RUSH: Let's go to the State-Controlled Media. They're not happy out there. They're livid. Jake Tapper last night on ABC's World News Tonight.
TAPPER: President Obama had originally told voters taxes on income of more than $250,000 a year should increase. He gave in to Republicans on that. So the family of the average Wall Street banker paid more than $311,000 a year will keep $9,318, as opposed to the $8,012 the president wanted him to keep. Take LeBron James. He makes $14.5 million a year and will continue to keep more than $666,000 of that, as opposed to the president's original position of letting him keep just over $8,000 of that. The White House says President Obama would have gladly signed just the tax cut extensions for middle-class Americans, but the votes simply were not there and this is the best deal he could get.
RUSH: Now, this is why they're livid and fit to be tied, because that just can't be. What is their majority in the House? To say the votes are not there? The votes clearly are there. If Obama can't get the votes for ending the current tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, it's because the Democrats remember the election outcome. I cannot emphasize this enough. We are still in the lame duck here. The Democrats have a 100-seat majority in the House of Representatives. Obama just said the votes were not there to give him what he wanted, in a 100-seat majority, House of Representatives. Stop and think of that. If that's even true. But how do you like Jake Tapper's lingo, Obama was going to let LeBron James keep X, but now Obama's only going to let LeBron James keep Y. What is this "Obama letting" stuff? "Government is going to let." See, that furthers this notion that all money is Washington's and that whatever any of us end up with is what that allow us to have or to keep. It's a big bugaboo of mine. Words mean things, and that creates an image that just isn't true. Jake Tapper, November 3rd, 2010, remember, it was Tapper who wanted Obama to decide who was rich enough. It was Jake Tapper who wanted Obama to compromise on a number, like a million dollars in income. This was during a Q&A at a news conference back in November, the 3rd, right after the election.
TAPPER: They want all the Bush tax cuts extended. Are you willing to compromise on that, allow them to expire for everyone over a million dollars? Where are you willing to budge on that?
OBAMA: It is very important that we're not taking a whole bunch of money out of the system from people who are most likely to spend that money on goods, services, groceries --
RUSH: Bite me.
OBAMA: -- buying a new winter coat for the kids.
RUSH: What a crock.
OBAMA: How that negotiation works itself out I think is too early to say.
RUSH: Another thing that bugs me. Only certain people spend money in ways that count? "It is very important that we're not taking a whole bunch of money out of the system from people who are most likely to spend that money on goods, services, groceries, buying a new winter coat for the kids." I'm starting to resent this. I'm starting to resent the fact that I don't spend my money in a way that's approving to Obama. This is fatuous. "People are more likely to spend that money on goods, services, groceries, buying a new winter coat --" I just bought a winter coat for me to use maybe twice a year. But I just bought one. Does that not count? Well, I'm not gonna get too personal here, but these are jackassian comments, folks. All of this, government, Obama, letting people keep, Obama deciding. He doesn't know the half of anything. Obama deciding whose spending money makes most sense? "That's right, Mr. Limbaugh, because people like you who don't need all the money you have, you just save it." Well, what happens then, you dolt? Okay, I save it, what does that mean? "That means you put it in a bank account, sir." No. Well, some is in a bank account, but then what happens? The bank spends it.
Whoever I give my money to spends it. If I buy stocks with it, somebody's going out there and buying stocks with it. You call that saving. What's wrong with buying stock? What's wrong with investing income? What if I buy some municipal bonds, they're in trouble out there, might be a stupid thing to do but I'm doing it. Might be a wise thing to do, who knows. But this notion that people who aren't going out and buying a bunch of bubble gum are not helping the economy. We gotta get a handle on this, folks, this is patently absurd that only the lower echelon of the middle class spending has any economic stimulus. Everything that people do with their money is spending it, one way or the other. The only time money is not in circulation is when the government takes it away from you. They're the ones who make all the spending errors with it. They are the ones who go into debt. They are the ones that can't be trusted with our money and they've got it turned around to say they make wiser decisions than we do. I thought we're supposed to be getting away from a consumerism economy anyway. I thought these socialists don't like that. I think they want Keynesian; they want the government spending all the money. What is all this talk about consumerism anyway? This stuff really hacks me off. It really hacks me off.
Here's F. Chuck Todd, another in a long line of ignoramuses in the media. Here's F. Chuck last night on NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams. And F. Chuck is bemoaning the lost revenue. Chuck, I want to know something, Chuck, do you have a wife? I see your wedding ring. Probably have kids. Do you have a car? You've got life insurance, homeowners insurance. Do you really spend your day worrying whether or not the government's got enough money when they've got a printing press, Chuck? Do you really bemoan the loss of revenue? Who does this? I don't doubt that he does. F. Chuck probably gets in depression fits over lost revenue. Good Lord. Here's the sound bite from F. Chuck Todd on the NBC Nightly News.
WILLIAMS: Americans have been wondering how lawmakers in Washington could possibly extend tax breaks for wealthy Americans while allowing benefits for jobless Americans to be cut off.
TODD: Now, Brian, how much of this costs the government? In lost revenue that they were projecting to have next year it's gonna cost approximately half a trillion dollars.
RUSH: Chuck, are you really worried about that? They've got a printing press. The government doesn't lose any money ever, Chuck. They're the one entity that never loses anything. They never do without, Chuck. Show me where a budget has been less one year than the next, full government budget. And Brian Williams, "Americans have been wondering how lawmakers in Washington can possibly extend tax breaks for wealthy Americans while allowing benefits for jobless Americans to be cut off." Americans are not wondering that, Brian. Some of the kook fringe leftists on the websites might be, but not in this context. "Americans have been wondering how lawmakers in Washington could possibly extend tax breaks for wealthy Americans." They're not. In fact a lot of the unemployment, those who want to work, are saying, "When's Washington gonna do something to stop punishing people who hire people?" These people pay no attention to election results, and why? Do they not read their own exit polls? And F. Chuck, how much did this cost the government? Chuck, do you really look at things this way, because nothing ever costs the government anything. Besides, F. Chuck, it's our money. Every dime is our money. It isn't theirs. We don't have tax problem, Chuck, we've got a spending problem.
We do not have a tax problem. Don't we want people to put money in banks so they can lend it? Isn't a tight credit market one of the biggest problems facing the economy? "Well, that's the rich, put their money in banks, that doesn't count, their spending doesn't count." Really? Here's Pelosi's statement, by the way. It's from her statement on the deal. "Any provision must be judged by two criteria: does it create jobs to grow our economy and does it add to the deficit?" Now, if that were really her criteria she would have never allowed any of the legislation they've rammed through Congress over the last four years, 'cause none of it grew the economy and none of it reduced the deficit. All right, Scarborough. Folks, I have to make an observation. Ninety percent -- jeez, it's even more than that -- 95% of our media reaction to this comes from some NBC outlet. The rest of it comes from CNN, some comes from, like Frank Rich was on Imus in the Morning. But Good Lord, MSNBC, you have to work to collect this amount of stupidity in one place every day, or ignorance or whatever. You have to make a concerted effort. Joe Scarborough today on Morning Joe said this about the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts.
SCARBOROUGH: After this you cannot say he's a socialist. That's what the right has been calling him, a socialist forever. This is income redistribution, but it's taking it back to the rich. I mean millionaires are getting tax cuts, billionaires are getting tax cuts. The estate tax, they're lowering the estate tax. They are giving payroll tax breaks for the next couple years. He's become a Jack Kemp Democrat.
RUSH: Joe, there is no redistribution of income to the rich. Where do you get this? Well, I know he's been hanging around Chuck Todd. You gotta allow for certain things he has to say over there to keep his job, but are there no limits? Redistribution to the rich? Who are we taking the money from, Joe? Who has the money now, Joe, that we're taking it from and giving it to the billionaires? Payroll tax, I mean that's a one-year holiday of 2%. But who we taking the money from? Joe, the estate tax is not a tax cut, it's an increase, it's zero. There is no estate tax right now. It's going up to 35 percent. There aren't any tax cuts. Technically speaking the estate tax right now is zero. Do you know how many families are trying to figure out -- well, never mind, I'm not gonna go there. Well, you know, a lot of end-of-life planning going on out there and time is dwindling here. By definition now, the estate tax of zero ends at midnight on December 31st.
RUSH: I got a quick question here for F. Chuck Todd. Chuck, have you calculated how much your salary from NBC costs the government? Chuck, have you ever sat around and run the numbers, and do you worry about it? Do you worry about the cost to government of your salary? I'm not just talking about your taxes, F. Chuck. Let's say... I'm just guessing. I don't know how much F. Chuck makes, but it's a news business. He's a star at NBC. Let's say F. Chuck is in there at... He does a lot of double duty. He works at NBC (which you really gotta pay the stars to do that) and then he's news director, bureau chief or whatever. Let's say F. Chuck is at $5 million. F. Chuck, do you ever wonder not just about that $5 million that you make, but the $14 million that Brian Williams makes, and Andrea Mitchell at whatever she makes?
How much is that costing government? Do you worry about it? Have you ever calculated how much it costs the government to let you keep any of what you earn, Chuck? At what point, Chuck, will you get upset at the government not letting you keep certain amount of money? Chuck, you make $5 million. Let's say the government wants $3 million of it. That's still costing the government $2 million the way I look at it, the way you do. F. Chuck is probably listening and saying, "The government doesn't pay me, NBC does!" No, no, no, Chuck. The way you think, all money is government's. Government allows NBC to pay you X.
What does that cost them?
What's it cost the government, Chuck, for you to earn anything? If you're going to run around and worry about this, I'm trying to illustrate absurdity here by being absurd. Because this is patently absurd, to start worrying about what it "costs" the government. And, Chuck, you know what Newsweek says I earn. I am not... We all play games here. F. Chuck, do you ever worry about what that's costing the government? 'Cause I don't. I have another audio sound bite. We'll squeeze one in here. Mark Halperin on MSNBC's Morning Joe today, question: "Shouldn't the Republicans be called out on their hypocrisy here when all the dust settles? Isn't that what we're gonna see, Mark?"
HALPERIN: The president cares about getting things done. He doesn't care about making the base happy. He doesn't care that much about getting reelected right now. He cares less about it than almost anyone I've ever covered. He wants to do the right thing.
RUSH: Now... (laughing) It was just yesterday that Halperin had a piece hoping for a catastrophe for this guy to get reelected, but he "doesn't care" about it. He doesn't care about getting reelected right now? He just cares about getting things done? This is the first legislative loss Obama has taken in two years. It's the first attempt to damage the country he's lost at. That's one way to look at this.