{"id":234793,"date":"2017-05-24T13:00:00","date_gmt":"2017-05-24T17:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?p=234793"},"modified":"2017-05-25T16:53:15","modified_gmt":"2017-05-25T20:53:15","slug":"despicable-republicans-join-left-to-blast-trump-budget","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/05\/24\/despicable-republicans-join-left-to-blast-trump-budget\/","title":{"rendered":"Despicable Republicans Join Democrats to Blast Trump Budget"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: I mean, yeah, the Democrats are doing what they\u2019re doing, and it\u2019s undeniable. But Trump\u2019s budget. This is absurd. This is outrageous. McCain and Lindsey Graham pronouncing it dead on arrival before it shows up. The media — you wouldn\u2019t believe — the media is accusing Trump of outright indecency by suggesting economic growth of 3%, such a thing is not possible. It\u2019s irresponsible to make people think that it is. That Trump\u2019s budget\u2019s gonna kill people with all these cuts. There aren\u2019t any cuts in the Trump budget.<\/p>\n

As always, all there are is reductions in the rate of growth. There are no cuts. Well, look. There might be some genuine cuts at the National Endowment for the Arts, and there might be some serious cuts over at the EPA, but in general there aren\u2019t any real cuts. There are major reductions in spending, no question about that. But the cuts are nevertheless reductions in the rate of growth. They are not below-the-line cuts.<\/p>\n

Take a look at what\u2019s happening with Obamacare. This is a flat-out joke, what\u2019s happening. Or I should say what\u2019s not happening with it. Where are Trump\u2019s own buddies? Where are the Republicans here on the budget? You know, it\u2019s a fine budget. The New York Times has a story here about it. “Trump\u2019s Problematic Math: Budget Plan Adds Growth, but Doesn\u2019t Subtract Cost.<\/a>”<\/p>\n

And look at this. “When the government –” who wrote this? Binyamin Appelbaum, clearly demonstrating economic ignorance here. He says, “When the government cuts taxes, it collects less money. That is the purpose of a tax cut. But Mr. Trump\u2019s budget does not include any hint of a decrease in federal revenue.”<\/p>\n

\"\"Because it\u2019s gonna grow, you…<\/p>\n

Cutting taxes does not reduce money to the government. We\u2019re proving that even now. And we proved it in the eighties. And if they repatriated with a lower tax rate on all this money corporations are holding overseas, you wouldn\u2019t be able to get out of the way of the deluge of money floating into the U.S. economy, by reducing tax — Everybody knows you reduce tax rates and you produce more tax revenue.<\/p>\n

So there\u2019s constant ignorance or lying or history revisionism going on constantly in the media. Obama\u2019s budgets. You know what Obama\u2019s projected budget growth was year after year? All eight of his budgets. You know what his projected growth rate was? No! I\u2019m talking about what he projected, 5%, 6%. Obama was promising 5%, 6% growth.<\/p>\n

The media never said that was outrageous. The media never said it was unrealistic. And Obama\u2019s growth never exceeded one and a half to 2%. Now, Trump is projecting 3% growth and they\u2019re acting like he\u2019s committed a crime here, misleading the American people of what\u2019s possible in the United States.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: You can look it up, folks. John Hinderaker published it at Power Line<\/a>. Obama\u2019s budget growth projections were five-and-a-half, six-and-a-half percent every year, and we never got even one-third of that from the guy. And here Trump has proposed 3% and they\u2019re having a caterwauling fit at the New York Times and the Washington Post. What McCain and these people are doing, this is despicable what\u2019s happening there.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Sound bite 13. We\u2019ll start there and go in order, until I get tired of hearing people. Got that? (interruption) Right on. Sound bite 13. Well, since I brought the budget up, I may as well get to it. It\u2019s not a big Stack, and I want to get to this. As I said yesterday, if Trump could move on this domestic agenda, particularly the budget — get Obamacare repealed and replaced, get these tax cuts going — believe me: The Democrats wouldn\u2019t stand a prayer in 2018. I don\u2019t care what they think they\u2019ve got.<\/p>\n

When it comes to this Russian business, and there\u2019s nothing there. Trump\u2019s having a pretty successful foreign trip here, at least in the optics and the appearance that he\u2019s presidential and serious and so forth. Great meetings with the Saudis, good meetings with Netanyahu, met with the pope today. I have comments on that coming up. The pope gave him a little book on the environment. Do you know the Catholic Church does not have a position on the environment, other than the biblical requirement that we be “stewards of the planet”?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>But there is not an encyclical or position on climate change, and pope\u2019s out there preaching on it. And Trump did what he always does. Trump left the Vatican and he said, “I leave with a renewed commitment to peace like I\u2019ve never had before.” It\u2019s just like he left the New York Times telling them, “I leave with a more focused view of climate change than I\u2019ve ever had before.” He doesn\u2019t mean it; he just says it. Here\u2019s Mulvaney. Mulvaney is saying more. He\u2019s the budget director (chuckling), and he says that the budget — Trump\u2019s budget — gets away from the crazy stuff that… (interruption)<\/p>\n

Well, Mulvaney, you ought to love. Mulvaney\u2019s a Tea Party guy<\/a>. He\u2019s a solid-rock conservative guy. He\u2019s great to be in this position of budget director. But the Drive-By Media is incensed here because Mulvaney is actually telling people that the Trump budget “pulls back from all that crazy climate stuff.” That\u2019s a quote! All the crazy climate stuff that Obama prioritized. He said, “We\u2019re simply trying to get things back in order to where we can look at the people who pay taxes and say, ‘Look, we want to do some climate science, but we\u2019re not gonna do some of the crazy stuff the previous administration did.'”<\/p>\n

So it\u2019s a serious budget, I think, and 3% growth is not outrageous. And it\u2019s being presented as almost blaspheme. Which ought to tell you something. When the leaders of the American leftist and progressive movement — which is the media. When they try to tell people, their readers, and their viewers, that 3% economic growth is a pipe dream, that it is so far beyond what\u2019s possible, that it is near criminal to suggest it and promise it? That is scary stuff. And it goes again to just how poorly educated people in this country are.<\/p>\n

Economic growth in this country has, on many occasions, in normal circumstances — not, for example, after a war or during a war — been there. We\u2019ve had 5% growth, we\u2019ve had 6% growth, sustained. It has happened. It happened in the eighties with Reagan. We had some pretty good sustained economic growth during the Clinton years because the Reagan boom was still happening. It\u2019s just in the last eight years that we shrunk down to 1%, 1.5%, barely even 2% growth precisely due to Obama\u2019s policies.<\/p>\n

So remember, the left is marshaled and mobilized to defend and protect the Obama legacy. So when Trump presents a budget that features more economic growths than we ever had with Obama, it has to be destroyed. If the best we could do during the Obama years was 1.5% or 2% max, then that\u2019s all that\u2019s possible, as far as they\u2019re concerned, \u2019cause Obama is god, Obama is the savior, Obama is infallible, Obama shall not be improved upon. It is not possible to improve upon Obama, as far as the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, you name it, are concerned.<\/p>\n

So Trump proposing a 3% economic growth budget is blasphemous. But, in fact, it\u2019s barely half of what this country is known for. Why do you think that we\u2019re a superpower? You think we\u2019ve gotten there with 1%, 1.5% economic growth? That\u2019s not even enough to support entrepreneurism. That\u2019s not enough to support wage increases; 1.5% economic growth is stagnation! But yet Obama and the media told us that was the new norm. We had to accept it.<\/p>\n

We had to come to grips with it because previous United States economies — which were growing and burgeoning — were unjust and immoral because they were built on the backs of what? This minority group or that minority group, or we had stolen whatever we needed from some poor foreign country or whatever. Because we, the United States, were evil and immoral and unjust. So everything had to be adjusted down and we had to have a life experience that\u2019s more like everybody else on the planet.<\/p>\n

\"\"Because it was just not fair that the United States was so much better, because capitalism sucks, as far as they\u2019re concerned. Capitalism is not ever be portrayed as successful. Communism is what it is. Communism\u2019s the answer. In communism, it doesn\u2019t matter whether your economy grows or not because it can\u2019t. So this budget gets submitted, and here comes McCain pronouncing it DOA. Why do we elect Republicans if this is what we\u2019re gonna get? What is the point? Now, as for the Democrats on this, you\u2019re gonna love this.<\/p>\n

“House Democrats are hoping President Trump\u2019s newly<\/a> proposed budget blueprint will be a political albatross for Republicans [in 2018]. Unveiled Tuesday, Trump\u2019s fiscal 2018 budget proposal pushes sharp increases in military spending, steep across-the-board cuts to nondefense domestic programs…” No cuts, folks. (sigh) Sigh! No real cuts. There are significant reductions in the rate of growth, but there are no real cuts. Maybe a couple of secure places like, as I said, “the arts,” whatever that is, the NEA. They might be eliminated.<\/p>\n

Some budget items are targeted for elimination. But overall, the total amount of money spent next year is not gonna be less than this year. There aren\u2019t any “cuts,” okay? Serious reductions in the rate of growth — serious, in fact — in some of the agencies. But nevertheless the Democrats, they\u2019re out saying, “It\u2019s gonna kill people. People are gonna die! Trump\u2019s murdering people! Trump\u2019s killing people.” But here\u2019s the thing: If this budget is going to be an albatross, if this budget is gonna kill the Republican Party, if this budget is gonna doom the Republican to defeat in 2018, why don\u2019t the Democrats vote for it?<\/p>\n

Why don\u2019t they the heck stand up and support it and ask that it be implemented, if it\u2019s gonna ruin the Republican Party? If it\u2019s gonna launch them back to power, why aren\u2019t they supporting it? “[M]any of the programs slashed or eliminated by Trump\u2019s proposal disproportionately benefit low- and middle-income families — many of whom supported Trump at the polls last November — and the Democrats wasted little time on Tuesday vowing to hang the president\u2019s budget around the necks of Republicans who defend the plan.<\/p>\n

“‘President Trump made a lot of promises to families across the country that supported him. This budget turns his back on all of the promises,\u2019 said Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), head of the Democrats\u2019 campaign arm” in the House. Again: If Trump\u2019s budget will turn the country, including his own voters, against him, then why don\u2019t the Democrats insist on passing it? Don\u2019t they want to win back the House and Senate? Don\u2019t they want to win back the White House? I mean, if this budget is gonna destroy…?<\/p>\n

“They\u2019ve never worried about destroying the country before. Trust me on this. Their attitude is, “Whatever damage to the country happens, we\u2019ll get to that later. The first important thing destroying our opposition: The Republicans.” If this would do it, why aren\u2019t they out there telling McCain he\u2019s full of it? Why aren\u2019t they out there trying to get McCain to support the thing? Why aren\u2019t the Democrats the biggest proponents of this if it means the end of Trump and the Republicans?<\/p>\n

\"\"“Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, singled out several cuts he deemed particularly devastating, including sharp reductions in funding for Medicaid, Meals on Wheels and the Children\u2019s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.” How did we ever survive without it! Man, oh, man, I\u2019m wondering: How did we ever get here with all these programs?<\/p>\n

Go to the audio sound bites and we\u2019re gonna kick it off here with Steny Hoyer, who is much younger than he looks. He\u2019s about 102. He looks 70. He can\u2019t smile anymore. Part of that is just that he\u2019s a Democrat. Very long face, sad eyes. You would be, too, if your number one confidante was Nancy Pelosi. But he was on CNBC\u2019s Power Lunch yesterday, and he was being interviewed by Brian Sullivan. Question, “This budget, is that a cut or is that a decrease in forward spending over time?”<\/p>\n

HOYER: It\u2019s a decrease in forward spending, you\u2019re correct on that, but it\u2019s a decrease in terms of effort, because as inflation occurs, obviously a dollar doesn\u2019t buy tomorrow or the next year or five years from now what it buys today. So yes, okay, fine, now I\u2019m gonna let you have an increase, but if you have an increase of five cents and the product costs you another 15 cents, you have a decrease.<\/p>\n

RUSH: That\u2019s how they do it! This is exactly how they do it. This is how they\u2019ve sold baseline budgeting. The story here is that Hoyer admits that there aren\u2019t any cuts, that there are reductions in the rate of growth, but the reductions in future spending are too big. Because, yeah, if the product you\u2019re buying today costs you five cents and in another 10 years it costs you 15, you\u2019re — the way this works is, you\u2019re sitting at home and you and your wife decide that you want a new car. You don\u2019t need a new car, but you want one, and you and your wife say, “Okay, well, what are we gonna spend on it.” I\u2019m just know I\u2019m just gonna pick a number here.<\/p>\n

“We\u2019ll spend $30,000 on the car we\u2019re gonna buy.” So they go out shopping. And they look at cars that cost 30, not happy, cars that cost 35, 50, 55. And they can\u2019t make up their mind. And the wife eventually says, “Look, we budgeted 30 for this. We\u2019re not going over.” So they find a car for $25,000, they buy that, and they think they saved $5,000, when what they\u2019ve done is spent 25. They just spent 25 because in their minds they\u2019re gonna spend 30. They didn\u2019t. They save $5,000.<\/p>\n

On the other end, you say you budgeted $30,000 for a car but you end up buying one for 50, you tell yourself, “Yeah, but did you see the list on it was 65. We saved $15,000 on this.” No, you just spent 60. “No. We saved.” This is classic the way the Democrats have — and it\u2019s not just Democrats. Republicans play this game, too, baseline budgeting, current services baseline. That is the amount of money every budget item was allocated, not spent. That\u2019s the key.<\/p>\n

And there is a guaranteed every-year budget increase on what was budgeted the previous year. What was spent is never calculated. So if the agriculture department got a budget item of $24 billion doll, just to pick a number, then that $24 billion plus 10% is the budget item for the next year. But what if they only spend $20 billion? Doesn\u2019t matter. Doesn\u2019t matter. Current services baseline is what they were given the previous year that determines how much they\u2019ll get in the next, not what they spent. There is no zero base budgeting in Washington. It\u2019s one of the biggest scams to ever come down the pike. Well, 95% the American people don\u2019t know it. You people in this audience do. You were first made aware of it back in 1990, what, 5?<\/p>\n

Okay, so here\u2019s Hillary last night. This was the Children\u2019s Health Fund annual benefit.<\/p>\n