RUSH: I have really been struggling with some things here, folks, in terms of going forward here. Well, you know, I'm the mayor of Realville, and that's accepting various realities that are staring you in the face for what they are rather than seeing them and wishing it was something other than what it is and even trying to make it something other than what it is. I remember back in the early nineties, Clinton's elected and promises to raise taxes and make 'em retroactive, and I predicted this would do irreparable harm to economic growth, slow it down. The exact opposite happened.
Now, it wasn't because of Clinton's tax increases that the economy grew. But the Democrats were nevertheless able to make the case for it and so perception is reality. The reason the economy grew in the nineties was the table set by Reagan in the eighties. That was a genuine boom that had many, many years of a bounce to it. And not even Clinton's tax increases were able to stifle the ingenuity and the creativity of enough Americans who just didn't participate in all that and went out and created a growing economy anyway. And the same situation exists here.
Remember, now, the Clinton tax increases are credited for the economic growth of the nineties and as far as the vast majority of the American people are concerned, that's what caused the prosperity. Folks, we're gonna have to accept some things here, for example, the feminist incursion into higher education, and K through 12 education, has mattered. Women today are not the women they were 30 years ago. They're just not. They're angrier. They're not as interested in relationships. All of that radical stuff that we laughed at and thought nobody in their right mind would ever believe, they do. And it's the same thing with every other radical aspect of the left. It has taken hold in enough people to either be a majority or close enough to it that, given electoral turnout, Democrats can win on this stuff.
All of this madcap stuff over the last 25 years that I've chronicled being taught as multiculturalism, we've laughed at it, "nobody's ever gonna believe this." Enough Americans do believe a lot of this radical stuff in enough numbers to elect Barack Obama and reelect Barack Obama. It's a reality that we have to face. I'll give you an example. I'll give you a couple of examples of what I'm talking about. Do you remember shortly after the election the Republicans started wringing their hands over the demographics. They lost the Latino vote. They lost the Hispanic vote. They lost the single women under-30 vote. They lost the family values vote. And they started talking about what they were gonna have to do to reclaim those voters.
I rhetorically asked some questions. Does that mean we now have to come out for open borders in immigration? The answer is yes. Yes, it is, Mr. Snerdley. You are in denial if you want to sit there -- we talked ourselves into a myth, and that myth was that arriving immigrants were naturally conservative. They're not. They believe that the government is the great creator of wealth, provider of wealth, and guarantees the fairness of it all. They also believe that we've had our shot at immigration. We've had enough European immigration. We've had enough Asian immigration. Now it's our turn to emigrate to this country, and if you want our vote, you gotta agree with that. I go so far as to say if you really want to win the Latino vote, come out for no border.
The new president of Mexico, the president-elect of Mexico just came out and said he supports Obama's immigration reform plan. Obama's plan is basically no border. Now, if you're the president-elect of Mexico, why in the world would you support the US immigration policy of Barack Obama, which is, "You want in, come on in." Why would you support that? Answer it yourself. Well, there's any number of answers. One is, yeah, I'll be glad to get rid of the people in my country who are in poverty so that I don't have to provide for 'em or take care of 'em.
You can even go more radical and say the United States was always our country in the first place. Could be any number of explanations for it. Family values. We are told that immigrants to this country are naturally Catholic and are going to agree with the conservative definition of family values. That's not apparently the case. The correct definition of family values is the government taking care of families. It has nothing to do with abortion. It has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. It has nothing to do with any of that. It has nothing to do with pro-life or pro-choice. It has to do with the government taking care of hearth and home. So if the Republicans want that segment of the population, that's what they're gonna have to stand for.
What do you mean, we can't do that? Yes, all the Republicans have to do is come out and say, "You know what, we don't like us, either. Now vote for us. The Democrats told you we're not worth liking and you didn't like Romney and think Romney cared. Well, okay, we don't trust ourselves either. So vote for us. We hate us, too." Can you just see that press conference? Can you see John Boehner, McConnell, come up, "You know, after careful consideration we've decided, we looked in the mirror today, I don't like myself, and I totally agree with you on that." Well, look, some of this may be a bit extreme. Let's talk about the economic growth for a second. Like this guy that the first caller was talking about, this Altman economist that wants a wealth tax. I looked it up. The guy's name is Daniel Altman, and he has a suggestion proposing something completely different on the tax front, a system that taxes wealth rather than revenue. It's not intended to raise more revenue, but rather to reduce inequality, which threatens growth.
You see, we're only going to have economic growth if we take away the money from people who now have it. And until we do that, we can't have any growth. So my plan, a wealth tax, we'll start small so that nobody opposes it, one and a half percent every year on your total net worth. Now, nobody's proposed this seriously. This is just some economist out there. But a wealth tax. Now, that's something I'd like to see Warren Buffett support. I don't think I'd ever see that day. He'll support income tax increases all day long, because, remember, income inequality and wealth inequality are two totally different things, folks, and you are being -- well, not you because you get it, but the American people are being played royally on this.
They think that raising taxes on the rich is gonna prevent people from getting rich. Well, it will prevent people from getting rich, but it's not going to take any money away from people who already are. It would require a wealth tax for that. But the point is, there is no economic growth being discussed in the fiscal cliff argument, the solution. There is no economic growth. It's not possible with what's being proposed. In fact, it's just the exact opposite. Obama doesn't care about economic growth. He cares about wealth transfers, redistribution, for all the reasons that we've discussed for 25 years on this program. Yet, in spite of all this, it's possible the economy could grow, because, like during the nineties, there still are a bunch of people in this country -- industrious, entrepreneurial -- who are simply not gonna sit here and bite the bullet. It's not very many, but it doesn't take very many to pull the cart, as you know.
Some people are gonna say, "To hell with this. I'm not gonna sit there and just have everything I've worked for get frittered away." They're gonna go out and they're gonna try to make something of themselves, despite all these obstacles. They're gonna go out and they're gonna try to find new sources of revenue, income, wealth, success, however you want to call it, whatever you're gonna call it, they're gonna do it. We're always gonna have a segment of the population that will do that. We're always going to have a segment of this population which will always believe in the America that was founded. That will always do everything they can to take advantage of the capitalism wherever it still exists.
RUSH: Now, you know as well as I do that there are enough people in this country who are simply not gonna sit there idly by and let Obama ruin their lives. There are enough people who are not gonna sit idly by and let the Democrat Party or this government ruin their lives. At least they're going to try to overcome it. It isn't very many, but it could be enough. And they may not be able to do it. Obama's policies may be sufficiently harmful enough that nobody will be able to overcome it.
We shall see. But if there is growth in the energy sector, anywhere else that is sufficient to move the entire nation's GDP into a growth profile, then Obama's policies, the stimulus, Obamacare, all this other destructive stuff would end up, as far as the media's concerned, and as far as voters are concerned, getting credit for it. And then the job of telling the truth to the American people becomes even harder than it is now. And it's very hard now, as things exist. But you go through all these things that the Republicans thought they're gonna have to do.. single women under 30. There are two things. There are only two things that can get the votes for the Republicans. One is, men marrying these women so they're no longer single, and so that their lives provide what they want.
If they stay single then they're gonna turn to government to provide what they want. And then the Republicans are gonna have to figure out that in order to get the votes of those people they're gonna have to do what they want, which the Democrats have already laid claim to. There are just certain realities that come out of this election that have to be dealt with, have to be faced actually before they can be dealt with.
RUSH: Snerdley's beside himself. He cannot believe he's hearing me say what I'm saying. He says, "I don't believe this. You've never joined the bandwagon before. What is this?" Stick with me on this. Let me give you another example of what I'm talking about. The Cuban exile community in south Florida is one of the most conservative and reliably Republican voting blocs in this country. The Cuban exile community.
They escaped Castro. They escaped communism. They escaped the nationalizing of their property. They came to this country and they became fervent anti-communists, anti-liberal, pro-conservative. Their children in this election, young voters in their twenties and thirties, voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. Chinese immigrants who escaped Mao and Dung Xiaoping and the communist regime of China? Their children voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Let's take the Cuban exile community. The children of the Cuban exile community decided to ignore their own parents' life experiences. They obviously decided to ignore what their parents were telling them about what life is like under totalitarian regimes, and instead voted for a guy who they think is very close to them -- or they are very close to -- in terms of believing that America is the problem, and that it's America that has to be fixed, that it is America that has to be cleansed, that it is America that's impure.
These are harsh, cold realities, but they are nevertheless... You look at exit polling data and other information. You can document this stuff. At least, as accurately and as closely as it can be. It means that the children of the Cuban exile community and of the Asian, the Chinese immigrant community were far more influenced by the American education system and pop culture than they were by their own parents. Their own parents were not able to overcome it.
I'm assuming they tried. Some parents don't care, but you have to assume that parents who escape a totalitarian regime spend their lives telling their children what that's like. They would never want their children have to go through that. Their kids basically sided with the professors, who are teaching them rather than with their own parents.
So, how to reach these people? It's the age-old question, where Snerdley thinks that I am joining the bandwagon. You can't believe that I actually said, "Well, if we want to get the Hispanic vote, we're going to have basically say we really don't believe in a border," and it's our turn now. "Whatever number of people want to come here -- whatever -- yeah! That's what we want!"
RUSH: To the immigrant community in 2012, family values is food stamps, student loans, forgiving mortgages. It is not pro-life, pro-choice. It's not same-sex marriage. That's not what it is.
Well, you want to show me where we're winning? You want to show me where we're winning with those arguments? Show me, Snerdley. Where are we winning with those arguments? I'm merely trying to illustrate, let's look at student loans. Student loan forgiveness. Why do you think Barack Obama nationalized the student loan program? Well, yes, to get the college age kids' vote forever, but there's a more hideous reason than that. Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are constantly doing what? And I fully expect a lot of you to get mad at me over this, because at first you're going to misunderstand me. They're constantly pushing education, particularly going to college. On the basis of what? That that's the only way you can succeed. That that's the only way our nation can grow. We need to close the education gap. We need to people going to college.
That's not why Obama wants people going to college. He wants people going to college. He knows they can't afford it. He knows they're gonna have to take out loans and the loans will be from him, and that means that those people are gonna end up getting educations which, if his economic policies succeed, are worthless, because his policies do not promote economic growth. The more successful you are in Obama's America, the higher your tax rate, the less you will keep of what you earn, so what's the point?
Now, follow me on this. What is the point of getting an education so you can earn a lot of money, if the more you earn, the less of it you keep? And the guy pushing both is Barack Obama and his party, the Democrat Party. Look at what Warren Buffett said. Warren Buffett said over the weekend that increasing taxes on the wealthy might not help the deficit much -- he's right, it won't -- but it would boost the morale of the middle class. Okay, now, what does that really mean? In America in 2012, you boost the morale of the middle class by punishing the upper classes. You do not boost their morale by inspiring them to get out of the middle class, because you are forever consigning them to it with your tax policy.
Obama's income tax increase policy will forever consign people to whatever income bracket they're in now forever. Because the more they earn, the more they lose. Your money is your private property. The fiscal cliff argument is a debate over your, my, our private property. And at the end of it, the only question is, how much of it are we going to lose? Not how much of it are we going to reclaim. So here's Obama, the Democrat Party, pushing education. "We need to invest in education," which we always do, we always have. Education does what? Well, it enables you to get a better job, which does what? Enables you earn more money ostensibly. Ah, ah, ah, but at some point you're gonna run into Obama's income tax rates and his policies and you're gonna be stuck, but you're gonna be in debt in some cases $200,000 with an education that, under Obama's policies, is worthless. An education that isn't going to matter, particularly if you get a degree in 18th century Greek poetry.
And then where are you? You got no choice. Obama controls your loan, he can forgive it, he can not forgive it, he can make you pay it back. So, in addition to your not acquiring any wealth because the more you make, the higher your tax rate, the less you keep, you still have the loan debt. You're gonna think about buying a house, hello Julia, you remember that cartoon, that's your life. We looked at that cartoon during the campaign, we said, "Who in the world wants any part of this?" We looked at it and our common sense said, there is no way. This ad is gonna hurt Obama. It helped Obama. It was attractive to an entire female voting bloc.
Now, I know what you're saying. You're scratching your head, "Are you conceding everything to these people, Rush?" No. "Are you giving up?" No. "Do you think there's no way to change?" No. I don't at all. Conservatism is the natural solution to everybody's problems. But now I have a question for you. I've been talking about this ever since I got this program. It will be 25 years in August. Another hard, cold reality. We really have had, in the last 50 years, only four where we have made any inroads into the growth of liberalism, and that was the first Reagan term. Okay, I'll give you the second. Eight years of Reagan. But even then, we didn't reverse anything. We just slowed the inexorable growth trend toward liberalism. But we've never reversed it. All we did was slow it down. Reagan tried get rid of some government agencies, cabinet-level bureaucracies and so forth, the effort was made, but it never happened. It's not an indictment of Reagan.
I believe conservatism is the answer any time it's tried. But aside from some people on the radio and a few on TV, can you name one in politics that can explain it, that naturally feels it, that naturally is conservative, that doesn't need a teleprompter or a notepad to make a speech about it? I have chronicled -- we've talked about this, too. I've pegged it to the death of William F. Buckley. A lot of people disagree with me on this, too. I thought when Mr. Buckley was alive, founded National Review, Buckley, even though he didn't connect with a lot of average Americans, his intellect was in the spheres above us and his work was done in the elite circles, but nevertheless Reagan was a product of Buckley and vice versa.
When Buckley passed away, he was a natural figurehead leader. And during his life, there were no assaults on Buckley like there are on other conservative media people today. When he died, though, when he passed away, every conservative that had a magazine or had a television show or a guest appearance or a column, started angling to replace him as Mr. Conservative, the defining conservative, and that battle is still going on. Conservatism is in the middle of internecine warfare, not to mention what's going on in the Republican Party. In the Republican Party, you have people who will say they're conservatives but they're scared to death to defend it, 'cause they're afraid of being called racists or sexists or bigots or what have you.
It was easily predictable that if Romney lost the election that the blame would be immediately assigned to conservatism and conservatives. Lo and behold, it was the easiest prediction in the world to make and it indeed happened and every Republican consultant under the sun started blaming every conservative in the media for the loss. Because why? Because real conservatives, it is said, establish the wrong tone. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the wrong tone. Conservatives are mean-spirited sounding. They are all these isms, the racism, sexism, bigot, homophobe and so forth. And it's Republicans who say this. Democrats naturally will say it. It's fellow Republicans, and in some cases other conservatives who, attempting to gain ground for themselves, will throw others overboard or under the bus.
Jay Nordlinger, National Review Online, has a piece called Impromptus. And he wrote recently about this whole tone business. "People are saying that the Republican 'tone' is bad. My ears must be tuned differently. I think the Republicans have it all over the Democrats, when it comes to tone. ... Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Reince Priebus. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. It’s the Republicans with bad 'tone'? Really? ... 'You didn’t build that!' 'Gonna put y’all back in chains!' 'Romnesia!' 'Mitt Romney: Not one of us.'"
Romney allowed a guy's wife to die. Romney, felon. See, the American people didn't find any problem with that tone, folks. The voters didn't find a problem with the mean-spirited, lying extremist crap that came out of the mouths of Democrat. Here's Harry Reid, he's on the floor of the Senate lying through his teeth claiming Romney failed to pay income taxes. Harry Reid speaks in the nastiest tone Washington, DC, has. Joe Biden is second. Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz, she may actually be at the top of the list. Stephanie Cutter, the spokesbabe for Obama, says that Romney is a felon.
"In 2011, a Democratic strategist said that, without a record to run on, they would have to 'kill Romney,'" meaning Obama, the Democrat, have to kill Romney, and they did. "They ran an ad basically accusing Romney of killing women with cancer. They ran an ad calling him an 'economic traitor.' ... Then there was the Michael Moore ad, in which he had senior citizens spewing profanity." If you ever watch MSNBC, you want to talk about bad tone, you want to talk about mean-spirited, extremist tone? And yet we're told it's the Republicans that have a tone problem?
It's just like this phony thing that the conservatives and Republicans, "You better not be critical of Obama; the independents aren't gonna like that." But the independents seem not to care that you call Romney a murderer. They seem not to care that you call Romney a felon, or pick any other insult of any other Republican, it's fair game. And nobody ever says it's mean or extreme or in bad taste or in bad tone. No, all you gotta do is say the word Chicago and you're a racist. Now all you do is question the competence of Susan Rice and you're a racist. And so all this has led to a bunch of Republicans just scared to death to be conservative. Name one for me who is unashamed to be conservative? You might be able to, but name one, outside of me. I'm not running for anything. They are few and far between. But on the other end you got so many proud liberals, you can't count 'em.
RUSH: Okay, I'll give you an unabashed, unashamed, proud, confident conservative. Sarah Palin. Okay, but... Michele Bachmann. Maybe Rubio.