The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Rush Limbaugh’s Bi-Partisan Economic Recovery Plan That Will Work

Posted by iusbvision on January 30, 2009

My Bipartisan Stimulus
Let’s cut taxes, as I want, and spend more, as Obama would like.

There’s a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they’re left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.

I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don’t believe his is a “stimulus plan” at all — I don’t think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This “porkulus” bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party’s power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party’s majority power for decades.

Keynesian economists believe government spending on “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects — schools, roads, bridges — is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.

Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.

Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there’s an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate.

Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It’s important to remember that it’s the people’s money, not Washington’s.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, “I won. I’m going to trump you on that.”

Yes, elections have consequences. But where’s the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people’s wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate — at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations — in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There’s no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There’s no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There’s no reason to insist that recovery can’t happen quickly, because it can.

In this new era of responsibility, let’s use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy — and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn’t know the difference. This is about jobs now.

The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let’s stop the acrimony. Let’s start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?

2 Responses to “Rush Limbaugh’s Bi-Partisan Economic Recovery Plan That Will Work”

  1. Barry Stabilo said

    I don’t remember Limbaugh talking about “bringing the country together” when his boy George W. got elected. By the reasoning he uses in this article, Bush should have adopted more of the Democrat’s platform than his own, since Gore actually received more popular votes than he did.

    Sorry, Rush – the difference in the majority Obama received (over 9.5 million voters) is almost 4 times greater than Bush’s two elections added together. You had eight years (six of them with both houses of Congress as well) to seriously screw things up. Now is the time to be a patriot and back the new President, instead of making traitorous comments like “I hope he fails.”

    [Traitorous comments ….Such as Harry Ried’s comments like “the war is lost” or Dick Durbin’s comments comparing our troops with nazi’s and Pol Pot?? – Nice try…

    Barry, Aristotle would ask you, “Does the ‘reality’ you percieve actually exist?”

    Allow me to give you a little history lesson.

    Point 1:

    GW Bush tried to get a new tone. Immediately the left attacked him, said he was illegitimate, called him names, attacked him personally. GWB was not mean to the far left and by all accounts and a nice a civil guy in the extreme. GWB repeatedly put out his hand and repeatedly people like you put a fork in it and GWB didn’t complain much.

    Point 2:

    JFK was a minority president, should ha have adopted Nixon’s platform?

    John Quincy Adams, Bill Clinton, Abe Lioncoln, Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman were minority presidents too. I do not see you applying the same standard to them.

    Perhaps Lincoln should not have freed the slaves according to your ridiculous logic, because he was a minority president.

    We are not a democracy we are a republic with the rule of law and if you dont understand the difference may I suggest that you take a civics lesson beyond the one I am giving you right now.


    It was Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi who repeatedly promised bipartisanship and a new way of doing business, instead they are takling the old ways of doing business, amplifying it and putting it on steroids.

    There are so many political and special interest payoffs in the stimulus bill, the corruption displayed in this bill is truly shocking even by Washington standards. If you had a residue of honesty or love of country you would have tried to do something about it.

    Point 4:

    Finally, you have the Rush Limbaugh quote WRONG… what Rush said was that he “hopes America wins. America is great for very specific reasons so if Obama want’s to socialize America than America loses, than I hope he fails. Rush also said that if Obama were to persue growth policies that are proven to work he hopes that Obama succeeds”.

    Here is the video –

    I really do feel sorry for you and people like you Barry. Almost everything you think that you know is not reality and any objective investigator can demonstrate that with varifiable evidence in minutes. You live in New York so I suggest you tune into AM 770 WABC and start listening.

    Barry, verifiable truth is a virtue and hate is not a family value….

    Next time you post here could you please show a little intellectual depth? – Editor]

  2. Barry Stabilo said

    Hey, Mr. “intellectual depth” – get a spell checker (“varifiable”?). I don’t lower myself to ad-hominem name-calling, as you and your buddy Rush evidently find the need to do.
    And I don’t need a history lesson – you need to improve your reading comprehension: I stated “by the reasoning he (Rush) uses” – I didn’t agree with his reasoning. Funny how Rush abandons his scorched-earth take-no-prisoners attitude when he LOSES.
    And yes, Rush has certainly demonstrated as of late that he is a CAPITALIST first, and an AMERICAN second. That’s certainly not anyone’s definition of a “patriot”.

    [If you don’t need a history lesson as you claim then it becomes obvious that you intended to misrepresent Limbaugh’s position.

    You also completely avoided every substantive point I made. I even labeled them to make it easier on you.

    It is not that Rush abandoned his scorched Earth attitude as you say, his entire point is to point out that all of the so called bipartisanship rhetoric by the Democrats in the campaign was a lie.

    (You lacked the intellectual depth to see this – Democrats refused to post the bill on the House Web Site for the allotted time before the vote and they refused to let Republicans in on the bill negotiations. They let lobbyists and Wall Street have copies of the final bill before they let GOP House members see it etc.)

    It is too bad that you are more concerned with changing reality to avoid cognitive dissonance rather then concerning yourself with substantive points and objective truth. Only someone with that kind of flawed thought process can call Rush Limbaugh a traitor in one statement for opposing Obama’s agenda at attack him for being “ad-hominem” in the next and not see the obvious contradiction and hypocrisy.

    So tell me, by your own standard were you a traitor when you opposed the Bush agenda, or the war after it was launched? This is exactly why I pointed out that you lack intellectual depth. It is unfortunate for you that you have demonstrated no sense of introspective, but rest assured that the hundreds of others who are reading this will get a laugh when they see your contradictions, hypocrisy and avoidance of the substantive points I put to you.

    Your statements amount to pure emotionalism which explains why your statements avoid substance and are glaringly contradictory. Hate is not a family value. I am sure there are a few good therapists in New York who can help you out. – Editor]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: