He also misled the listeners when he spoke of revenue growth under Reagan. Revenues grew more quickly in the eight years preceding Reagan, and the eight years after Reagan. Revenue growth nearly doubled the Reagan rate during the Clinton years.

BTW: Jim Bohannon is the ultimate center-right DC-insider CW tool. He’s just awful. So when even “Jimbo” goes after the Republican, you’ve got to be thinking that we might be doing something right.

I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard Rush say we all need to “share in the sacrifice,” but he has been militant in his support for spending on things like oil subsidies and expenmsive wars, at the same time he was even more militant in his opposition to tax increases on the wealthy that would pay for his preferred spending programs. Also at the same time, he’s been militant in his suggestion that we just can’t afford the spending anymore (when it comes to things like pensions and health insurance for people making $50K/yr, that is).

So I asked him what he’s asking from the wealthiest in these times of shared sacrifice.

He was honest. He said he doesn’t subscribe to that…. That there’s a reason some people make $25 million a year, while others toil for 25 thousand. And that everything is as it should be – the rich shouldn’t be asked to do more because they are… well… I guess he didn’t really finish that thought.

OK, this is old, but it never gets old… Back in 2005/6, I was calling the Rush Limbaugh Show several times a month, much like I am today. After about 8 months, he must have caught on. I was about to travel to the first YearlyKos Convention in Las Vegas to give a training presentation on calling talk radio, when some guy called Rush with a prepared question. I didn’t know “Jack” then, and I still have no idea who he was, but all my previous calls must’ve been gnawing at Rush. Jack put it nicely when he said that Rush “lost his marbles.”

Hannity spent almost his entire show blaming people that work for a living for Wisconsin’s (and the United States’) budget mess. Of course, once the absurdity of that position is demonstrated, Hannity changes the subject to his objection to the way union’s political money is spent. Of course, the truth is that unions have elections and their rank and file can change their leadership if they disagree with how their dues are spent. But the fact is that union members are likely to be much more politically engaged and aware of how political issues will impact working people. Hence, they vote for Democrats.

And that’s the real issue.

I may be able to put up a transcript later, but for now, here’s the audio:

I waited for a while to speak with him today, and just before he took my call, he spent some time talking about HBGary’s efforts to win government astroturfing contracts. His spin was classic Limbaugh: he suggested that it was Obama contracting with astroturf firms in order to create the appearance of support for liberal policies. Now here’s the truth: HBGary was just caught in a scheme that would have them using social networks to wage war against progressives on behalf of the far-right Chamber of Commerce. Moreover, to the extent that federal contracts have been involved, they were on behalf of the Department of Defense’s propaganda efforts. IIRC, the Air Force was the only entity that signed a contract, and it was to support the war efforts “psyops”.

Anyway, the purpose of the call was entirely different. I wanted to point out that Rush is all for taking money out of the pockets of middle class workers (the little guy), but when it comes to balanced budgets, he stands radically opposed to asking the ultra-wealthy for sacrifice.

I called and made the point that, effectively, what is happening is that the Governor of Wisconsin is increasing taxes on the teachers and other government workers. I mean, when all is said and done, the Governor is reaching into these workers’ pockets and taking out about $100 from every week’s paycheck. What else would you call it? (My math is at the bottom of the post).

Sean – and every other right-wing host’s – argument is that Wisconsin needs to tighten its belt. It can’t spend what it doesn’t have.

I thought that was odd coming from a guy that supported two wars that our country put on its credit card. I mean, if we have to pay for our stuff, why isn’t he suggesting tax increases to pay for the wars? Could it be because he might have to part with a few of his ill-gotten gains? Or, if his argument is that we cannot afford to increase taxes in the middle of a recession, then why is it OK to (essentially) increase the tax burden on teachers? Surely, if they can afford it, the top teir of wealth-holders in this country can afford to do a little more as well, right? Sean? Sean?

Sean’s response? No, seriously, I’m not kidding….

“9/11, 9/11, 9/11!!!!!”

The math:

Average teacher pay, according to, of all people, Michelle Malkin: $52K
After tax income: $52K*.65 (assuming overall federal/state tax burden of 35%)=$33,800/yr
$33,800/52=$650/wk
Additional contribution demanded by Wisconsin governor: $5K
$5k/52=~100
Therefore, average weekly teacher pay will be reduced by $100/wk (or 15%), from $650 to $550

He covered everything… said that unionized government make twice as much as their peers in the private sector… that Obama added 200,000 unionized workers to the federal payroll… for 3 hours, the lies kept coming. It was awful.

His strategy is to divide the working class. As long as wage-earners concentrate their fire on each other, the plutocratic kleptocracy churns on without hassle.

I’m beginning to wonder how much longer that gambit is going to work. Is Wisconsin a hiccup or a spark?

Strap in and hold on tight.

The first minute of audio sets my call up. It’s one (of many) example of Rush railing against unionized workers to gin up the envy and hatred.

Hard to get a word in edgewise toward the end. ’tis too bad, because I really wanted to focus on comparing the legacy of conservative ideology vs. that of liberals. Rush Limbaugh cheered George Bush every chance he got. (Don’t be deceived by his claim that he was unhappy with the Bush admins’ spending – he never said so at the time.)

I will say this though: Barack Obama is very difficult for a liberal to defend. Every day seems to bring new disappointment.

For a self-professed Constitution lover, it’s striking that she stays mum when asked about the only Amendment that matters to the CPAC crowd.

Prefers open carry, but feels safe enough without guns around.

Really not understanding the nuance, I guess. I mean, if I actually believed that a heavily armed citizenry increased the safety quotient at no cost… well, for my family’s sake, I’d be clamoring for more guns in more places.

Of course, Tucker’s smile is kind of telling, isn’t it? If I was an uncivil blogger, I might even suggest that the smile betrays Tucker’s words… that he doesn’t really believe what he is saying and can’t help but to laugh at how preposterous his own words are.