RUSH: Well, the real Obama budget is out, not the blueprint, and it's even worse. The Obama budget deficit is to top $1.8 trillion. All of this was predicted! All of this was predictable. Every element of this budget story -- and there are three primary elements to it -- "With the economy performing worse than hoped..." That was predicted. That was predictable. We've "stimulated" the economy with gazillions of dollars since last fall. It has not brought any sign of recovery whatsoever. It never was intended to, if truth be known. "With the economy performing worse than hoped, revised White House figures point to deepening budget deficits with the government borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends." We need to substitute a word for "borrowing," and that word is "printing."
The government is printing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year. That is a double wowza! The deficit for the current budget year will rise by $89 billion to above $1.8 trillion -- $1.8 trillion! -- the budget itself is going to be $3.6 trillion or $3.8 trillion. They say we're out of money, states say they're out of money, cities say they're out of money, local communities say they're out of money, feds say they're out of money. They're not out of money; they are simply spending it and taking over a larger percentage of the gross domestic product or the nation's economy. "A budget deficit of $1.8 is about four times the budget deficit record set just last year. The unprecedented red ink flows from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout, the cost of Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as structural imbalances between what the government expenses and what it takes in."
Do you need me to translate this for you? The unprec... (interruption) You do? I need to translate? "The unprecedented red ink flows from the deep recession..." Why? What is it about a recession that causes red ink to expand in Washington? The best way to teach sometimes is to ask. What is it about a recession that creates red ink? Well, the answer is very simple. Lost jobs. Lost jobs mean lost income tax revenue, a total loss of Social Security payroll taxes and everything else. You add to that that a record number of Americans are receiving unemployment compensation. Red ink? Loss of jobs equals loss of tax revenue? Okay. The Wall Street bailout? What about that? What about the Wall Street bailout is causing the deficit to balloon? Well, we had to print money for it, for one thing, we didn't have it. We were already in budget deficit. Have the Wall Street firms rebounded?
Have they rebounded, or have many of them shut down and purchased one another and is Barack Obama now not in charge of them? What did the Wall Street bailout accomplish other than getting more and more Americans to hate Wall Street (other than getting more and more Americans to hate the wealthy and to hate business)? The new enemy, the new enemy in Barack Obama's "class warriors America" is the wealthy and big business. So of course we bail 'em out; it doesn't work; then we hear about their bonuses and then we hate 'em. The cost of President Obama's economic stimulus bill. Hmm! Why would that lead to red ink? Well, because we don't have the money. We're "stimulating" a bankrupt economy -- or a bankrupt government is stimulating an economy with money it doesn't have. You figure it out.
It's gotta print it, it's gotta borrow it, but it doesn't have it. You have an economy in recession being "bailed out" by a bankrupt government that doesn't have any money! It would be one thing if the government was flush with cash and was offering bailouts, but the government doesn't have any money. And when the government doesn't have any money, they panic, and then they're gonna raise everybody's taxes and they're going to go out there and do whatever they have to do, if they have to print it, whatever. They're hiring new people left and right while every other job sector is losing jobs -- and "the structural imbalance between what the government spending and what it takes in." Structural balance is a bunch of gobbledygook that can best be defined as surefire greed. If there is greed in the United States of America today, it is found in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC.
"Greed" is to be found in the offices of Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and every other Democrat in Washington. That's where the greed is. That's where the "structural imbalance between what the government spends and..." What do you mean, structural? There's nothing structural. It's criminal! Not structural. This is not the way the government was designed. The government was not designed to spend more than it takes in. This is purposeful! "As the economy performs worse than expected..." Worse than expected? Anybody with half a brain knew this was going to be the case with all of this government spending. This government is usurping much of the private sector. The private sector can't possibly recover when the government's taking over more and more of it.
The two don't go together. "As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion. The deterioration reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits, and food stamps." But in the Oval Office of the White House, none of this is a problem. This is the objective! The objective is unemployment. The objective is more food stamp benefits. The objective is more unemployment benefits. The objective is an expanding welfare state. The objective is to take the nation's wealth and return it to the nation's, quote, "rightful owners." Think reparations. Think forced reparations here, if you want to understand what actually is going on.
So I don't see any concern from Washington about any of this budget deficit stuff. In fact, not only do I not see any concern, there is this little ditty to add to the news: "High US budget deficits are being driven by an economic crisis that President Barack Obama inherited, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said on Monday. Orszag, writing in a blog posting, also said that the administration's latest budget deficit estimates ... reflect the latest data on tax receipts, federal bailouts and other government costs." So George Bush was so bad and so rotten, that the only way for Barack Obama to repair and resurrect the country from eight years of the disaster of Bush was to create budget deficits four times larger than Bush's.
Bush made him do it! This will be the excuse that is used every time bad news is reported or bad news is known : "We have no choice. Bush made us do it!" Eight years of vilifying Bush, trashing Bush will pay off, because the dunderheads that are devoted as a cult-like group to Barack Obama will simply believe what is offered. "[G]loomier deficit picture reflected weaker tax receipts..." What could they have done to perhaps increase tax receipts? What could they have done? I proposed it myself! I proposed it in my legitimate bipartisan budget proposal in the Wall Street Journal: cut the corporate income tax rates; stop all this notion of raising taxes on business, businesses overseas; and eliminate capital gains for a year or so, just holiday it to reincentivize investment.
If you want more revenue flowing into Washington, you're going to have to get people working again, and to do that you're going to have to cut people's taxes somewhere along the line to give them revenue to hire workers, hire employees. You're going to have to cut taxes somewhere so that there is private sector economic growth. But the private sector economic growth, that would put a monkey wrench in the plans of Barack Obama, who uses all of these crises as excuses and/or reasons to involve the federal government as the Robin Hood, as the white knight, as the savior that's going to fix all of this. Of course, even their own news releases admit that nothing's getting fixed. But that's because of Bush.
RUSH: Well, President Obama has just finished talking about the unsustainable cost of health care and how his administration is gonna fix it, gonna lower the cost of health care. He's got an idea for cutting costs. He's going to nationalize health care. Now, this is from the guy who is proposing a single-year budget deficit of $1.8 trillion, and he's going to save health care. It's absurd! Just today, he announces a budget deficit of $1.8 trillion, which is a record times four, and he goes out on the same day and says he's going to do magic and reduce health care costs by nationalizing it? How will President Obama and the government cut health care costs if they can't cut any other costs that they're responsible for? Well, the only answer would be to ration health care, to limit access, to create long lines and delays. But Obama doesn't care because his goal is to force everyone into the same kind of health care, regardless how hard they work, how much they earn, how responsible they are with their money, or how poor that health care is. Because what Obama's doing is redistributing wealth, including health care. And if that means less health care for those who can afford it, then so be it.
We all have to sacrifice, as Obama likes to say, even though he never sacrifices. He said that 46 million people are without health care. It's a lie. It can be torn apart. Levin, in fact, breaks it down in his book, Liberty and Tyranny. But the Census Bureau has the numbers to put this lie to the myth. But again, if a liberal lies on television and the media doesn't report it, is it a lie? If the nation is in $1.8 trillion of debt, in debt by that amount, $1.8 trillion just from his budget, and another nine trillion down the road as all of his budgets get added up, how can the government, as an entity, afford to take over the health care system? This was my question a moment ago. How can a government that has no money bail out failing businesses? How can a government that is $9 trillion in debt take over anything, including health care? How can they do it? Nine trillion dollars in debt. They can't afford to take over a kid's lemonade stand on Main Street USA. They are out of money.
When Obama says, as he's saying now in his remarks, that he wants to get costs under control, what does he mean? Well, he means he's going to squeeze the doctors, he's gonna squeeze drug companies. Costs under control? Are we going to have fewer doctors, fewer nurses, less hospitals, less medicines, fewer procedures, fewer technologies? We have a right to know how he's going to control costs. Are you going to control costs by making sure doctors don't make as much, fine, where are you going to get the doctors then? Are you going to control costs by saying drugs are not going to be as expensive? Good, where are you gonna get the companies to make the drugs? "Oh, Mr. Limbaugh, we'll import them from Canada like we should be doing now." Oh, I got you. Barack Obama has yet to show in any way how he will control the cost of anything, including his ego. This is why we have a runaway budget, and this is why we're heading toward a cliff and eventually over and off of it with our debt. And after his speech, he leaves the podium, no questions. There are no questions suitable to be asked of The One.