Watchdog Blog

Morton Mintz: What Limbaugh, the Defender of Corporate America, Would Do if He Were President

Posted at 12:51 pm, July 9th, 2008
Morton Mintz Mug

On the death of William F. Buckley, Jr., publisher of The National Review, Rush Limbaugh became the “elder statesman” of the conservative movement, the New York Times Sunday Magazine reported in its July 6 cover story. The writer, Zev Chafets, said he asked Limbaugh what his own presidential agenda would look like. Here is Limbaugh’s answer, interspersed with a few remarks of my own:

1. Open the continental shelf to drilling. Ditto the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. [This—the apparent sum total of Limbaugh's environment-imperiling energy policy—would produce a few relative trickles of oil in the distant future. The Natural Resources Defense Council says, for example: "It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market, and even when production peaks—in the distant year of 2027—the refuge would produce a paltry 1 or 2 percent of Americans' daily consumption."]

2. Establish a 17 percent flat tax. [Taxing Limbaugh at the same rate as the 14 million Americans in his weekly audience is what we should do, right? Limbaugh "was on the verge of signing a new eight-year contract with his syndicator," Chafets wrote. "He estimated that it would bring in about $38 million a year." One of Limbaugh's five houses is "24,000 square feet"; its main guest suite "was designed as an exact replica of the presidential suite of the George V Hotel in Paris." One of his half-dozen cars is a "Maybach 57S, which runs around $450,000 fully loaded." His "newest airplane, a Gulfstream G550...cost him, he told me, $54 million." One advocate of a 17 percent flat tax was former House Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey. "A group of conservative Republican economists," the American Legion Magazine reported in December 1995, "has charged that" Armey's plan "would result in 'significantly higher taxes' for the middle class." ]

3. Privatize Social Security. [Creating private accounts would "make Social Security's financing problem worse, not better," and "could dampen economic growth, which would further weaken Social Security's future finances," a 2004 Century Foundation report said. Moreover,the report said, "Privatization has been a disappointment elsewhere"; "The odds are against individuals investing successfully"; "What you get will depend on whether you retire when the market is up or down"; "Wall Street would reap windfalls from your taxes"; "Private accounts would require a new government bureaucracy. "Young people would be worse off"; "Women stand to lose the most"; "African Americans and Latin Americans also would become more vulnerable under privatization," and "Retirees will not be protected against inflation."]

4. Give parents school vouchers to break the monopoly of public education. [I.e, transfer tax dollars from schools that accept all children to fee-based private and religious schools that select the students they want, and that are not accountable to the taxpayers.]

5. Revoke Jimmy Carter’s passport while he is out of the country.

6. Abandon all government policies based on the hoax of man-made global warming. [Hoax? "If we don't begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next several years, and really on a very different course, then we are in trouble," NASA climate scientist James E. Hansen warned in June. "Then the ice sheets are in trouble. Many species on the planet are in trouble." The overwhelming majority of qualified, unbought scientists agree.]

Chafets wrote that “No. 5 was a joke. I think.”

No’s. 1,2,3,4 and 6 are bad jokes. I think.

Chafets handed Limbaugh a golden opportunity to write a broad, even visionary, presidential agenda, but his “actual concerns” turned out to be as thin as one of his La Flor Dominicana Double Ligero Chisel stogies. Not a word about the war in Iraq, for example. Or the estimated 47 million Americans who have no health insurance and the 25 million who are underinsured. Or foreign policy and how the rest of the world regards us. Or torture. Or the stagnant economy, inflation, joblessness, and the staggering national debt we will bequeath to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Or energy conservation. Or the weapons programs with a projected cost of $1.7 trillion, twice what it was in 2000. Or government secrecy. Or George W. Bush’s habit of appointing federal regulators who had devoted their careers to undermining the regulations they would swear to enforce.

“I consider myself a defender of corporate America,” Limbaugh said, without elaborating. Fine. But just what, exactly, is he defending? The federal government spending “roughly $75 billion a year,” according to the libertarian CATO Foundation, “on programs that provide subsidies to private businesses”? Corporations spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually on lobbying in Washington and state capitols? Pharmaceutical manufacturers lying to the FDA and physicians about the safety of their drugs? Tobacco companies addicting children to smoking? Auto manufacturers refusing to provide life-saving seat belts until Ralph Nader forced them to do so? Coal-mining and other industrial companies refusing to provide safe workplaces? Health-insurers blocking universal health coverage while finding loopholes to deny coverage, drowning physicians in wasteful paperwork, and over-paying their executives? CEOs awarding themselves huge compensation even when they fail at their jobs? Hedge-fund billionaires paying taxes at lower rates than their receptionists?

The conservative movement’s elder statesman can give himself all the time he wants in his radio programs to answer questions such as those raised here, one by one, and in depth. Will he? Don’t bet a Gulfstream 550 on it.



6 Responses to “What Limbaugh, the Defender of Corporate America, Would Do if He Were President”

  1. Donald J. Lantz says:

    Rush is to be commended for his allegiance to Corporate
    America. His lifestyle is a tribute to his energy and
    commentaries on the state of the nation. Unfortunately, his
    analysis is simplistic and pandering to his audience. He is
    the master of shallow solutions that have not been thought
    through. He knows his audience does not want complex aolutions.

  2. Don Capps says:

    I have never quite understood the Rush Limbaugh phenomenon. It is readily apparent whenever one takes the time to actually listen to what he says that he is primarily an entertainer. His commentaries tend to be shallow, intellectually vacant, invariably based on ad hominum arguments, and generally more akin to propaganda broadcasts as entertainment than any actual political commentary. And these are the good things one can say….

    That Limbaugh chose those six items shows that either he did not take the opportunity as a serious attempt to lay out a true vision for a presidential agenda or that his grasp of issues is as shallow as some suspect. It would seem that No. 5 could justify either assessment.

    Limbaugh’s wealth and ostentatious lifestyle is so at odds with that of his many of his listeners that it almost awe-inspiring in its blatant display of riches. That few in his audience could even imagine, much less achieve, the largess bestowed upon Limbaugh by corporate America is a sad commentary on the role of Limbaugh in ensuring that the rich get richer and, well, the know the rest….

    I am always amazed at how Limbaugh gets away with his sthick. That so much of what he espouses seems to be directly contrary to his targeted audience never ceases to amaze me. Obviously, I simply don’t get it. And this is coming from someone who grew up in a blur-collar, Southern family where being linthead was simply a fate avoided only by military service.

  3. Robert Faber says:

    As a comical political personality, Limbaugh pushes the right buttons to earn enough to buy the world’s most expensive toys, but when he takes on (or is rewarded with) the mantle of “elder statesman of the conservative party” the joke turns sour – and dangerous. The nation needs varied political points of view, but they must be honest, thoughtful, and balanced – not simply provocative. For the Republican Party, or at least its serious Conservative membership, to accept this character’s antics with no more than a chuckle is much more than a disgrace or a joke – it is a repudiation of the dreams and goals of its more honest members. Losing the contribution of serious conservative thought on the problems of America and the process of our legislative process is a dangerous dismissal of the principles on which our nation was founded and should be loudly renounced by the leaders of the Conservative movement.

    blow to the nation and should be faced seriously.

  4. Patrick Sloyan says:

    Say, isn’t Zev Chafets the former flak for the right wing of the Israeli government? As with Rush, Zev found Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon witty statesmen who contributed to Mideast enlightment. Spin , baby, spin.

  5. Lue Dillard says:

    Comparing Rush Limbaugh to William F. Buckley, Jr. is like comparing George W. Bush to Theodore Roosevelt — not even in the same league.

  6. Warren says:

    Limbaugh is quite a comedown from Buckley and Buckley was no prize even if on occasion he did make some astute observation. However, the Conservatives deserve Limbaugh. Rush is a master propagandist, but no political philosopher and certainly no politician, at least of any significance or value to the Conservative effort. Three hours per day of babble to an ignorant, uninformed, unwashed mob of “dittoheads” does not create an “elder statesman”, just a man growing older.

Comments are closed.

The NiemanWatchdog.org website is no longer being updated. Watchdog stories have a new home in Nieman Reports.