RUSH: The tea parties are getting in full swing out there. I just saw a bunch of great signs out there. One of them just said "Regime Change." In Washington, counter-protesters have shown up at a tea party rally, which was to be expected. You know, the regime is not used to this. Throughout his entire pampered life, the leader of this regime has not been protested like this. He has not been opposed like this. It's only going to make the regime angrier, folks. This is not the kind of stuff that changes the minds of the regime. I know nobody in the tea party movement is expecting that to happen. What we're trying to do is open more minds of the American people.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program. The e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.
"Nancy Pelosi today announced that the current Congress has cut more than $800 billion in taxes," and guess what? "The current Congress will add another $285 billion in tax cuts after lawmakers extend expiring tax provisions and make permanent the 2009 estate tax. Still, Democrats are having trouble conveying this message to voters." I wonder why that is? This is from TheHill.com. Why can't the people at The Hill report it? Why do you have to rely on Rasmussen and a poll? Why can't you at The Hill proclaim that Pelosi's lying through her teeth? You know, if Republicans go out and make a statement like this, the report is: "Republicans claim to have cut $800 billion in taxes." With Pelosi it's, "Nancy Pelosi announced the current Congress has..." It's not "claimed," but "announced."
In a report of how many listeners I have on this program, "Limbaugh claims an audience of 20 million." No, we don't "claim" it. We report the accurate results of the rating surveys. We don't "claim" it. Pelosi is actually claiming something that isn't true. " A recent Rasmussen poll found that 66 percent of survey respondents think they are taxed too much. The right-leaning American..." Has anyone ever called the Brookings Institution "the left-leaning Brookings Institution"? Just me. "The right-leaning American Enterprise Institute found that more middle-class voters think their taxes will increase under [the Obama regime] despite his promise to the contrary. 'We've seen concern that Obama is not going to be able to keep his tax promise to not raise taxes on the middle class,' AEI senior fellow Karlyn Bowman told The Hill."
Now, they have not cut taxes, folks. They are subsidizing certain activities and subsidizing certain people, and they are calling that tax cuts. All it is is wealth redistribution. It's just wealth redistribution! Well, you can call it a tax credit if you want, but all it is is wealth redistribution. They lie endlessly. What tax cuts they provided are minimal, and giving tax relief to people who don't pay taxes is welfare -- and they're out there saying they saved us from another depression. We've heard that already. When in truth what they're doing is creating another depression. They are creating another depression, pure and simple. So Pelosi's out there "deeming" something to be true that isn't. Even Newsweek says that taxes will increase like hell although it's a columnist, Robert Samuelson. The only reason left to read Newsweek.
Here is his title: "Today is the Best Tax Day of Your Life." You know, I have thought about this. I think this is true. "Looking back, we may all remember April 15, 2010, as the day we got off cheaply. Why a growing deficit and increased spending on health care and Social Security nearly guarantee higher tax bills in our future. Almost nobody likes tax day, but people may look back nostalgically on tax day 2010 and those of earlier years because, almost certainly, taxes are going up in the future, and they may go up a lot. With hindsight, tax day 2010 may seem almost dreamy. ... The personal exemption and standard deduction, combined with the child tax credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, shield many poor and middle-class families from the income tax.
"In 2009 they got extra protection from President Obama's Making Work Pay tax credit, which was $400 for single workers (phasing out at $75,000 of income) and $800 for a couple (phasing out at $150,000 of income)." That's the big tax cut Pelosi's talking about. "Without that credit," and it wasn't a cut. It wasn't a rate cut. There's a big difference. "Without that credit, probably only 40 percent of households or less wouldn't have paid income taxes. President Obama has proposed that the credit be renewed for 2011. But given the massive federal budget deficits, there's a good chance that the credit will someday expire. ...
"Why? For starters, almost half of US households aren't paying any income taxes on their 2009 earnings. The exact figure is 47 percent, says the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute," a far-left-wing bunch, by the way, "and Brookings Institution, two think tanks. Among elderly households, 55 percent pay no income tax; among all households with children (including those headed by single parents), the nonpaying share is 54 percent." So depending on which group demographically you look at, well over half of some groups are not paying income taxes. Now, they are paying Social Security taxes and sales taxes and all that, but they're not paying income tax. "By contrast, only 38 percent of married couples filing jointly don't pay. (Of course, this doesn't mean people pay no federal taxes; about three quarters of households pay more in Social Security payroll taxes than in income taxes.)"
"We have to point that out. "So that's one pressure for higher taxes. But it's peanuts compared to the real threat: an aging America," and Robert Samuelson has been warning of this for years. A lot of people have. "As almost everyone knows, the huge baby-boom generation is edging -- or collapsing -- into retirement. Its first members, born in 1946, turn 65 in 2011, when they will qualify for Medicare. Some have already taken Social Security as early as 62 at a reduced rate. Boomers collecting benefits, combined with uncontrolled health costs, are the underlying engine for rising federal spending and endless budget deficits. ... How big a tax increase would be needed to close the gap? Well, huge. To put things in perspective, all federal taxes (income, payroll, and excise) averaged 18.1 percent of GDP from 1970 to 2009. Under CBO's assumptions about Obama's policies, taxes in 2020 would already be slightly higher, at 19.6 percent of GDP. But on top of that, there'd need to be a further tax boost approaching a third to balance the budget, because spending is projected at 25.2 percent of GDP."
Look, these numbers, you could get lost in them when listening to them on the radio. The bottom line here is that in out years -- 2020, 2025 -- under the current structure, the income tax rate is going to have to be as high at 88%. Now, you know it will not be. I mean, people will not work at an income tax rate of 88%. In fact if that ever does eventuate, you're going to have exactly what Cloward-Piven or Priven wanted: Which is a total welfare state economy. It'll be a total welfare state with printed money and borrowed money being distributed to people. And very few people working. "If only today's top two tax rates of 33 percent and 35 percent were raised, the new top rates would be 86 percent and 91 percent." That's what you need to know.
"At those astronomical levels, the study says, the well-off and wealthy would work less and pursue aggressive tax avoidance. Tax revenues would suffer." Uh, Mr. Samuelson? We're not going to have to wait for rates to be 86 and 91% for people to start working less. That will happen around 65, 70%. "These bleak estimates demonstrate why politicians of both parties have avoided confronting the government's long-term budget deficits." That's why the tea party people are out there. The tea party people know this is where we're headed. We don't have to go this route. It's not too late. We're not consigned to this. We can stop this, but not under this current regime. We don't have a prayer of stopping this under this current regime. This current regime's design is these numbers that I have just shared with you.
"Anything they might do -- raising taxes or cutting retirement benefits such as Social Security and Medicare -- risks a public backlash," and of course that means a reelection problem. "Some experts urge new taxes, such as a value-added tax or energy taxes. Others talk of 'broadening' the income-tax base by eliminating or reducing tax breaks (deductions, credits, or exemptions). But of course, none of these steps would be popular. Hardly anyone wants to pay higher taxes, and most big tax breaks (the home-mortgage interest deduction, credits for college tuition, the charitable deduction) benefit major constituencies. Almost all the pressures on taxes are in the same direction: up. It will be hard for [the Obama regime] to keep his promise not to raise taxes on households with incomes below $200,000 (for singles) and $250,000 (for couples).
"It will be hard for economic conservatives or the tea party to achieve meaningful tax reductions. Just about everyone will be tempted to deplore federal budget deficits -- and do nothing about them. But this escape route may close; many economists warn that endlessly large deficits risk big jumps in interest rates. Someday, higher taxes may be unavoidable. So, the lesson for tax day 2010 is simple: enjoy it while you can. It's not going to get any easier." That's Robert Samuelson writing in Newsweek. Again, the only reason to read Newsweek is Robert Samuelson. He's part of the Washington Post writers group as well. We don't have to go this route. We do not have to go this route. Remember: The regime is not about generating revenue to run Washington. That's not what their tax increases are about, that's not what any of their domestic policies are about. Lowering taxes.
The Reagan "regime," if you will, was oriented about closing budget deficits, creating more revenue, lowering the tax burden on a larger number of people, expanding the tax base -- and it worked! It works every time it's tried. This regime's agenda has nothing to do with reducing deficits, reducing debt. It has everything to do with expanding the scope and the power of government over the lives of as many Americans as possible and creating a never-ending dependence for the basic necessities of life, provided by the regime. You might ask, "Why, Rush? Why do they want to do this?" I've told you countless times. Someday, in my lifetime or not, you're going to understand: This regime doesn't like America. This regime doesn't like Americans. This regime thinks this country never deserved to be as rich, big, our powerful as it was, or is.
This regime believes all the crap that's taught in multicultural curricula, that all of them Isms -- racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia -- all the environmental destruction, all of that was brought with Western European settlement, the discovery of the New World. We have grown larger than we ever deserved to. We have stolen and plundered resources from all over the world to enrich ourselves, and in the process we have impoverished people around the world. The United States is the problem in the world. Capitalism is a problem because capitalism equals liberty, freedom, and prosperity for individuals. This regime is not oriented toward liberty, prosperity, and freedom for individuals. It's been a year, almost a year and a half now, folks. It's time to fess up. It's time to face this squarely and admit exactly why what's being done is being done. We need not go this route. You notice that Samuelson in his piece never even entertains the notion of cutting spending.
Hardly anybody does. We're going to have to. We're going to have to at some point. We don't have any money! We're broke. We don't have whatever money Obama wants to spend. He's promising to build schools in Muslim countries, we don't have the money. We floated a Porkulus bill of 987 billion or whatever it was to fix schools and roads and bridges. That hasn't happened. All that money went to government unions and the states to keep the union workers employed. The Chicago Tribune had it right the other day on Sunday, in their editorial. The deal is this. "You union people? Work for us, we'll give you adequate salaries, but we are going to give you pensions and retirement plans and health care like you can't believe. Just keep us in office." Except now (chuckles) all those pension plans, all of those health benefits, all those things from California to New York to Illinois are underfunded, in many cases by as much as 75%. Nobody has any money! The government does not have any money. That's why they're gonna go where the money is and take it, from individuals, from pension plans, wherever they can get it. Borrowing it, printing it, you name it.
RUSH: I have a serious question, a very serious question. Robert Samuelson in this piece in Newsweek ignores the final conclusion of the Urban League and the Brookings Institution findings. If you say that tax rates are going to be need to be 86 and 91% what you are saying is that no amount of taxes will solve the deficit problem. He doesn't address that. But when you tell people your tax rate's 91% or 86%, I'm sorry, you're not gonna get enough people working, earning enough money to produce taxes at that rate to make a dent. So it's a tantamount admission that there's no way -- and we've had another left-wing tax outfit, the Urban Institute's tax group, which is a left-wing group, too, a couple of weeks ago we had a story where they said under our present structure, there's no amount of tax increase that will reduce or solve the deficit problem. It is a spending-side question. But Samuelson makes the point that cutting benefits will risk a public backlash. If we cut Medicare, if we cut Social Security, if we cut Medicaid, we'd be risking a public backlash.
Well, why do we care about that backlash more than we care about the backlash of people paying all of this? Why should we fear a backlash from the people who are getting benefits more than a backlash from the people who are paying for them? Why is nobody ever concerned about the backlash from people who are paying the tax burden? Ergo, welcome the tea party. The tea party poses the biggest threat the regime faces because the tea party is a revolt from those who are paying for all of this. Up 'til now, we fear the revolt of people on the receiving end of it. And we just expect the people paying it to keep on paying it and to shut up while doing so, and if you complain, whine, and moan, we're going to compare you to Timothy McVeigh and say you're going to blow up a federal building somewhere, and then we're going to say you listen to talk radio, you're a racist, white, old hick, and you're marching around in the tea party, you're trying to rev people up into violent acts. That's what they're going to say to the people who have a backlash when they are paying for this.
So we're in a situation now where we fear a backlash from the people who are getting benefits more than a backlash from the people paying for them. Now, at some point that will be a reasonable fear because there are going to be more people getting than paying. And so a backlash from them would be a majority, a large number. We still have more people paying taxes than people who aren't. So the backlash from those people would be larger if it were in unison. In other words, put it this way. Why should we worry more about people who don't work, who don't pay taxes, than we do about the very people who keep the country going, by their industry, their hard work, their commitment. Aren't we placing the concern in the wrong group here? Aren't we sympathizing with the wrong group of people here? See, the regime thinks that those of you who are working, you're only working because you have somehow shafted those who aren't. You've either taken their job or you've taken away their ability, you've taken away their slot in a university, or you have fired them or you've done something, so the people working, the people pulling the cart, they deserve to be punished and find out what life has been like for the rest of America all these 200-plus years. That's what's going on.
RUSH: So what's a tea party, folks? The tea party, when you boil it down to its essence, is a backlash. It is a backlash from people who work and who expect their kids and grandkids to work, who want to work, who want their kids and grandkids to work, who understand what it is that's made this country great. That's who the tea party is. And the regime, the Democrats, mock them. And when they're not mocking them, they ignore them. And when they're not ignoring them and not mocking them, they vilify them. They call them astroturfers, they call them Nazis, as is the case with Nazi Pelosi, as George Soros says. When has the media ever ignored or mocked or vilified ACORN protesters? The media comes to the defense of ACORN protesters. The media comes to the defense of ACORN advising people how to set up brothels in poor neighborhoods. When has the media ever ignored, mocked, or vilified some group of people demanding benefits? When has the media mocked, ignored, or vilified La Raza protesters or union protesters? Never.
This regime and its willing accomplices are engaged in the effort to vilify the backbone of this country, the people who work and thus make it work. They are the objects of derision. They are the targets for destruction. They are the very people -- and the tea party people know it because they are those people. The people who work, the people who provide for themselves and other Americans somehow have become the enemy. The people in the private sector who earn profits, who strive for profits so as to expand their businesses and grow and employ even more people, they have become the enemy in the United States of America. If I didn't know better I would say that Hugo Chavez is actually running this country, and I'm probably downplaying this a bit. I've never seen it like this.
I know that to the Democrat Party, the rich have always been the enemy for the purposes of politics, class envy, and all that. But this regime is genuinely targeting the producers in this country and singling them out for harm, economic harm. Because this regime has some God-awful perverted view that they don't deserve it, that they have stolen it, come by it in some ill-gotten way or what have you. They need to be cut down to size as does the country on the world stage. I mean we're constantly in fear of backlash from Muslims. That's why nobody will tell the truth about Fort Hood. We can't use the word terrorism now, Islamic fundamentalism in our official government documents, we're afraid of that backlash. But there's no fear of any backlash from the people who actually make this country work. None. They mock that backlash. They vilify it, they make fun of it or they ignore it.