RSS

Monthly Archives: May 2009

Is Rush a Billionaire?

rush smoking

By all reports, Rush Limbaugh, the de-facto leader of the Republican Party, lives in a 24,000-square-foot Florida seaside estate. He rides in a $450,000 car to the airport to ride in his $54 million jet.

What’s his net worth?

Known revenue includes:

$285 million salary and bonus for 2001 through 2008 ($35m bonus, salary of approximately $31.25m/year)

$400 million salary and bonus from 2009 through 2016 ($100m plus bonus – the exact figure was not disclosed, except for “nine digit bonus” – and $38m/year salary)

So, through his salary itself, he has earned $285 million for current work, $400 million for future. And that only covers back to 2001. Rush has been on the air since 1988. While he certainly earned less in his early days, it can be assumed his salary was significant. Additionally, Limbaugh himself controls 25 percent of the ad slots for each hour of his program, which represents ad dollars that never end up in anyone else’s coffers, which would be quite large, considering his self-estimated 20 million listeners each week.

Rush Limbaugh is close to, or just over the billionaire net worth mark. With at least $685 million, and advertising revenue joined with previous contracts which must be in the hundreds-of-millions range, Rush can be assumed an essential billionaire.

So, can Rush even begin to relate to what is going on in the economy? He is not a little guy. He is nowhere close to being a Joe six pack. Yet, millions of adoring listeners think he’s just like them. OK, ditto-heads, you’ve been duped. Rush Limbaugh is not like you or me. How many of you live in 24,000 square foot homes? Home many of you have cars worth $450,000? How many of you have a private $54 million dollar jet? How many of you make $38 million a year? The answer is clear, not many of you, if any of you at all.

Rush is wealthy enough that when he got caught red handed abusing prescription pain killers he paid no penalty. How many of you would have gotten the same treatment? He spent no time in jail.

When he lost his hearing, due to his drug abuse, he was able to afford the best doctors to perform implant surgery. How many of you can do the same?

He is not a regular guy. He’s your atypical rich Republican fat cat. And like most – if not all – atypical rich Republican fat cats, he doesn’t give a damn about you. The only rights he wants to protect are his own.

He doesn’t want the fairness doctrine reintroduced, not because of his so-called love for the Bill of Rights, but because he’d lose his gravy train.

He doesn’t want President Obama to raise taxes on the top 5% because he’s part of it. It has nothing to do with the nation’s economy; it has to do with his personal economy.

He wants President Obama to fail not out of a love for America’s prosperity; but out of love for Rush Limbaugh’s prosperity.

He defends AIG and the protection of the executive bonuses, because Rush Limbaugh received an obscene $400 million contract extension, coupled with a $100 million signing bonus at a time when Clear Channel Communications is laying off thousands of employees across the country. Rush is a self-inflated, self-promoting, self-indulging phony.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! It’s just Rush Limbaugh bloviating into his golden EIB microphone while Clear Channel Communications burns.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 6, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: ,

Did Reagan Really Cut Taxes?

ronald-reagan

During today’s bloviations, Rush, while supposedly giving a eulogy for Jack Kemp, attempted yet again to sell the country on the righteousness of the supply-side genius that was Ronald Reagan. He tried to promote the idea that Reagan’s cuts brought about untold economic prosperity, and literally drove the country out of the recession that had helped propel him into office. According to Rush, Reagan’s tax cuts were revolutionary, and helped create the longest sustained economic growth in American history.

Rush, of course couldn’t just praise Reagan, he had to take the opportunity to attack President Obama, “My friends, read his books. Barack Obama’s primary objective is undoing Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts. Now why would that be? That’s all he’s doing, returning the nation’s wealth to its so-called rightful owners. He operates on the belief that every achiever in this country is a thief, that every achiever has stolen or has something that’s genuinely not his or hers — that they’ve come by it unfairly.” But wait, that’s not all, rush continued, “We’re just not going to allow it to happen. But I — there’s no question that he’s defining prosperity down. I mean, his objective is to undo the Reagan tax cuts. Now if his objective is to undo the Reagan tax cuts, I guess those are really big tent moderate ideas, huh? We know Obama is a left-wing radical. He takes a look at anything right-wing and he wants to destroy it.”

And in so defining President Obama, Rush defines himself with his own words: “We know Rush is a right-wing radical. He takes a look at anything left-wing and he wants to destroy it.”

Now for a little truth about Ronald Reagan’s “revolutionary” tax cuts; first, yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and yes Ronald Reagan did cut taxes. Sort of. However, these wonderful, growth expanding, economic exploding tax cuts never fully took effect. You see, they were scaled back in 1982 by a tax increase that averaged $37.5 billion over its first four years.

Second, part of the Reagan tax cut myth is that everyone never had it so good as they did under Reagan. However, the economy actually grew slightly faster under President Clinton, and, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the after-tax income of a typical family – adjusted for inflation – rose more than twice as much from 1992 to 2000 as it did from 1980 to 1988.

While President Reagan managed to ram his huge 1981 tax cut through a Democrat controlled Congress, he had to follow it with two large tax increases. Fact of the matter is, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. Yes, you heard that right, NO PEACETIME PRESIDENT HAS RAISED TAXES SO MUCH ON SO MANY PEOPLE!

The first two Reagan tax increases came in 1982. That year, he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act which raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 which raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion. These increases, coming only a year after his “monumental” tax cut were needed because the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly over optimistic. Over all, the 1982 tax increases undid about a third of the 1981 cut; and truth be told, as a share of the Gross Domestic Product, the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton’s 1993 tax increase. According to the United States Treasury Department, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the G.D.P., making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. Listen carefully ditto-heads, because I want you to remember, Ronald Reagan oversaw the “LARGEST PEACETIME TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY”.

President Reagan’s next tax increase was known as the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance. For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Reagan’s income tax cuts of 1981. This is a tax increase that lives on, because it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. Thanks to President Reagan, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year. Once again ditto-heads, thanks to who? Come on, you can say it, thanks to Ronald Reagan.

According to 1980 Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent. The increase in the payroll tax share outweighed, or canceled out, any benefit from lowering of the income tax share paid.

But wait! We’re not done! The following year, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of G.D.P. A similar sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion

OK, now wait just a darned minute! Reagan passed the historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, achieving in startling clarity his supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates

Well, not quite. The “historic Tax Reform Act of 1986 in reality imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history. OK ditto-heads, repeat after me, “THE LARGEST CORPORATE TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY”.

With the simple stroke of his pen, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.

So, what does it all mean?

It means tax cuts during a recession do not work. They didn’t work for Ronald Reagan in 1981, and they certainly didn’t work for George W. Bush in 2001. Tax cuts during a recession coupled with increased federal spending really do not work. Reagan cut taxes and increased federal spending in order to fight, and win, the cold war. George W. Bush cut taxes and increased federal spending to fight the war on terror, and to fund his invasion and occupation of Iraq.

So, what are the differences between Reagan and Bush? Reagan understood his tax cuts were hurting the economy, and did a 180 turn and increased taxes – in spite of what Rush, Hannity, et al claim – while George W. Bush plowed straight ahead off the cliff.

Did Ronald Reagan cut taxes? Yes he did. But then he raised them. Two things to remember about the Gipper and his tax cuts:

First, Ronald Reagan oversaw the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.

Second, Ronald Reagan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history.

Once again, Rush proves that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 5, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

President Obama Voted to Commit Infanticide?

What exactly is it with conservatives and their continued bogus, ridiculous, and hyperbolic talking point that President Obama supports “infanticide,” and the extravagantly wild claim that he “voted three times that if a baby survives an abortion, it may still be killed because of the mother’s original intent to abort it?”

I’ll tell you what it is. It’s the ongoing irrational hatred of this President by the right-wing in this country. This argument of President Obama being for infanticide comes up about once a month, basically whenever the right-wing radio types can tie it to anything. And I do mean anything. The most recent attacks have surfaced because of the mini-controversy surrounding Notre Dame University’s invitation to President Obama to speak at its commencement, which incidentally is a long standing tradition at the school, a tradition to invite the newly elected President.

During a recent broadcast,  Rush Limbaugh attempted to revive the infanticide myth, “The truth is that President Obama, by virtue of his votes as a member of the Illinois Senate and as a member of the United States Senate, is perhaps the most anti-life — well, there’s no question — he is the most anti-life president we have had in American history.

“This is a man who three times voted for infanticide in Illinois. He tried to excuse it any number of ways, but this is a man who voted three times that if a baby survives an abortion, it may still be killed because of the mother’s original intent to abort it. If the abortion is botched, the doctor can go ahead and complete the job outside the womb. He voted for it three times.

“That’s — I mean, that, to me — I don’t know what — care what your position on abortion is, but now we’re not talking about abortion, not when the child has been born outside the womb and is alive. And Obama voted three times to support the notion of infanticide.”

Of course, once again, Rush is not only just stretching the truth, he’s bending it, twisting it and contorting it to the point that it in no way resembles what is true. Obama’s opposition as an Illinois state senator to SB1093 amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, was based upon the fact that the amendment was not necessary as the existing law already protected infants who were born as a result of an attempted abortion. Indeed, the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 states, “No abortion shall be performed or induced  when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other  than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical  care for  any  child  born  alive  as a result of the abortion.”

The proposed amendment also attempted to redefine what protections should be given to a “live child born as a result of an abortion”. It stated, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.  All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child.”

The Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 had already provided for such protection, “Subsequent to the  abortion,  if  a  child  is  born alive,  the  physician  required  by Section 6 (2) (a) to be in attendance shall exercise the  same  degree  of  professional skill care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would  be  required  of  a  physician  providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a  pregnancy termination which was not an abortion.  Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly,   or   recklessly violates Section 6 (2) (b) commits a Class 3 felony.”

As the proposed amendment did virtually nothing to change the state’s abortion law it must be asked why propose the amendment? Allegedly the amendment was necessary because babies which were live born were being left to die in Illinois. However, investigators with the Illinois attorney general’s office looking into allegations that fetuses born alive at an Illinois hospital were abandoned without treatment were unable to substantiate the allegations, but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of then-existing Illinois law.

The National Right to Life Committee (the group from which Rush, Hannity, et al receive their info) claims that Obama “really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, ‘A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.’ And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public.”

This is as ridiculous an argument as Liberals wanted the United States to lose the war in Iraq, or that Conservatives hate the environment. If I am to believe the NRLC, and Rush, Hannity et al., I have to then believe that President Obama is a monster. That he is someone who would be capable of killing a child born alive from an abortion. Talk about extremism. This is political extremism at its worst, and because it is so extreme it removes itself from intelligent discussion.

Rush, once again, the self proclaimed “truth detector” is wrong; President Obama never, repeat never, voted in support of infanticide. He voted to protect a women’s right to choose, in the face of fellow legislators who it would appear were attempting to amend Illinois state law in such a way that as to give the unborn fetus the same rights and protections of a born child, thus negating a woman’s right to choose. Sometime, maybe you’ll do a little research before you pounce on something Rush. But then again why change your MO? Why change from being the GOP’s chief hit man? And you accuse the media of committing drive bys?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 1, 2009 in Abortion

 

Tags: , , , , , ,