The Lesson of the Fisker Car Fiasco
RUSH: Remember the story last week that Consumer Reports was conducting a test of the new Fisker Karma electric car, the upscale car for the 1% only? The thing, at 180 miles into the test, shut down. Remember that? It just broke. They had to stop it. It was very embarrassing for everybody involved. No car had ever just shut down or broken down the middle of a Consumer Reports test. USA Today with an update: "Consumer Reports is having more trouble with its beautiful-but-troublesome Fisker Karma plug-in sedan." By the way, folks, just so you understand: I've got no brief against Fisker. And I, as anybody ought to know, am not against progress. I am not against technological advancement. I love it.
It's my second passion, in fact. This show being first outside family and so forth. This is my second passion. I'm all for technological advancement and progress, but I just don't think that 40 miles to a charge is progress. And I also do not think there's anything inherently evil about oil. There's nothing wrong with it. Oil is wonderful. Oil is miraculous. Oil is organic. Oil is as much a part of our world as is pond scum. It's there. We had nothing to do with it. We don't make it. No evil Republican scientist manufactures it in some secret laboratory. It's out there. And it turns out that we have more of it that's available in this country than they have in Saudi Arabia now.
We don't need to be dependent on anybody else for oil.
I also know that there's no replacement for it!
Until they come up with something to get a jet airplane off the ground and have it go a significant distance with people and cargo, we're whistling Dixie here. This is all just feel-good, liberal Democrat, make-the-government-bigger politics. That's all this green energy is. Someday -- not in my lifetime, by the way -- somebody's gonna come up with an alternative fuel to oil. Someday, maybe, somebody might find a way to power vehicles exactly as they're powered now with water. Who knows? We certainly have a lot of that, maybe seawater. If that ever happens, though, I guarantee the leftists will say, "Well, that will be depleting the source of supply for the fishes and the dolphins and Flipper. You can't use seawater to power your evil airplane, Mr. Limbaugh!"
It would probably go something like that. So my problem here is not that. I'm not anti-Fisker. I've got nothing against them or anything else. I just hate going backwards. I want to put my hand up and just say, "Stop going backwards! Stop taking this country, trying to, back to the Dark Ages!" If a new technology can't survive on its own in the marketplace, it's not time yet -- and if we're gonna start subsidizing it with taxpayer dollars, it isn't real. If we're gonna have to pay people $10,000 or $12,000 to go buy one of these cars, it's not real. It's fake; it's artificial. Apple, these new iPads? Apple does not have to pay anybody a dime to buy one! They wait in line for them.
But all these electric cars are gonna be subsidized: tax breaks, tax credits, tax whatever. Well, that makes it artificial. That makes it unreal. And I'm the mayor of Realville. I am the mayor of Literalville. And all this is fake. This industry can't survive in the private sector on its own, by virtue of its product or service. And if it can't, sayonara. "It's not fair, Mr. Limbaugh! These people are technological geniuses, and they need to be subsidized for their brilliance and we need to celebrate them!" Stop it, Mr. New Castrati. They won't be celebrated for anything 'til they make it work. And they can't make it work if they need us to pay for it! Other than buying it.
So, anyway, back to the USA Today story. "In a blog post today, the magazine says that normally a new car at its test facility would be getting lots of mileage accumulating on the odometer from a steady workout. But even after getting the car back from the dealer after it died recently, enough new problems are cropping up that CR won't stray far from its base with it." What it boils down to is the testers for Consumer Reports will not drive this car outside of cell phone range, because they're afraid it's gonna break down and they won't be able to get hold of anybody and tell 'em. So they're staying within cell phone range when they're testing it. Now, imagine an ad for a new electric car with that aspect to it: "Don't drive outside cell phone range after you drive it off the showroom floor."
Most people say, "Well, I doubt that I could. What's the range, 40 miles?"
This is not a cheap car. This is a $107,000 car, the Fisker Karma. So, again, folks, if these people can make it work down the line, happy I will be. Hunky-dory. Fine and dandy. But when they need subsidies from the taxpayers or the president of the United States or from wherever outside of private sector investment -- and if it's a technology being forced on us that nobody wants yet -- sorry, count me out. It's not 'cause I've got anything against these people. It's because I believe in progress. I believe in the free market where this stuff will all happen. What's the saying, necessity is the mother of invention? That's right. Necessity is the mother of invention when we need it. And this is the problem: We just don't need it now.
We don't need this.
There are alternatives that are still much better.
The questions we ought to be asking is: Why do they want to take away the stuff that works so well, so good, promotes so much freedom and is so economically efficient compared to these alternatives? Why do they want to take that away from us? That's what you need to ask yourself. And believe me, they do want to take it away from you. They want to control your thermostat. They want to control your light bulbs. They want to control the car you drive. They want to control how much light you can have in your house and when you can turn it on. Same thing with your air-conditioning and heat. They're not content to let you live your lives and leave you alone. They're only happy when they're living your life for you.
Because you, understand, aren't competent enough to do that on your own.
The Buffett Tax Brings in Little Revenue
RUSH: The Associated Press: "A bill designed to enact President Barack Obama's plan for a 'Buffett Rule' tax on the wealthy would rake in just $31 billion over the next 11 years..." The Buffett Rule. You've heard Obama tout this. We have to close the deficit! We have to reduce the deficit and the national debt, and the rich are not paying their fair share! So Warren Buffett stepped into the slime with an idea, and Obama picked up on it and called it The Buffett Rule. And basically it's a surcharge, a surtax on people earning more than $1 million a year. It's a new tax above and beyond the already existing tax rate for those people.
And it would rake in -- dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! -- $31 billion over the next 11 years. This is "an estimate by Congress' official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press. That figure would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period." This from AP, folks! AP, unknowingly here, is killing the Buffett Rule. Over the next 11 years, we're gonna have $7 trillion in federal budget deficits, and the solution -- the Buffett Rule -- will raise $31 billion. Not even a thimbleful. "It is also miniscule compared to the many hundreds of billions it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama's budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett Rule tax."
So another Obama lie's been put to bed, replacing the AMT with the Buffett Rule loses money.
NYT Runs Contest: Tell Us Why It’s Ethical to Eat Meat
RUSH: You know, speaking of contests (chuckling) the New York Times is asking for reader input. They're actually running a contest: "Tell us why it's ethical to eat meat." It's from the New York Times Magazine, which is out today. "Calling All Carnivores -- Tell Us Why It’s Ethical to Eat Meat: A Contest. ... [T]oday we announce a nationwide contest for the omnivorous readers of The New York Times. We invite you to make the strongest possible case for this most basic of daily practices. If you can make it past our judges, we’ll put your name in lights (or at least in print)."
That seems to be the big prize, that you get your name in print if you come up with a good answer here: Getting your name printed in the New York Times. Second prize is a trip to Philadelphia. "The Prize: The best essay or essays will be published in an upcoming issue of The New York Times" for the best submission. "Tell us why it's ethical to eat meat." What a premise. So the premise is obviously that it's not ethical to eat meat. And the contest is, "Okay, Neanderthal, tell us why it is so that we can beat you up and tear you to shreds and make a joke out of you!"
Mitt to Kid: If You Want Free Stuff, Vote for Other Guy
RUSH: So Romney was in Illinois, and he took a question from a Democrat woman, a plant. The woman asked Romney, "You're all for like 'Yay freedom' and all this stuff and, 'Yay pursuit of happiness.' You know what would make me happy? Free birth control." Romney said, "If you're looking for free stuff that you don't have to pay for, vote for the other guy." Not bad! The Mittster comes out with: If you want free stuff, go vote for the other guy.
Obama Still Lying About His Mother's Death
RUSH: There's a piece a Commentary magazine by Jonathan Tobin. It's an extraordinary job of unpacking an extraordinary lie advanced by the president of the United States. "Obama Still Lying About Mother’s Health Insurance Problem." It seems that Obama has an ongoing war on the truth, whether it involves Obamacare, or debt ceiling negotiations, or Fast and Furious, or the circumstances surrounding his mother's death. Now, we were told by establishment Republican strategerists not to attack or campaign against the president in a personal way. We had to focus on the issues. My problem with that advice is: What happens if Obama lies to advance policies?
What if he is, in fact, a liar?
How do you separate the two?
How does one "stick to the issues" when phony narratives are advanced to deceive? Obama sells Obamacare by saying his poor mother was denied health insurance and she almost died. You know, you've heard the story. What Tobin has done here is discover that it is willful, that it's not the case of telling the same story over and over again and having it be exaggerated, that the whole thing is a lie! The whole story is untrue. "Last summer, a brief stir was caused when a book published by New York Times reporter Janny Scott uncovered an uncomfortable fact about President Obama: He had been lying about his mother’s health insurance problems.
"During the 2008 campaign and throughout the subsequent debate over his signature health care legislation, the president used his mother’s experience as a cancer patient fighting to get coverage to pay for treatment for what her insurer said was a pre-existing condition as an emotional argument to sway skeptics. But as Scott discovered during the course of writing her biography of Anne Dunham," Obama's mother, "it turned out that her correspondence showed that 'the 1995 dispute concerned a Cigna disability insurance policy and that her actual health insurer had apparently reimbursed most of her medical expenses without argument.'"
She got covered.
She was treated.
He's totally lying about it!
So my question to all of you strategerists is: How do you fight this?
If we're supposed to stick to the issues, what if the issues are lies?
What if the sales technique for each issue is a series of lies?
Now what would you have us do?