http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/10/26/the_collaboration_we_need_mitt_s_proud_romneycare_led_to_obamacare_and_this_awful_economy_with_stagnant_wages_and_a_flood_of_unskilled_workersThe Collaboration We Need? Mitt's Proud Romneycare Led to Obamacare, and This Awful Economy with Stagnant Wages and a Flood of Unskilled Workers
October 26, 2015
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here we have from The Daily Beast: "Mitt Finally Admits: Romneycare Gave Us Obamacare." Mitt's on a roll, folks. "Years after running, Romney seemingly comes to terms with an undeniable connection. Three years after running on the promise to partially repeal the Affordable Care Act, Mitt Romney finally admitted the truth: His own Massachusetts health-care law led directly to President Obama’s current law. During the 2012 campaign, Romney was dogged by accusations from the right that 'Romneycare' -- a mandate-based law passed during his time as governor of Massachusetts -- was the foundation for the Affordable Care Act."
And he was, and there are many people on the right who questioned why would we nominate somebody who cannot criticize the biggest policy boondoggle of the Obama administration because he created it? Why would we nominate a guy like this? It was a legitimate question, but we did it.
"While memorializing the recently deceased Staples founder Tom Stemberg on Friday, Romney finally admitted the similarities: 'Without Tom pushing it, I don’t think we would have had Romneycare,' he confessed. 'Without Romneycare, I don’t think we would have Obamacare. So, without Tom a lot of people wouldn’t have health insurance.'" So Mitt Romney is now praising Obamacare by way of linking it to Romneycare. Without his buddy, Tom Stemberg, founder of Staples, we wouldn't have Romneycare and if we didn't have Romneycare, we wouldn't have Obamacare, and if we didn't have Obamacare, a lot of people wouldn't have health insurance.
You want to hear some of the latest health insurance news? Let's start with this little statistic. Daily Caller: "Fifty-one percent of working Americans make less than $30,000 a year." This data from the Social Security Administration. That's $2,500 a month before taxes. That is just above the federal poverty level for a family of five. "The new numbers come from the National Wage Index, which SSA updates each year based on reported wages subject to the federal income tax."
Stop and think of that. Fifty-one percent of Americans make less than $30,000 a year, and they want to talk to us about a booming economic recovery? They want to talk to us about economic growth and all the great things Obama's done for employment and job creation and business growth. This is absurd. People are losing status economically, and they know it. They are scared to death in this country. Half of the people in this country are making less than 30,000. They're all on some sort of government program or two or three in order to get by. They have successfully been turned into government dependents. And this doesn't take into account the eight million Americans who are unemployed or the tens of millions of working age Americans who are not participating in the job market. That number is 94 million.
Tens of millions doesn't do it justice. Ninety-four million not working, eight million of 'em counted as unemployed. What does that tell you? Ninety-four million not working. Only eight million officially called unemployed. Add it all up, nearly 40% of Americans are not working, the lowest participation rate since 1977, and the problem is we're not collaborating enough with the Democrats, for crying out loud? The architects of this. Our borders are flooded with low skilled, low educated people who cannot command any kind of a decent wage because they're not qualified. They happen to be preferred employee customers. By employee customers, I mean applicants for jobs. What is the American economy supposed to exist on? If people don't have any disposable income, if people aren't able to earn enough money to even have a chance to provide for themselves, what's supposed to propel it? I'll tell you what's propelling it, $18 trillion in debt, printing money left and right, given to Wall Street, called quantitative easing, but it certainly isn't money in the hands of the American people that's propelling the economy.
So now that you know that one in two working Americans make less than $30,000 a year, would you like to know what's gonna happen to Obamacare premiums next year? "Obama Administration Unveils Health Care Premiums for 2016 -- When consumers turn on their laptops and tablets Monday morning, they should be able to check premiums for 2016 under President Barack Obama's health care law. Rates are going up in many parts of the country as a new sign-up season starts Nov. 1."
They don't tell you how much rates are going up, but try this story: "85% Insurance Premium Increase Is A Stunner." And this is in the liberal enclave of Santa Cruz, California. "The owners of the Sockshop and Shoe Co. face a stunning 85 percent increase in the cost of their group health insurance plan for their employees. Eric Gil, a co-owner with his wife, said, 'When you're doubling the cost, it's threatening.'"
No. It's exactly what's planned. This is exactly the plan. You price this out of existence. This is how you get to single payer, meaning government runs it from top to bottom. You simply price the private sector out of it. They can't afford it. Eighty-five percent increase to provide health insurance for their employees at a tiny little, small business in Santa Cruz, California. They can't afford an 85% premium increase. And there's Mitt Romney, "Yep, without old Tom Stemberg at Staples, we wouldn't have had Romneycare. Without Romneycare, we wouldn't have had Obamacare, and if we didn't have Obamacare, there would be a lot of people who wouldn't have health insurance." Well, now we have people mandated by federal law to buy health insurance that they cannot afford. And it's becoming more and more unaffordable.
Paul Krugman, New York Times: "Free Mitt Romney! -- Sometimes I find myself feeling sorry for Mitt Romney," writes Krugman. "No, seriously. In another time and place, he might have been respected as an effective technocrat -- a smart guy valued ... for his ability to get things done." There it is again. "In fact, that’s kind of how it worked when he was governor of Massachusetts, a decade ago. But now it’s 2015 in America, and Mr. Romney’s party doesn’t want people who get things done. On the contrary, it actively hates government programs that improve American lives."
Name one, Mr. Krugman.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We have been frustrated over the Republican Party's failure to stop Obama or even try to stop Obama. There has been no push-back. We've talked about it. There have been two midterm elections where a vast majority of the American people showed up to vote with one message: "Stop this! Fix this! Do not let any more of this go on!" The Republican Party campaign said, "Yep, we hear you. We'll stop it." Then they make meaningless gestures after they win election. We now know that it's purposeful and it's studied.
Here. Even Paul Krugman: "[A] few days ago Mr. Romney couldn’t help himself: he boasted to the Boston Globe that 'Without Romneycare, we wouldn't have had Obamacare' and that as a result 'a lot of people wouldn’t have health insurance.' And it’s true!" Of course now Krugman's praising Romney as, oh, my, one of the greatest. But such truths are not welcome in the GOP, you see, according to Krugman. Ah, Republican insurgent media. They're just not gonna put up with this kind of truth.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Gonna start with Darren in Indianapolis. It's great to have you here. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush.
RUSH: Hi.
CALLER: Rush, my wife Robin and I are conservative African-Americans, both born in 1965 and grew up in the seventies in a liberal Democratic household, middle class. As we became adults in the eighties under Reagan we became aware of the misinformation and lies that the liberal media was putting forth, particularly Reagan economics, which logically made sense. We could never explain that to our relatives. So we were always thankful when conservative media like yourself came along to give us some credibility and not let us feel isolated anymore. And at the current moment we couldn't agree more with you that the Republican Party as a whole should be embracing conservative media because this is the time right now to stop this unconstitutional transformation of America.
RUSH: Amen, A-freaking-men. Well spoken, Darren. I couldn't put it better myself, and that's saying something. You know, it's a great reminder. Reaganomics, the 1980s, Ronald Reagan with two landslide victories, and Mitt Romney's preferred legacy media was lying about Reagan every day. Lying about Reagan policies; lying about Reagan and the Soviet Union and communism; lying about Reagan and his tax cuts; lying, lying, lying, doing everything they could they could to dissuade people from supporting Reagan.
After Reagan won both elections in landslides they did everything they could to destroy Reagan's character, his good name, his reputation. They tried to gin up hatred for Reagan just as they tried for Bush and the Iraq war in the second term of W's administration. They didn't succeed with Reagan because the people of this country loved him. Ronald Reagan connected with the American people over the heads of the media. And Reagan had to deal with the media that Mitt Romney longs for.
When Ronald Reagan was president there were just three networks. Sam Donaldson, Dan Rather, and Peter Jennings trying to embarrass him at every press conference. That was it. The New York Times had their reporters and columnists. The Washington Post, ditto. And for some of his administration, CNN. The days apparently Mitt Romney, the Republican establishment longed for was what Ronald Reagan triumphed over, what Ronald Reagan had to deal with. Ronald Reagan did not have a conservative media and still won two landslides. What does that tell you? It tells you that conservatism will win landslide elections when properly articulated, understood, cheerfully and optimistically supported, and that the Drive-Bys cannot change that. And they know it, by the way.
Folks, this is very important. The left in this country knows full well the danger posed by an articulate conservative. That's why they have to destroy 'em. That's why they have to destroy their credibility, their reputations, what have you. But we all know the Republican establishment even back then was not supportive of Reagan, tried to undermine Reagan many times. Not just in 1976. They tried to undermine him in 1980 as well. After he won they all wanted to bask in the glow, but they were never at home with Reagan. They, too, thought Reagan was a little kooky, a little off center, you know, not quite right, but he won big, and they went along with the run for the good times of it. But they were never, ever of the mind that Reagan was one of them.
Reagan remained an outsider throughout even his two landslide wins and his two successful presidential terms. But it's that media that Mitt Romney -- and look, again, I know he's not just speaking for himself. To say this, I guarantee you they're all talking about this, amongst themselves, and probably have been for a while, longing for the good old days when there weren't anybody in the media holding them to account. Yeah, those were the good old days. The Democrats didn't say anything bad about 'em. The Democrats didn't make up lies about 'em, they think. This is what's mind-boggling to me. Ronald Reagan was treated with the same abject hatred and disrespect George W. Bush was, as was Richard Nixon. I do not understand longing for those days. I just don't. Anyway, Darren, I appreciate the call. Thanks much.
This is Gary, Pensacola, Florida. You're next. Glad you waited. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, it's a thrill and a pleasure. As I see it, the real problem of trying to work across the aisle is the Democrats just don't operate in good faith as negotiating partners. It's like dealing with the old Soviets or the Iranians. They lie and then they cheat. Reagan tried to cut a budget deal, the Democrats got their tax increases immediately, the spending cuts never came. George H. W. Bush made a budget deal, and they said you gotta be statesman-like, you gotta raise taxes, and he said, well, okay, I'll go along. And then they used it against him and called him a liar, said he raised your taxes. The establishment's like Charlie Brown and the Democrats are Lucy with the football. They keep snatching it away and he never learns.
RUSH: Well, it's a great point. It's kind of understates it to say the Democrats don't negotiate in good faith. But the point is well made, well taken. I think we are at a stage -- now, this is just me, but there isn't anything in Hillary Clinton's agenda that I want part of. Romney makes this point, Jeb makes this point, and, by the way, the left is out, they love to quote Reagan, in fact, on this point. They love to say Reagan negotiated with the left. Reagan made deals with the Senate. Reagan talked. And they have this quote that they love to put out about Reagan. They claim Reagan was chastising the right-wing extremists in his own party when he said, "Look, I learned when I ran the Screen Actors Guild, you never get a hundred percent of what you want, you gotta get something. If you can get 70 or 80% of what you want, then go ahead and make the deal. We have to have that kind of flexibility." Granted. But that never happens.
When have we got 70 or 80%? The Democrats are the ones that get 70 or 80 or more percent of what they want. Usually it's a hundred percent. The recalcitrance here and the reluctance to negotiate and cross the aisle is simply intelligence guided by experience. What in the world is there to negotiate with these people, particularly when -- Gary's right -- they don't keep their word on things. At this point, this stage, there isn't anything. What do you want, Obama to sacrifice 20% of Obamacare? Do you want Obama to only go 80% of the way on the Iranian nuclear deal?
What is there to negotiate with? Do you want only eight million to have amnesty instead of 12? Where is the common ground? I would think if you're going to negotiate, and if you're gonna make deals -- and, by the way, that whole belief system that Washington exists for deal-making, what a crock. That's when you get sold down the river. Washington is where people win and lose. Washington is where there are winners and losers, and we've been on the losing side for far too long. But what is this deal-making business? Paul Ryan's out there saying, "Yeah, we've gotta get together, and we've gotta solve problem the Amer." Whoa, whoa, is that what Congress does is solve the problems of the American -- what Congress Washington's done is make a bunch of problems. They've created a bunch of problems with law after law after legislation after legislation, regulation after regulation.
Problems are created that the American people are left to try to fix themselves. But this idea that we've gotta work with the other side, cross the aisle, make deals, negotiate, compromise. They say this almost religiously and it's almost as though they believe that the entire presidential electorate is of that frame of mind. Certainly they believe the independents are of that frame of mind. And they believe you gotta win the independents. If you don't win the independents, you don't have a chance. I'd love to remind them, Mitt Romney won independents going away in 2012. It was a slam dunk. Romney had a landslide victory among independents and he lost. And he lost handily. He lost sizably.
largeBut it's this belief that the independents want the parties to work together. The independents want compromise. They want everybody smiling and shaking hands. That is a concoction of crap that has been promulgated in such a way as to represent the thinking of a majority of Americans, and the American people don't think that way. But yet the media reports it as though that's what everybody's concerned about, the lack of cooperation in Washington. What people are worried about is the country is in decline. The people on the left know it's in decline. They're upset because their policies are not saving the country.
You are upset because the country's in decline because Democrat policies are working and Republicans don't seem to be interested in stopping it? But there's angst everywhere on both sides of the aisle? The left is getting everything they want, for all intents and purposes, and they're not happy, they're angrier than ever. You would be, too, if everything you believed in was gonna lead to a utopia, and you elected a guy who began to implement it right down the line, and it did get implemented. You got nuclear weapons in Iraq to show that we're not a superpower any longer. You've got Obamacare, everybody got free health care. Everybody's gonna get treatment. Nobody's gonna get sick. We're gonna get rid of the coal industry. We're gonna build up all this green energy, gonna get rid of global warming.
Nothing's happening. Every policy implementation leads to the country's decline increasing in speed. So the left, understandably irritated and outraged, they're faced with the evidence that what they believe in doesn't work. But you add it all together and there's a combined fright, fear, angst throughout the population, those that are paying attention.
END TRANSCRIPT
