{"id":13046,"date":"2013-03-05T17:28:12","date_gmt":"2013-03-05T17:28:12","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2013-03-05T17:28:12","modified_gmt":"2013-03-05T17:28:12","slug":"understanding_the_limbaugh_theorem_obama_inflicts_pain_for_political_gain","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2013\/03\/05\/understanding_the_limbaugh_theorem_obama_inflicts_pain_for_political_gain\/","title":{"rendered":"Understanding the Limbaugh Theorem: Obama Inflicts Pain for Political Gain"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, what\u2019s so funny, that I said he doesn\u2019t even know the loop on it? Is that what was funny? All right. Well, maybe I will. I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m conflicted over whether or not to do this. My instincts are saying, “Don\u2019t do it.” But everybody\u2019s saying, “No, you gotta do it.” So I don\u2019t know. I\u2019ll think about it. Anyway, I know you\u2019re wondering what I\u2019m talking about. We\u2019re talking about things here, the staff, back and forth. <\/p>\n

I got e-mails from listeners, I got Snerdley, I\u2019ve got friends telling me that I ought to… if I start talking about it I start talking about it. I haven\u2019t made up my mind if I want to start talking about it. I know it\u2019s unfair to you, folks. I\u2019m teasing you. I don\u2019t intend to. The show happened to start right in the middle of, as usual, people telling me what I ought to do. The microphone went on and that\u2019s what you just caught up here in the middle of. The program had started. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s great to have you here. Here\u2019s the telephone number if you want to be on the program. 800-282-2882. The e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com<\/a>. <\/p>\n

You know, there\u2019s an editorial today, the Washington Examiner, and there\u2019s an excellent point in this piece. It\u2019s about the sequester, and it\u2019s also about the Limbaugh Theorem<\/a>, in a way. That\u2019s what these people are all urging me to talk about. I am being inundated with e-mails from you in the audience who are telling me that you can\u2019t turn on the television these days or read anything without hearing somebody mention my theory about Obama never governing, always campaigning, always appearing as the outsider, you know, that whole spiel that I started two weeks ago. Basically I got people e-mailing me saying, “Everybody\u2019s using that now, but nobody\u2019s mentioning your name.” <\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

I got Snerdley and you people in the e-mail, “You need to explain how this got started so that you get credit for it.” I\u2019m not about getting credit. I don\u2019t want to come here and start whining about stuff, but I\u2019ve got friends saying, “No, it\u2019s important, Rush, because you\u2019re out there, you\u2019re getting maligned, you\u2019re getting ripped to shreds and so forth, and you\u2019re the guy that\u2019s providing them with all the theories they\u2019re using to make themselves look smart.” (sigh) So I don\u2019t know. All I care about is that you people in the audience know the truth about things, and whether anybody else does, that\u2019s for events to flow of their own inertia, history to take care of. I don\u2019t know. Being right is its own validation. Success is the best revenge, whatever, since Obama\u2019s into revenge. <\/p>\n

(interruption)<\/p>\n

Well, now, that is true. Snerdley is making the point that people are hearing incomplete versions of the Limbaugh Theorem and maybe are not fully understanding. Last night somebody e-mailed. Hot Air, the website that we quote here a lot, Ed Morrissey and his gang and Michelle Malkin started that. They\u2019ve got a thing every night called Quotes of the Day. And last night somebody sent it to me, and last night\u2019s Quotes of the Day was everybody that was quoted explaining the Limbaugh Theorem. But you\u2019re right, Snerdley, they all missed an element here or an element there. <\/p>\n

I\u2019ll tell you, it\u2019s important, especially for low-information voters, to eventually understand this. And it\u2019s not hard. It\u2019s very easy to understand. I don\u2019t know. Maybe I\u2019ll spend some time on it in due course, in mere moments. I do want to get to this DC Examiner piece, because it kind of goes along with it in a way. Let me lift this little excerpt. “For perhaps the first time in the history of the United States, it is in the political interest of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people.” This is a natural outgrowth of the Limbaugh Theorem, and it is dead on. In order for Obama to win this sequester argument, there has to be pain. The American people have to experience pain in their daily lives. That can manifest itself as long lines at the airport. <\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

It could manifest itself in any number of ways. It could also not be true, but just said to be true, like Big Sis. Janet Napolitano has been caught lying about how bad things are at the airport. She made a statement: long lines, you might see them at the airport. You might. Giving the impression that because of the sequester it\u2019s harder than ever to get through a security check and board an airplane when facts on the ground don\u2019t indicate that that\u2019s true. But the bottom line is that this point is exactly right, and it may be for the first time in the history of the United States. That\u2019s a stretch. Because you might have been able to, at various parts of the Clinton administration, make this point, but not nearly as pointedly or focused and severe as now. <\/p>\n

It is clear that the Obama administration doesn\u2019t just need the American people to feel pain. It wants you to feel pain. It is the number one requirement in order for Obama to succeed at what he\u2019s ultimately attempting to achieve here, and that is — and this another part of the Limbaugh Theorem — winning the House in 2014. It\u2019s never really about the sequester. It\u2019s not really about the continuing resolution. All of this is about disqualifying Republicans in the eyes of voters; making Republicans absolutely persona non grata; making them the epitome of modern evil so that when the next midterms come up that they are voted out and thereby Obama has eliminated any effective political opposition and has a clear road. <\/p>\n

There have been criticisms of Obama in this regard, and this is also from people picking up the Limbaugh Theorem and adapting it in their own ways. One of these adaptations holds that Obama is not being president. He\u2019s just purely political. I mean, he\u2019s spending his time campaigning and he\u2019s attacking half of the people in this country. Anytime he goes after the Republicans, he\u2019s going after the people that vote for them. You know, the old adage is the president\u2019s the president of everybody. The president\u2019s not particularly ideological. The president\u2019s not particularly political. The president, in this case, however, is, and he\u2019s spending all of his time campaigning, not governing. He doesn\u2019t want his name attached to anything so that whatever goes wrong, it can\u2019t be associated with him. And it isn\u2019t being. <\/p>\n

As I keep pointing out, every poll shows that people disagree with his agenda, think the country\u2019s headed in the wrong direction, but they don\u2019t associate any of his policies with what\u2019s going wrong in the country. They still blame the Republicans for that. They still think the Republicans don\u2019t care about that. That Obama and the Democrats are the ones that do. And so Obama is campaigning on that. He\u2019s effectively not acting as president, but as an ideologue, using the power of the presidency to eliminate and wipe out opponents. <\/p>\n

I got to thinking, what would I do if I were ever elected president, and there\u2019s a part of me that would do in reverse what Obama\u2019s doing. Except in my case, I would think I\u2019m doing it by being honest. I would take advantage of the bully pulpit to educate the American people who don\u2019t know about the truth of liberalism. I certainly would not try to accommodate it. I certainly wouldn\u2019t want to make agreements or whatever. It\u2019s not possible. We don\u2019t have anything in common with the modern iteration of the Democrat Party. <\/p>\n

Can we be honest? The last Republican presidents we\u2019ve had are George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, and isn\u2019t one of the reasons so many Republicans are disappointed precisely that neither of them ever did get political? Even when they were being lied about and roasted and destroyed, they never engaged. It\u2019s not that they didn\u2019t attack the other guys; they never even defended themselves. As such, they never defended the ideology. They never defended the philosophy that was constantly under assault. The rare moments (and they were just that: Rare; you could count \u2019em on one hand) when Bush did fight, there were cheers all over this country.<\/line><\/p>\n

So in a political sense, a purely political sense, I understand exactly what Obama\u2019s doing. And, by the way, putting myself inside his head, I think it makes perfect sense for him to be doing what he\u2019s doing, given who he is. He\u2019s an authoritarian. He doesn\u2019t like two-party accommodation. He wants one-party domination, rule, what have you. The objective in business is to eliminate your competitor. Why shouldn\u2019t it be in politics? That\u2019s what he\u2019s trying to do. Our side just doesn\u2019t get it. Even as some of these people try to adapt for their own use the Limbaugh Theorem, they still don\u2019t quite get what\u2019s inspiring it.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re still looking at it within the prism of standard Washington politics. Well, he\u2019s just out on a campaign trail, constantly campaigning. Well, yeah, but why? To what end? And how is he doing it and how is he gaining success doing it? What\u2019s motivating it? That\u2019s what I think people still haven\u2019t grasped yet, although more and more are as I read them each and every day. We\u2019re into the fifth year of Obama. You can read pieces from so-called intelligent people on our side who are just now figuring out that Obama lies, on purpose, and just now beginning to consider the possibility that maybe all this is by design.<\/p>\n

Maybe.<\/p>\n

They don\u2019t quite want to make that leap yet.<\/p>\n

But when you understand, as this Washington Examiner piece today points out, that perhaps for the first time in the history of the country, it is in the political interests of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people. That is quite stunning. Now, don\u2019t misunderstand. If I were president, I would not want to emulate that. It would be just the exact opposite. I would be for prosperity for everybody. That is not Obama. I would not want to inflict pain. I would want to set the table for contentment, happiness, and joy. Economic, cultural, spiritual, you name it. That\u2019s the kind of country I would want to preside over.<\/line><\/p>\n

I would not want to preside over a country where half the people are ticked off all the time. Well, everybody\u2019s ticked off, even Obama\u2019s fans are ticked off because they\u2019re never happy. But this notion, “Okay, we got the sequester, and so now, in order for the Democrats to win this sequester thing, there has to be pain. There must be suffering by the American people. There must be. That\u2019s how Obama benefits. That\u2019s how Obama succeeded know succeeds, is by virtue of people suffering,” and the real stinko part of it is that the plan is to see to it that the suffering is because of the Republicans.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re the reasons for it. Opposing Obama is what causes the suffering. Not Obama, you see? Opposing Obama is what causes the pain. Pardon my French here, but in political terms, that\u2019s the brilliance of what Obama\u2019s doing, and he\u2019s into his fifth year of it now. I can understand a president getting away with this for six months, but we\u2019re into the fifth year of a guy in the White House who is never — I shouldn\u2019t say “never,” but seldom — attached to anything happening in the country. It\u2019s almost as though we haven\u2019t had the election yet. The campaign\u2019s still ongoing.<\/p>\n

Anyway, you get the drift of this point about pain and suffering equaling achievement\/success — and not just for Obama, but for the Democrats as a party. Folks, it is insidious. It certainly is not what this country has ever been about.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: You know, I just got a good question in the e-mail. Somebody said, “Why are you calling your theory a theorem? You\u2019re calling it the Limbaugh Theorem. Are you just trying to use big words on us?” No. I\u2019m glad I got the question. Snerdley, do you know the difference? Just a little test. I\u2019m not trying to embarrass you. You\u2019re used to not knowing things. (laughing) Seriously, do you know the difference in a theory and a theorem? Did you just take a wild guess at that? He got it. He got it pretty close. He said a theorem is more based in fact. In fact, a theorem is something that is not self-evident but nevertheless proved by a chain of reasoning. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A theory is just a wild guess based on some empirical data. And that\u2019s why I\u2019m not calling this the Limbaugh Theory. It is a theorem. Mine is a proposition. It\u2019s not self-evident, but I can prove it by a chain of reasoning, a truth established by means of accepted truths. A theorem has multiple parts, and they all add up to undeniable truth, i.e., a theorem. The great mathematician, Pythagoras and others, had theorems, not theories. So, way to go, Mr. Snerdley. I love it. I love it when people know the answer to stuff. I\u2019m glad I got the question, but it is the Limbaugh Theorem. <\/p>\n

Now, here\u2019s what\u2019s going on with this. About three weeks ago… look, I\u2019m sorry to be redundant, but I need to go back to the beginning to explain this. For four years I have been frustrated as I can be, and especially after the 2012 election, trying to understand how it is that this rotten economy, which has been made worse by Obama policies, never, ever attached itself to him. The giant light of truth that went off for me was a New York Times headline about a month ago. I ought to go out, I\u2019ve got it saved in pocket, I ought to go get it and have it verbatim, but basically what the headline said was that despite everything happening, the bad news, that Obama was not associated with it anyway.<\/p>\n

It had people disapproving of Obama\u2019s agenda by majority numbers, policy by policy from health care to the Keystone pipeline, you name it, people oppose Obama\u2019s agenda. They don\u2019t agree with it. And in polling data the American people are not happy with the direction of the country. But then in the same polling data Obama\u2019s approval numbers at the time were over 50%, significantly over 50%. So people didn\u2019t like the direction of the country, disagreed with all of his policy ideas, but gave him high marks. And furthermore, I learned that people did not associate Obama\u2019s policies with the results on the ground in this country, be they economic or whatever. How in the world does this happen, I began to ask, how can this be? <\/p>\n

My entire life the economy of a country has always been tied to the president, fairly or not, fairly or unfairly. Economy goes up, president gets the credit. Economy goes south, president gets the blame, whether he had anything to do with it or not, it\u2019s been standard operating procedure. But not now. And added to it we have a president whose policies are not arguably, but definitely making matters worse. And people do not make that connection, say, “How can this be?” And I don\u2019t know what it was, but one of these explosions in my mind went off, and it was something in that New York Times article. It was something in that newspaper story that clicked for me. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

He\u2019s never seen as governing. Obama is always seen opposing everything that\u2019s happening, even the things he is causing to happen. He is on a perpetual campaign. <\/p>\n

Now, a lot of people have made that point. But they make it in a limited way without completing or closing the loop, without fully understanding what it all means and why. Some people say he\u2019s campaigning just because he likes it, that\u2019s his strong suit. No. It\u2019s not that. It\u2019s to make sure that he doesn\u2019t get blamed for anything. He is presenting every day a photo-op and an image of opposing all the things happening, and as they get worse, he gets credit for trying to fix them. He says, for example, that he\u2019s not gonna do one thing that will add a dime to the deficit. Well, he\u2019s only added $6 trillion to the national debt, $6 trillion in deficits. But people that vote for him, “No, he hasn\u2019t. He said he wasn\u2019t gonna add a dime to the deficit.” So it must be the Republicans that are doing it, because Obama hasn\u2019t done it. Obamacare\u2019s it. <\/p>\n

But about Obamacare, that\u2019s gonna lower your premiums. That\u2019s gonna make health care more affordable. And when that doesn\u2019t happen, that\u2019s the insurance companies\u2019 fault because Obama\u2019s out there blaming them for it. So the perception is he\u2019s working really hard. He did job councils. He\u2019s done all this stuff to create jobs. He\u2019s had meeting after meeting. He\u2019s had commission after commission. He\u2019s listening to the Republicans. He\u2019s had Paul Ryan up to talk about the budget. He\u2019s trying. He\u2019s working real hard, and he understands the rich aren\u2019t paying their fair share, and he\u2019s getting money from them and he\u2019s making life fair and more equitable. He understands gay marriage and gay rights and so forth. This country\u2019s got 200 years of history that he hasn\u2019t been able to fix in just four. And as such, you get an exit poll in the 2012 election, the question, “Cares about people like me, 81% Obama, 19% Romney.” <\/p>\n

So the old image survives. Republicans only care about the rich, don\u2019t care about people in pain, don\u2019t care about the vulnerable, don\u2019t care about the poor, don\u2019t care about the sick, only Obama does. “Obama cares about people like me. He\u2019s trying to make my life better. Republicans, they\u2019re not. They only care about the rich. They don\u2019t care if my life goes to hell. As long as theirs doesn\u2019t.” And then 55% in the exit poll blame Bush for the economy. It all came together for me. And that\u2019s why Obama for the next two years is not gonna be seen governing. He\u2019s gonna be campaigning because it\u2019s all about securing one-party rule. It\u2019s all about eliminating any and all viable political opposition. <\/p>\n

That\u2019s why he\u2019s out personally attacking Fox News and me. You know, I represent talk radio. Fox News and talk radio, the only two, as far as he\u2019s concerned, the only two places in media now where he has any opposition. He\u2019s got to eliminate that just like he has to eliminate the Republicans. So that essentially is the Limbaugh Theorem, and it\u2019s being picked up and used everywhere now. And you are sending me e-mails saying, “You know, people are stealing it from you, and they\u2019re not crediting you. You ought to mention it.” So I\u2019m doing that.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Here\u2019s that New York Times headline, February 12th: “Polls Show Dissatisfaction With Country\u00c2\u2019s Direction, but Support for Obama\u00c2\u2019s Agenda.” And I said, how in the name of Sam Hill can that be? Ergo, the Limbaugh Theorem.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Now, let me wrap this up. I\u2019m very nervous about this. And the only reason that I\u2019m continuing to go through this Limbaugh Theorem, I\u2019m being very honest with you, I\u2019m being deluged with e-mail from people who are telling me they\u2019re seeing and reading all kinds of people using it as their own and not giving me credit, and I just want you all to know, I don\u2019t really care. The only people I care about are you. Now, you understand, you know that that\u2019s totally sufficient for me. But two people have said that it\u2019s important for three reasons. A, the people appropriating it from you don\u2019t really fully understand it and are not explaining it fully.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Romney was on Fox News Sunday<\/a>, and he said (paraphrasing), “Yeah, Obama\u2019s simply campaigning. That\u2019s all he\u2019s doing.” But he didn\u2019t explain why that is being done and what the real impact of it is and how it relates to politics today. And a lot of other people are mentioning that Obama is not governing, he\u2019s campaigning, but they\u2019re not closing the loop. Another good friend of mine said, “It\u2019s bigger problem than that, Rush, because I don\u2019t know whether you know it or not, but there\u2019s a bunch of young conservatives out there who are trashing you all the time, saying that you need to be ignored, denounced, or whatever, and yet they\u2019re stealing a lot of things you say, and it\u2019s important for people to understand where this stuff is coming from since you don\u2019t toot your own horn.” <\/p>\n

So that\u2019s the only reason I\u2019m going through this one more time. And again, the starting point for it was this New York Times piece on February 12th: “Polls Show Dissatisfaction With Country\u2019s Direction, but Support for Obama\u2019s Agenda.” That caused the light to explode and I\u2019ve been able to answer a question that had been bugging me for four years, which is how is it that this guy got reelected? How in the world does none of what\u2019s going wrong in this country, that everybody acknowledges is going wrong, how does he escape accountability? And now I know. <\/p>\n

It is a great Alinskyite sleight of hand. He\u2019s not governing. He\u2019s fighting. He\u2019s not governing. He\u2019s opposing. There are other forces making this happen. Powerful, invisible forces like a bunch of Wizards of Oz. And it\u2019s those people behind the curtains trying to protect the rich, trying to make sure that you don\u2019t get your job back or what have you, that people accept and believe. When you have dissatisfaction with the country\u2019s direction but support for Obama\u2019s agenda, that is amazing. That\u2019s why he\u2019s on the campaign trail now, and it\u2019s why he\u2019s gonna stay on the campaign trail because what he\u2019s doing is effectively trying to wipe out all political opposition. <\/p>\n

There is no common ground. There\u2019s no desire for bipartisanship. He doesn\u2019t want to come to bipartisan agreements. In fact, Boehner once gave Obama everything he asked for in a fiscal cliff deal, and Obama changed the terms of the deal. He demanded an additional trillion dollars in tax increases from Boehner, and that\u2019s when Boehner walked away. He didn\u2019t want a deal. He doesn\u2019t want any agreement. He doesn\u2019t want his name attached to any policy going forward because the intention here is for there to be more pain. <\/p>\n

Where we are now, now that the sequester\u2019s kicked in, the objective here is for you to experience pain. The objective is for you to feel pain and to suffer, and this is so that you will never, ever again accept the government getting smaller. You will never, ever again accept budget cuts. You will never, ever let Republicans run the show. Your suffering, your pain is his gain. Let\u2019s go to the audio sound bites. Here\u2019s Major Garrett this morning on CBS This Morning, and he was talking to Janet Napolitano about the supposed pain and suffering at the airports.<\/p>\n

GARRETT: As for what\u2019s happening with the spending cuts, no visible disruptions, at least not yet. Even so, the Homeland Security secretary said big flight delays dogged weekend travelers. But where?<\/p>\n

NAPOLITANO: I want to say O\u2019Hare, I want to say LAX, I want to say Atlanta, but I\u2019d have to check.<\/p>\n

GARRETT: Officials at Chicago\u2019s O\u2019Hare and Atlanta\u2019s Hartsfield airport reported no significant delays. Air traffic controllers in Chicago did say delays are coming.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

RUSH: Air traffic controllers? What\u2019s that got to do with it? The delays are because of TSA, longer lines to get through the security checkpoints. And a snowstorm\u2019s coming to Chicago so there are gonna be delays, but did you hear Janet Napolitano in this bite say, “Well, I want to say O\u2019Hare, I want to say LAX, um, I want to say Atlanta, but I\u2019d have to check.” So Major Garrett went out and checked. There isn\u2019t any suffering. There are no suffering delays. There\u2019s no pain. Doesn\u2019t matter. She said so. She said there is. And that\u2019s what the regime is doing all over television, telling people that there are disruptions and delays, inconveniences, pain, suffering, when there isn\u2019t any. The worst thing that can happen to the regime is for the sequester to kick in, which it has, and for nobody to notice. That\u2019s the worst thing that could happen. <\/p>\n

Now, the Washington Examiner today explores this whole concept in an editorial. “For perhaps the first time in the history of the United States, it is in the political interest of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people.” Inflict, cause it, not just benefit from it, but to cause it in order to benefit. And listen to how they begin their piece. “President Obama is just 42 days into his second term in the White House but he is already done governing.” Well, where did they get that? <\/p>\n

“As The Washington Post reported this weekend, Obama is already ‘executing plans to win back the House in 2014, which he and his advisers believe will be crucial to the outcome of his second term and to his legacy as president.'” Yeah, the Washington Post did report that, late to the party, but accurate nevertheless. “‘The goal,\u2019 The Washington Post reports, ‘is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on gun control, immigration, climate change and the economy during his final two years in office, according to congressional Democrats.'” Well, that is what\u2019s going on. The Washington Post is right, as I say, late to the party. <\/p>\n

In other words, folks, Obama is done trying to work with Republicans this year and next. And you know what he\u2019s gonna say is the reason for it? “Well, I\u2019m gonna have to get a lot of stuff done this year because starting next year people are gonna start talking about the midterms, and I\u2019m not gonna be a factor. And then after that, they\u2019re gonna be looking at the presidential race in 2016. So I\u2019ve gotta get everything done this year. I\u2019ve gotta get as much done this year, the next 18 months, as I can \u2019cause after that nobody\u2019s gonna pay attention to me.” He\u2019s not saying this, but the theory is he will be lame duck because the future is the focus and he\u2019s not it, theoretically. But it all adds up to the undeniable fact that Obama has no intention of governing, no intention of coming to any agreements with the Republicans. It\u2019s silly, it\u2019s folly for the Republicans to seek that. They ought to be doing what he\u2019s doing: trying to defeat, politically, Obama and the Democrats, rather than get along. But I know why they don\u2019t. Frank Luntz focus group. <\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

This is another amazing thing. Last week, Luntz did a focus group for CBS<\/a> with 22 people who voted for Obama and 22 people who voted for Romney. You couldn\u2019t tell the difference in \u2019em. They all said that they “want the political parties to work together.” Isn\u2019t it interesting that people want the parties to work together, but only the Republicans get the blame for not doing it, when they\u2019re the only ones that try? The Republicans actually are the only ones. It\u2019s silly and it\u2019s folly, but they are trying to make compromise agreements with the Democrats.<\/p>\n

The Democrats want no part of it. Obama wants no part of it. The Republicans get the blame for it — and that\u2019s because of the perpetual, never-ending campaign. We had the news last hour. Tax revenue collected is at an all-time high, with $2.7 trillion of tax revenue collected. In the middle of a recession, with 8.5 million fewer jobs existing than four years ago and unemployment at 14%, tax revenues are at an all-time high. Yet Obama\u2019s running around talking about how people aren\u2019t taxed enough yet. Not just the rich. He\u2019s not through taxing everybody.<\/p>\n

At $2.7 trillion, a record amount of revenue collected, we\u2019re still gonna have a deficit of $1 trillion because we\u2019re spending $3.7 trillion. It\u2019s a clear illustration that we have a spending problem. Have you ever noticed, folks, the way this works? In Cuba, Fidel Castro has been running that country into the ground since 1959-1960. Castro still talks about the revolution! He did the revolution. He took control 60 years ago. As far as the way he governs, he\u2019s still trying to take control. He\u2019s still fighting those evil Batista forces. The revolution still hasn\u2019t been completed yet!<\/p>\n

All popular dictators do it this way.<\/p>\n

Mao Tse-tung, Castro, they never stop. They may change the terms to “cultural revolution” or what have you, but they never stop with the image of constantly fighting these powerful forces of oppression. It\u2019s exactly what\u2019s happening here. Anyway, tax revenue is gonna hit a record high this year, and USA Today has a companion story: “Personal Income Plummets 3.6% in January — Personal income growth plunged 3.6% in January, the biggest one-month drop in 20 years”!<\/p>\n

We are still collecting a record amount of tax revenue, but we are still hearing from the Democrats that we are under-taxed. These are Commerce Department numbers. These are regime numbers. “[C]onsumer spending rose just 0.2% with most of it going toward higher heating bills and filling up the gas tank,” and if Obama gets his carbon tax, that\u2019s gonna cost everybody a whole lot more. But none of it attaches to him. None of it.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: No, see, if Obama gets one-party rule in 2014 — if he wins the House — he\u2019s not a lame duck. You know, the old standard conventional wisdom is that second-term administrations really are worthless. One of two things happen. They become lame ducks because they\u2019re the past, have nothing to do with the future, or scandal erupts. But if Obama succeeds in winning the House for the Democrats, he\u2019s no lame duck. There won\u2019t be any opposition. He\u2019ll have smooth sailing the last two years to do whatever he wants.<\/p>\n

He won\u2019t need executive orders to do whatever he wants.<\/p>\n

Yes, a lot of people are asking me if I\u2019ve noted Jeb Bush and his apparent reversal on amnesty for illegals. Of course I have. I\u2019m host! We\u2019re gonna talk about it. I can\u2019t squeeze it all in here in the first hour of the program. Sit tight; be patient. Two more sound bites before the phone calls. Up first is Brit Hume. This is last night on The O\u2019Reilly Factor. Question: “When did he say he didn\u2019t want the authority that Paul Ryan (sic) wants to give him to make sure that things like aircraft carriers aren\u2019t denied, things like that?”<\/p>\n

What this question is about is the Senate. O\u2019Reilly meant the Senate. The Senate last week, to head off the sequester, offered a bill that would have given Obama total authority over whatever spending cuts in the sequester there were to be. Republicans in the Senate proposed it. Democrats said, “Nope, not gonna do it.” Obama said he would veto it. It was a test. “Okay, we\u2019re gonna pass a bill.<\/p>\n

“We\u2019ll give you total authority over all the spending cuts,” and he didn\u2019t want it. Why? He doesn\u2019t want his name on these cuts! He doesn\u2019t want his name on whatever happens in the sequester. It\u2019s his idea, he proposed it, he got it, but he doesn\u2019t want anybody knowing that. As far as these sequester budget cuts are concerned, he\u2019s fighting every one of them. It\u2019s somebody else causing the pain, not him. So O\u2019Reilly was asking Brit Hume. O\u2019Reilly asked, “When did he say that?” as if O\u2019Reilly\u2019s not believing that he said it.<\/p>\n