RUSH: Folks, there's another brutal presidential poll out today. This is a Quinnipiac poll out of Colorado. Colorado, folks. Land of the Legal Weed. Obama's job approval is 36%. His disapproval is 59%. Not only that, in Colorado, Hillary Clinton now trails three different Republican contenders in a presidential mock-up race.
RUSH: There's a great piece, by the way. "Why Aren't Millennials Marching in the Street Over Obamacare?" It's a Forbes story, and it is terrific because it talks about how these Millennials don't yet know it, but they are the ones whose futures have been stolen in order to pay for Obamacare. They all voted for the guy. Chris Conover wrote the story.
Let's see. Back to this Millennials story, because it's a shame. I mean, these are the people who have been royally screwed. We talk about how the debt that Obama has run up is going to be paid by your kids and grandkids and so forth, and all of that's true, but this Obamacare is even more. What it means is that the Millennials, which the official definition of a millennial is born between 1977 and 1995. They are the soakees on this.
Chris Conover at Forbes. "Anyone with a conscience should be offended by the greatest generational theft ever witnessed in the history of the world. Young Americans -- especially the Millennial generation born between 1977 and 1995 -- are the biggest losers in this battle, but it will adversely affect their children and grandchildren to boot. Obamacare simply represents the latest front in this war, which now rages from Social Security to Medicare to this deeply flawed law that is imploding as we speak.
"Let's be clear: by design, this law can work if and only if enough young people are willing to pay premiums far higher than are actuarially fair in order to subsidize workers my age who on average earn far more than the young workers who are subsidizing them." I'm using the exact verbs, pronouns that Chris Conover wrote here. So he's a Boomer, and he knows that it's Millennials who are gonna be paying the freight for his health care and everybody else his age. It's Millennials who are going to be charged higher premiums to fund the elderly sick and the elderly poor. He says they just don't know it yet. They all voted for this guy. They voted for the messiah. They don't know yet how they've been royally shafted.
He says, "Even if..." and actually some of them do. I mean, I've taken calls from Millennials who are worried about there isn't gonna be any Social Security for them, for example, that they're paying into it now for everybody else. So there's some of them who are aware of it, but a lot of them who voted for Obama are not aware of it.
"Even if one takes into account that Millennials in the long run eventually will become old themselves and benefit from these subsidies, Obamacare still is an extraordinarily bad deal that effectively would force today's 18-year olds to pay 18 percent more for their medical care over a lifetime than if each generation paid its own way. Such an age-related tax is unconscionable. Imagine if sales taxes or income taxes included a surcharge for everyone who happened to be a twenty-something. If this idea sounds preposterous, welcome to Obamacare."
And Mr. Conover is right.
There is in effect a surcharge on 20-year-olds.
"Moreover, if fully implemented, this law will strip the economy of more than 1 million jobs and relegate another 10 million full-time workers to part-time status. In both cases it will be young, inexperienced workers who bear the brunt of these adverse effects on work effort. Equally appalling, the law will discourage young people from getting married even though all the empirical evidence shows that marriage is one of the most potent anti-poverty programs in any society's arsenal.
"Worse, if honestly scored, the law will add $2 trillion to the federal deficit in its first 20 years, an amount that largely will be borne by today's youth and their progeny, if indeed they can afford to procreate. And perhaps most sickening of all, RAND Corporation scientists estimate that as a result of [Obamacare] at least 3.8 million Americans who already have coverage they like will not only lose that coverage, but will end up remaining uninsured."
Now, other than all that, it's a good deal for Millennials. After all, they get free birth control pills -- and that's it. "In 2008, 66% of those under age 30 voted for Barack Obama 'making the disparity between young voters and other age groups larger than in any presidential election since exit polling began in 1972.' President Obama's margin of victory that year was sufficiently large that he could have won even if the youth vote had split 50-50.
"In contrast, a Tufts University analysis of the 2012 election showed that had the youth vote been split 50-50 for the presidential race in just four states -- Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia -- Romney would have been elected president. That's regrettable, as such an outcome might have averted the disastrous Obamacare rollout that has created consternation on both sides of the aisle.
"Gallup poll figures show that as recently as May 2013, 60% of those 18-29 approved of President's Obama's performance in office (the same fraction in that age group who voted for him in 2012). This approval rating has plummeted to 45% in the most recent poll, but it's still higher than any other age group. That's a puzzle, since as one pundit put it, 'Obamacare is simply the latest instance of generational theft being perpetrated against younger Americans.'"
They don't know it yet, and that's not why they voted for him. They voted for him for all of the usual social/pop culture reasons. They didn't vote for him on issues. They didn't know any! They voted for him on things like gay marriage, and equal rights, and global warming, and all this stuff they think threatens their future. They're not aware at all that it is Obama who threatens their future.
RUSH: There's a study that has just come out. Get this. CBS Eyeball News from Houston: "Men With Attractive Wives More Satisfied In Marriage." You needed a study for this? Actually, I think they might have, because I think this one of these big myths. "The physical attractiveness of one's spouse plays a major role in marital satisfaction for men, while women's happiness in their marriage was not affected by their husband's looks."
Boy, is that ever true. I mean, no matter where you go you can see that. That's the truth. I mean, there's no question. That's the thing that gives men hope. It really is. When you see some of the men women choose, it gives every guy in the world hope. There's no question about it. There's also another truth out there, but I'd be very, very, uhhh, at risk if I were to make the point.
Anyway, "A study of more than 450 newlywed couples over the course of four years found that men with physically attractive wives remained much more satisfied in their marriage than men who did not. However, the attractiveness of a woman's husband played no part in the satisfaction that women felt from their marriage."
Now, the key word here is "newlywed," 450 newlyweds. Go talk to 'em after they've been married 10 years, survey people, and find out what you get. Newlyweds? Newlyweds? Nothing's real. You go talk to 'em after 10 years and you find out if the beauty means anything, and you find out if the husband's become a beer guzzling Dorito vacuum cleaner couch potato with the belly lapping over the belt. Ask if the woman doesn't care, and you'll find out she damn well does. No, I've got no personal experience with that. I'm just telling you. Newlyweds are a whole different thing. And for every -- No. It would make the liberals mad, Gloria Steinem especially.