Rush Limbaugh Still Blames The Republican Base, Not The Candidate

Here, yesterday:

"That's why we're losing, 'cause we keep nominating moderates.  You know, Mitt Romney is one of the most decent men ever to run for the presidency in my lifetime, and probably in many people's lifetimes, a totally decent guy.  But four million Republicans didn't vote in 2012.  Four million fewer than did in 2008.  The Republican conservative base stayed home.  Had they voted, we wouldn't be talking about Obama's second term.  There wouldn't be one."

Why blame conservatives for not voting for liberals, Rush?

The margin of victory wasn't 4 million. McCain lost the election in the swing states, by 1.4 million votes. Romney cut that in half, losing by 770,000 votes.

If anyone is to blame, it's the libertarians, the followers of Ron Paul and Sean Hannity, who were not on board, not the conservatives. And we haven't heard one conservative pundit say so yet even though libertarians were responsible for big losses for Republicans in Senate and House races in 2012. 

If Only Rush Limbaugh Were This Right Every Day

Yesterday, here:

"But the one thing that the Republicans are reluctant to try is draw the contrast with what liberalism is, what Obamaism is, what his intentions are.  They do not effectively make the case for the alternative. ... There's a big move on now to just totally eliminate any concern over the social issues whatsoever, because we gotta save the economy.  The economy is where your kids' future is, the grandkids' future.  And that's exactly right.  But all this stuff is interlinked. 

"Social issues and economic issues are linked by something, and it's called morality.  And it's morality that's missing here, and while Obama runs around and claims the country was founded immorally and unjustly, the truth of the matter is that they're doing everything they can to eliminate morality.  There are no guardrails. There are no limits.  And there will be no judgments.  Nobody has the right to say something is wrong.  Nobody has the right anymore to say something is right.  Nobody has the right to say something shouldn't happen because it's destructive and detrimental.  You don't have that right.  Who you love, who you want to live with, how you want to live, where you want to get your money from the government for a job, it's nobody else's business. 

"And so morality is being eliminated, and this country was founded on the basis of it.  This country was founded on the premise that if morality is ever eliminated, this country can't exist as it was founded."

“Human passions unbridled by morality and religion ... would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.” -- President John Adams

Retirement Investments Hit New High In Q3 2012: $19.4 Trillion

The Investment Company Institute has all the data, here.

The old high, before the financial crisis, was reached in 2007 at the level of $17.8 trillion. In 2008 the level of total retirement investments in all categories slipped to a total of $14.1 trillion, a decline of almost 21% as the stock market tanked.

By the end of 2010, however, all the losses were recouped as the level bested 2007 at $17.9 trillion. In 2011 the level climbed again, to $18.0 trillion.

The latest reading in Q3 2012 puts all retirement assets at $19.4 trillion, 9% higher than in 2007, not quite five years on.

The biggest pile of dough, $5.3 trillion, remains in Individual Retirement Accounts, followed by Defined Contribution Plans like 401k accounts, with $5.0 trillion.

Roughly 50% of the American population is not participating in this recovery of retirement accounts because they have nothing in stocks, which under Obama have posted their 4th best performance since World War Two. More precisely, the percentage is probably quite a bit higher than that since just 37% of the stock market is owned by "households", while banks own about 32% of the stock market, the two biggest players if "households" really meant retail investors like mom and pops. It doesn't. But that's another story.

h/t Bloomberg, RushLimbaugh

Rush Limbaugh Nonplussed By Caller, Expunged From Record

Rush Limbaugh received a call today from an impertinent listener who suggested that the sequester hubbub about cutting spending by $85 billion a YEAR was completely meaningless since the Federal Reserve has been buying securities in similar amounts every MONTH in the various quantitative easing iterations. We could cut the spending, the caller suggested, and just turn around and recreate the money since the Fed is doing it all the time anyway and no one would ever be the wiser.

The caller was correct, but Rush was completely nonplussed and nervously dismissed the call and cut to commercial (which is why all calls are taken just before commercial breaks, in case they go Egypt). Since I can't find a record of it in the transcripts tonight, I'm guessing it really did disturb Rush enough to make sure the memory of it went straight into the circular file.

But think about it. The Democrats, especially Obama, are screaming the spending cuts are draconian and will hurt necessary jobs and the economy's growth. The Republicans are screaming that unless we cut spending, the world as we know it may come to an abrupt end because of the way a huge mountain of debt threatens to crush growth. Meanwhile the Federal Reserve has expanded its balance sheet from about $500 billion before the crisis to $3 trillion today by purchasing all manner of MBS and Treasury securities and what have you. Over four years that comes to a rate of about $52 billion a MONTH of funny money fed intravenously into the banking sector because it is still as good as dead in its bed.

That threatens everything Rush believes and says about the banks, how they were forced to take TARP, didn't really need it, paid it all back, are now healthy, blah blah blah. When the real story is that the losses they have taken on housing are gargantuan and have left huge holes in their balance sheets (you know, the off-balance-sheet-balance-sheets). The virtually free money from the Fed is designed to help them profit to get back on their feet. For public consumption the Fed says it is doing this to make mortgages cheaper so that housing revives, so that employment revives, neither of which is the real reason. The real reason is to throw banks a life line to allow their private trading desks to make money speculating in the stock markets et alia and restore their capital base.

It's government of the banks, by the banks and for the banks. The rest is just a sideshow.

What's The Difference Between GDP Growth Of +3.1% And -0.1%?

What's the difference between GDP growth of +3.1% and -0.1%?

If you said 3.2%, you are a dumb ass.

3.2 is the spread in percentage points, not the percentage difference.

Think of the measurement, in this case of the GDP  expressed as a rate, as steps on a ladder, the rungs of which each represent 0.1. You are standing way up there on rung 3.1 in Q3 2012, from which you descend during Q4 all the way down to rung 0.1, then to rung 0.0, and finally to rung -0.1, if you can imagine a ladder with zero and negative rungs.

How many steps did you take? The answer is 32. That is a long way down from where you were. Since each step has a value of 0.1, 32 x 0.1 = 3.2, the value of the spread.

Now that you know the value of the spread, you can calculate the percentage difference between the two measurements the spread spans, otherwise called the percentage drop in this instance. This is where people, even in the financial media, get confused, because they have to figure out the percentage difference between rates, which by definition are already expressed as percentages. But really it is not difficult, no more difficult than calculating the percentage difference between two quantities of apples, oranges or any other things you can enumerate. Forget that they are percentages you are calculating the percentage difference between in this instance, and imagine instead that they are the number of times Red Forman kicked your ass last week vs. this week, or whatever else you like.

Once you know the spread between the two things, you say to yourself: "What percent of the higher number is the spread?" You ask it that way because you want to know how much you declined in percentage terms. (You'd ask the question of the lower number if it had been an increase). Since percent is the amount per hundred, you turn that word problem into an equation: x divided by 100 (what percent means the amount divided by 100), multiplied by (of) 3.1 (the higher number of 3.1 or -0.1, the place from which you climbed down to -0.1) = (is) 3.2 (the spread).

You write it this way:

x                 3.1  
---       x     -----     =    3.2
100              1

Another way to say the same thing is:

3.1x
------  = 3.2
100

Next you begin to isolate x by multiplying each side of the equation by 100, which gives you 3.1x = 320.

Then all you have to do is divide each side by 3.1 to find the value of x. 320 divided by 3.1 = 103.2258. And what was that again? The amount per 100, otherwise called the percentage. So the answer is 103.2%. That's how much the GDP growth rate declined from Q3 to Q4. That's a lot bigger difference between the GDP numbers than 3.2%, isn't it? 3.2% is puny and insignificant on top of being just plain wrong. 103.2% is the stunning truth, and an arrestingly important warning.

In other words, from Q3 to Q4, we wiped out all the growth rate, 100% of it, and a little bit more. We were up the ladder at 3.1, and walked it all the way back 31 steps to the bottom, and then some, one more step, below ground level so to speak.

Now if we could just get people like Rush Limbaugh to understand this, maybe more people in the country would begin to understand the enormity of our problems. Unfortunately for us, the enormity of our problems begins with the fact that most of the voters can't do even this simple math. If they could, they wouldn't have reelected the guy whose slogan was Forward because they would have understood that he doesn't know which direction that is, let alone how to get there.

Sen. Marco Rubio Avoids Talking About Defacto Amnesty On Rush Limbaugh

And Rush avoided bringing up the subject. All Rubio said was that we have "an existing problem":

Look, I think there's this false argument that's been advanced by the left that conservatism and Republicans are anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. And we're not. Never have been. 

On the contrary, we are pro-legal immigration. And we recognize that our legal immigration system needs to be reformed. We also recognize, because conservatism's always been about common sense, that we do have an existing problem that needs to be dealt with in the best way possible.

But it came up on Mark Levin's show, as Washington Watcher noted at VDare, here:

In promoting his amnesty on the Mark Levin show last week, Rubio came up with what appeared to Levin to be a novel argument. Rubio claimed that by not enforcing the law, we currently have a “de facto amnesty”—which will continue unless we support his plan, which involves illegals supposedly paying a fine, community service, learning English and various other bits [of] unenforceable window-dressing. Levin, who has been solid on immigration in the past (and, it should be noted, has not come out in support of Rubio’s amnesty), found this argument compelling. He noted:

"We have de facto amnesty right now. When he said it, it set a light bulb off. Maybe I am a little slow. I said, ‘Well he’s right, we do have de facto amnesty.’ Which is exactly why Obama wants to really do nothing." . . . 

[D]espite Mark Levin’s “light bulb” moment, this argument is not novel. Thus in 2007, John McCain said "For us to do nothing is silent and de facto amnesty."  [GOP Candidates Shy Away From Bush, by Glen Johnson, Associated Press, June 6, 2007]  Even Barack Obama has sold amnesty as a punishment . . ..

It's clear Sen. Rubio is sensitive to negative feedback. He's fine tuning the message for the skulls full of mush out there in order to build the case for the Senate Gang of Eight amnesty plan. But as Washington Watcher says in his article, only the first of several reasons the status quo is preferable is that an outright amnesty will trigger a deluge of illegal immigration to take advantage of it.

The country is already full of unassimilated foreigners, so, pace Sen. Rubio, they represent the reason for conservatives to be against more legal immigration, not just the illegal kind. The law and the law-abiding have been the victims in this charade, not the illegals, and it is they who need to pay. It's about time so-called conservatives started saying so instead of cooking up compromises with the devil.

Speaker Boehner Ripped Off Obama's Shirt. The Pants Are Next.

So says Ralph Benko, rightly, for Forbes, here, quoting Boehner and commenting:

"Who would have ever guessed that we could make 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent? When we had a Republican House and Senate and a Republican in the White House, we couldn’t get that. And so, not bad."

“Not bad” is a resounding understatement. Dealt a weak hand, Boehner managed to 99% outfox, on tax policy, a president who had the massive apparatus of the executive branch, the Senate majority, and a left-leaning national elite media whooping it up for a whopping tax increase. Even more impressively, Boehner pulled it off with steady nerves while under heavy pressure from the anti-spending hawks in his own caucus.

Republicans and especially conservatives still don't appreciate the magnitude of Boehner's achievement, the most important part of which, as Benko says, will turn out to be the new baseline resulting from the permanent fix to the AMT. As The New York Times reported but nobody's talking about, wink wink, the permanent fix to the AMT is going to cost the feds $1.8 trillion over the next ten years. Well, guess who won't be paying that?! And Rush Limbaugh and other dunderheads are complaining that Republicans caved on the principle of tax increases. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Lay down boys, take a little nap. It's 14 miles to the Cumberland Gap. 

The Anti-Rush Morning Update

Don't blame the Republican base, or the American people, or the 47 percent for that matter . . . lead them!

Rush Limbaugh Continues To Blame The Republican Base

Since the end of the first half of the second hour of the broadcast today, Rush Limbaugh again repeatedly blamed the Republican base for Romney's loss, instead of blaming the Republican Party for nominating the wrong candidate, and Romney for being the wrong candidate.

So not only did Romney blame the 47 percent who wouldn't vote for him, Rush Limbaugh continues to blame Republican conservatives for not voting for Romney. If you want to know what's wrong with the Republican Party, that's it. 

Romney was the wrong candidate, because he wasn't a conservative, and had no fire in the belly for anything, including holding Obama's feet to the fire. 

So what do Rush and Republican liberals like Colin Powell have in common? Criticism of conservatives. And Rush starts the show bemoaning the growing isolation of conservatives, and then proceeds to contribute to that isolation.

Gee whiz. Rush had a nice long weekend to rest up, and this is the best he can do? I swear he got more than a cortisone shot from that doctor he just met.

The time has long since passed that Rush should have retired.

Rush Limbaugh Adopts The Class Warfare Of Obama/The Wall Street Journal

Today, here:

The middle class still is, in an aggregate sense, where all the money in the country is. That's where all the money is in the economy. The rich do not hold all the money.

This is the voice of a very rich man who is under attack by a leftist president and a leftist consensus which says that the rich do not pay their fair share, the voice of a man who is not reasoning as a conservative but emoting as a rich man. If he reasoned as a conservative, if The Wall Street Journal reasoned as conservatives, we would be seeing something other than the suggestion that the leftists go victimize the middle class. Like the bank robber, this thinking, if it can be called thinking at all, maintains that you should tax the middle class because that's where the money is.

As such what Rush says is not conservative, but purely reactionary in the worst sense of the term: it responds to an historical development in which it finds itself the victim and seeks escape instead of statesmanship. This is what you get from a Rush Limbaugh, who abhors learning. You wouldn't get that from a William F. Buckley, Jr.

It goes without saying that it is absurd to suggest that all the money is in the middle, but apparently we must insist that it is not so.

The middle quintile of households made a median income of almost $50,000 in 2011. Generously speaking, this approximates to every single income in the country in 2011 making between $35,000 and $65,000 annually, 35 million workers, accounting for $1.7 trillion out of $6.2 trillion in net compensation, just 27% of the total pie. The bottom end of the richest quintile, on the other hand, begins somewhere just north of $100,000 annually, 10 million workers, accounting for $2.1 trillion out of $6.2 trillion in net compensation in 2011, significantly more at almost 34% of the total pie.

But this is no way for a conservative to look at it.

The founders of the country envisioned equality of contribution from taxation, which the original constitution required to be direct, apportioned according to population. This is why taxation was always very low, because the poor could not afford it. This is also why we have a census in the constitution, not so that we may learn how many Americans are of Italian descent, but simply how many there are, for tax purposes. If it is pleaded that the constitution has been changed to permit indirect taxation, it is still more originally American to insist on equality of treatment under the tax code. The real problem with America is that originalist principles were thrown under the bus in the early 20th century by progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, and enshrined in constitutional amendments under people like Woodrow Wilson.

Equality of treatment under the law is the principle conservatives should be trumpeting. But you will listen for that in vain from Rush Limbaugh.

The progressives like Wilson, a Presbyterian whose grandiose ideas bordered on the fanatical and are reminiscent of no one so much as George W. Bush, misused Christianity by insisting that "to whom much is given, much is required" in arguing for progressive taxation, and forgot that "no one can be my disciple who does not say goodbye to everything that he has". The actual price of Christian discipleship was everything you had, whether you were rich or poor. But in the secularized, immanentized bastard version of this under progressivism, the price became distorted so that the richer you were the more you owed, the poorer the less. It is little wonder that for that the rich demanded more, and eventually got it, in special rules in the tax code designed especially for them, which since that time have evolved into the elaborate distortions and complexities of the tax code we face with trepidation and consternation today.

In a very real sense when it comes to the tax code, The American Century has been the most un-American one of all, and the crying need of the time is to reverse it and refound the country anew on the original American principle of equality of treatment.

Rush Limbaugh: Turd In The Conservative Punchbowl

On Rush Limbaugh's role in the decline of American conservatism, as recounted by Andrew Ferguson for The Weekly Standard, here:

The idea that conservatives should have a special interest in high culture​—​the best that has been thought and said, sung and played, carved and drawn​—​has been selectively applied. In speeches and in the [Mars Hill Audio] Journal [Ken] Myers has often raised the question of why political conservatives, who defended the literary canon, the Great Books, with such energy in the eighties and nineties, went limp when it came to defending other traditional forms of cultural expression.

A watershed may have been reached when Rush Limbaugh, who would replace William Buckley as conservatism’s chief publicist in the early ’90s, chose as his show’s theme music a Top 40 track by the Pretenders​—​a self-conscious contrast, Limbaugh has said, to the baroque trumpet concerto that opened Buckley’s TV show Firing Line. Buckley’s fanfare had signaled that he aspired to something lively but elevated, slightly at an angle to the surrounding popular culture. The Pretenders’ guitar riff was meant to signal that Limbaugh’s conservatism would have none of that stuffy stuff: He was fully at home with what had become of American culture and wasn’t terribly curious about what had come before.

Which is why Rush Limbaugh isn't much interested, either, for example, in the original principle of direct taxation in the constitution. American history doesn't exist for Rush before 1913, which is why Donald Trump, who believes in tariffs on China, doesn't qualify as a conservative. Rush only learned the bad stuff from Buckley . . . like how to excommunicate people from the movement. "Stripped-down" isn't just for punkers.

Bush Tax Cuts Made Permanent, Obama Tax Cuts Expire, Payroll Tax Rockets 33%

And Rush Limbaugh says Obama won a "massive victory"?

It depends on your point of view, doesn't it? If you have a Republican bias, you think George Bush won, which he obviously did. The permanent adoption of Bush's tax cuts by the opposition is a vindication, which Rush somehow can't bring himself to crow about, let alone even acknowledge. If you have a Democratic bias, you think Obama won.

No wonder a caller just phoned in to tell Rush to stop campaigning for the Democrats. She rightly perceives Rush to be making a political mistake, to which Rush responds he's been the best campaigner against the Democrats for 25 years, but to no avail, by his own admission.

Has Rush Limbaugh been good for America? His own answer is No!

Maybe it's time for Rush to quit! 

Rich Radio Talkers To Make Bazillions Off AMT Fix And Don't Know It!

The New York Times reported the cost to the federal government of the permanent AMT fix over the next decade at $1.8 trillion, here, based on the findings of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Do you know what that means?

If something costs the federal government something, it means it saves someone something, namely, the (mostly) rich taxpayers who pay the damn thing, who now get to bear the blame in the liberal media for increasing the deficit over the next decade because of it. That's a good thing to a conservative, last time I checked (keeping the money, not getting the blame), unless you are a conservative radio talk show host whose stupidity is exceeded only by the size of his paycheck. (Sean Hannity is so stupid he's actually criticizing the fiscal cliff deal because it does just that, increase the deficit. Someone should tell him he's just adopted the liberal argument that tax cuts increase the deficit, not that it would do any good). Teams Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham and Beck really ought to call their CPAs before they continue shooting their mouths off about what a massive victory Obama just achieved on the backs of the rich. The irony here is that while Obama thinks he just won a free Cadillac, it turned out to be a Pontiac from Rent-A-Heap, delivered by Rush, Sean and Glenn. They made Laura drive.

When are you stupid people out there in radio land going to get it? Like this guy does:

"The AMT fix, like the Medicare 'doc fix' was an end of year ritual that couldn’t be resolved permanently.  Why you may ask?  Because any permanent fix would reflect in the CBO’s deficit and debt estimates for the years going forward.  Fixing the AMT for any one year was considered a cost for that particular year, but the CBO would base their estimates by current law, which would have the AMT not being fixed for the next year and every year afterwards.  Fixing the AMT for one year is a cost of 92 billion dollars.  A permanent fix it for the next ten years costs almost a trillion dollars.  From a purely crass, political position, having the costs of a permanent fix to the AMT and Bush income tax cuts accrued under the Obama administration ( two items that Republicans wanted to do but could never find the money for):

Priceless.

However all is not well in conservative talk radio land.  I made it a point to listen to what I think was a fair cross section of conservative radio for their take on all things fiscal cliffdom, and I must say, it was a muddled mess of incoherence."

Why Isn't There A Single Conservative Radio Talker Happy About The Fiscal Deal?

Why isn't there a single conservative radio talker happy about the fiscal deal? Not a one is glad that Bush's lower tax rates have been made permanent for the vast majority of the American people.  I thought the Bush tax rates were every Republican's sine qua non, since at least 2003.

I see that the reported salary of Glenn Beck is $20 million/year. Sean Hannity reportedly makes north of $10 million/year on television at Fox, and $20 million/year on the radio. Rush Limbaugh makes way north of $38 million/year if you add in his signing bonus. And Laura Ingraham? Not very credible sources say she makes $15 million/year, but that was before the very recent relaunch of her radio show in 2013 under new, and presumably more attractive financial, circumstances. HuffPo here thinks her TV contract with Fox, filling-in for O'Reilly, is in the neighborhood of $1 million annually.

These four people dominate the talk radio airwaves from 9AM-6PM everyday, and they're all severely critical of the fiscal cliff deal. But there hasn't been a single word of gratitude to today's Republicans for getting the Bush tax rates made permanent for 99.7% of the American people.

The reason, of course, is that the radio talkers haven't the slightest feeling for the American people, the slightest understanding of their day to day experience, having left them long ago for the airy regions of the richest Americans in the top 0.3% income club where they now reside, the lowly victims of a paltry 13% tax increase agreed to by Obama and the Republicans, and they are livid.

Ungrateful wretches.

Rush Limbaugh Is Back And He's As Big An Idiot As Ever

Rush Limbaugh is back and he's still a big fat idiot.

He actually says Obama won a "massive victory" in the fiscal cliff deal, for raising taxes on the top 0.3%. You know, on people just like Rush. Rush's salary? $38 million/year.

If ever anyone needed any proof that Rush couldn't care less about the principled nature of the lower Bush tax rates for all Americans, this is it, because those rates just became permanent for everyone, except for Rush and about 600,000 other rich Americans who make $400,000 a year or more. Their taxes go up about 13%, but only on paper. You would think a so-called conservative would at least acknowledge that victory and give George Bush some credit, but no, not even after a caller reminds him about that at the end of the first hour. The entire opening monologue was completely self-referential, and suggests that Rush is talking his book here. He doesn't even understand the math in the deal, which now lets the income rich keep $1.8 trillion over ten years from the permanent AMT fix. Their cost under the deal? $600 billion over ten years, as I said, on paper. Even the income rich can still shift income out of the "ordinary" category to the now 33% higher, but still low dividend and capital gains rate category to escape the 39.6% top income tax rate. They will, and the somewhat rosier federal revenue scenario used to sell this deal won't even materialize. The rich will stay that way. They will not pay much more. And the Democrats will be stuck with another failed scheme.

Obama didn't win a victory here, the American people and George Bush did, and I still haven't heard a single so-called conservative radio talker even acknowledge it, let alone be grateful for it. That doesn't buy ears. Only what bleeds does, or what might bleed, which is why all Rush can talk about is some hypothetical threat in the future, when an actual threat, increased tax rates on everyone, has been completely neutralized in the present by good Republican leadership.

I say, "thank you". All Rush can say? "@#$% you".