No More Plans, Republicans!
July 27, 2011
RUSH: "Tea Party Members Are Suggesting Speaker Boehner Be Replaced." I can't tell you how I knew this was coming, but I knew it was. I knew it was coming. The Tea Party people are serious. There's about a hundred of them in the House. Well, close to a hundred of them, 57, somewhere in there. But rank-and-file Tea Party voters understand something. Despite the massive landslide that occurred last November, both parties still have the same leadership. Nothing has changed. I knew this was coming. When I say I knew it was coming, because I have been told I can't tell you by how many people who consider themselves Tea Party people, Tea Party members, short leash. Leadership doesn't reflect what the election results indicated, get rid of 'em.
Now, the leadership thinks the Tea Party is a bunch of kooks. The leadership in both parties thinks the Tea Party's a bunch of kooks. It's not that they're Tea Partiers, it's that they're outsiders, they're not of the establishment. In Washington it's really not that hard to be a kook. You want the word "cut" to mean cut. When you start talking about cuts, you mean cuts. That makes you a kook within the ruling establishment in Washington. It's really no more complicated than that. Now, I don't know how this is gonna manifest itself, but I do know that this has been effervescing out there and it's now effervesced, or for those of you in Rio Linda "bubbled up," to the surface.
RUSH: We have an opportunity here. The frustrating thing here is it's Obama's who's on the ropes. If they called me and asked my opinion -- which they don't, by the way. I may be the titular head of the party, but they don't call me and ask me my opinion. If they did, I'd say, "I think you guys ought to stop going up there. You know, you did the right thing when you didn't return the phone call. You did the right thing. They're the ones that need this! It's Obama who needs to pull his irons out of the fire.
"It's Obama's reelection we're talking about here; that's what all this is about. This is not about anything other than Obama's reelection. Why help him. Why be his lifeline to that? He doesn't present a plan. Make him pay a price for this! Make him put a plan on paper. Who is this guy? He's the least qualified guy when he walks into any room he's in, and he gets to be referee, and he gets to act above it all? After running up all this spending, after practically personally doubling the debt ceiling himself with his spending, he now gets to sit there and tell us what's approvable and what isn't and what will work and what won't and what he'll sign and what he won't? I know he's president of the United States; I understand that. But it's his reelection that all this is about.
"Obama's reelection has been cast here as 'saving America.' It is Obama's defeat that saves America, not Obama's reelection!" Now, anything that is a lifeline to Obama on this that gets him out of a mess... There's month moral victory to be had here. "What do you mean by moral victory?" I'll give you an exact definition of a moral victory. It's the Super Bowl. Your team qualified by virtue of a bunch of quirk plays in the playoffs. There are five teams better than yours, but you make the Super Bowl, and you're playing the best team in the NFL -- and for three quarters you keep the game close but then in the fourth quarter you get blown out. At the end of the game the coach says, "You guys, this is a great moral victory. You showed the world something today! You show that you don't give up."
It's a loss! There's no such thing as a moral victory, and you don't get credit for moral victories. Voters do not credit losers for moral victories. Now, we won the election in November, and as such, we don't compromise. Winners don't compromise. Loser compromise. We are compromising with ourselves, because we are scared, because we are afraid we're gonna get blamed for whatever calamity that might befall the country. There is no way, in real terms, we get blamed for this because we didn't do this! I'm talking about all this reckless spending, the loss of jobs, this economic disaster. This ain't us. We didn't do this. (interruption) Mr. Snerdley, I am fully aware that the press goes ape every time somebody says, "Don't compromise." (interruption)
Which line? (interruption) Oh, the media is playing that line? Oh, I didn't know that. I didn't know that. I've been too busy playing with OS X Lion. I didn't know. They're replaying that line, that losers compromise; winners don't? That line is being played out there? (interruption) Oh, that's why! That's why they're calling me the titular head. That's why they're now all of a sudden saying these guys are listening to me, because I'm the architect of no compromise? Well, then I wear that badge proudly! I wear that uniform proudly. I wear that hat proudly. I told you on this program in Los Angeles last week, "You're compromising with yourself. There's not even a plan!
"You come up with a plan, you go to the White House, and the president says, 'I don't like that, I don't like that, I don't like that, I don't like that.' You go back, you come back, you go back, you come back. He doesn't ever submit anything. He just tells you what about your plan he's not gonna sign or doesn't like." Well, they end up compromising with themselves. Meanwhile, Carney, the press secretary, said yesterday, they don't even have a plan! Somebody tell me what's wrong or what's incorrect about the philosophy "Winners don't compromise"? Let me tell you something: When the Democrats win, show, give me the examples of their compromises when they win.
They don't. They don't compromise when they lose. Why should we? Why is the onus always on us to compromise? And the only reason we have people who think the onus is on us and that we should compromise is because they've been made to believe that whatever it is we want or believe somehow is extreme, when it's not. It's mainstream. We are the mainstream. The kooks in this country are the left. Obama is president of the kooks! You and I, ladies and gentlemen, are not the kooks. The Tea Party is not a collection of kooks. Mainstream conservatives are not kooks. Now, you're gonna see -- if I'm right about this, you're gonna see -- Republicans go after some conservatives, leading conservatives in the House as being "obstructionists" and so forth, standing in the way. That's what will happen. That's the Ruling Class going after the new arrivals.
Where was the compromise on Obamacare?
Somebody tell me.
Where was the compromise on Obamacare? The point is, they didn't compromise anything. I just am saying: Why is the onus always on us? Now, you might say, "Okay, well, Rush, Obama won the presidency. He won. He's the president. He won." What Obama believes, what Obama ran on, what Obama has done lost in the November elections. Obama won nothing in the November elections -- and furthermore, what Obama believes and what Obama wants has been losing at the state level. He lost in Wisconsin. He's losing in Texas. He's gonna lose in Ohio. He's gonna lose in Indiana. He's in big trouble. Obama is not winning. He is not the winner that we're talking about now -- and he's not compromising, either. They lose cap and trade in the Senate. What do they do? Pursue it at the EPA. That's compromise, right?
RUSH: Here's Scott in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Hi.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. How you doing? Longtime listener. I'm wondering what you would think if we went a different direction and created a new tax directly for repayment of debt. If you do the math with me for just a moment. Fourteen trillion divided by 200 million taxpayers, $70,000 over 50 years is $1,400 a person. And we prorate it according to exactly how much you make, not any kind of weird scale, just directly proportional, and I know we don't want new taxes, but this makes every person feel it every year, every time they go over budget. So now, raise the debt ceiling as much as you want because every time it goes over, baseline or no baseline, we recalculate and the person that makes $35,000 a year who has to pay $350 a year of debt repayment, now he's gotta pay $425. And that seems to be the only way to get the ignorant's attention, is whatever comes out of your pocket. I was wondering what you thought about that.
RUSH: In the first place I'm not sure your numbers are right because I'm not sure how many taxpayers you're calculating. I've seen the numbers on what each household owes as its share of the national debt, and a household is defined -- hell, two dogs and a hamster these days, who the hell knows. But the problem is with something like that, the minute you pass that law that raises taxes and the receipts are directed to a specific entity -- first, I don't know, I'm gonna have to check this, I don't know that it's even legal, but even if it were it wouldn't last a week before they would change it and allow themselves the opportunity to do something else with the revenue. But the problem that we face isn't a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Too many people look at all of this as social justice and thus class warfare. That kind of law would never see the light of day.
The 49% of the American people not paying taxes now would have to start under your plan and I guarantee you those people have been raised and conditioned to believe that being an American means they don't pay anything and they get whatever they want for the most part just because they're Americans. And so whoever proposed that, those people wouldn't stand a prayer of being reelected. But this problem is not gonna be solved with taxation, is the main thing people have to understand. This problem is going to be solved with more taxpayers growing economy, more people paying taxes because there are more people being hired with the economy growing, coupled with spending restrictions. This is a pure spending problem.
Let me tell you, you could confiscate all the wealth over $250,000 in this country, and you would run the government for a couple of weeks. Taxation's not the solution here. When you hear Democrats talk about raising taxes, fairness, shared sacrifice and all that, all they're trying to do is prevent the creation of wealth, and I don't want to sign up with anybody whose main objective is denying people the ability to create wealth for themselves.