RUSH: Now, I mentioned mere moments ago the LA Times. Here's the story: "Part-timers to Lose Pay Amid Health Act's New Math -- Some workers are having their hours cut so employers won't have to cover them under Obamacare. But many will benefit from the healthcare law's premium subsidies and Medicaid expansion. Many part-timers are facing a double whammy from President Obama's Affordable Care Act.
"The law requires large employers offering health insurance to include part-time employees working 30 hours a week or more. But rather than provide healthcare to more workers, a growing number of employers are cutting back employee hours instead." And we're back to the tried-and-true explanation of the left and their lack of dynamic scoring, the lack of consideration of the consequences. They sit there, they pass laws, and they think everybody is just sheep. The law says 30 employees, full coverage. They don't stop to think that the express purpose of a business is to limit costs anywhere they can, labor included. So get the number of people on part time under 30, and they act shocked and surprised. They really do act shocked and surprised.
Now, the point about this is, though, the LA Times knew this two years ago. Publishing this story now is the equivalent of a cover-up. Now, I know what some of your are saying, "Wait a minute, Rush, State-Controlled Media, they may not have known. I mean, they just are spoon-fed by the administration. They may not have known." I hate to admit it, but that is entirely possible. These people are the least inquisitive bunch of people in the country. Mainstream media people are the least inquisitive I've found. They just accept what the people they love, adore and respect tell 'em. They don't question it. So it's entirely possible the LA Times reporter is only now just learning about it. But either way, if they knew it and covered it up for two years and didn't report it or if they're just learning it now, it does not say anything good about 'em.
A companion story. The dreaded evil Koch brothers, Charles Koch and David Koch, and I must say for full disclosure, I know them. I've played golf with Charles. I know David Koch. I know their brother Bill. I know the Kochs and I can personally attest to their character, their citizenship, their decency. They are good people. They come from a family in Wichita which is self-made. They're in the oil and gas business. The Koch brothers are more Libertarian than they are conservative. They're very active in the Cato Institute, for example. However, they do have billions of dollars. As such, the left hates them.
They actually contribute some of their dollars to the causes they believe in. That makes them really hated and reviled. The Koch brothers are as besmirched, impugned, character assaulted in the mainstream media and in the far-left blogs as anybody. Lies are routinely told about them personally, them and their company professionally. Lies are told about their intentions in all this. Just to set it up as to who these people are. They're nice people. They're unassuming people, to an extent.
I mean, they don't hide the fact that they're wealthy, but they're not conspicuous consumers. They're not futzing around on yachts all the time. They work, is the point. Now, a story appeared the other day that the Koch brothers were interested in buying the LA Times, which stands to reason. They are enemy number one in the mainstream media. The mainstream media, as well as the far-left wing blogs, routinely run hatchet pieces on these people.
So whether they intend to actually buy it or not, or are just trying to tweak the left, they leaked it that they're interested in buying the LA Times. I'm telling you, the people in the LA Times went crazy. Half of the staff of the LA Times reportedly said they would quit if the Koch brothers bought the Los Angeles Times. When I heard that I said, "And the problem is? What?" Newspapers are going broke. Newspapers are going broke for a host of reasons.
Ad pages are down. Ad rates are down. Total advertising revenue is down. Barry Diller just the other day said (summarized), "It was a big mistake to buy Newsweek. It's a newsweekly, for crying out. People get their news by the second! What was I thinking buying a weekly magazine?" He said this at the Milken Conference on CNBC. Print journalism is in deep trouble. It's going to take creative, inventive people to turn it around, and who knows? The Koch brothers may have an idea on how to do it.
They're successful at everything else they do. You would think that people at the LA Times -- objective, good-hearted, true-to-the-cause journalists -- would be interested in the place they work staying in business. But nope. If a couple libertarians walk in there or if a couple conservatives walk in there? "To hell with it!" Half of them claim that they will quit. You have a financially sound potential buyer coming in and the deadwood self-deports. I think that's a great thing.
If half that place walked out, that would be the first step in the LA Times perhaps reversing its fortunes. Bring in some fresh blood -- people who appreciate a paycheck, people who actually want to save a dying industry, find ways to save a dying beast, which is the problem. The parasites would not have a receptive host if the Koch brothers were the owners, and if they're serious about this... I just want to say: If you guys are serious about buying the LA Times, you need to get a promise in advance from those members of the Times promising to quit if you buy it.
Get a written promise from 'em before you sign the deal.
RUSH: A small, little update to the Koch brothers buying the Los Angeles Times. (interruption) Yes, I meant that. If they're gonna buy the paper and half of the people who work there are threatening to quit, get that in writing before they close the deal. Get written promises from the quitters that they're actually gonna leave before you close. Get this: "Three Los Angeles City Council members ... asked their colleagues Tuesday to consider pulling city pension money from the investment firms that own the Los Angeles Times if they sell the publication to buyers who do not support 'professional and objective journalism.'"
Which means that if somebody comes here and buys this paper that does not support the leftist agenda, then pull all financing, pull all investments, and block the sale. Los Angeles politicians say that if the Koch brothers own the LA Times, it would be the end of journalism. No, it... Well, it would. Yeah. Journalism's in bad shape. Journalism needs to have an end as it's being practiced. I mean, if you people at the LA Times like working with paychecks, like working at a place that might grow and become even more important and powerful, this is something you ought to support.
But they won't.
They can't possibly.
Imagine, the LA City Council!
Remember, the LA Times now, two years later, is warning people -- part-timers -- that they may lose their jobs or their compensation because of Obamacare. You know, that's journalistic malpractice. The people at the LA Times should have known that when Obamacare was being debated. The people that read the LA Times, all 25 or 30 of 'em, should have been told that when this thing was being debated. The LA Times let down the readership.