RUSH: The president has been on this kick lately of income inequality and fixing it. We gotta do something about economic inequality, educational inequality and income inequality. It’s just all equality. We gotta do something about it! The president said, “If the Congress doesn’t do anything about it, I have a pen, and I have a phone, and I will do it myself.”
Now, the way liberals go about changing inequality. A, the whole premise is flawed because you can’t. There is no such thing as equality, other than of opportunity and before the law. But there is no equality of what’s gonna happen to you when you engage or pursue your opportunity, and there’s no guarantee that’s what’s gonna happen to you once you have your equality before the law. There is no equality of outcome.
It’s always held out as a utopian dream, but it’s not possible. Equality is not possible. The pursuit of equality, however, people really love that. For some reason, people attach the most wonderful of motives to people who say they see all this inequality out there and need to fix it. It’s just not fair. You’ll hear it manifest itself in discussions about the so-called widening gap between the rich and the poor or the widening gap between men and women. It’s like actually two twin beds, but that’s another story.
You’ll also hear about the widening gap in the educated and the uneducated. The liberals will all say, “We must do something about it” and some in our population swoon, “Oh, yes, it’s so unfair, and so unfortunate, and we’ve gotta do something about the inequality.” So the Democrats then have their reason to do something about it, and the way they go about it is not trying to make people equal at all.
The way they go about it is not even rooted in changing inequality, at the end of the day. The way they go about it is destructive for everybody. When liberals see income inequality, for example, who do you hear them bitch about? The rich. When you hear them talk about income or economic inequality, who’s to blame for it? The rich. Now, who are the rich, to the Democrats? Well, the rich are the winners of life’s lottery.
They’ve had nothing to do with it.
They just lucked out.
They haven’t worked hard.
They haven’t prepared themselves.
They just won life’s lottery.
In fact, the rich people that former congressman from Missouri, Dick Gephardt knows… He said that the rich people came to his office all the time, and one said, “Dick, if you’ll just raise my taxes — I mean, just keep raising my taxes, Dick — then I’ll have more money than I’ve ever had in my life and so will everybody else, and it’ll be a much better country.” Dick said he knew rich people like this.
They came in and constantly asked him to raise their taxes, on the premise they would have more money than they’ve ever had. Dick told this story many times on television. What the Democrats do with income inequality is punish the people at the top of whatever bracket we’re talking about. If it’s income, they want to raise taxes. They want to impugn, punish, institute more regulations, just make it tougher and tougher and do what they can to take money from them.
Under the premise, by the way, that somehow that money is going to end up in the hands of people that don’t have much. It never works out, does it? But that’s what the promise is. The Democrats, you might hear them say that the rich are rich because they stole all of their money or somehow fleeced the poor for all of their money. “If it weren’t for these cheating, skunk, lying, rich people, you poor people would have the money!
“You remember when you had this, right? You remember when you had that house on the beach and your Rolls-Royce, and then one day some rich guy came over and stole it all from you? You remember that? You remember that? So you want to vote for Obama and the Democrats to get your house back and your Rolls-Royce ’cause you remember when Koch brothers came and took it from you. If it wasn’t the Koch brothers, it was Mitt Romney.
“And when Romney came to take your house, he had his dog on the top of his station wagon to boot. Really a mean guy.” So the Democrats tell all the poor people and all of the middle class that they’re only where they are ’cause the rich have cheated them, exploited them, or stolen all their money. The way they’re gonna make it equal is to take from those people who have just won life’s lottery, the premise being that the poor and the rich and the middle class are gonna get the money.
That never happens, yet the poor seem to support this class envy. How do they…? Why? I’ll tell you why. Because it’s very hideous. What the Democrats have done is tell the poor and the middle class that the Democrats are looking out for ’em. Democrats are gonna get even with those rich people. They’re gonna get there, and they’re gonna have theirs taken away. They’re gonna lose theirs, and you’re supposed to feel good about that.
You, who are poor or middle class, are supposed to feel happy, not because you have any more than you had. You’re supposed to be happy because the rich that you hate have finally been screwed like you think you were screwed. Your life doesn’t change one way for the better when the Democrats start punishing the rich. In fact, every time you hear the Democrats start talking about standing up for the little guy, look out because it’s the little guy that gets creamed.
When the Democrats start targeting the rich, they are also targeting the people that hire you, and if they take enough money away from them, you might lose your job — and you’re supposed to be happy about that, too, because the rich guy just had his taken from him. This is not arguable. This is how the Democrats go about it. If you take a look at education, the kids that get good grades are said to humiliate those who don’t.
And what, then, do we do? Slow them down. We put obstacles in their way. We do not devise public education systems that are designed to deal with their superior learning ability. We retard it so that they don’t learn any more, any faster than the lowest common denominator — and that really is the nub of it. The Democrats’ equality and sameness is all going to be defined by the lowest common denominator.
As long as there’s anybody that’s poor or middle class, there will not be satisfaction that there are rich people. Not ’til we get rid of all the rich can we say we have finished the job. So, here’s Obama who is out in the White House today, and he’s making a speech about jobs and employment, and he is describing White House efforts to help the long-term unemployed. Now, this is the president of the United States, and it goes by pretty quick. It’s only 13 seconds, but this is what he said.
OBAMA: Today I am directing every federal agency to make sure we are evaluating candidates on the level, without regard to their employment history, because every job applicant deserves a fair shot.
RUSH: Now, I would imagine, to of those — well, I don’t think there are many of you in this audience who fall for it, frankly, but to those of you who have thought, “Wow, that’s really cool,” let me translate for you what he’s really saying. We are going to make sure that the least qualified get hired just as much as the most qualified because they are the least qualified. That’s a fair shot. So, once again Obama, by his own admission, lowering standards, punishing achievers, by moving them to the back because their achievement has given them an unfair advantage.
So he today is directing every federal agency to make sure we evaluate candidates on the level without regard to their employment history. So if you are a rotten employee, if you don’t show up on time, if you don’t get any work done, that cannot be examined as whether or not it makes sense to hire you. What we’re gonna do is make sure that we only hire people who have been out of work the longest, because that’s fair, regardless their work history, regardless whether they’re qualified, this is Obama making it equal. And of course you hear every job applicant deserves a fair shot. Well, what is a fair shot? And why does he get to determine what it is?
What is a fair shot for a job applicant? An interview? Or getting the job? See, with Obama, the opportunity is not what’s fair; it’s the outcome. He’s gonna dictate the outcome. And the premise is that the longest term unemployed person is the one who’s been screwed the most. These evil employers have got something against these people that have been out of work the longest. And Obama’s here to level that playing field. So if you’re out of work longer than anybody else, that’s all that matters. You are at the top of the hiring list.
Now, how is this going to end up manifesting itself in reality? Nobody’s gonna get hired, because businesses are not going to willingly hire unless they’re paid under the table, subsidized somehow by Obama or the federal government. There are exceptions to everything, but most businesses want to hire the best they can get for what they have to offer. If all they’ve got to offer is 15 an hour, they want the best they can get for it. They don’t want the worst. So that’s a classic example.
See, I spend all this time telling you the theory, and here comes our beloved president demonstrating it for us. (imitating Obama) “Today I’m directing every federal agency –” remember, you didn’t build that. You rich people didn’t do anything. You just sat there and took advantage of all the hard work of everybody else and then you screw ’em, shaft ’em, don’t hire ’em, don’t give ’em raises, don’t give them health insurance, just exploit them. You’re just mean SOBs. You didn’t build that. You didn’t make your success happen. We did that for you. And now you’re gonna pay.
So he says, “I’m directing every federal agency to make sure we are evaluating candidates on the level, without regard to their employment history.” What if they’re fired because they’re drunk? What if they’re fired because they were having affairs with the boss’s secretary? Doesn’t matter, can’t look at that, can’t look at that. That’s not fair. ‘Cause the people that didn’t get drunk on the job, and the people that didn’t have sex with the boss’s secretary have an unfair advantage. And we can’t have that. So we take away the unfair advantage and the lowest common denominator.
Now, here’s a story. It’s the Washington Times: “NYC School Cuts Popular Gifted Program Over Lack of Diversity — A popular gifted-student program at a New York City –” read “liberal Democrat” “– elementary school is getting the ax –” A gifted student, advanced student, advanced learning, elementary school is getting the ax. The whole school, “– after officials decided it lacked diversity.” Meaning, there were too many white people in it.
“PS 139 Principal Mary McDonald told parents in a letter Jan. 24 that Students of Academic Rigor, or SOAR, would no longer accept applications for incoming kindergartners, the New York Daily Newsreported. ‘Our Kindergarten classes will be heterogeneously grouped to reflect the diversity of our student body and the community we live in,’ Miss McDonald said in the letter posted on Flickr.com. At least one parent described SOAR as largely white, while others disagreed, the report said. One mother conceded the program did have a lot of white students, but worried gifted students now wonÂ’t be challenged enough. ‘Where are they going to put the higher-level students? Sometimes, there are different levels, and teachers canÂ’t handle all the levels in one class,'” said one mother.
Oh, yes, they can. They just drive all the higher level students down. This is what they do. It is the core of the public education system. It’s called common core. No one can excel. It isn’t fair. This is precisely what I’m talking about. So the entire notion of advancement, being able to advance rapidly, we’re gonna penalize those people ’cause they’re the wrong skin color. There isn’t enough diversity in the whole school.
RUSH: This is Jan in Northfield, Minnesota. Hi, Jan. Glad you waited. Great to have you here.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: I want to spend one second assuring you that you already have had profound influence on America’s youth. My granddaughter, Taylor, is 18 years old, she grew up listening to you with her great-grandparents, Barbara and Wayne, and she is a very vocal proponent of freedom, and she courageously defends freedom in her public school classroom. I’m just so proud of her —
RUSH: Let me tell you something. That is great, because, you know, a lot of people won’t go near the subject. They think it’s, “Oh, come on, we’re not having our freedom threatened.” They think it’s almost, you know, unhip to talk about freedom. I’m glad that she’s got the courage to talk about it.
CALLER: She’s a gutsy girl.
RUSH: Sounds like it.
CALLER: Yeah. Rush, I’m calling about income equality, and you pretty much covered the entire subject already. I think that the term income equality’s been tossed around an awful lot in the last couple weeks, but there’s no definition that’s been offered, and President Obama has engineered an inference among all of us that everybody’s gonna be better off —
RUSH: Well, what can it be? If somebody asked you, somebody said, “Jan, what’s income inequality,” what would you say?
CALLER: Well, I thought about it, and I would say income equality among human beings, income equality is the equivalent of living as domesticated herd animals with the government acting in the activity of animal husbandry.
RUSH: That’s how you would define income inequality?
CALLER: That’s how I would define income equality.
RUSH: Equality. Oh, you’re defining income equality. Ohhh. I thought your question was how do you define income inequality. It’s very simple. Somebody makes more money than you do. It’s not fair. It’s unequal.
CALLER: Well, yeah.
RUSH: And that’s what Obama means. Obama is playing to the lowest common denominator of everybody, and he is telling them that if anybody’s got more money than you do, it’s not fair and it’s unjustified and somehow you have been ripped off or screwed, and that is his message.
RUSH: Let me give you a real income inequality definition, what it really is. Real income inequality is what we used to call striving and working hard to get ahead. Striving, educating ourselves, getting up and going to work, preparing, using our ambition, and, in that process, some people earned more and earned it sooner than others.
Most of my life, everybody made more money than I did at the places I worked. In fact, when I’ve been an employee, I have never been anywhere close to being the highest paid person there, never. I was working hard. I was working hard. I was doing things I didn’t want to do, that I thought I should do. I was getting up every day, going to work, did not phone in sick. Striving. Trying to get ahead, you know, doing what Obama says, working hard and applying myself and trying to get ahead. There was always somebody, there were always a lot of people that earned more than I did.
Now, one thing, I never, ever thought the federal government had anything to do with it. Never. Now, I might have thought the places I worked were full of it, and I might have thought I’m never really gonna get ahead here. I’ve gotta do something else. Or I may have thought the person they’re paying is not worth it. This guy’s got ’em snowed. That’s common, ordinary, everyday, welcome to the market kind of stuff. It’s human nature stuff.
There were always people earning more than I did. It’s called income inequality. And there are probably earning less than I did at a lot of these places, too. In fact, I know there were. It just depended on how hard people wanted to work. It depended how good they were, by the way, at what they were doing. Some people were doing things they had no business doing, they just needed a job, they were surviving. Some people were doing what they were doing because it was their career, their life’s love. Others were just trying to earn some money ’cause they couldn’t live otherwise, but nobody was ever the same.
I never once thought, why doesn’t Reagan do something about this, or Jimmy Carter, or whoever the presidents were when I was an adult. Never, ever thought about that, and had one of ’em started talking about it, my antenna would have gone up, and I would have said, “What in the world is this about?” ’cause they don’t know. It’s not their business. It’s not the role of federal government. It’s not his job, the president’s, to pick winners and losers, nor to pass judgment on anybody. Get the hell outta here. You know, worry about the Soviet Union. Federal Reserve. Whatever. Leave me alone. And I didn’t know anybody, by the way, who thought the government ought to fix this.
Now, check it. How many people do you know who think, “Clearly it’s the role of the federal government, Mr. Limbaugh, to deal with income inequality and make sure these evil employers are fair and do it the right way.” And this is just a testament to the success that they’ve had over the years. If you really want to end income inequality, I’ve got the way to fix it. People who don’t work shouldn’t get any income. “How dare he be so mean? Listen him, see, that’s why people hate him, ’cause he doesn’t have any compassion for people. Did you hear what he said? Did you hear what Limbaugh said? Limbaugh said, if you don’t work, you shouldn’t have an income. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get paid.”
That’s right. And there will be people outraged that I said that. It might even make a headline at certain leftist blogs today. Fix income inequality, people who don’t work shouldn’t have any income. But there’s another side of that. I remember back in the nineties, homelessness would come up and I would say, “You know, there’s a fix for this.”
“Yeah, what is it?”
“Well, maybe they should think about getting a job.”
“Oh, easy for you to say. Oh, that’s really gonna help. Oh, you really got a big heart. Oh, is that your solution, have ’em get a job? Man. Man. Look at you. No wonder.”
And that was the reaction. It was one of the most mean things you could say about a homeless person, they should get a job.