in such a way, explain why we can't control the size of federal government. That's my whole point about this. The whole concept of limited government is just out the window with this kind of thinking.
Look at it this way folks, the people we're talking about, sixteen to twenty thousand dollars a year, working poor earning are paying no income taxes, getting an Earned Income Tax Credit and now the full Child Care Exemption. How can you argue that these same people shouldn't receive a host of payments under a host of federal programs? Once you say that they are entitled because of their poverty to the full Child Care Exemption where do you stop with what they're entitled to. Really where?
If the whole notion see of compassion is defined by government giving back like government spending by and really, it's not government, it's fellow taxpayers. If compassion is going to be defined by or as "gifts" from taxpayers to non-taxpayers then at -- you know, where do the compassions stop? I mean there's no -- there's no real end to it.
I think better yet, in fact, how can you oppose the government creating any program to help subsidize these people. Once you make the argument that we've heard today, then why stop there? Why not start proposing new programs like a guaranteed minimum income and lets say that's a hundred thousand dollars a year. I mean everybody would like that, right? Let's just guarantee. Why don't we do that? Why don't we do that?
"Well don't be ridiculous Rush," I can hear some of you say. "What do you mean don't be ridiculous?" If we can afford the full tax exemption and a four thousand dollar refund for people who don't pay taxes...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:50:00. [11: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: Why can't we afford eight thousand dollars in refunds and then twelve thousand dollars in refunds. Well I mean, I know at some point even those of you who support this will reach a point where the number is to large for you and at that point I'm afraid I've got you because your answer to explain why the numbers to big,
(Rush questioning and answering himself) "Well we didn't -can't give that much."
Why not?
We can give some but not this.
"Why? What's the basis?"
"Well, that would be to much."
"Why would it be to much?"
Rush: You know uhm, we're looking here a cash payment, a transfer payment nothing more. Let's go back, in 1972 George McGovern ran for president and he argued that every American family should receive a basic income and that the government should provide it. Remember that? Wasn't it McGovern wanted to give us either one or two thousand dollars to every American. I -- I'll never forget this and he lost in a landslide and in no small measure due to this idiotic proposal of his but look what we've got here.
We've got republican callers and republicans in Congress in essence supporting that proposition. Supporting the same proposition that Mc Covern -- McGovern offered as a presidential candidate in 1972 is now being supported by republican conservative emailers to me and callers.
Yes it is. Don't say it's not. It's the same thing. Dollar amount doesn't matter, it is the idea or the concept that we are talking about here. So you know, you can wave good-bye to limited government here when this kind of political calculation is made. I don't care what the reason is.
Carol Beth in Stockton California. Hi Carol Beth, welcome to the EIB Network.
Carol Beth: Hi Rush, how are you today?
Rush: Fine Thank you.
Carol Beth: Very good, I just wanted to comment and say that I'm one of the women that's against the Tax Credit. I don't understand why I have to have compassion when it in your choice, not you personally, but your choice as an individual to have a child. That's a wonderful thing to have a child but I don't -- shouldn't have to be responsible for someone else's choice's and I don't see where that's being uncompassionate. You know if you want to have that child -children, that's wonderful but make sure you can support them and I shouldn't have to support them.
Rush: Yeah, uhm, well I'm sorry to say that this, while sensible, appears at least in early returns here in the vote counting to be in the morning view on the program today and in this audience but there's still time for this all to play out.
Carol Beth, thanks for the phone call. A quick brief break and I'll be back. Some of this polling data from ABC News on Hillary Clinton as I promised it. I haven't forgotten it and we'll ditto cam here in the next hour or two, Brian. So every body sit tight, standby, be right back.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Trim Spa]
[ad: Time Magazine]
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:55:00. [12: Tom] [edit]
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
[ad: Camelot Theaters]
[promo: Larry King]
[promo: KPSI]
Somewhat amazing here. ABC runs this poll in here. I'm not gonna be able to get it all in here before the break, so, we'll carry it over. Um, forty-four percent of Americans express a favorable opinion of Mrs. Clinton. Forty-eight percent view her unfavorably. An unusually high negative rating, and an unusually strong one.
More than twice as many people view her strongly negatively as strongly positively. And she's no more popular among women than men. Her popularity largely is limited to Democrats, and is countered and exceeded in intensity by her unpopularity among Republicans. I've told you, you don't know what negative turnout is till she actually runs. Sixty percent of all Republicans and seventy-one percent of conservative Republicans view her strongly unfavorably.
By contrast, just thirty-two percent of all Democrats, and forty-two percent of liberal Democrats view her strongly favorably. Moreover, conservative Republicans outnumber liberal Democrats by two to one. That's what this poll says. Conservative Republicans outnumber liberal Democrats by two to one. And this is a national poll. Now, there's -- some other elements here, like how she loses to Bush - big - in a head to head matchup in this poll.
It's also interesting to know who was polled, and when. Hint, it wasn't likely voters or even registered voters. It was across the board, over a weekend. I'll tell you what that means when we come back.
[ad: PhotoReading]
[promo: the Coach's Soapbox]
[ABC news]
Monday, June 9, 2003 part three
01:00:00. [13: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Visa]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Beautiful Hair Breck]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Weingarten and Hough]
[Promo: Loop Holes]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:05:00. [14: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Promo: Loop Holes]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Hi folks, welcome back. Nice to have you along with us in an abbreviated week of broadcast excellence, I your host for life, El Rushbo will be away from the golden EIB microphone Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of this week. We will cram as much in the remainder of today and tomorrow as we can. A special welcome to those of you watching on the ditto cam at rushlimbaugh.com, a 24/7-subscriber side, nice to have you with us. Here's the telephone number for all if you'd like to participate in the program today. 800-282-2882 and the email address is rush@eibnet.com.
Here's a email from the Rush comments line from website subscribers;
Hey Rush, just wondering, would you mind giving all these callers who agree with the Welfare bill or the Tax Credit my address. My wife and I are expecting in September, would be great if they could just send us some money. I mean if they don't mind supporting people just cause they have children, why bother with the Government as middleman. Just send it to me directly then my wife won't have to work part time once the child is born.
We won't have to worry about childcare during the day. Could maybe go out and buy some health care insurance for the whole family as well. Thanks for getting the word out Rush, we really need these peoples help. My name's Barry Higgins, I live in Naperville Illinois, anybody wants to give me money for my kid please feel free to give them my address. Please ask them if they're going to do this to send the check either Federal Express or Priority Mail. Thanks again Rush, I appreciate it.
Rush: So I'll keep this note here for any of you who will support the Child Tax Credit being extended to people who don't pay taxes. If you would like to do what you're asking other to do, if you want to send this man and his wife some cash for the up coming child in September let me know and I'll give you the address.
You're going to have to prove you're going to send them the money. I'm not going to give you the address just so you can hassle him. You got to prove you're compassion to me. You have to show me the money first and I'm not taking it now don't misunderstand. I just need to see what it is you're going to send. Barry Higgins in Naperville Illinois. I imagine if some of you just wanted to write a check and send it to Barry Higgins, Naperville Illinois I'll bet after now he will get it.
So this is a great way to show your compassion and wouldn't it be an administrative cost savings here. I mean this is direct contribution to a man whose about to have a child and you could just contribute straight to him and you won't have to worry about this Tax Cut Bill being passed. It's still being held up in some quarters because the republicans are trying to get even more tax cuts for people who pay taxes in exchange for the democrats going along with this.
Back to this Hillary part -- let me just say some thing. I do not intend, my friends to sit here and regurgitate all this Hillary stuff. I'm just not going to do it. I will never forget all during the second term of the Clinton Administration, all these democrats saying, "Can't you people just move on," meaning people like me. "Can't you just move on. Can't you just leave this alone. You talk about something beside the Clintons," and even after the Clintons left people said "You just can't get by without the Clintons can you?"
I just want it noted, who is it that's throwing the Clinton's in front of our face everyday now. It's the Clintons and why are they doing it. They're doing it for money. She's doing this book for eight million dollars pure and simple. I don't care what political calculations there may be and there's some, I'm sure there are some. It's eight million dollars and I must say -- tell you one other thing about this. This is all -- this is so much B. S. and...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:10:00. [15: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...hocus pocus about the stuff that's been released about this book so far. When did she know that Bill was cheating with Monica and what was her reaction? My friends, the truth of the matter is, Hillary Clinton was the one who put the private detectives in all these quote-unquote "bimbo eruptions." It was Hillary that was following them around.
It was Hillary that was devising strategies to deal with them, to quite them, to intimidate them. She knows her husband better than any of us do. She knows exactly what the flash points are and the potential for blow --up and she tried to head these things off at the pass and Monica, you know, got in under the radar screen.
I will always believe that she had some spies in the Oval Office, some of her staff, designed to keep track of what her husband was doing and some how this one slipped past them but there's a reason why. She has to do it this way.
There's a reason why she has to play the role of "aggrieved wife," who has been betrayed by an unfaithful husband because the fact of the matter is something the American people are not yet ready to, despite all the cultural quote-unquote "advancement that we've made," unquote. The American culture, American society is just not yet ready to elect a man or woman or couple to the Whitehouse who have a relationship that is purely arranged for political reasons.
So she has to portray herself as the betrayed wife in order to relate to as many women as she can because the fact of the matter is the American population simply is not going to elect anybody to high office who would put up with this kind of quote-unquote "abuse or disrespect," for the pure sake of political opportunism, which is what this has all been. I mean there's no question about this.
There is no question that Mrs. Clinton has known from the moment she dated this guy much less married him, that he has been as Brit Hume said yesterday on the F0X News Channel, "Waving his wand all over the country in front of anybody who'd look." She knows it better than any of us do and for her to admit that that's fine with her. That she will use that for her own political advantage, put up with it and tolerate it only for political advancement, careerism.
The American people are not ready to have that kind of couple in the Whitehouse. So she's going to do her best to portray herself as, "In the other woman," in this kind of situation. Surprise, shock, gulping for air, all these other things that are no more closer to the truth than anything else they've had to say about anything that's the least bit controversial. And everybody in the democratic side knows this and it's just so much smoke and mirrors.
I -- it's mind boggling how -- I mean Barbara Walters had so many questions she could have asked last night and didn't get anywhere. I mean, you remember Barbara Walters asked Monica Lewinsky what kind of kisser Bill is? She didn't even anywhere near asking Hillary anything like that. She didn't - she didn't ask, "When's the last time you two had dinner alone." She didn't ask if -- alls she did, "Well, what happens if he does it again?" That's not the question. The question is, "How many times has it happened since?" You know and, "What have you done?" I mean the -- it's clear that these people are not even in the same home together ever. They're not in the same city.
It's rare but Mrs. Clinton cannot get elected to anything if she admits to that and she's also made the calculation, she can't get anywhere if the name Clinton is not in her name. Cause I will guarantee you that if see ever decides that she doesn't want to be president, and if she ever decides that all she wants to do is stay in the Senate, it would make sense to divorce this guy. The only reason to stay married to him is the name and the, within the democratic ranks, don't misunderstand me here, but pure and simple, I mean, why has she stayed with him through out all of this? We all know what the answer is. And the -- this is such and insult to everybody's intelligence to watch all this be played out again.
Oh, don't give me this; "she loved him from the first moment." That may have been some of that at the top. I don't know. At the beginning, but don't tell me that -- there's nothing -- there's nothing conventional about this -- about this relationship...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:15:00. [16: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...every body knows it and the fact that so many people who also know it. This is like all these people at The New York Times who knew exactly what was going on with Jayson Blair and overlooked it. I mean it's just -- it is embarrassing. It is embarrassing for the left. It's embarrassing for democrats and some democrats are starting to, you know, sniff it out properly.
As I say, I mean you remember the days democrats used to call here all the time and they would defend till the last defensible item, every Clinton scandal there was and then they'd get mad and they'd say, "Well it's just time to move on Rush. Can't you just forget it?" But these days -- it's not me, I mean I -- it's not conservatives that are putting the Clintons in front of everybody and throwing them in our face. It's the Clintons as it's always been and it's slowly, very slowly evolving, that it's democratic activist who are fed up with the fact that the Clintons will not stay out of the news.
We had the Susan Estrich column where she accused them of sucking up all the oxygen. You know I made the statement on this program about a month ago that the Clinton effort is designed to sabotage all nine of these democratic candidates for President. The last thing, but if Hillary is indeed going to run in 2008. The last thing she needs is a democrat winning the Whitehouse in 2004. That's not going to happen. They're going to do everything they can to see to it that who ever is the nominee losses big.
This guys going to lose before he even gets the nomination and they're going to see to it and now Dick Morris is echoing this and Susan Estrich is echoing this and you're starting to see more and more of these people who are coming out, they're annoyed that Hillary's book is putting the political spotlight back on all the lies and all the sex and all the conspiracy theories that were the national conversation during the Clinton Administration. It's the Clintons reviving all this and take a look at this timing. It -- I'll guarantee you that here's the money angle but right on the verge of the democrat primary season.
The Philadelphia Enquirer has a story, article titled, "Democrat Activists to Clintons, Shut Up," and this Enquirer story quotes an un-named veteran national democratic strategist who said, "A lot of us are basically sick of Bill in particular. We just want him to get lost but we can't totally speak out because he's still a good fund raiser and a lot of party activist still think of him fondly, especially African-Americans.
Now here's Hillary dredging up things we'd rather have people forget. We all ready have enough problems with middle class voters who think that democrats is a party, lack good morals and values thanks to the Clintons. Now this new stuff just makes it worst." That is a veteran national democratic strategist quoted in the Philadelphia Enquirer.
What you democrats never understood was that no one in the country was more ready to move from these people than me. I could not wait for these people to get out of the headlines. Get out of the Whitehouse. Get out of Washington. I could not wait for the sake of the country. Everybody said, "Oh you love them, your radio show wouldn't have been what it was without them." That is such a crock. It is such a crock but it was such a crutch for all of you who did not want to meet head on the substance of the criticism being launched at these two people.
So now the rest of us have moved on. Most of the country has moved on. We got a country to protect. We have a country to defend, The Clintons are a pain in the rear-end for democrats now and forgive me I don't feel your pain democrats. It's (unintelligible) you people and you can live with them and you gave it to them to us. You supported them. You've built them up and now you live with them and I'm going to tell you what. Every bit as destructive as they are to themselves so are they to people around them. Just check a number of places and you'll find out how destructive this couple is. It is -- it is -- it is just amazing.
Now some of this -- well I'm going to take a break here but when we come back, some of this polling data. Wrap this up in this ABC story because it's quite interesting and we'll move on to other things in the stack plus get back to your phone calls. Sit tight the EIB Network will roll right on.
[ad: Limbaugh Letter]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:20:00. [17: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Skin Zinc]
[ad: Administaff.com]
[ad: Freecreditreport.com]
[ad: Manhattan West]
[ad: American Red Cross]
[Promo: Paul Harvey]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: We have here the results of an ABC poll and again this ABC News poll conducted by telephone, 1029 adults, May 28th a Thursday though June the 1st. In essence we have a weekend poll and if you don't know, weekend polls are known for one thing. More democrats are at home on weekends than republicans. I don't know why this is. I'm not -- in editorials about it -- editorialized about it, it's just about pollsters are concerned, it something they've learned. It's why they discount a lot of weekend polling and in addition the sample of 1029 people was a random...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:25:00. [18: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...national (unintelligible). It wasn't registered voters. It wasn't likely voters. It was just everybody. And so the results here are quite possibly even worse for Mrs. Clinton than what the actual results show here. If you had polled registered voters during the week, not a weekend, you might have come up with numbers that are even more devastating for her than these already are.
In a stark example of the problems that Hillary would face as a national candidate only about 40% of Americans say she should ever run for President. 4 in 10. A majority 53% say she should never run and there's no substantive difference between women and men when it comes to this question. Among the broader public she trails by 24 points in a head to head general election match-up against President Bush. If that election were held today, Bush would beat her by 58 to 34%. 6 in 10 men, 55% of women favor Bush and Bush wins support from 92% of republicans but Mrs. Clinton only wins the support of 67% of democrats, which is amazing here. 60 uhh what is it here?
Independents also prefer Bush by a pretty wide margin of 55 to 31 and perhaps most troublesome to Mrs. Clinton is the relatively tepid support from her own base. Far weaker than what a national candidate would expect. Her support among democrats, 67% and liberals 62% falls well short of Al Gores 86 and 80% numbers for these same groups in the 2000 election so this -- these numbers just do not jive at all with all the attention this book is getting.
I'll give you an example. There are publicity stunts on Barnes and Nobles store in the upper west side of Manhattan. Upper west side of Manhattan is Moscow and they said, "We're going to open at midnight Sunday," cause the book doesn't sell Monday. "We're going to open at midnight 12:01. You be the first in line to get your book." 80 people showed up and they thought this was huge. 80 people in a city of 8 million and how many liberals and 80 of them showed up at midnight to get the book and they're trying to pass this off as the Rolling Stones selling out a concert, four nights in a row at Giants Stadium in ten minutes.
Then today, big signing at another Barnes and Noble in Manhattan. 250 people show up to get in line, "Oh my gosh friend, do you realize what a huge crowd that is?" 250 people could fit in the store. There's no need to put them outside. They put them in a line outside for a photo-op of it but even that pales. I mean ghee-whiz; Howard Stern drew 10,000 to a book signing sometime in the 90's at a Rockefeller Center bookstore. This is nothing. There's no big interest here.
[ad: Rush for Thera-Gesic]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
Monday, June 9, 2003 part four
01:30:00. [19: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[ad: Realtors]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Here we are ladies and gentlemen, I am your host for life, Rush Limbaugh, doing that which I was born to do.
A couple of emails;
Rush, how many people showed up at your book signings?
Rush: Answer. Zero. I've never had any. I haven't had to. I've not done one book - well, I take that back. I did one book interview, I guess on my second book I don't remember. It was Charlie Gibson at ABC but it was long after the bulk of the sales had taken place. I've never done a book tour. I've never done a book interview. I've never done a book signing because they haven't been necessary and lets face it my friends, as far as the Barbara Walters interview is concerned, we're not going to know the truth of the Bill and Hillary relationship.
We're not going to get to the bottom of things until Larry King asks her the tough questions. So, you know, all this has just been a bunch of sand box play-time leading up to Larry King in the real tough stuff which is, I think, scheduled for tonight.
One question Barbara Walters did ask Hillary last night, "Well what if he does it again?" meaning what if there's another Monica and of course Hillary side steps the question but you know what her answer should have been. "Well, I'll just come out with a 12 million dollar book then." That would be the answer to that. If he does it again, tell you every time he does it, it's another six million increment in my advance. So if he does it again I get 4 million increments. I say I'll come up with a 12 million dollar book. If he does it again I'll do a 16 million book. People are going to want to hear it.
This is Gideon Greenwich Connecticut. Welcome to the EIB Network sir, nice to have you with us.
Gideon: Hey Rush, remember poor old Newt Gingrich with his pettily 4 million dollar book advance which he elected to return after all the controversy and that was described as a way for Rupert Murdock who owned Simon and Schuster I think to buy influence.
Rush: No, he owned Harper-Collins
Gideon: Harper and Collins, okay so I haven't heard a peep about anybody, from anybody, about the power behind Via Com buying eight million dollars worth of influence of a US Senator Hillary.
Rush: An excellent point and you wouldn't, it's still a liberal media. Remember, now somebody correct me on this but I think to avoid a stink with her book deal she put this thing together before she was sworn in.
Gideon: Just under the wire.
Rush: Yeah, she...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:35:00. [20: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...she wanted to avoid the news -- Newt's problem was that he was sworn in as Speaker of the House then the deal came and all that. She made sure this deal was done and all signed and dotted before she was sworn in as Senator. But the argument could still be made and you've done it quite well but it just. It's the difference in the media, look folks the media is fascinated with this and you -- the liberals are betting that they can get you to do three things. Liberals are betting that they can get you to love Hillary because Bill betrayed her. They are betting they can get you to still love Bill even though he betrayed her and they are betting they can get you to elect her despite her overwhelming denial.
Those are the three things that are going on here. You have to understand what is going on in this country right now. The left, and you know this my friends; I mean you're the reason for it. The left is panicked. The left is -- I mean I could say discombobulated but it's more than that. They're loosing their grasp and it's precisely because in part of the Clintons but they are loosing their power base. They're loosing their grab.
They're coming- they try to come up with their own think tank, and I, by the way did some stuff on that. This idea they don't have a think tank is outrageous but if still they're trying to so that. They're trying to come up with their own liberal talk radio network. "Oh they're so disadvantaged in the media," and so the liberals nationwide are just like the democrats in Washington. They are solely focus on re-acquiring dominance and power and they all think that the sun rises and sets on the Clintons.
Now in a few dark corners of the Democratic Party the truth is known and there are some of these people starting to speak up. And Susan Estrich last night -- FOX -John Gibson ran a one hour program after the Barbara Walters -- Hillary interview with a whole host of people on it. We got some of the audio from it and Al D'Amato was on, was one of the guests. Susan Estrich was as well and she caught her own ration of grief from other liberals on this program because she dares to point out what is the truth of the future of the democrats if they rely on these people to revive them.
But they are, they'll grasp at anything they think can beat conservatives and that's where they are right now. I'm telling you, you ought to be smiling about it because as long as they reach out to the Clintons, as long as they allow or sit idly by while the Clintons run the Democratic Party you needent worry. It's going to be frustrating because you're going to watch the media treat these people like God and the son of God, or whatever but when it gets down to brass tacks and reality, the Clintons are going to continue to take the democratic party further on down and they're just going to -- I mean sit by idly while it happens. I mean they're going to be participating in their own demise.
So you have to toughen up and put up with all this rigmarole -- you think this is bad, wait till Clintons book comes out which is a 12 million dollar book. Wait till his book comes out, which is going to be even closer to the democratic presidential primaries. Wait till you see the idolatry when that thing hits. You think this is bad? So you have to develop some resolve, some steely resolve not to let this depress you and send you back to the 90's where you thought we were losing every day cause it's just the opposite folks. But you're going to have to buck up. You're going to have to tell you this everyday because the picture in the mainstream media is going to be just the opposite cause they're longing for those days.
They're longing for the days when they think Clinton was making mincemeat of Newt and all the conservatives and the government shut down and all these things were happening. "They long for those days again." Who ever they think can bring it off and as far as they're concerned, only the Clintons can. So we got a major rehab project going on. I'm telling you it's always been that. In Clintons case it's a legacy rehab in Hillary it's the rehabilitation of her own character and image that would allow her to seek even higher office.
Patty in Geneva Illinois, thanks for waiting, you are on the EIB Network. Hi.
Patty: Hi Rush, nice to talk to you. I watched the program last night and I absolutely couldn't believe. The democrats are running so scared. I mean they have somebody -- first of all they have this whole contrived image. She just a - such made up people and they have people like Susan Estrich for the first time in her whole life I agreed with her. I couldn't even believe her. I mean she's disappointed in them, she said their timing is terrible, looks like they're doing -- they're democrats. They are...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:40:00. [21: Immaadd2] [edit]
Patty: ...they're selling their book, selling themselves when these poor guys who can't, I mean they don't have a chance, I don't think, to do anything but they're all running against each other and Hillary's out there selling her book, with her phony little blue suit on, her phony all American look ,so it's just unbelievable.
It's pitiful. And Lanny Davis, I couldn't believe him. He was panting. I mean he was like accusing everybody of Hillary bashing and they didn't. I (unintelligible) from a spectator I could not even believe that he said nice things about Hillary but he found some good things to say. They were true and honest but Susan Esteridge, she hit it right on the head. She...
Rush: Well, we'll put...
Patty: ...selfish people.
Rush: Mike, grab number 10. We'll play Susan Estrich so you can hear a sample of it but Patty this is what I'm talking about. You're going to have to -- going to have to gut it up here. You're going to have to deal with this. This is only the beginning and it's going to -- they're going to try to ride the crest of this wave -- kind of create the wave and then ride the crest of it as long as they could.
One of the funniest things in this interview was -- I forget the word for word question and answer but here's Barbara Walters asking Hillary about her Health Care Plan and "Oh Hillary, weren't you so surprised at all the opposition. I'll bet you were dumbfounded," and Hillary trying to come off like an average mother who bakes apple pies on Friday afternoon says, "Ohh, you know I just didn't have any idea, Barbara. I -- there were -- I mean there were -- I -- sometimes I just bite off more than I can chew."
"What a crock!" Hillary and Bill Clinton knew exactly what they were doing. They were trying to nationalize one seventh of the US economy and they were trying to force feed this program on the American people. There was nothing innocent about it. There was no surprise that Mrs. Clinton felt over the opposition. They knew exactly what they were doing with this. She's even out there, "I think a somebody said a (unintelligible) sent me that my names in this book."
She's -- remember the bus tour. Remember the Health Care Bus Express and we made sure that every town that it was going to stop in, there were people there to greet the bus and clap and "support" this kind of thing. In this --I don't have the passage right in front of me. I didn't bother to print it out but Hillary makes reference to the fact that "People like me had no idea what was in the Health Care Plan, didn't even deal with the specifics of it just talked about big government trying to scare people with it," and that is so incorrect.
We went into the deep detail of that Health Care Plan just as we've gone into the detail of every other policy question on this program for nearly fifteen years that matters and one of the reasons the Health Care Plan bombed out is precisely because we did go into it in detail and we did tell people exactly what was in it and especially those who wanted to go into medicine what was in store for them if they did it and this program ever saw the light of day.
They would be told what specialty they could go into. They would almost be told where they could live and work. They would be assigned to various hospitals based on the specialty. They weren't going to be allowed just to make an independent choice on their specialty. The government was going to decide what specialties had the greatest need and assign graduates of medical school to those specialties. It was outrageous. I mean it was pure centralized control over the Health Care System and I think if any thing was a surprise was the level of opposition.
I really do think, ladies and gentlemen, this is an accurate description of both of the Clintons, particularly Hillary. I think that when they strode into Washington on Inauguration Day in 1992 I actually think in their minds they looked at the rest of us as surfs who maybe ought to get down on our hands and knees and bow as they rode into town but not look at them. We hadn't earned the right to look at their face. If they caught us looking at their face we'd be banished. We were supposed to be in awe. We were supposed to be in deep appreciation.
These are superior people who rule of us. These are people far more expert, far more knowledgeable, far more intelligent, they know far more than we do about things. We're supposed to get out of the way for our own good and to let them do what ever it was they thought needed to be done. Here came massive amounts of opposition and I don't -- I think that -- if one thing did surprise them it was; A; The level of opposition and B; The detailed aspects of the opposition.
It's sort of like it was a micro-cosmism of what I have been pointing out that's happened to liberals all over the country for the past 50 years. They got a free ride for...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:45:00. [22: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... trip in the media. What ever they said was reported. It was not challenged. It was promoted not just reported and as such they never had to really defend anything they said. It just became what it was. It almost became the established religion of the country and the natural order of things was that liberal democrats run the show.
Well all of those fifty years conservatives evolved and began to challenge some of these things and as we did we were attacked by the very people defending and supporting the liberals in the press and elsewhere and we hadn't developed intellectual answers to the challenges and we did and as such we can out debate these people every issue they bring up. They cannot win an ideological debate on what they believe. It's gotten to that point because they've not developed the skill and they hold a loosing hand anyway.
Think the same things with Clintons and health care. I think that you can see it in their attitudes after, on election night, in Arkansas, the little platform outside the Governors Mansion when Bill and Hillary came out to receive the "Throng," and it was pure adulation. It was as though a King and Queen had been anointed to save the country from the evil twelve years of Regan /Bush and the worst economy in the last fifty years and I think if anything did surprise them it was the level of opposition and they didn't know what to do about it other than to try to personally discredit and destroy members of the opposition rather than trying for the ideas which they obviously failed to do.
Quick break, I'll play the Susan Estrich byte couple of people have preferred to it from last nights John Goodson show on Fox. I think, yep they did, so we'll take a brief back now before that and be right back.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Life Quotes]
[ad: Time Magazine]
[ad: S. G. Cowan]
[ad: Camelot Theaters]
[ad: 1-800-575-WELL]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:50:00. [23: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Last night FOX News Channel ran a special talking about the Hillary interview with Barbara Walters, had a number of guests, one of them was Susan Estrich, John Gibson was the host.
He said, "Susan, there's a lot of people thinking that Hillary glossed over what she might have known before the famous date of August 15th 1998, when Bill supposedly told her the affair was true. It had happened. That she had not paid any attention to all the earlier indications because she didn't want to know or she wanted to come to this point later, much later, get the story out, get it behind her and move on with her own presidential ambitions."
Susan Estrich sound byte: " I think she was awful dealing with the political problem here and the political problem that she kept coming back to is why is it that lots of women look at her, women who don't have her financial resources, who couldn't go out in the world and earn a living still wouldn't put up with the kind of B.S. she got from her husband and I know for a fact and I'm sure, Dick, you know this too, that during the Senate race in New York, one of the big problems she had was that women who agreed with her on the issues, were not supporting her because they didn't like the fact that she had stuck with the "scumbag" as one of them put it to me.
And they didn't like the fact that they thought the reason that she stuck with him was cause she was so ambitious. So I thought what she was trying to do here tonight, and I think she did it pretty well, was in her blue suit, notice no black grammar outfit the kind she wore at one point during her -- the presidency. I thought she was trying to look very Middle American to reach out to average American women and say, "Look, I was hurt, I was cheery but we are a family and we love each other..."
Rush: Is that Carol Channing or is that Susan Estrich? Does that not sound like Carol Channing to you? Those of you who are old enough to know who carol Channing is. Look that's the whole point, that -- it's just another way of saying what I said earlier. You know the -- Mrs. Clinton knows full well that the people of this country are not going to sit there and know - willingly and knowingly elect a women who will allow her self to be humiliated and trampled over like this only for the political benefits she gets later.
So she has to act like any normal woman would when she learns that her husband has betrayed her. Only everybody knows that she's know that this has been going on their whole life and everybody knows she's put up with it and probably tried to manage it, in fact, for the least political damage possible all for the purpose of advancing her own political career.
Her last name being Clinton was crucial here. Without that she doesn't even get to the Whitehouse. When she gets there she's First Lady. She doesn't have any accountability. She's not been elected to anything here. She gets health care, why was that? We all know what the answer is here, not because she's brilliant.
That's another thing, this -- all of this is so patently obvious and the effort here to paint this as normal Miss and Mister America. Mister and Miss Joe Sixpack working through their troubled marriage is exactly what she's trying to do. It's another attempt at, "How can we fool them today," it doesn't change with these people. It just doesn't. Sadly, 30% of the country will buy it. About 30%, mostly democrats will buy it without questioning one aspect of it.
Back in a moment.
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[ad: Blanchard and Company]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:55:00. [24: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: CedarHouseGarageDoors.com
[ad: Rub It In Crème - rubitinstop.com]
[Promo: Desert Homes Today]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: There's a story in The New York Times over the weekend.
The New York Times: More than 13,000 of the Arab and Muslim men who came forward earlier this year to register with immigration authorities, "About 16% of the total may now face deportation," governmental officials say.
Rush: Thirteen thousand people are outraged, "Why this is unfair. How can we do this?" They're illegal, by the way. They are "illegal" immigrants. They are not here legally and we're going to deport them and people are outraged and calling this an abuse of government power and an example of how a powerful government is taking away our rights. Rights, well exactly. Okay good, well we'll hope for more of this, back in a moment.
[ad: Testostezine]
[Promo: The Radio Factor - Bill O'Reilly]
[ABC-News]
Monday, June 9, 2003 part five
02:00:00. [25: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Realtors]
[ad: Beautiful Hair Formula Breck]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Radio Shack]
[ABC-News]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Community Calendar]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:05:00. [26: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Hoping to please, we are back again with more broadcast excellence from the Southern Command of the EIB Network, Rush Limbaugh here. Great to have you along, another full hour of broadcast excellence straight ahead and if you would like to be on the program, "Why it's a snap," the number to call is 800-282-2882 and the email address rush@eibnet.com.
Actually, my friends, this whole business of Bill and Hillary divorcing, it isn't going to happen and anyway, I mean if Barbara Walters really wanted to get to the meat of things she could have said, "Mrs. Clinton isn't it true that you and your husband can't afford to divorce because if you ever did you would lose the spousal protection in court." I mean right now they can't be forced to testify against each other and that's a big deal.
That's -- anyway as I said;
The New York Times: More than 13,000 of the Arab and Muslim men who came forward earlier this year to register with immigration authorities, about 16 percent of the total — may now face deportation, government officials say. Only a handful have been linked to terrorism. But of the 82,000 men older than 16 who registered, more than 13,000 have been found to be living in this country illegally.
Many had hoped to win leniency by demonstrating their willingness to cooperate with the campaign against terror. The men were not promised special treatment, though, and officials believe that most will be expelled in what is likely to be the largest wave of deportations after the Sept. 11 attacks. The governments already initiated deportation proceedings, and in immigrant communities across the country, an exodus has already begun.
Quietly, the fabric of neighborhoods is thinning. Families are packing up; some are splitting up. Rather than come forward and risk deportation, an unknowable number of immigrants have burrowed deeper underground. Others have simply left for Canada or for their homeland. The deportations are a striking example of how the Bush administration increasingly uses the nation's immigration system as a weapon in the battle against terror.
For decades, illegal immigrants have often flourished because officials lacked the staff, resources and the political will to deport them. But since the attacks of 9/11, the government has been detaining and deporting illegal immigrants from countries considered breeding grounds for terrorists. Advocates for immigrants warn that such a strategy; indeed, the administration's sweeping reorientation of law enforcement toward terrorism prevention can be abused by government officials.
They note that, though it did not deal directly with the registration program, an internal Justice Department report was released last week that was deeply critical of the government's roundup of illegal immigrants after Sept... Rush: And what the hell folks, why is there an illegal imm- hell, we're going to start paying people -- tax cuts that don't pay taxes, I mean why round up illegal immigrants? People are critical of this now.
This is -- the government is to far reaching here in its objectives and this is showing a lack of compassion and if you dig deep into the story, you know what you will also find? You'll find some liberals that say, "This is the kind of thing that will cause the Arabs street to erupt in outrage.
Huh- how's this? We're going to get rid of illegal immigrants, Arabs and Muslims, there here illegally. We're going to enforce our law and it's not a law that people don't know about, it's quite well known, and by enforcing our law we're going to aggravate the - I thought the Arab street hated us anyway and didn't want to be here. None of this makes any sense.
So then we're going to aggravate the Arab street, we're going to make them hate us even more. Okay so we shouldn't expel them just so they won't hate us. Does Bush need the Muslim vote? Is that how this is going to play out? I guess based on some of the thinking that we've heard today.
Yeah, two points!
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:10:00. [27: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...that's how it's going to play out. I have here a column here by Michael Kinsley that ran yesterday in The Washington Post and it's entitled, "Capitalisms Deal Breaks Down," and the real thrust of this, and one of Kinsley's either areas of deception or misunderstanding comes later in this columnistic effort, but let me read a little bit of the beginning just to set it up -- ahh, darn-it, hang on a minute folks. This has not been the - I been in such a rotten mood anyway I hope you've not been able to tell. Hang on here.(blew his nose) Stupid sniffles, all right. Two points.
The Washington Post: The fall of Communism fourteen years ago was not the end of history despite Francis Fukayama's famous prediction, it was pretty much the end of the argument in most of the world about the best way to organize society. The answer is democratic capitalism but this intellectual victory for the dynamic duo of democratic capitalism didn't resolve the tension between them.
Democracy presumes and enshrines equality. Capitalism not only presumes but requires and produces inequality. So how can you have a society based on equality and inequality at the same time. The classic answer is that democracy and capitalism should rein in their own separate spheres. As citizens we are all equal, as players in the economy, we enjoy different rewards depending on our efforts, our talents or luck.
But how do you prevent power in one from reaching into the other? In various ways we try to police the border. Capitalism is protected from democracy to some extent by provisions of the Constitution to guard individuals against tyranny in the majority, for example, by forbidding the government to take your property with out due process of law. Protecting democracy from capitalism is a noble intension at least of campaign finance laws that get enacted every couple of decades.
Rush: Then he goes on to explore this difference between the presumed equality of people in democracy and yet the required inequality of people in capitalism and then towards the end of it, he brings it all together to make his point. I'll join it in progress or jip it.
The Washington Post: Our minimum wage worker most likely falls into one of the unadvertised holes in the Bush Administration "Something for everybody tax cut." There's nothing in it for minimum wage worker, minimum wage worker who must pay the FICA, payroll tax and blah, blah, blah.
This gap around the minimum wage was supposedly inadvertent and republicans on capitol hill were eager to correct it but republican congressional straw boss, Tom Delay said incredibly, that he would allow the alleged correction, this is the Child Tax Credit that we started the program by the way, only as part of yet another big tax cut with more goodies for the serious income brackets.
Now look at the fellow who has a few million or billion. He probably has paid no income tax on most of that pile because investment profits are taxed only when they are realized, I e cashed in or sold. Any investment profit that our billionaire or millionaire hasn't cashed in, when he cashes in himself, dies, escape the income tax forever, if he can hold on for a few years under current plan the estate tax will die before he does.
His investment income also is exempt from the 15% FICA tax that hits the minimum wage worker at dollar number one. And now the tax rate on both dividends and capital gains is capped at 15%. This is supposed to elevate the unfairness of having both the corporate income tax and a tax on the profits individuals earn on their investments in corporate...
Rush: Look, the bottom -- let me - last paragraph, then I'll explain what this is about.
The Washington Post: So under the American tax system as designed by the Bush Administration, the most a person of vast wealth is expected to contribute to the common wheel from his or her last dollar of investment profits is the same 15 cents or so that a minimum wage worker is expected to pay on his or her first dollar. Now this doesn't mean we have a flat tax. We have a tax system of vast complexity with wildly different tax burdens on different people but we have a tax system that on balance knows who's in charge.
Rush: Here's the point. Kinsley has here, I think done a great service by helping some of us to understand what this debate of rich, ahh, tax cuts for the rich and so forth is all about. He's talking here about the retired rich who no longer have an income. They don't have a job, they don't have a salary, they don't have traditional income taxed at traditional rates, they are retired and they are living off the income produced by their portfolio...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:15:00. [28: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... and it is that income only is taxed when it is cashed in or sold and that creates a capital gain in the capital gains rate is 15% yet working families are paying high tax rates on their income from the first dollar and his example of this is why it's so unfair the rich aren't paying their fair share and blah, blah. What he's ignoring here is that this is not who the rich - this tax cut or a tax cut is targeting. There are a lot of people who are considered rich in this country who aren't retired and who do not live off their investments.
They live off their income and their income sometimes can be quite high and they do pay a thirty -- what is it, thirty-five percent rate now, as opposed to thirty-eight point six. But the attempt here in Kinsley's column is to portray the rich as paying a 15% capital gains here. That's what I got out of this. That the true rich, the idle rich if you will, don't work and therefore don't have income cause they don't work or anything and yet these people are the ones given the best end of the spectrum. These are the people even though not working, they just retired, they got their fortune and all they do is get taxed at the 15% rate when they sell some security or whatever it is, that equals a capital gain and the rest of us schlugs are being socked with higher tax rates on the first dollars we earn and these people are getting away with.
The point -- yes, exactly Mr. Snerdly, the point is, these people have more -- have paid taxes on their way to becoming retired unless they happen to be the Kennedy's and inherited the money and didn't work for it, Kinsley's example falls by the wayside. This is by no means the vast majority of the rich but this -- see the one -- the thing that intrigued me was, "Okay, so this I who they want people to think of as the rich, people who don't work, coupon clippers.
You know, people sitting on the beach, wherever, with their big portfolios and whatever they sell to live on then they get 15% tax rate on that." And this is - these people are being given a free ride and this sort of thing and then yet we still can't come up with an increase of four hundred dollars per child for people who don't pay taxes, all the unfairness of it all.
Well the inaccuracy here is the portrayal of who the rich are. I mean, I'm going to tell you what, if you earn right now between thirty and fifty I will bet you that you think a hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand dollars a years is rich. Okay go make it, go earn it, have your two point eight or four kids or whatever and find out just how rich (laughing) you are and then listen to all the grief people give you about how your not paying your fair share because you also at that rate are considered the rich. And if you get too high like above two hundred or two hundred and fifty thousand some of these tax cuts don't even apply to you because it's assumed that you have more than you need and your not even asking for a tax cut.
But this picture of the quote "rich" as idle sitting around not earning income, they're so wealthy they can live off their -- that describes a lot of retirees. It's just a different degree of the size of portfolio pie they're sitting on but I mean it's -- it's a classic example of obfuscation and trying to confuse people about who the rich are as a means of demonstrating the unfairness. And this whole point of trying to say the deal here is breaking down, the deal is equality of everybody under democracy, equality under capitalism, something has to give and of course what's giving when the deal breaks down is that people aren't being treated fairly who don't have a lot of money- just the same old argument presented in little bit different way.
Quick break, we'll be back after this, don't go away.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Rush for Citracal]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:20:00. [29: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Rush for Citracal]
[ad: Time Magazine]
[ad: Culligan Water]
[ad: CedarHouseGarageDoors.com]
[ad: American Lung Association]
[Promo: Biography for Radio]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: One more interesting bit of polling data here, my friends, before we get back to your phone calls.
Massachusetts sent us a Zogby poll. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the French appearing candidate and Viet Nam Vet, John F Kerry, the most popular democratic presidential candidate in New Hampshire according to polling by Zogby International followed closely by Vermont Governor Howard Dean. The numbers are 25 to 22%, Gephardt regarded as likely to win the Democratic Cauci in Iowa, finished fourth at 7%, Leibermans 3rd at 10%. However 76% after all this is done and (laughing) in the hopper, 76% of likely Democratic Primary voters said they think it's very likely or somewhat likely that President George W. Bush will be re-elected. 76% of all these democrats at the poll, it doesn't matter if we nominate, Bush is going to win anyway.
Hartfield Virginia, Craig, thanks for the phone call, nice to have you with us.
Craig: How you doing Rush?
Rush: Pretty good sir, thank you.
Craig: I just wanted to make one point...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:25:00. [30: Immaadd2] [edit]
Craig: ...the Kinsley article.
Rush: Yeah.
Craig: ...with the -- what he leaves out, he says, dollar one they start paying taxes...
Rush: Yeah.
Craig: ...but that's the FICA tax, which they're the ones who imposed that to begin with. All the liberals came up with that to begin with.
Rush: Social Security tax, yes.
Craig: Exactly, so people could be saving 15% of their money, as you say, everybody's paying the 15% between the Social Security and Medicare and yeah, nobody comes out and says that. They keep saying we're going to cut payroll tax which is essentially that too and...
Rush: Well, I've heard them talk about it, I haven't seen them do it. I've heard them talk about it. I've heard -- people been talking about cutting the payroll tax -- twelve months or so, I haven't seen anybody propose it. I - now, lot of democrats are talking about a -- what is it, a two year -- what are they are calling it? Yeah, a "holiday", a "FICA tax holiday," but what I'm trying to -- I mean , do the two-year holiday then try to reinstate that and see what happens. That'll be interesting.
This just is typical, the way the democrats talk about it but never do it. It's like Clinton. (Rush imitating Clinton's voice) " I'm going to give you people a middle class tax cut. I been working so hard on this and it's going to happen," and he gets elected. "I never worked harder on anything in my life but I just can't do it.
It's a worst economy in the last 50 years. It's a worst than I thought. It's worst than 75 years. It's been almost as bad as the depression, I can't -- I just can't do it." We all got a big tax increase but during the campaign, talked about a middle class tax cut, never happened. And now these democrats are talking about a tax holiday on payroll tax. I'll believe it when I see it. I'll support it, I'm, any time they cut taxes I'm.
Finally the Kinsley -- the Kinsley business, don't overlook here, I may not, maybe my fault here, I may not have made this clear enough. He is equating the 15% capital gains rate with the 15% rate that FICA people pay or the 15% income tax rate. He's saying, "What's fair about this?" While these multi- millionaires or even billionaires who rely only on income from capital gains get away with paying the same rate on the last dollars of their lives. That these poor people are paying on the first dollars they earn.
Well let me tell you something folks, the right answer to this is that there are a bunch of people who don't want you to become wealthy. There is a tax on wealth in this country and it's called the income tax and it is specifically designed to keep you from getting wealthy. There is very little tax on wealth and that's what -- that's what, that's the point Kinsley should have made but who's fault is that?
We'll take a break, and then I'm not advocating anything, don't listen.
[ad: United Family Health Group]
[ad: General Air Conditioning and Heating]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
Monday, June 9, 2003 part six
02:30:00. [31: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Promo: Your Pal Joey]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: From the email;
Dear Rush, I don't know if I should be shocked, amused or appalled at your vitriol towards Mrs. Clinton and her new book. You border on psychosis or perhaps envy at her advance and the copies she is bound to sell verses what your books did in sales. (Laughing) Last week you went on and incredulously so about the level of Bush hating among some in this country. I must say, you and some of your listeners have toped that in spades in hatred for anyone named Clinton, man, woman or child, speaking of which I suppose Chelsea will be next. Get over it man, you are embarrassing yourself. Signed Barbara Christian in Chagrin Falls Ohio.
Rush: Didn't I just say to today, "I'm so tired of these people and wish they'd go away." I'm the one who said they never would go away but anyway Barbara, you know I don't want to be rude or arrogant or perceived as such here but your reference to Mrs. Clinton selling more books than I did. (laughing and banging on something)
I got a note and I don't know, you know anybody can send me anything. Anybody can call here and say anything. I just got an email note, somebody sent out of our Kansas City affiliate announced that a bookstore in Overland Park, three copies of Hillary's book had been sold by noon. Two hundred and fifty people had lined up in Manhattan, liberal Mecca, to be at her book signing. Now I'm going to tell you something, Ms. Christian, with all the publicity there's been on this book, I mean they're treating this stupid book as a news story for crying out loud. They're actually -- this interview last night was treated as -- almost breaking news, a news special.
If all they can generate is two hundred and fifty people on the upper west side of Manhattan. Zabars does better than that on their coffee special every morning. Now I mean if -- well it's - they're going to have to goose a lot of numbers here, if they're even going to get close -- I mean a million advanced copies is what were printed. And I'm going to tell you right now, this is going to open up number one and number two in The New York Times lists. It doesn't matter what the truth is, that's where it's going to open but they can't keep it there...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:35:00. [32: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... for very long. It -- total number of books. You want paperback included? Total number of books that I have sold is in excess of eight and a half million, my two books. I was asked to say that folks. I -- as you plainly heard here, I did not announce this on my own. The program -- well I'll just tell you , I'm going to tell you something else folks, I'm just and I'm know what I'm talking about cause I've looked into this lately. Book sales are in the tank to the degree that you can and if you -- and if your timing is right you can be number one on The New York Times list selling seven thousand books that week.
It used to be that when I in early- the early 90's, when my first book came out I was told that if I wanted to get in the top ten of The New York Times list that I would have to sell fifty thousand copies and if it happened rather quickly I might end up near the top of the Times list and it's -- the business goes hot and cold.
I guess it's in one of it's chill periods now but recent books tout a, "Oh look at this, number one, New York Times," seven thousand copies were sold that week. And that book by the way that I'm talking about, I'm not going to mention what it was, doesn't matter, that book was not number one on the USA Today list, was supposedly a flat out tabulation of sales.
The New York Times, nobody knows how that list is put together. There are sample distributors. There are sample stores. They have their own list. They have their own subset of stores and distributors that they look at. USA Today supposedly is the closest representation to actual nation wide sales that we get .
No Jayson Blair doesn't put together The New York Times list. I -- but at one time I was at - the numbers were fifty thousand, if I could sell fifty thousand I'd get on the list and that , by the way, was common back then. That's how few books were actually purchased and I'm talking about the non-fiction list now.
Fiction's a different matter. I mean you'll have Clancy and Gresham routinely their first printing will be two million. I happen to hold the distinction of having the largest printing of a non-fiction book, I don't know how long a period, but pretty long, two million for my second book is the largest first printing of a non-fiction book in recent "histwah" and that book sold out in two months. Eight weeks.
The first book was on The New York Times list for fifty-four weeks because it was, nobody knew how it was going to do and it was printed in twenty-five thousand increments and the demand just kept coming and coming and so those sales were reports kept flowing in and flowing in, stayed at number one, I think for over forty-five weeks on The New York Times list.
Where as the second book sold just as many but in two months instead of twelve and so it was off the list in a matter of eight weeks and the story was, "Well, Limbaugh just didn't do as well, the second book," but it did. It was almost identical at two and a half million copies each and so anyway Ms. Christian, she's got a long way to go here on this. I and with so much of the book being known I mean why buy it now? And that's one of the -- well, yes I think that's an important factor. Stuff in my book was true as opposed to this but that won't matter to some of the people buying this book.
Anyway, Yuba City California, this is Jason, Jason thanks for waiting. You're next and welcome to the program.
Jason: Hi Rush, I can't help but feel like I'm going to fall on my sword here disagreeing with you so please take it easy on me, but the two quick points. First of all what you're calling a tax plan I believe is actually an economic stimulus plan that includes a tax cut so if we're going to give out more money from the government then doesn't really mater where it goes. If it goes to lower income people sure they're going, you know, they're going to spend it on microwave popcorn and cigarettes but it's still working its way back into the economy...
Rush: But hey wait, now wait, listen, hey wait, don't say -- don't say, I don't care where it gets spent. Now don't throw that in there. Don't lop that one on me. I've never made value judgments on how people spend their money. Whatever they do with it is fine with me.
Jason: Well...
Rush: It's theirs.
Jason: It's the fact that they do have more disposable income verses the people that earn more money.
Rush: I would suggest if it's a Child Tax Credit we're giving them the increased amount for, they're just going to popcorn and peanuts is a little dubious but I mean I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. No look, this - the purpose of the bill was economic stimulation. The bill it's self is a tax rate reduction. It's a tax cut, there's no question about it.
Jason: But the overall purpose is stimulus and if we get money back into the hands of the people regardless of what level it is, it's still going to stimulate...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:40:00. [33: Immaadd2] [edit]
Jason: ...the economy. Same situation for the republicans, the more money that's out there, the better.
Rush: Okay. All right. Then at what point -- why just give them four hundred? Why not give them a lot that they could really spend?
Jason: As much as we can get back into the hands of people to turn back into the economy to theorize the trickle down system the better, as long as it's not sitting in the Federal Governments Bank and it's in the hand of the people it's growing the economy. Am I wrong?
Rush: Uhh, well as an open-ended theory, no, but there are some troublesome realities that you have to throw into your equation. I wish -- I wish I didn't have to but what's -- you could take this argument in any number of different -- why not, if that is what we're trying to do here, why not as I say, give every parent a one thousand dollar exemption for their children every year that the child is alive regardless where it lives. Why not -- why eliminate the Child Care Exemption at age 18 or whatever it is. When the kid leaves, goes to school, whatever the heck it is. Why not just leave that child exemption on the table for as long as the child is alive.
Jason: Well because at some time he becomes an adult and he provides for himself but alls I'm saying is that the less money that's in the governments hands therefore makes government smaller, it's in the hand of the people...
Rush: Well, wait...
Jason: ...gives them more spending power...
Rush: ...wait, wait wait one second. Well, hold it, but you're making, I think, a crucial error and by the way you don't have to fall on your sword and I'm not stabbing you with one here. So we're having a friendly open-ended discussion, which you will loose, but, wait a second. Now the point is this, you keep talking about any money that we take away from the government and put in the people's hands, we should do. Well whose money -- it's not -- it's not the government's money. This money has to come from somewhere. On what basis do you thus claim that it is okay to do a Robin Hood on society?
Jason: But we're not imposing a tax increase on people to pay for this so my question to you is, would you rather have that money held by the government or back in the hand of the people? If they're willing to give it up by all means take it. It's not as if they're imposing a tax increase on upper end people, to be given this money, to be poorer people. See what I'm saying.
The money is sitting there. It's sitting dormant. It's either going to be spent by Ted Kennedy or it's going to be given back to people to stimulate the economy. If I have a choice, I would rather have it given back to the people. Now if you're telling me they're going to impose a tax increase on someone at any level to pay for this, I say don't do it. But if its' given freely with no penalty on current status then go for it.
Rush: I - look, (sigh) I think I'm becoming a prisoner of my own expertly communicated philosophies. I (laughing) can't, I have to admit that I will admit, I have to admit -- I will -- I'm somewhat trapped here because you -- I can't disagree with the over all theory of what you're saying but there has to be -- there has to be some, no there's no tax increase here that is paying for this but at the same time. Let me ask you if you personally would take your paycheck and go around town giving it to people so they can spend it instead of you.
Jason: No argument but see I make sixty thousand dollars a year with no write --off. I've been killed in tax...
Rush: No but see you're allowing it to be done in your name anyway if you have this belief and I -- it's, what we're talking, uhh, tax cuts and that is a -- that has a specific meaning. Tax cuts mean people who pay a portion of their income in taxes are being taxed less now but it also allow people who don't pay any taxes to have the Earned Income Tax Credit which means we'll allow them to claim they earned more than they did so they qualify for a tax refund. We're all paying for that. Now we're going to add to it.
Jason: Okay, okay that makes sense. That makes sense.
Rush: Well but it -- at what point does it end? I mean with this - what I've just defined for you is a give away program from one group of people to another.
Jason: I understand. I understand, but I still don't' think that it's entirely a bad situation for conservatives. I agree with you that we give away too much but again if you give me -- if they're going to whine and cry- all their doing - the democrats are doing is forcing the economy to be stimulated, in essence, even though we do give away too much they're shooting themselves in the foot here and I think you're missing my point.
Rush: Well the point that I've been trying to make with this is that if we had this kind of thinking and this is contrary to what your own philosophy here leads to but this just throws out the window the concept of limited government because none of this can happen unless the government steps in and takes money from somebody to give it to somebody else...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:45:00. [34: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...that's the only way it can happen. That's a pretty intrusive thing and I don't think that if you talk about stimulating the economy, transferring wealth or taking from one group to another, it's sort of like discrimination, you don't end discrimination by transferring it from one group to another so that they get "their share now and find out what it's like."
You end discrimination by ending it and then the same token, you don't -- you don't stimulate the economy by taking money from one group of people and giving it to another on whatever basis claiming that it's not going to Washington so it's -- it seems to me that the -- if we're going to do a tax cut and we're going to cut taxes on people who are paying them then those are the people because we all agree they are burden is to high and we are lessening that burden.
We are in essence over the long term we're going to be not -- we're maybe increasing the burden because the money does have to come from somewhere and it will, you know, there's going to be, no question, a stimulus component to this, the economy is going to grow and this sort of thing but, hey look at -- there's also a behavioral -- there's also a behavioral thing here too.
You know, the argument, and I made it earlier in the program today, we talk about these groups of people as though they are static that they never move. The poor are always poor and the children are always children. They never grow up and both are manifestly false. And one of the things that encourages people of the lower income to get out of it, is the idea they can and to the extent that money is going to come to them for doing nothing, you're not exactly promoting a work effort to escape that income level that they're in.
I'm stuttering, I'm looking at the clock, I'm a little long in this and I've got to take a break. But look, you've got -- they're philosophically I can't argue with what you're saying about money in peoples hands as opposed to government but this is not the way to do that for people who are at the lower end of the economic scale.
Quick break, back- next two segments going to be short but hang with us. Don't go away.
[ad: Rush Limbaugh]
[ad: General Steel Co]
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:50:00. [35: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: www.focusonlearning.org]
[ad: Agua Caliente Casino]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: What it boils down to is this and this is why I'm perplexed at so many of you conservatives. Why it is that you are trying to find a justification for having one group of people give something to another group of people who don't contribute to the over all cause in the first place? I -- its and this is no criticism of those people, look I'm probably a stronger voice of support for the working poor that there is.
But at some point -- there's no end to this once you start this kind of thinking. You know there has to be a foundation of common sense that supports it other wise my example of -- okay, automobile dealers, "Here comes your rebate, go out and buy your car and get a cash rebate." Why are you giving the rebates to only people who that buy cars? Give it to people who don't as well. That's only fair.
And those of you who are business owners who support this whole thing, well if you have an employee who comes to you and says, "Hey look, I'm having a baby in September and I need a raise." You're almost duty bound to give it to him because you're supporting the concept people with kids need the money and anywhere but Washington is better for the money and so forth.
Anyway let me grab a call here before we have to wrap this seg up. Dover Delaware and Sid, welcome sir nice to have you with us.
Sid: Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to make a mention that the democrats in the Senate are raising taxes to pay this four hundred dollars they're giving back to people who don't pay taxes. They're raising customs fees and they're raising other fees, you know in order to ,so-called, pay for this.
Rush: Ahh forgotten about that. That's true. We mentioned that Friday.
Sid: Yeah.
Rush: That's exactly right. They are increasing customs fees to come up with the money to do this because, because hey - lets not forget -- Sid, that's an excellent point. All these Senators had this magical number 350 billion and this little add-on here is going to cost about 4 billion and so they're going to come up with -- they're going to raise taxes to pay for this somewhere else down the line. That's exactly right.
Another time out, I'm sorry my friends, I hate it when these segments go long because you got to make up the time somewhere, back in a moment.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Redwood Creek Wines]
[ad: Time Magazine]
[ad: Hopson's Continental]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:55:00. [36: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Hopson's Continental]
[ad: Camelot Theaters]
[ad: PoulationAction.org]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: All right folks, here's the bottom-line. When you give a $400. 00 child tax credit to people who don't pay taxes, that is the government spending the money. It's not the money coming back from government. It's government spending the money, it is Welfare is what it is. It is a classic illustration of how the tax code is used by Washington to bend and shape society the way they want it. It's a Welfare payment.
It is Washington spending the money. That's how you have to look at this and it's your money that they are taking and then give- it's just -- it's just Welfare folks. I'm sorry this will offend you, the truth sometimes hurts.
See you tomorrow, have a great Monday.
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Community Calendar]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
| 
