RUSH: Colleen in Rutherford, New Jersey. Is it Rutherford or is it East Rutherford?
CALLER: No, it is Rutherford, New Jersey.
CALLER: East Rutherford is east of Rutherford.
RUSH: I gathered that. I didn’t mean to insult you.
CALLER: No, I’m joking. I’m joking. Rutherford is a really, really beautiful town. We have New York City as our backdrop. We’re seven miles from New York City.
RUSH: I know exactly where it is. I’ve been there.
CALLER: Oh, have you been to Giants Stadium?
RUSH: Yes, absolutely.
CALLER: Oh, okay.
RUSH: And the <a target=new href=”http://www.teb.com”>Teterboro Airport</a>, and there’s a couple good restaurants over there that you sneak in and out of, yeah.
CALLER: Oh. All right, well, Rush, do you want to mention one or do you not want to mention one?
RUSH: No, no, no. I just want to let you know of my familiarity with where you live.
CALLER: Oh, good. All right, all right. Now, have you gone to any of the football games here, or no?
RUSH: Oh, many.
CALLER: All right, all right, now, my husband is an ex-player.
RUSH: Oh, is he?
CALLER: Yes, for the Giants.
RUSH: For the Giants. Really? Now you got me curious.
CALLER: He was an offensive lineman. They just did a story in the local Rutherford paper today actually on him. It’s called “A Giant Lives Amongst Us in Rutherford.” It’s Doug Van Horn. I don’t know if you know the name.
RUSH: Doug Van Horn! Of course I know Doug Van Horn!
CALLER: Good. Okay.
RUSH: Absolutely I know Doug Van Horn. I don’t know him, but I know the name, absolutely. You are Colleen Van Horn?
CALLER: Yes. Oh, my God, Rush, it’s not that big. Well, you are Rush Limbaugh, oh, my God! I’m speaking to Rush Limbaugh!
CALLER: You have no idea.
RUSH: Anyway, it’s nice to meet you, Colleen Van Horn, and you tell Doug that he’s a great player. He was a great player.
CALLER: Oh, he had a long career. He played for 13 years, so I definitely can understand that. He’s very, very, very humble. He’s a very humble person.
RUSH: Well, just so you know, he was great. Now, Colleen, what was it that you called about?
CALLER: Okay. Well, first of all, I just can really — I’m just at the breaking point here right now because I’m just so upset with this country, and I have been watching for the last past week of Memorial Day footage on, you know, documentaries coming from Iraq.
RUSH: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
CALLER: And it is just very disheartening. They have just decided to cut 40% of homeland security to New York City.
CALLER: And I believe that they have given the citizens of this area a death sentence. I mean, if that’s not telling us — the towers aren’t there anymore, and if you’re not — that is telling the American people that we forget you as fast as we possibly can. And when all these young men come back, and I have a nephew who was very brave, and he enlisted two years ago because of 9/11.
RUSH: Wait a minute. Colleen, I’m losing the train of thought here. You’re equating the 40% reduction in funding for homeland security for the New York area to troop cuts in Iraq?
CALLER: No, no, no. Meaning that when these troops — we’re fighting the war still right now, and we are fighting the war still right now in Manhattan, in New York City, and you’re telling us right now that you would cut the funds, if you’re — if you can cut the funds to New York City then you’re basically cutting the funds to Iraq, because the reason why we’re over there fighting is because of what happened here in 9/11.
RUSH: Well, look, I know this has people in New York up in arms. Peter King, Chuck Schumer (interruption). What did King say? Yeah, he’s (interruption). I’ll have to paraphrase this, but I think I read where he actually called this a declaration of war against New York or some such thing. That may be a little extreme. I’m not sure he said it that way, but they’re livid, and they’re really upset because some of the money from Homeland Security is going to places that New Yorkers think is the “sticks,” Kentucky and Wyoming, and so you can understand the anger. But here we go again. I’m back to the basics of conservatism here.
The idea that a certain amount of funding is somehow going to lead to disaster? I guess it’s a reality of American life today, because so many years people have been inculcated with the notion that government spending makes something better. Spending on this, spending on that, makes it better, or insures us or protects us or some such thing. I don’t make that association. The idea that a 40% reduction in spending somehow makes New York more vulnerable than it already is, is a disconnect to me. Are you telling me that if we had fully funded, the terrorists would be less motivated to attack, and if they now find out that New York is getting 40% less than they were going to get from Homeland Security, that terrorists are going to be more motivated, say, “Oh, man, they’re not going to give ’em as much money as they were going to get! Why, we’re going to have a much better chance of hitting them!”
Yeah, Peter King said, “As far as I’m concerned, Department of Homeland Security and the administration have declared war on New York City.” Those are very, very strong words. I’m trying to be reserved here. You know, Peter King has been all over the reservation lately on a whole bunch of things. The port deal, accused me of being a hack for Bush, flack for Bush on that issue, and now this, a declaration of war on New York City by the administration. Well, there was (interruption). I do remember that. Snerdley’s got a good point. What was the initial money? Was it 20 billion that we gave the first time, and a lot of it went unspent? It was 20 million, 20 billion, whatever, a lot of it went unspent, so forth. I’m not trying to get New Yorkers all riled up here, but the idea that this is a declaration of war, that the federal government and the administration are saying to New York, “drop dead,” is just extreme, and it’s a bit over the edge. Colleen, great to talk to you. Nice to have you on the program.
RUSH: I did a little research here, ladies and gentlemen, about this New York City funding business from homeland security. I have a question, by the way, for those of you in New York who are listening to this program on our magnificent flagship there, WABC. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, just pointed out that New York is getting, still getting the largest amount of money of any city, state, what have you, from homeland security, in spite of these cuts, and he made the point that a lot of what New York has been getting is for capital improvements, and that many of those have been completed and so the same level of funding is not necessary, that they’re still getting a significant amount of funding for protection and first responders and this kind of thing.
Here’s my question. For all of in you New York, the liberals in New York. Now, I know that we have countless many liberals listening to this program in New York, and I have a very simple question. Are we at war or not? You all think that Bush is lying, lied us into war, it isn’t necessary. Going into Iraq and all this war on terror, it’s just sort of crazy. You know, Bush made a mountain out of a molehill here, and it’s clear that many liberals believe that Bush is the real threat to our security. Bush made the world hate us and Bush equals Hitler. You liberals in New York know who you are. So what the hell. If there’s no war, and if Bush lied about it, made it all up, then who cares how much money you don’t get from homeland security.
See, the answer is — you’ll catch ’em with the question because there are no more World Trade Center towers there. Something happened there, whether they want to call it a war or not, something happened there. There was an attack, and they think it could happen again, and they don’t want any less protection from the federal government via homeland security. So it must be that deep in their souls and deep in their hearts, even the liberals in New York admit we are at risk, and I don’t think they’re really afraid that Bush is going to attack. I don’t think Bush is going to order a bunch of stealth bombers to fly over Manhattan and start dropping ordnance.
So obviously all of this blowhard pontificating about Bush overreacting, Bush lied, this, that, and the other thing, apparently the outcry in this city is sufficient enough to make me believe that there are a lot of liberal New Yorkers who think we’re in a war or that we might get hit again, and they’re worried that there’s not enough protection coming from the federal government. Now, you can’t have it both ways on this. We’re either in a war or we’re not. Now, you New Yorkers, and I’m one of you. I’m there some. (Laughing.) Well, I’ve lived there enough to know that they have a unique way of covering shortfalls in funding. Raise cigarette taxes.
Raise taxes on public transportation, again. Raise the gasoline tax. I mean, liberals love tax increases. Tax yourselves into security, New York! You going to sit around and actually just let Bush make you more vulnerable? Bush has cut your funding by 40%, you’re more vulnerable? Oh, no, we’re at greater risk! Fix it. Tax yourselves into greater security. Tax increases solve a myriad problems, do they not? I mean, you’re trying to stamp out smoking anyway in that town. Raise liquor taxes, raise restaurant taxes, raise the hotel tax. There’s any number of taxes. Raise the freelancer tax. Raise the income tax. Raise taxes, period, and you’ll recoup and pay it yourselves. That might be a problem.
RUSH: We have gone to work here at the EIB Network, folks. We care about New York and its vulnerability to future terrorism because of this drastic Draconian 40% cut in funding from homeland security, the clear path… New York, you can’t sit around anymore and wait for somebody else to protect you. You’re going to have to do it yourself. If homeland security is going to screw you out of 40% of what you were going to get, you gotta rescue yourselves, you gotta protect yourselves. Depend on yourselves, and the way to do that is tax yourself to security. And we are working on various activities, because you tax activities, is what you do, liberals tax behavior that they don’t like, tax behavior they do like. We’re working on a list of potential tax increases for New York that would ride to the rescue, save the day, and come close to replacing the 40% security funding you just got screwed out of by Michael Chertoff and homeland security. We’ll announce this as soon as our list is complete.
RUSH: This is Tony in Kennesaw, Georgia. Tony, welcome to the program, sir.
RUSH: Yes, sir. Are you Tony?
CALLER: No, I’m Lynn Jones in Colorado City, Texas.
RUSH: I’ll tell you what, we’ll put you back on hold and find out what you want to talk about, Tony — or Ian, and okay, Tony, there you are. I’m sorry. We got the wrong line. Not my fault.
CALLER: Okay. I was wondering when I was talking to myself there.
RUSH: Sometimes it makes more sense than talking to me. Yes.
CALLER: I’m just getting sick and tired of the mentality of these New Yorkers and the liberals as a whole of the, you know, once an amount is awarded to them, they’re entitled to it year in, year out, and it can only be increased, as if it’s grandfathered into their budget. Where, you know, the comment that you made at the end of the last hour, a lot of the money that was awarded to them previously was for infrastructure improvements that have since been completed. They don’t need that amount anymore, and, you know, Schumer made the comment, because Georgia, we had our homeland security budget increased by 40%, and he said something about the administration obviously thinks more of the Georgia peanut farmers than the citizens of New York. But, you know, what you got here is a legitimate concern over, you know, Hartsfield airport in Atlanta is the busiest airport in the world. Is that not a legitimate terror target?
RUSH: Well, let me tell you this, too, about one of the things they’re upset about in New York. The New York Post cover today is just excellent. “Washington to New York. Terror? What terror? Feds Slash Our Funds to Boost Hicks in sticks.” Now, they’re upset about money going to Wyoming and Kentucky. Did you know that up until recently you could go… I’m told that Wyoming did not have any air security, background checks or metal detectors, not nearly like they have in other airports. It was much easier to board an airplane and go to New York from Wyoming or wherever you want to go than other cities because they had not ramped up their security at Wyoming airports.
CALLER: Rush, that would be impossible because, you know, it’s all been federalized now and we all know that you can’t professionalize until you federalize.
RUSH: (Laughing.) This is a day of absurdities. Good line. I don’t know if it’s true. I’ve had a couple e-mails from people in Wyoming who have made that point. At any rate, let me tell you, you have to understand New York, and one of the things that I learned shortly after I got there and I lived there for eight years and I still go back —
CALLER: My condolences.
RUSH: Oh, no. New York is — I love it, in so many different ways, but it is the biggest small town in America. It’s amazing how provincial New York is. Everybody thinks that New York has this screw-everybody-else attitude, once you go west of the Hudson River, nothing really exists, and I guess, you know, the headline of the New York Post sort of illustrates that. But they really, really are provincial. For example, Marsha Clark. Marsha Clark, who prosecuted O.J., apparently lived for a day somewhere in New York. Every time there was a story — not every time, but frequently, Marsha Clark was — her New York experience and how it shaped her life was a central part of many stories. New York has this provincial attitude, if somebody is there for a year or a day and they get famous going somewhere else, they are a New Yorker even if they weren’t born there. It’s in the sports pages, it’s in the news pages, it’s the biggest small town in America in the sense that they have this tremendous pride that everybody who’s anybody has to have a New York connection. If they don’t have a New York connection, they’re nobody, no matter how big they are.
CALLER: Well, unless they become an embarrassment, and then New York disowns them.
RUSH: Oh, no. They embrace their embarrassments.
CALLER: Well, I guess some of them.
RUSH: Oh, no, what do you mean? Disown them?
CALLER: With regards to this homeland security funding, what I wish we could all embrace is the fact that what they’re trying to do is allocate funds based on need instead of based on prior expenditure. And if the entire federal budget were based that way, well, we’re gonna budget this year based on this year’s need, not based on what we spent last year, we’re going to decrease it by some multiple.
RUSH: Never going to happen. This is a classic illustration of baseline budgeting, by the way. Here we’ve established an amount of money that New York is going to get for X, in this case homeland security. Now all of a sudden they’ve gone in and budgeted this the way you’ve described budgeting should be done. Do we need this amount of money? What was this money spent on last year? Okay, a lot of it is spent on capital improvements, repairs and so forth. All right, those have been done; we don’t need to keep spending on them, because they’ve been done, so we’re not going to spend anymore. Ergo, we get a cut, and everybody is up in arms.
You have cut our budget! They’re still getting more money than anybody else is getting in the homeland security budget. But it just illustrates, you know, baseline budgeting in the federal budget, you’re exactly right. They never look — why do you think the food stamp people advertise? Food stamp department advertises in newspapers to solicit customers to come in and get on food stamps because they’re afraid their budget will be cut in the ensuing years. That it won’t be because that’s not how budgeting works. There are automatic increases built into the federal budget every year. That’s why this joke of cuts in the federal budget is nothing but a joke. The budget’s never gotten smaller since I’ve been alive.
CALLER: It’s the attitude that fuels defense contractors to sell, you know, $300,000 hammers because at the end of the year if they didn’t spend it this year they can’t get it next year when they might actually need it. Put that amount back in and not ever get it again.
RUSH: Well, the $300,000 hammer is simply because they know they’ll be paid for it. Wal-Mart can’t charge $300,000 for a hammer because nobody would buy one, but Lockheed Martin can charge 600 grand for a toilet on a C-5 because the government’s going to pay for it.
CALLER: Lockheed Martin is exactly the case I was thinking of and one that I’m quite familiar with down here and a lot of that is end of the year we’ve gotta justify these expenditures or we won’t get them next year when we actually need them.
RUSH: Well, Washington doesn’t work that way, and of course New York hasn’t ever worked that way. So it is what it is, and you’ve got your finger on it. You’ve got your finger on the pulse. I gotta run, Tony. This is Wayne in Trenton, New Jersey. Welcome, sir. Nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Rush, I’ve been listening to you since the late eighties, and when I heard your take on this homeland security, I almost ran a red light. It’s it is not what you guys think. I sell the equipment that they are buying for this, and it’s not like your previous call at all.
RUSH: All right, so you have a vested interest.
CALLER: — that goes into these scenarios. The problem is the Bush administration, after 9/11, cut out all the normal grants that the (unintelligible) to buy with. You there?
RUSH: Yeah. Yeah. You’re breaking up on me a little bit but I’m — yeah, I’m following you. I just want you to keep going.
CALLER: I’m on a cell. The problem is it’s only homeland security, there is no way to tap into other sources to get this equipment. We are greatly under-funded right now, and I’m sorry that —
RUSH: What kind of equipment are we talking about here, Wayne?
CALLER: Let me just put it this way, detection equipment, and when it detects it to identify what the source is. I can’t go into the specifics for obvious reasons.
RUSH: Okay, so you’re into the surveillance business?
CALLER: Detection business and mass transit. I’m telling you, we are so under-prepared, and the fact that now you’re getting a 40% reduction, these agencies can’t plan out because they don’t know how much they’re going to get the next year and these programs take one, two, three years just in development, not implementation. So, I mean, your previous caller’s point on it is completely irrelevant.
RUSH: So what you’re saying is not only we’re not prepared for hurricane season, we’re not prepared for the next big attack by terrorists?
CALLER: The next attack is definitely going to come and are we going to stop it as we have stopped other attempts, yes.
RUSH: Okay, you’re breaking up on me again. Sorry, but I gotta go. Thanks very much, Wayne, for the call.
Back to New York, this budget cut business, the favorite word, favorite word: under-funded. “We are under-funded, under-funded on virtually everything!” Can pose a new — of course I can because I’m host and it’s my show. Let me pose a new perspective on this, a different way of looking at this, and it builds upon a brilliant point that I made earlier. I guess New Yorkers are really worried that we have a problem with terrorism, despite their continual ridicule — liberal New Yorkers, ridiculing — Bush and the administration and Bush lied and this isn’t necessary. Bush created the terrorists. Bush is this. Bush is that. The one guy in the country trying to do something about terrorism is the one they criticize, and now all of a sudden when they get slashed 40% of their security budget from homeland security they act like they’re really at risk for something up there.
You have to get it straight. We’re either at risk or we’re not. But here’s the added angle, ladies and gentlemen. Why isn’t this a civil liberties issue? I mean liberals, New York and everywhere, get all upset. They just go into a tizzy when we intercept enemy communications or when we try. They get upset when we put potential terrorists in prison and interrogate them to trying to find out when the next attack might be — and they want to put in jail any members of the military who mistreat prisoners. Any effort that this country makes in an intelligence gathering way, in a surveillance way to try to find out when the next attack is going to be so that we can prevent it, why, the liberals, bloody murder, they start screaming!
All hell breaks loose, and they accuse Bush of spying on Americans, and they do what they can to get the ACLU and other groups, and they get motivated and mobilized to stop all of this, and yet they have no problem growing the federal government if it means sending money to states to prepare for an attack. So intelligence gathering is bad. To go out and learn who might be planning another attack, how and when and where, we can’t have that. Why, that’s a civil liberties violation, civil liberties! You can’t spy on the American people! Bush is a criminal! Bush is Hitler! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So what do we do instead?
We make sure the federal government gives us money so that we can prepare for the next strike. And if we don’t get the money, then we’re not prepared for the next strike. Now, what really, folks, makes more sense. Having a really robust intelligence-gathering operation to try to find out who’s going to do what, where, when, or just start spending money crazily and wildly in a bunch of places in hopes that when the attack comes, we’ll be able to deal with it a little bit better. So I guess preparing for the attack and getting ready to deal with it is preferable to preventing it. Does this make sense to anybody? I mean, this is just chock pure liberalism through and through, when you get all panicky or so-called budget cuts, when real efforts to prevent attacks are undercut, sabotaged, and prevented. You libs, I’ll tell you, you are whacked out.
You are just blinded with rage and hatred and other kinds of emotions here, and you fail to see things that are just commonsensical. You really think that an additional 40% of what you’re supposed to get is going to ensure that you don’t get hit? Because here’s the question. Ask yourselves this honestly. Can we ever be fully prepared? Is it possible to ever be fully prepared? Meaning that no matter where an attack is we’re ready, be it at a port, it be at a train station, be it at a bus station, be it at an airport, be it in a city, are we ever, ever going to be fully prepared? On the other hand, with an adequate intelligence gathering operation combined with proper preparations on the ground to deal with an attack on in a city where we might learn an attack is going to happen, mobilize, to stop it from having, have first responders up, does it make sense to slice out fully half of this equation? Because I’m telling you the American left has done everything it can to sabotage the key element in preventing another attack, and that’s intelligence surveillance. They’re doing everything they can to sabotage on the basis of civil liberties, and Bush is spying on the American people. And is this is why these people cannot be trusted at this time in this nation’s history to lead it. Steve in Fort Walton Beach, you’re next on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. Well, you once again made the point much more eloquently than I could, but the question was-
RUSH: Well, then why did you call?
CALLER: (Laughing.) You beat me to it.
RUSH: I’m sorry. I was just kidding. I’m in a good mood here today.
CALLER: What is preparedness? Is it two federal agents for every civilian to keep an eye on my back? And can we afford that?
RUSH: That’s a good question. When we’re talking about fully prepared, let’s take New York. They’re upset because they’ve been slashed 40% of the budget they were going to get. What is being fully prepared? How many agents does it take, but it’s more than just agents. You have to allow that even the agents may screw up and an attack might happen. So what is being fully prepared? Prepared to deal with the attack after it happens, save as many lives as possible? What is being fully prepared and how much is it going to cost?
CALLER: That’s the question. How much is it going to cost, and how much is it going to take to be prepared for the next hurricane?
RUSH: We’re all braced for the next hurricane. Now, this is interesting. This is because I mentioned this yesterday. The local governments down here where we all live, in south Florida, from Palm Beach County to Broward to Miami-Dade, have all said to their residents: You are on your own. “School Bus” Nagin in New Orleans, you are on your own. We can’t get you out, if you don’t get yourself out. You’re going to have to take control of your life. This is up to you. In New Orleans, they said there is not going to be a shelter of last resort like the dome. We’re not going to have that anymore. Category two mandatory evacuation. It’s up to you. Now, I find that interesting, because these are disasters we know are going to happen. We can be, quote, unquote, prepared for a hurricane.
Of course, here in south Florida, there’s a number of people that say, “Well, we’re not prepared.” I’m driving around and people haven’t put roofs on their house, still got that blue stuff up there. They haven’t prepared any. People are not taking it seriously, and so forth and so on. So we’re not fully prepared down here. Some people don’t care about it, and not everybody is going to. Everybody — most people — are going to assume it can’t happen two years in a row, just can’t happen two years in a row, statistically the odds are can’t happen two years in a row. So the governments are saying you gotta handle it yourself. But when it comes to this homeland security business, it’s not up to anybody individually. It’s up to governments to do it. Governments in Florida and New Orleans have pretty much admitted the limitations of government on everything. They said to citizens, you’re on your own. And these disasters, as I say, hurricanes, we know they’re going to happen and we have ample warning, by the way. When every one of them hits, we know within a day or two where it’s going to hit approximately. We have ample warning. No such ample warning exists with your typical terrorist attack.
RUSH: So it’s a great question. What is being fully prepared? The answer is, these governments in Florida are going to regret ever saying this. Sorry, you’re on your own. But in a terrorist attack it’s tough, because nobody knows when one of those is coming.
RUSH: Destin, Florida, Brett, welcome, nice to have you with us. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, it’s an honor to talk with you today.
RUSH: Thank you. Thank you very much.
CALLER: Hey, I got a question for you.
RUSH: Yes, sir.
CALLER: How much money would it take to be spent in New York City to prevent another 9/11? Didn’t those attacks originate somewhere else outside of New York City?
RUSH: You mean like in airports in Boston and Washington and Newark?
RUSH: Oh, so why aren’t we spending money at those airports instead of in New York?
RUSH: Hmm. That’s not going to sit well with New Yorkers because those airports were not attacked, New York was.
CALLER: Oh, I’m sorry. I’m a hick from the sticks. So I forgot about that.
RUSH: I’m sure they think that, too. But, look, it is a good question. How much money would it take to be fully prepared? How much money would it take to be fully prepared? With liberals in charge, the answer is as much as you have, as much as we can get. Liberals’ motto is, “We’ve got what it takes to take what you’ve got.”
RUSH: All right, I’m just sitting here scanning tomorrow’s morning update which you podcasters will be able to see here in about 20 minutes via podcast download, and it’s our list of helpful hints to New York City on how they can overcome this horrible budget slashing that they’ve withstood from the hands of homeland security. The concept is, in New York you can’t depend on anybody else anymore. You’ve got to handle it yourself. Tax yourselves into security, and we have some ideas here. It’ll be in tomorrow’s morning update.