![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/SPendingKingChart.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\nRUSH: We\u2019re gonna start in Pittsburgh. It\u2019s Jim. Great to have you on the program. You\u2019re up first, and welcome, sir.<\/p>\n
CALLER: Great, Rush. I called Rex Nutting Tuesday night in Pittsburgh. He was on a talk show on that article, and I called him on it. First thing I said is, “They use baseline budgeting.” He goes, “What is that?” I explained —<\/p>\n
RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold it a second. Hold it. You…? Rex Nutting was on a show in Pittsburgh last Tuesday. You called the show.<\/p>\n
CALLER: This Tuesday. And I knew enough by listening to you about baseline budgeting and everything else to challenge him, okay?<\/p>\n
RUSH: And this guy —<\/p>\n
CALLER: He didn\u2019t know what it was. I had to explain it to him, and —<\/p>\n
RUSH: Wait a second. We gotta digest this. You\u2019re flying by this. Don\u2019t worry. I\u2019ll hold you over.<\/p>\n
CALLER: Okay, good. As long as I know I have more time, I won\u2019t rush through it.<\/p>\n
RUSH: Right, right. I just want to make sure people digest this. The guy who wrote the piece claiming that Obama is not a big spender, that Bush really spent all that money, you had a chance to talk to him on the radio in Pittsburgh last week; he did not know what baseline budgeting is. You had to tell him.<\/p>\n
CALLER: Yes. Exactly. Yes. Yes.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RUSH: Did he understand it after you explained it?<\/p>\n
CALLER: Yes, he did. Here\u2019s the amazing thing about it, Rush. He did, and he admitted they probably use it.<\/p>\n
RUSH: (laughing)<\/p>\n
CALLER: This is how crazy it was. And I even said to him, Rush, I said, “They off-loaded Obamacare \u2019til 2014,” and after that I got cut off. Because the host even admitted that his Twitter account was going bonkers. No one called him on it because no one knew enough like I knew enough to challenge him on it, okay? But as a guy that really doesn\u2019t have half of a brain, I don\u2019t know —<\/p>\n
RUSH: Well, this is why, Jim, I am convinced that this guy was inspired by a chart that Pelosi\u2019s office put out a year ago. With your story I am more convinced than ever that that\u2019s what happened here. Look, we have the break. I want you to hold on.<\/p>\n
CALLER: Okay.<\/p>\n
RUSH: We\u2019ll talk about this and take some breaths at the same time.<\/p>\n
BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n
RUSH: Okay, we\u2019re back with Jim in Pittsburgh who ended up talking to Rex Nutting<\/a> on a radio talk show, I guess, Tuesday in Pittsburgh last week, and he had not heard of baseline budgeting. You had to explain it to him. Nutting is the guy that has this piece out about Obama not being a proliferate big spender. But you pointed out that Obamacare was off-loaded to 2014, all of the spending, the, quote, unquote, benefits so that that wouldn\u2019t show up before Obama had a chance to be reelected. But then you said that the Twitter account was going bonkers and nobody called him. Whose Twitter account was going bonkers?<\/p>\n CALLER: It was the guy on KDKA, Robert Mangino, he has the six to ten.<\/p>\n RUSH: The host, okay.<\/p>\n CALLER: The host. He goes either way, conservative or liberal, but I think he goes more on the liberal side as far as politics. And he even liked my idea about baseline budgeting, but how he sold him on it, and he sells a lot of people on it, he says, “Oh, using real dollars,” and he admitted, he goes, “Yeah, I think Jim\u2019s right, they use baseline budgeting.” I think what it is, Rush, you know, I told him right off, I said, “Look, I have a degree in political science. I\u2019ve been following things for years. He knew I knew more than he knew. And after I explained it to him, he admitted it was true, and then I got cut off because they were worried that I would blow the guy out of the water. If I had more time I would have blown him out of the water. My point is, Rush, these people are so stupid that write these articles, that I don\u2019t know if it\u2019s lies, deceitful or just stupidity.<\/p>\n RUSH: Well —<\/p>\n CALLER: Who knows. But the whole point is —<\/p>\n RUSH: It\u2019s probably a combination.<\/p>\n CALLER: Yeah, that\u2019s what I think it is. But if I would have thought about what you said about how he hadn\u2019t passed the budget, I wish I could have thought — and that\u2019s why you\u2019re where you\u2019re at, but he admitted to — he says, “Well, they have to start somewhere.” But he did not know what baseline budgeting is. And I don\u2019t know if people outside of listeners to your show know, but you\u2019ve explained it eloquently over the years, and I was able to easily explain it. And the host even was —<\/p>\n RUSH: When you explain that the Porkulus — and this guy trying to blame Bush for the Porkulus takes the cake. But all of this spending that was off-budget, was added to the budget, gets added to the baseline because it is federal spending. So the next budget incorporates that new level as the new baseline from which all the new spending increases are tabulated. Therefore, the spending which followed 2009 increased almost at a geometric progression because the baseline had a trillion dollars added to it that was not on the budget. <\/p>\n Jim, thanks for the call. He is making the point that he talked to the author of this story, and he came away with the belief that the writer may really not have known all he was talking about, that he got hold of a little bit of information and thought he had a scoop. He thought he had something that nobody else had figured out, and writes a story about it. And I had the same impression when I read this piece yesterday, that I sent around to all my friends. I put it too far down in the Stack, and, frankly, I forgot that I had it in the Stack yesterday. And when I sent this around to my friends, I said, “Get ready, this thing is gonna blow up pretty soon, wait \u2019til the Drive-Bys, the rest of them get hold of this in the regime,” and that happened. I spent a lot of last night kicking myself for forgetting to mention it. So I have to now go back and tell you in hindsight. <\/p>\n But as I read this piece, I thought to myself, something about this just doesn\u2019t carry any authority with it. It read as something that was cut-and-paste, hopeful rather than authoritative. And then when I got here today and I started the intense show prep for today\u2019s program, then I discovered Pelosi\u2019s chart. Her office puts a chart out one year ago, May of 2011, which has this exact point in it. It\u2019s a bar chart, vertical bars that shows Obama spending barely exists and Bush\u2019s is skyrocket high. Reagan as the number one spender. And I said, “This has to be where this guy got the idea.” Somebody saw the Pelosi chart, and this guy got hold of it, and that\u2019s where he got the germ of his idea. Well, he\u2019s on the staff at MarketWatch. And, by the way, the Wall Street Journal, which I think now owns MarketWatch, CBS did at one time, I believe, but the Wall Street Journal ran a variation of the story that somebody at the Journal wrote. But they didn\u2019t fact check it. I mean the story contained all the data. <\/p>\n If you wanted to believe this, if you\u2019re of the mind-set that you have to defend Obama — look, most of the media, their number one job is to shape the news. That was Bozell\u2019s point yesterday in his column about how the media are not covering the massive lawsuit against Obama and the government by the Catholic Church and related organizations over the imposition of their religious freedom and liberty. It\u2019s a huge story. The media\u2019s ignoring it. Instead, the prism is, does it help or hurt Obama\u2019s reelection? If it hurts, it doesn\u2019t get reported. If it helps, it does. You want to know how does it end up at MarketWatch? How does ABC run and NBC doctor a 911 tape in the Trayvon Martin story, how does that happen? How does the Duke lacrosse case get reported as a lie for a full year? <\/p>\n You know what we learned today, speaking of Trayvon Martin. Guess what we\u2019ve learned. There\u2019s a story, I can\u2019t remember the source. It\u2019s major. I just can\u2019t remember which one. A year ago, at some town council meeting or public meeting in Sanford, Florida, George Zimmerman ripped the cops for covering up the beating of a black homeless man by a white cop. He ripped the police department because they covered up the fact that a white cop beat up a black homeless kid. A white Hispanic George Zimmerman ripped into the Sanford cops for being racially discriminatory in not pursuing the fact that a white guy had beaten up a black homeless guy. He did this at a public meeting. So a picture further emerges of Zimmerman as not anti-black, not racially motivated in that way. <\/p>\n The whole narrative of the Trayvon Martin story has gone out the window. You asked me how does MarketWatch publish this. Well, how does the Trayvon Martin travesty happen? How does the Duke lacrosse case happen? How does NBC take a 911 tape and purposely edit it to make it look like Zimmerman is a black-hating racist? It happens because that\u2019s who the media is. <\/p>\n Financial reporting. So did sports reporting, didn\u2019t it? Snerdley, financial reporting, it used to… have you ever watched CNBC? Why does Rick Santelli stand out? He\u2019s the only one. This is another myth. Snerdley, you think business journalists understand and they\u2019re pretty much straight down the middle, don\u2019t find a whole lot of libs there. Right. Then how come all these CEOs give money to Obama and the Democrats, if they\u2019re so down the middle conservative Republican? All of these things are giant myths. <\/p>\n The only thing that matters right now as far as the media is concerned, will a story hurt Obama\u2019s reelection or help? They saw this Nutting piece. This is why I say they\u2019ve taken the bait. Unwittingly, they\u2019ve taken the bait. Our premise is Obama is an out-of-control spender. Up \u2019til now Obama hadn\u2019t even addressed that. Now all of a sudden Jay Carney, the White House, Obama himself cited the Nutting story last night at a fundraiser. “See? See? I\u2019m not the big spender.” As though he doesn\u2019t have the guts to say his own administration figured out that they\u2019re not big spenders, this guy in the media did. <\/p>\n Obama\u2019s first budget wouldn\u2019t have started until October of 2009. This is the Bush budget. Therefore all spending… You gotta be (and this is Jim from Pittsburgh\u2019s point about the guy), really uninformed and a little ignorant about how things work to believe that Obama originated spending is actually Bush\u2019s. “Because the budget for 2009 was actually done in 2008! Obama couldn\u2019ta done it! Therefore the nearly trillion dollars in spending that Obama did actually you have to count that as Bush\u2019s.”<\/p>\n That\u2019s indescribably ignorant, and by ignorant I mean uninformed. But the editors see it, and they say, “This will help Obama\u2019s reelection,” and so that\u2019s all the editor needs. Whether it\u2019s true or not, doesn\u2019t matter. When did truth start mattering in news coverage? Truth hasn\u2019t been a factor in I don\u2019t know how long. Truth isn\u2019t what gets stuff done. It\u2019s like I\u2019ve always said about how dumb and naive I was early in the history of this program in 1990, \u201992. I\u2019ll admit it.<\/p>\n I would read a profile of somebody in a newspaper and think, “Wow, that profile\u2019s written because this person has accomplished something or done something really great to warrant this.” No. That\u2019s not how that stuff happens. There are PR agents and flacks who are out there hustling this stuff, and by hook or by crook these profiles and laudatory stories of people get written not because anybody\u2019s earned it or achieved it, but because of other extraneous factors.<\/p>\n So truth — which to many people is a moving target, anyway. Truth is a subjective thing to a lot of people. But that\u2019s why I\u2019m the mayor of Realville. I look at this and I say, “When was the last time truth mattered in journalism?” If truth — and, by the way, journalists will tell you: They\u2019re not interested in anything other than “fairness.” That\u2019s their excuse now. “We have to be fair. That\u2019s what our objective is in journalism: We\u2019ve got to be fair.” Fair to who? That\u2019s a moving target, too.<\/p>\n What\u2019s fairness?<\/p>\n Who gets to decide that?<\/p>\n Who gets to decide what income equality is?<\/p>\n Who gets to decide all this?<\/p>\n That\u2019s the power that the left assigns to itself or wants to have for itself. But just like I point out: If you\u2019re gonna blame Bush for the stimulus, then all that credit Obama and Biden are running around taking for it has gotta go to Bush. We gotta credit Bush for all the job creation. We have gotta credit Bush for the end of the recession. We have to credit Bush for moving the country forward and transforming it away from the mistake that it was as founded. That\u2019s how it ends up in MarketWatch: The guys think it will help Obama\u2019s reelection. That\u2019s the only thing that matters.<\/p>\n BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n RUSH: Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, lies, deceit, stupidity, ignorance, and even the good times.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s John in Columbus, Ohio. Hi, John. It\u2019s great to have you, sir, on the EIB Network. Welcome.<\/p>\n CALLER: Hi, Rush. It\u2019s an honor to talk with you.<\/p>\n RUSH: Thank you, sir.<\/p>\n CALLER: When you were talking about all the money that Obama spent that he blames on Bush, you forgot one big chunk that happened in 2009. In March of 2009, Obama signed the 2009 omnibus bill. That was $410 billion that added to Bush\u2019s budget because Pelosi couldn\u2019t get Bush to sign off on it.<\/p>\n RUSH: You know, that\u2019s right. I forgot the $410 billion omnibus spending bill that included tons of spending. It\u2019s a catchall. An omnibus is a catchall for all kinds of discretionary spending. You\u2019re right. So that adds $410 billion, and that brings a total up to $1.465 trillion of Obama spending that Rex Nutting wants to be tied to George W. Bush. That\u2019s a good catch.<\/p>\n CALLER: Yeah. Well, in addition to that, you know, we had this thing called TARP that gets blamed on Bush. But of course the money that went to banks supposedly got repaid plus profit, according to Geithner.<\/p>\n RUSH: Right, and that shoulda brought the federal deficit down, and I didn\u2019t see where it did that.<\/p>\n RUSH: Well —<\/p>\n CALLER: That must mean that somebody spent that money after it came back in.<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/Rush-Baseline-Budgeting.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/ObamaSpendingKing2.jpg\"\/)
<\/a><\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/ObamaHopeChangeElection.jpg\"\/)
![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/RushJoinRush247.jpg\"\/)
<\/a>RUSH: Yes, including the interest that was paid on that. But interesting about TARP: Not all of it was spent by Bush. Obama asked for $200 billion of discretionary TARP spending that had not been spent. He asked for that before he was immaculated. It was after he was elected. But before he was inaugurated, and Bush gave him the money, that was on the auto bailout. I\u2019m factoring that in.<\/p>\n