RUSH: Daily Caller: "Americans want the government to stop acting like their mother." I want a little brief exception. Mothers are not half as bad as the government. But I nevertheless get the point here. Americans are fed up with the government banning everything. That's the impetus here of the poll. It's a Reason magazine Rupe poll. "Americans do not want government to ban trans-fats, e-cigarettes, online poker, violent video games or genetic testing kits." They don't want them to ban lightbulbs.
According to this poll, and I happen to believe it: "Many Americans are becoming frustrated with the government’s growing involvement in what they believe should be their personal decisions. For one, they do not want the government to be their personal nutritionist. The poll found that 71 percent of Americans oppose the Food and Drug Administration’s proposed trans-fats ban." Now, my guess is that most people don't know what a trans-fat is, but they do know that they don't want the government involved in it.
"A large majority, 76 percent, said that the government should not be able to prohibit the sale of beverages with large amounts of caffeine." They don't like the idea of banning something larger than 16 ounces. They just don't like it. It's like I said in the previous hour. We've had a couple of callers recently that have buttressed this point. I think that there is a groundswell of opposition to Big Government taking place all over the country. It's not reported on. It's not reflected. It's not in the daily media narrative, of course, it never would be. It's not part of the daily soap opera. In fact, it's just the opposite. If you pay attention to the media, all you're gonna learn is that people want to be helpless, they are helpless, and they're totally content with the government providing for them, giving them things, protecting them, taking care of them.
And of course the people who are enriched and empowered by doing this are also gonna be supportive of it. But there's a groundswell of opposition to this. The problem is that it isn't represented by anybody officially. That remains the problem. We've got this newfangled budget here that has just passed the House of Representatives. It's still kind of dicey, what's gonna happen to this in the Senate.
By the way, I just want to remind you, on January 1st, I still don't believe this. I mean, well I believe it, I can't tell you how frustrated I am the Republican Party made this happen. George W. Bush signed this law in 2007 that bans the incandescent lightbulb based on a hoax. The incandescent lightbulb is causing global warming, as the ice sheets in both the arctic and Antarctic regions expand. There isn't any warming going on anywhere. Quite the opposite is the truth. Record cold is being set in places all over the world. Snow for the first time in a hundred years in Cairo!
If I didn't know better I'd say that Gore was scheduled to speak that day on global warming. It's what usually happens. Incandescent lightbulbs cause global warming. Forty and 60-watt bulbs. January 1st you're going to be illegal. You're going to be in violation of the law, if you buy them. It's just unbelievable. And their replacement, these silly compact fluorescents are dangerous. They got mercury in them. They're not nearly as good, and Republicans made this happen. They acquiesced.
I mentioned earlier the Washington Times had an editorial, unsigned editorial: "The GOP Retreats Into Fear." Last week I speculated numerous times because I'm asked constantly, "Rush, what's wrong with the Republicans?" And I told you that I think they're suffering from shock, posttraumatic stress disorder, government shutdown. They're just scared. They're frightened of the media. I had people call here, "Rush, they're not frightened. They're not scared of anything. They agree with it. They're all in on it." There's a body of thought that agrees with that, and it's hard to refute.
You look at this budget deal that Paul Ryan came up with that comes out of a Republican Congress, it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't the jibe with any of the thinking of the base of the Republican Party, it establishes funding for Obamacare. Jeff Sessions pointed out -- he was on Levin's show on Friday, I think. Jeff Sessions pointed out that the budget has a mechanism in it to make tax increases easier than ever in the Senate with just 51 votes. Republicans doing this. This is a Republican budget. So when people call here and say to me, "Rush, they're not scared. They're all- in," I can understand the sentiment.
Now, let me share with you this Washington Times editorial: "With frightened Republicans scattering like bunny rabbits at the sound of distant thunder, a job-killing minimum-wage increase is probably inevitable. Only 63 House Republicans voted to maintain the budgetary discipline that prevented President Obama from breaking the budget into even tinier pieces. The early, unconditional surrender in the House sends a message that these congressmen will throw good policy overboard at the first sign their re-election could be imperiled. The Republican cynicism stands proud and naked. It’s enough to make a speaker cry.
"With a bully pulpit backed up by friends in the media, the president owns the agenda in Washington. If he can fool Republicans into voting for a tax and spending increase in return for gossamer spending reductions to take place someday, maybe in a future decade when many of the congressmen voting for it will be dead, anyway, there’s no limit to what he can do. Taking his case to Twitter, Mr. Obama said --" Listen to this, now. This is so convoluted, it defies all economic theory, common-sense, and logic. But this is what Obama said: "Here’s how to improve our economy and create hundreds of thousands of jobs: Raise the wage."
Folks, we have decades of data, metadata, big data, regular data, infinitesimal data. We've got decades of data. Raising the minimum wage does not raise the job level. It does not increase the number of jobs. Raising the minimum wage does not raise the standard of living. Raising the minimum wage doesn't have one significant economic benefit, and yet here's Obama. "Here’s how to improve our economy and create hundreds of thousands of jobs: Raise the wage."
And then he said, "A $2.85 increase in the federal minimum would create $32.6 billion in new wealth and 140,000 new jobs. If mandating salary increases is what it takes to create wealth, why not raise the minimum wage to $28.50 and create 1,400,000 new jobs?" Okay. If mandating salary increases is what it takes to create wealth, then why not raise the minimum wage to $28.50 and create 1,400,000 new jobs? The minimum wage, an arbitrary salary increase, creates wealth? Ladies and gentlemen, the government cannot and does not create wealth. Government destroys wealth by taking it and moving it around, by redistributing it.
Government doesn't create wealth. Where's the money gonna come from to raise the minimum wage, for example? Where is the corresponding increase in productivity that generates that money? There isn't any. Why does somebody say that an entry-level job is worth what Obama wants it to be? Where's the economics behind it? There isn't any. There's just a cockamamie, faculty lounge theory here that is not borne out by any data, any logic, or any economic sense.
It's like my old suggestion of how to argue with somebody who supports the minimum wage.
They'll say to you, "Well, we need to raise it, Rush, by $2 an hour."
"Okay, fine. What's that make it?"
"Well, uh, let's see. If we raise it by $2 an hour, let's just say just round it off, and say it makes it $10 an hour."
"Okay, well, why not make it $12 an hour?"
"Whoa. Okay. You go for that?"
"Sure, sure. Okay, let's do $15 an hour."
"Wow, Rush, what's happening to you? You'd support $15?"
"Absolutely. What about you?"
"Well, I'm all in."
I'd say, "Fine. Well, let's make it $20."
"Really, Rush? You'd support a minimum wage of $20 an hour?"
"Why not? Why stop?"
"Okay, $20, that's great. Boy, we're really creating jobs."
"Okay, let's get serious here. Let's make it $40 an hour."
"Well, I don't know, Rush."
"Why not? What's wrong with $40 an hour?"
At some point, even advocates will realize, "Wait a minute, that doesn't make any sense."
At that point, you've got 'em, and you say, "It doesn't make any sense at any level because it's artificial. It's unreal. It's not related to anything. There's no corresponding to productivity that generates that money. Raise the minimum wage from who? Who's got it?"
"Well, everybody knows, Mr. Limbaugh, that those businesses are just hoarding money in the bank or in the back room. They've got money. They're just hoarding it. The owner, he's just keeping it for himself. It's time he shared with his workers who are making him rich. He wouldn't be where he is without his workers! He ought to give the money to his workers. They're the ones responsible for the owner being where he is."
"Oh, okay. So the owner just has a stash back there, right, and he's hoarding it, and it's unfair, and so you want the government to go in there with their jackbooted thugs and dip into the safe or the box or wherever this owner's hoarding his money and just take enough out to give his workers an additional $2 minimum wage increase?"
"That's exactly right."
"Well in the first place, the owner doesn't have the money. In the second place, that's not how economics works. There has to be some thing behind the increase. There's gotta be some level of productivity generating the money. The money just doesn't come out of thin air." When you get right down to it again, it's the same old thing. The minimum wage is not about economics or standard of living or any of that. It's just a leftist prop.
But the point is here you've got Obama and Pelosi, too, claiming that raising the minimum wage or unemployment benefits equal economic growth. It's just as nonsensical as them believing the stimulus was gonna stimulate the economy. It was impossible for it to. There was no economic way to stimulate the economy by simply shifting the money around. If you're the federal government, and you're gonna pump a trillion dollars into the economy, where do you get it?
You get it from the very economy you're gonna put it back into. It's a net wash. "Well, it's gonna stimulate the economy, roads and bridges and clean air, clean water, doctors, and nurse. We're gonna rebuild schools!"
"Okay, that sounds wonderful. Where are you gonna get the money?
"Oh, so the government's just gonna put a trillion dollars in there? It's not in there right now?"
"Well, where is that trillion dollars?"
"Well, we don't really have it."
"That's right, you don't really have it. We don't have a trillion dollars sitting around not doing anything. We're in debt $17 trillion, minimum. But yet we're gonna find a trillion dollars that's not being used, a trillion dollars that's just sitting idle somewhere, and we're gonna...?" Now, if you could do that, if you could find $17 trillion or $1 trillion that's sitting idle and not doing anything, and then you pump that in, then maybe for a short time you could artificially stimulate the economy.
But if you're just gonna first take a trillion dollars out of the economy, when nobody's looking, and then put it back in and claim you're stimulating, you're doing nothing but replacing what you took in the first place. There is no... It's the same thing with the minimum wage. It isn't new money. It's being taken from somebody. Now, why can't the Republicans stand up and say this?
Are they afraid to? Do they not believe it? Do they not want to cause trouble? Are they afraid it would lead to a government shutdown? Whatever. The Washington Times thinks that they're retreating into fear. They think they're just scared stiff. They're afraid to stand up for anything they believe in, 'cause they'll just get criticized 'cause it might lead to government shutdown or what have you. But, look, before we go to the break:
Here's another story that indicates to me there's all kinds of Tea Party effervescence going on out there that the inside-the-Beltway crowd, both parties, is missing and is unaware of -- and the signs are everywhere. Colorado, these two Democrats that were recalled because of their anti-gun legislation... By the way, the latest school shooting in Colorado? It's another kid admittedly inspired by socialists, inspired by what he's heard about the inequities of our society and upset about it and deciding to pick up a gun and do something about it.
The media doesn't want you to know this, but practically every one of these young kids shooting up schools is inspired by something to do with leftism, socialism, what have you. Every one of them is. That's why you don't hear about any. When they can't tie 'em to the Tea Party, you don't hear about it anymore. You hear the "mental health" explanation. Well, what mental health problem? Liberalism, guaran-damn-teed, is what's causing this. But that's another subject.
"Hundreds Turn Out to Support the Cake Shop Owner Who Refused to Make a Cake for a Same-Sex Wedding."
"On Friday, hundreds of supporters flooded the small Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood in support of the store's owner, Jack Phillips. Phillips made national news in 2012 when he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, claiming it violated his Christian beliefs. The couple sued him, and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint on their behalf. Last week, administrative law judge Robert Spencer made a ruling on the case. He said Phillips would have to sell gay couples wedding cakes or risk facing penalties and fines and jail."
"On Friday, Phillips' supporters fired back by supporting his business and making donations. Most of his supporters were first-time customers." Here's a pull quote: "I've never been here before. I came today because of this cause. This guy has rights; he has freedoms; he's allowed to do what he wants to do as long as it doesn't hurt other people," Rich Wyatt said. "America's in a difficult position right now, and we're losing rights every day that we can't afford to lose. I'm proud to see Americans coming out today and supporting this guy's rights to make a cake for whoever he wants to make a cake, or not."
Okay, so this guy's minding his own business. He bakes cakes. A gay couple comes in for a cake and he says, "Sorry, I don't believe in what you're doing. I'm not making a cake." Okay, so go someplace that doesn't have a problem to make your cake. No, no, no, no, no! We are going to force everybody to accept, agree, bow down, acquiesce, whatever, and we're gonna use the full force of government in the courts and the laws. This is my point: Whatever they are threatened by, they've got to eliminate.
But they're not going to be able to, folks. They might be able to attack symbols, and they might score a direct hit now and then, but they're not gonna erase your faith. They're not gonna stamp out your beliefs. They are not going to eliminate your moral code, or anything. They're not gonna eliminate your belief in Christmas or whatever it is they're trying to stamp out, and it's ditto for the Tea Party. I'm fully aware.
I actually think we're in the midst of a backlash now that's being unreported on and uncommented on and un-chronicled, little things like this. This little cake shop, people are showing up to support him 'cause they hear about what happened. Just little things like that are indication enough to me. But again, these people are absent political leadership representing them. That does remain a problem.