The Ignorance of Barack Obama
June 15, 2011
RUSH: This is Rob in Shokan, New York. Great to have you on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet, sir.
CALLER: I appreciate everything you do. I am an engineer schooled in automation and robotics, had to settle for a job in the government because I didn't have much opportunity when I got out of college. Currently I'm developing a company that's exploiting automation, and I was really taken back yesterday. I heard Obama get on Fox or they had him on Fox when he said automation is the reason we're losing jobs --
RUSH: Yeah, ATM machines.
CALLER: What a joke. It's so funny because to me I look at I'm trying to create a new product and put it on the market, and I'm gonna use automation to make it feasible. At the end of the day it creates jobs, it doesn't lose it. There isn't even --
RUSH: Let me tell you something.
CALLER: -- a shred of data to support that.
RUSH: You are exactly right, and once again it shows -- I don't know how else to say this. You know, the relative utter ignorance, or the insulting incompetence, whatever it is, of Obama, to claim here that automation is doing us in. Okay, I'll tell you what. If it's a great idea to get rid of ATM machines to boost job growth, let's get rid of front-end loaders and backhoes. I mean let's get rid of road graders. You want shovel-ready jobs, let's get rid of all the machines and let's get a thousand people out there digging trenches and all the things that all of these backhoes and front loaders do. If an ATM machine is a job killer, then so is John Deere and Caterpillar.
You know, speaking of automation, this tea, Two If By Tea, available today, historic announcement made by me mere moments ago here on my own program. We began bottling millions of bottles a couple of weeks ago at the best bottling plant in the country and I went there to watch it. I've been fascinated by automation, assembly lines and this kind of thing, and to watch this, the giant vats -- and by the way, we employed actual real food scientists. This is real tea, and it is brewed in giant vats, and these bottles are filled lickety-split as they go through the assembly line, the caps are placed on, they're pasteurized, and this assembly line has created jobs. It would not be feasible for anybody with a bottled beverage to do it manually. You couldn't meet the demand of the market.
And this is why I say, "Who is this guy? Why do we turn to him for any of the answers?" He doesn't have any private sector experience with any of this. Automation, ATM machines, he doesn't have anybody in his regime that's ever been in the private sector. Faculty lounge, academics, theoreticians with no hands-on experience whatsoever, and they claim they are the ones who have all the answers.
RUSH: The last call the guy was talking about Obama and automation and believing that ATMs are the problem. Here's Obama saying this, explaining why job losses have taken place.
OBAMA: There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM. You don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.
RUSH: ATMs, automation. All of a sudden that's why there's a job problem. This is a neophyte. This is absurd. Listen to Obama's keys to winning the future. Windmills, trains, no automation, jobs that require the use of shovels. If you listen to what Obama says, those are the keys to job creation. Those are the keys to winning the future. Windmills, nonexistent green energy, electric cars that get 25 miles to the charge. No coal. No automation. Jobs that require the use of shovels. The more the guy opens his mouth about things like this the more shocking, ladies and gentlemen, it is in terms of what he either actually doesn't know or what he's trying to convince people. It's just amazing. What we know is it can't go on.
I can't think of a greater example of having people ask, "Why in the world do we think politicians have all of our answers? Why do we turn to them? Why do we turn to elected officials? Why are they automatically bestowed with this expert status?" He doesn't have the slightest clue what he's doing, if he's being honest with us about his objective. If his objective is a growing economy, creation of jobs, he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's doing. And the fact that what he's done has lost jobs and he wants to double down on it of course raises the question, what's he really up to and what are his true motivations?
Here's a post from the John Locke Foundation: 1.9 million fewer people employed at the end of May 2011 than there were in February 2009 when Obama's stimulus package was passed. According to the Cybercast News Service: "In February 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that 141.7 million people were employed. By the end of May 2011 -- the last month for which data are available -- that number had fallen to 139.8 million, a difference of 1.9 million." Let's round that up to two million people for the sake of discussion. And the fact is that outcome was completely predictable and predicted, if I may say so myself, ladies and gentlemen, and I, El Rushbo, predicted it.
Not to keep rehashing this, but it's why I said, "I hope he fails," 'cause I knew this would be the result of his policies. This is liberalism, slash, socialism. It doesn't work. It destroys private sector job creation. It destroys incentive. It destroys happiness. It destroys good moods. It destroys contentedness. It makes people universally apathetic or depressed, and they end up asking, "What happened to my country? What in the world happened here?" They believe all this rhetoric they hear during the campaign, it's gonna get better, bought the notion that Bush had destroyed everything. The Bush years are the golden age. The Bush years are the good old days now. A net loss of employment opportunities is the only logical outcome from a policy based on wealth transfers rather than wealth creation. Simple mathematics. It's also simple physics.
Let's say you have a hundred dollars, and the hundred dollars is divvied up among four people, and they each have 25. He said, "That's not fair." So you're gonna take some from one other person that got 25 and give it to somebody else so that their 25 becomes 45. So they've got 45 and the other three have what's left over, 55, by divvying it up. You haven't grown anything. One of the three has done better but there has been no growth. All you've done is rearrange the money. All you've done is redistribute. We haven't created anything new. There's no growth. Brian Riedl at the Heritage Foundation uses the swimming pool analogy. You can take water from the deep end and put it in the shallow end hoping the shallow end gets deeper but it doesn't happen, does it? The volume of water in the pool doesn't change, all you've done is rearrange the water for a while. The volume of water hasn't increased, the pool's not gotten any bigger. So this is just plain old common sense. The redistribution of wealth does not cause wealth creation.
In January of 2009, right before the stimulus plan was passed, an article was published by Roy Cordato, The Locker Room, John Locke Foundation, explaining why, no matter how the money was raised, taxes, borrowing, printing, no net job creation from the stimulus was possible or should even be expected. And it was not innovative thinking. It was just straightforward application of basic economic reasoning. The problem was not with the details but with the idea that government can spend an economy out of recession. And these people are thinking of doubling down and continuing this failed policy under the belief they simply haven't spent enough yet.
Every dollar the government funnels into the ailing economy ultimately has to be diverted from some other area of the economy. Even if you borrow it. If you borrow it, it means you're eliminating the opportunity for somebody else to borrow it. If the government's the number one borrower in the country, little Joe Schmo who wants to borrow for a real estate development, build a shopping center, a home site or what have you, is gonna have a much tougher time getting the money because the government's using it all, but there's no new growth, there's no new money.
"There is a reason why all this is appealing to politicians. Those who are employed as a result of the largesse, i.e., the political winners, are obvious and seen by all. News cameras can show up at the site of the government-funded project and talk about people being put back to work. Politicians can claim credit for these jobs at election time." But there's nothing new that's happening and there's no new growth taking place. Just a bunch of photo-ops, a bunch of illusions.
"Consider the sub-headline on the front page of today’s News and Observer 'The president uses visit to Triangle LED maker Cree to highlight economy.' But as any student who understands the most important lesson in economics can tell you, it is not just about the seen but the unseen." What do you not see when they start making moves like this? They're not creating anything. They can't. The government can only confiscate wealth and destroy it. They certainly can't create it. Even by printing new money, as we all know that doesn't work, either. So none of what they're doing is working, and they're prepared to double down on it.
RUSH: Janet in Cleveland, I'm glad you waited. You're next on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Oh, hello, Rush. This is a real privilege. I'm concerned in the 2008 campaign, and when I tuned in today, I'm concerned again because I know the Democrat campaign strategists listen to hear what you have to say --
CALLER: -- and sometimes do you think you might make it too easy for them to know exactly which points they can counter, twist, uh, deny, and lie about?
RUSH: What do you mean? You say I'm giving away secrets?
CALLER: Well, no. You don't have a disingenuous bone in your body, but sometimes by saying (sigh) what the campaign is doing wrong, they'll just jump in and do it right. Just... If they do something wrong, let 'em fall on their face.
RUSH: Oh, you mean when I analyze a Democrat campaign?
CALLER: Oh, yes, yes, yes.
RUSH: Oh, when did I do that today? What did I do that you think I shouldn't do? There's no wrong answer here. It's just I'm curious: What did I say today or recently that I shouldn't have?
CALLER: Well, I guess when you were talking about, you know, Barack in Puerto Rico. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but I know I sent you an e-mail once because it just struck me that you make it, "Well, hopefully, if they are listening in, they'll wise up and realize this."
RUSH: Do you actually think -- do you really think -- they would listen to me and take advice and think, "You know, this Limbaugh guy, he's offering good criticism."
CALLER: That's what I would hope. I would hope they would realize that you are making sense, but they might be listening in.
RUSH: I think their egos and their hubris is such -- I think they are so arrogant and condescending -- there is no way that they're going to think anybody knows anything more than they do. They're not gonna think anybody is smarter than they are. They're not going to think that I have a better idea how they ought to do something than they have.
CALLER: Well, I just --
RUSH: But I'll tell you what. I'll put it to the test. The next time they do something, the next time Obama does something that I think is a screw up, I'll praise it.
CALLER: There you go. (chuckles) I guess... I think that might work.
RUSH: All right, I'll do that. The next time Obama really screws up royally, I'll praise him.
CALLER: (chuckles) Okay.
RUSH: For making a brilliant political move. It's gonna be hard. It's gonna be hard to do, but... (interruption) Yeah, I know. Look, here's the thing. That's a good point. That's a good point. I've already tried this, Janet. Remember the day after Obama killed Osama, I said, "Thank God for Barack Obama," and they believed it! They thought that I meant it. "Oh, wow, Obama must have really done something good here because Limbaugh's praising him!" It can work for a while. It took 'em two hours to figure out. I think it was the people from TheHill.com who finally got on to it, figured out that maybe I was putting them on.
RUSH: I want to go back to some numbers here when it comes to the economy. I'm gonna move back to that for just a second. Let's take some of these figures, add 'em up. TARP, $700 billion; stimulus, $787 billion, which went to 826. So 826, 787, what are we talking here? One and a half trillion. A little over one and a half trillion dollars borrowed or printed. And then QE2, Quantitative Easing, which was another printing, and that was $630 billion. All of it was borrowed or printed or what have you. So we're looking at $2 trillion here that was borrowed, all ostensibly to create jobs and private sector economic growth. Two trillion dollars. This alone should suffice as the final nail in the coffin that buries liberalism forever as an economic solution to any problem. It won't, but it should.
How about if something else had been done instead: Either wave for one full year all income taxes -- that's trillion dollars -- that would be new money in the private sector, not borrowed, not printed, money that is earned, not sent to Washington. If Washington's gonna go $2 trillion in debt by borrowing or printing for TARP, for stimulus, and QE2, if they're gonna go two trillion in the red, why not do this: Wave all income taxes for one year, a trillion dollars, or give every adult in the country the money. One-hundred and fifty million adults, that would be about $15,000 each, and let's see what happens in terms of the economy.
Now, the starting point here -- you may think this sounds ridiculous -- the starting point is that our wizards of smart in the Obama regime have made the decision that however you divvy it up we're gonna borrow $2 trillion and that's gonna cause job growth and economic growth, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, TARP, stimulus, QE2. Why don't we just do half of that in the form of a sunset of income taxes for a year, have that money stay in people's back pockets, and let's see what happens. It's kind of like I had this alternative proposal in the Wall Street Journal to Obama's ideas contrasted with mine. It was very bipartisan. I said, okay, he won by 53%, so we're talking a trillion dollars, so he gets $530 billion to spend his way, I get the balance tp spend my way on tax cuts and we'll compare which way does best in creating jobs and economic growth. Of course, it was a brilliant column. It was exceedingly well written. It was totally ignored. But this is the same thinking here.
Keep the money in the private sector or go into debt. You're gonna go into debt anyway, keep the money in the private sector and see what happens. TARP went to the banks, it didn't go to consumers, folks. And there's still $150 billion of TARP that's unspent. Stimulus we know did not go to people. Well, it did not go to the private sector. It went to state union employees for the most part, and unemployment. And the sole reason was to keep them employed during the recession so that they would continue to pay union dues, which end up back in Democrat Party coffers. A giant money laundering operation. It was a slush fund. If you're gonna go $2 trillion in debt, all I'm saying is I have a better way of putting that money to use that would really create jobs, that would cause economic activity and growth out the wazoo.