Rush versus Reality

Rush vs Reality 2001 (January - June)

Words mean something.

-RL

One of Rush Limbaugh's favorite self-bestowed titles is "The Truth Detector."

Here that claim is put to the test, because what follows is a list of factual errors and outright fabrications broadcast by Rush Limbaugh to a mostly unquestioning and pliant audience on his nationally syndicated daily radio show.

Admittedly, this is only a partial accounting of Rush's struggle with the truth, because it only reflects what I've personally heard. And since I don't listen to every hour of every show, the list is shorter than it could be.

Nonetheless, you're invited to scroll through Rush vs Reality. Listen to Rush in his own words on soundbites available in the "Files" section of this web page. Link to the web addresses that document what he says are either wild exaggerations, gross misinterpretations, or outright lies. See how Rush really regards the Truth.

To document Rush's errors, I use legitimate, looney-free sources primarily from the internet and post the document's internet address. Since MSN Communities don't offer unlimited data storage, and since Rush's wav file soundbites eat lots of space, I only save web pages in the "Files" when the internet page won't be available indefinitely (e.g., NY Times articles, which are not available free of charge after a few weeks).

If you want to hear what Rush said in a particular RvR segment, click on "Files" in the left column and find the appropriate file. You'll need an audio program to listen, but it should work automatically. The "Sound Recorder" program included in Windows 95/98 works well, or you can use Windows Media Player (available free from Microsoft) or other similar program. [Note: if you use Windows MediaPlayer and get a "The page cannot be displayed" error message when you try to open an audio file, close it and click on the same audio file one more time. Maybe a third time, if necessary. But it works, usually.]

Charles Kenner

The size of RvR 2001 is getting a little out of hand. I think the speed in which the page can be downloaded and viewed is also affected by its size.

Since the possibility — however small — remains that Rush will lie or exaggerate or otherwise misinterpret relaity during the next six months, RvR 2001 for July - December will move to a separate page on this web community. A link can be found at the RvR home page or in the upper left corner. See you there.

June 29, 2001

RUSH: Occasionally the nation’s Truth Detector is frustrated when public attitudes appear to have no basis in logic or reality. For example, polls that consistently show more Americans opposed to the George W. Bush tax cut than supporting it are dismissed as reflecting misplaced fears: middle-class concerns that tax cuts will curtail programs benefiting them, or anxiety that cuts (like the massive 1981 Reagan tax cut) may lead to budget deficits.

"The truth is somewhat different. The reason there were deficits in the 1980s is because Ronald Reagan signed some tax increases that also contained promises from congress to cut spending, and the spending cuts never happened. The tax cuts—the tax cuts throughout the 80s nearly doubled the amount of revenue generated to the Treasury. It was $500 billion in 1980, tax revenue was when Reagan left in 89 it was 915 billion—almost doubled!" [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / Jun 29 Reagan Tax Hike]

REALITY: Not true. For one thing, in trying to justify the Bush 2001 income tax cut by asserting that tax revenue "almost doubled" during the Reagan years, Rush was including Social Security taxes, which indeed almost doubled in that period (increasing by 97% from $182.7 billion in 1981 to $359.4 billion in 1989). But Social Security taxes almost doubled because they were raised in 1984, not because they were lowered. On the other hand, as shown in an IRS table ("Internal Revenue Gross Collections by Type of Tax, Fiscal Years 1970-1999"), total income taxes (personal and corporate) rose by less than 56% from 1981-89 ($406.6 billion in 1981 to $632.7 billion in 1989). Income tax receipts, therefore, did not come close to "doubling," as Rush implied.

And the reason Social Security taxes rose so much was the very tax increase Rush referred to, which Reagan signed in April 1983 (Public Law 98-21), and which took effect in 1984. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:HR01900:@@@D|TOM:/bss/d098query.html|

So the main reason tax revenues "nearly doubled" during the Reagan years was not, as Rush claimed, because income tax rates were cut, but because Social Security taxes were raised.

As for blaming the Reagan deficits on the 1984 Social Security tax increase, Rush was wrong there, too. The Reagan deficits began piling up for two years before the Social Security tax hikes took effect, and they coincided with the massive Reagan income tax cuts, which were enacted in 1981 and took effect in 1982. A Congressional Budget Office table tracks the ballooning federal deficit during that period.

Revenues Outlays Deficit (in billions)

1981 $599.3    $687.2   $ - 78.9

1982 $617.8    $745.8 $ -128.0

1983 $600.6    $808.4 $ -207.8

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=wm014_25.104&directory=/disk2/wais/data/104_green_book

Jimmy Carter left office with a $79 billion deficit. In just two years under Reagan, and before the Social Security tax increases took effect in 1984, the deficit was already over $200 billion.

Rush Limbaugh: the truth is somewhat different.

June 25, 2001

RUSH: A newspaper columnist's criticizism of the fact that not every American family will receive tax cut checks from the IRS later this year because "refunds" only go to individuals and families who actually paid federal income taxes in 2000, did not sit well with Rush.

"Much of our federal budget has been used to help the poor. The progressive income tax is designed to help the poor. There’s a reason the poor aren’t paying income taxes: it’s because they can’t afford it—they don’t earn enough to qualify! So, the people who do pay income taxes is a shrinking number, and their burden is getting larger and larger, so a tax cut comes along, guess who’s going to get the benefit?" [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / June 25 Taxpayers]

REALITY: Whether families (e.g., EITC recipients) who didn’t pay federal income taxes in 2000 should also benefit from the tax cut is a matter of opinion. But in his haste to defend the rationale for not providing them benefits, Rush fabricated a statistic, and followed up with a clearly illogical statement.

First, the number of people who pay income taxes is not shrinking. As you might have guessed, just the opposite is true. The IRS website has a report (Selected Returns and Forms Filed or To Be Filed by Type During Specified Calendar Years 1975-2000) documenting that the number of taxpayers has increased steadily every year from 1975 to 1999. For example, in 1975 there were 84,026,800 individual and 2,132,800 corporate returns filed. By 1999, that rose to 125,389,700 individual and 5,599,300 corporate returns.

Another IRS report at the same website (Projections of Returns To Be Filed in Calendar Years 2000-2007) sees no change in the trend. This report estimates that for tax year 2000, a total of 127,867,000 individual and 5,822,000 corporate returns will be filed, increasing every year through 2007, when an anticipated 142,953,000 individual and 7,028,000 corporate returns will be filed. http://www.irs.gov/tax_stats/soi/other_nr.html [Or see Excel Spreadsheets: Files /Text 2001 / June 25 IRS]

And what about Rush’s lament that the taxpayer’s "burden is getting larger and larger?" Either he’s making this one up, too, or he doesn’t grasp the concept of a tax "cut."

Rush Limbaugh: wise man’s burden.

June 25, 2001

RUSH: Old habits die hard, as the old Clinton-basher surfaced.

"I've got Clinton news today: Clinton wrote a piece—I don't remember where—but he wrote a piece over the weekend saying that we can, and we will, and we must, find a cure for AIDS. And the first thing I thought of was, ‘Why didn't you do anything about it during your eight years?’ I mean, this is clearly a public relations effort, targeted to a specific segment of the American population. Don't—I don't mean just gays—I'm talking about the whole touchy-feely crowd that thinks government's the solution to every problem, and Clinton's overall desire here is to make people wish fondly that he was still around because at least he cared—even if he didn't get anything done." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / June 25 Clinton AIDS Policy]

REALITY: True, Clinton didn’t single-handedly find a cure for AIDS while he was in office. But Rush’s assertion that Clinton did nothing as President is utterly false and misleading. The US National Archives website sheds some light on the Clinton AIDS record: … funding for AIDS research has increased by over 89 percent at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), while funding for HIV prevention has increased 47 percent. Funding for the Ryan White CARE Act has increased by over 338 percent….In 1996, for the first time in the history of the AIDS epidemic, the number of Americans diagnosed with AIDS declined. And between 1996 and 1997, HIV/AIDS mortality declined 42 percent, falling from the leading cause of death among 25-44 year olds in 1995 to the fifth leading cause of death in that age group. There has been a decline in the number of AIDS cases overall and a sharp decline in new AIDS cases in infants and children….$156 million to improve the nation's effectiveness in preventing and treating HIV/AIDS in the African-American, Hispanic, and other minority communities.…dedicating an AIDS vaccine research center at the National Institutes of Health and encouraging domestic and international collaboration among governments, medical communities and service organizations. On June 9, 1999, President Clinton dedicated the new Dale and Betty Bumpers Vaccine Research Center at the National Institutes of Health and announced that the primary work of this new Center will be HIV vaccine research….Funding for AIDS drug assistance has increased from $52 million per year to $528 million per year during the Clinton/Gore Administration….requested and received the first federal plan for biomedical research on AIDS. The Clinton/Gore Administration has increased NIH AIDS research funds by 89% to over $2 billion.…increased funds for HIV prevention at the CDC by 47%. http://clinton3.nara.gov/ONAP/accomp.html#ProvidingNationalLeadership

Rush Limbaugh: He’s Incapable of Veracity

June 19, 2001

RUSH: With the Senate set to debate the McCain-Kennedy patient's bill of rights legislation, Rush came to the defense of the elderly and the poor.

"If, by patient's bill of rights, if the assumption is that a patient has no rights because the patient can't sue the medical provider—the HMO—then the poor in this country have no rights because their provider is Medicaid. The elderly can't sue their provider because their provider is Medicare. But those are federal providers and they can't be sued, and there's nothing in this law that's going to allow the poor or the elderly to sue their providers. So they are going to continue to have no rights, even after the Kennedy-McCain-McCain-McCain patient's bill of rights is signed—if it ever is. Which means it's not about a patient's bill of rights, it's about protecting the government." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / June 19 Poor Suits]

REALITY: Perhaps his newfound concern for the disenfranchised was so intense it clouded Rush's judgment. For one thing, HMOs, Medicaid and Medicare are not medical "providers." They are akin to insurance carriers—organizations that fund medical services. Medical providers, as the word implies, provide medical services—doctors, for example.

But that's a technical point. The real distortion of the truth was Rush’s assertion that the poor and the elderly cannot sue the Medicaid or Medicare programs. They can. They do.

In Minnesota, a suit filed by seniors against the Medicare program is now before the 8^th Circuit Federal Appeals Court. From the Minnesota Senior Federation's web page: Minnesota Senior Federation-Metro Region’s historic lawsuit, which aims to bring about Medicare payment and benefit equity, was heard before the U.S. 8th District Court of Appeals on May 17, (2001) at the Federal Building in St. Paul….The Senior Federation’s lawsuit claims that the current Medicare program has created an unfair, two-tier health care system for older Americans based simply on where they live, and that Congress and the Health Care Finance Administration allow for nearly a 100 percent variance in Medicare reimbursement to counties across the country, allegedly making the practice biased and discriminatory. http://www.mnseniors.org/0106snjun/medicarelawsuit.html

Nor is the Medicaid program immune from lawsuits, as the on-line trade association AT [Assistive Technology] Quarterly notes: Maine and Indiana Medicaid programs have been sued over their refusal to provide funding for augmentative and alternative communication devices (AAC). Two lawsuits, Doyle and Pinkam v. Ives, in Maine, and Bruce v. Scales, in Indiana, were filed in federal district courts to force those states to allow the payment for these assistive technology devices and services with Medicaid funds….The Maine and Indiana lawsuits are the third and fourth court challenges to state attempts to exclude augmentative communication from their Medicaid programs in the last six years. Previously, Iowa and Oregon were forced to reverse their exclusion policies and begin funding augmentative communication. The Iowa challenge, like the ones in Maine and Indiana, was pursued through the courts. In 1985, the federal court of appeals for Iowa ruled that by covering speech services, the state had to also cover augmentative communication devices. In July 1990, Oregon changed its policy in response to a threatened lawsuit by advocates for persons with disabilities. http://www.resna.org/tap/atq/fedcrt.htm

Another example of lawsuits against the Medicaid program [from The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (CRLP)]: In an order issued May 23 (2000), Arizona's ban on Medicaid coverage for medically necessary abortions was ruled unconstitutional by Judge Kenneth L. Fields of Maricopa County Superior Court. With this decision, low-income women in Arizona will no longer be denied care for medically necessary pregnancy termination. The Court found that the Arizona Constitution's strong right to privacy includes the right to obtain medically necessary abortions and issued a permanent injunction against prohibitions on funding that have until now been imposed by Arizona's Medicaid-based program, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCS). Thirteen state courts considering near-bans on abortion funding similar to that of Arizona's have made the same determination. Prior to this ruling, Arizona would only cover an abortion for a low-income woman if her pregnancy endangered her life or was the result of rape or incest. http://www.crlp.org/pr_00_0601azmed.html

Rush Limbaugh: sue-eeeee.

June 13, 2001

RUSH: New Senate majority leader Tom Daschle’s skepticism over the wisdom of spending billions on the Bush Administration’s proposed missile defense system when there is no indication it will even work led a disgusted Rush to wonder why Liberals don’t use that same standard on their pet programs.

"Have we wiped out poverty? We have not! Is the percentage of people in this country in poverty the same as it was when we started? It is! It’s identical! All these other social pro—Aid to Families with Dependent Children: what have we done? We’ve increased the number of families with dependent children! We have worsened single-parent families. We’ve—we have—the federal government’s involvement in fixing these problems has largely exacerbated and made them worse! And yet, here’s Tom Daschle—Puff Daschle—something that the US Constitution expressly charges the federal government with—the protection of the people of this country—missile defense: no, it’ll never work." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / June 13 Welfare Cases]

REALITY: As a recent RvR post (May 14) showed, the percentage of people in poverty in this country has not remained "the same." US Census Bureau data shows that in the forty-year period 1959-1999, the percentage of Americans living in poverty fell by more than half. In 1959 24% of the US lived in poverty. By 1999, that rate had dropped to 11.8%. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/img/incpov99/fig04.gif

But what about those AFDC families? Have their numbers increased, and has the government exacerbated the problem, as Rush claimed? I think we all know the answer.

From the Department of Health and Human Services (the agency that runs the AFDC Program) FY 2000 Annual Report to Congress: Overall, the welfare caseload has fallen by 7.8 million recipients, from 14.1 million recipients in January 1993 to 6.3 million in December 1999, a drop of 56 percent…

Fiscal Years Est US Pop
AFDC/TANF

Recipients

Percent of

US Pop

1992 254,462,000 13,625,342
5.4

1993 257,379,000 14,142,710 5.5

1994 259,935,000 14,225,657 5.5

1995 262,392,000 13,660,192 5.2

1996 264,827,000 12,644,915 4.8

1997 267,346,000 10,823,002 4.0

1998 269,845,000    8,778,815 3.3

1999 272,286,000    7,187,753 2.6

Dec. 1999 274,076,000    6,274,555 2.3
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/annual3execsum.doc

So from 1992-99, at a time when the US population grew by 20 million (7.7%), the number of welfare recipients dropped by more than half.

Rush Limbaugh: welfare fraud.

June 12, 2001

RUSH: With criticism over his environmental and defense policies dogging George W. Bush on his first visit to Europe, Rush turned to a familiar enemy: the press. He played parts of an analysis by CNN Correspondent Christiane Amanpour, in which she detailed European concerns with Bush's dismissal of the Kyoto Accords and his intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Then he brought up a little known fact. A very little known fact.

"He's not going to Romania. Our President is in Europe, we know his itinerary, but he's not going to Romania. And this is a huge slap in the face of environmental wackos. It's a huge dis to the Green Movement in Europe. You're probably saying, "Rush, what in hell are you talking about? What has Romania got to do with anything?" Folks, Romania is bigger than the Snail Darter, I'll grant you that. It's bigger than that, that Kimono Dragon that bit Mrs. Sharon—uh, Mr. Sharon Stone's foot off. But do you know that Romania is the only country on earth that has signed the Kyoto Accord? Romania's the only country that signed it. This thing we just heard from Christiane Amanpour is pure Barbra Streisand—it is pure BS!" [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / June 12 Kyoto Accords]

REALITY: For most nations (including the United States), treaty approvals involve two actions: signing and ratification. Without ratification (in the United States, ratification is by a two-thirds Senate vote), a treaty is not binding even if signed. And even giving Rush the benefit of the doubt and assuming he meant "ratification" when he said "signed," he remains remarkably wrong about the Kyoto treaty. Not only have 83 governments signed it (including the United States), at least 23 have ratified it.

The treaty remains unenforceable, however, because its terms require that a certain number of developed countries must first ratify the treaty before it takes effect. That threshold has not been met, and whether the rest of the developed world is waiting for US ratification before committing themselves to the treaty is a subject of conjecture. What is certain is that Romania is far from the only country on earth to sign the Kyoto Accords.

A United Nations Press Release regarding a September 11, 2000 meeting in Lyon, France, set the record straight: Lyon Talks To Build Confidence in Political Success of Major Climate Change Conference — The Kyoto Protocol (1997) will enter into force 90 days after it has been ratified by at least 55 Parties to the Convention, including developed countries and those with economies in transition representing at least 55% of the total of 1990 carbon dioxide emissions from this group. So far, the Protocol has been signed by 83 governments and the European Community but only 23 countries, all developing, have ratified. The United States accounts for 36.1% of carbon dioxide emissions, the European Union for 24.2%, and Russia for 17.4%. http://www.unfccc.int/media/presse/sb13/mzc1109.pdf

Rush Limbaugh: maybe he meant the Honda Accords.

June 12, 2001

RUSH: A tireless opponent of what he perceives as "spineless" middle-of-the-road politics, Rush bravely invited political moderates to call in and explain themselves. One caller cited the recent tax cut bill, which began as a $1.6 trillion proposal and ended up a $1.3 trillion cut, as an example of political compromise—an act of "moderation" to win enough votes for passage. Rush knew better.

RUSH: There’s nothing moderate about the tax cut. It’s too small!

CALLER: Well, I agree. But the end result was the result of moderation. We had to cater to guys like Jeffords, and, um—

RUSH: No! Jeffords—Jeffords lost. He didn’t—I mean, Jeffords didn’t vote for it. We didn’t cater to guys like Jeffords to get the tax cut.

CALLER: I thought that’s why we lowered it down to 1.3?

RUSH: No. That was education. That’s why we raised education spending to the moon, to try to keep Jeffords in the party. [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / June 12 Jeffords Tax Vote]

REALITY: Whether a $1.3 trillion tax cut is too large or too small, or whether "moderation" played a part in the political compromises leading to that figure, are matters of opinion. However, what is indisputable is that in his compulsive need to discredit political compromises (moderation), Rush simply lied about Senator Jim Jeffords' voting record by saying the Vermont Senator didn't vote for the $1.3 trillion tax cut.

Jeffords voted for both the original Senate (reconciliation) version and the final (conference report) version. As documented in VoteSmart: Tax Cut (reconciliation). Vote to pass a bill that would reduce all income tax rates and make other tax cuts totaling $1.35 trillion over 11 years. HR 1836. Vote May 23, 2001. Passed, 62-38. Senator James M. "Jim" Jeffords voted YES. http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes.phtml?ID=S0901103&voteid=3004&style=

Tax Cut (conference report). HR 1826. Vote May 26, 2001. Passed, 58-33. Senator James M. "Jim" Jeffords voted YES. http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes.phtml?ID=S0901103&voteid=3006&style=

Rush Limbaugh: muddle-of-the-road thinker.

June 11, 2001

RUSH: With George W. Bush about to embark on his first European visit, Rush opined on the sorry state of European affairs, and offered a curious rationale for last week's landslide victory by Britain’s Labor Party over the Conservative Party of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

"It's because of the years of Margaret Thatcher that Great Britain continues to live off of, that the people of Great Britain don't want any electoral controversy. That's what the election in Great Britain was all about! They didn't want to hear the debate! It was just easier…I mean, the, uh, I think I read somewhere that the incumbent party—and this is the Labor Party—always wins! Everybody wins two terms over there! Nothing starts to unravel until after the second term has won (sic)." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / June 11 British Elections]

REALITY: To be fair, it's a judgment call as to whether the British gave Prime Minister Tony Blair a second term because they liked what he did in his first term, or because, as Rush contends, the largess of the glorious Thatcher years have made Britons fearful of making a "controversial" decision to change governments. You decide. Yet why those same circumstances didn’t motive the British to do the easy thing in 1997 and re-elect the Conservatives was not revealed by the nation’s Truth Detector.

However, what can be revealed is this: Rush did not read that the incumbent party in Great Britain "always wins" a second term. He didn’t read it because it's the furthest thing from the truth. In an attempt to try to explain why any electorate would re-elect a leftist government (by a landslide, to boot) when they could have chosen a right-wing alternative, Rush simply opened his mouth before engaging his brain. The fact is, the Labor Party has never won two consecutive terms. From CNN (June 8, 2001): LONDON, England -- Prime Minister Tony Blair has won an historic second landslide election victory in Britain's general election. Blair stormed to victory in the election on a grim night for the Conservatives in which the party failed to make significant gains. It is the first time in the Labour party's 100-year history that it has been given a second electoral mandate. http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/08/uk.election.05/index.html

And what about the "years of Margaret Thatcher" that Great Britain owes its very life to? Well, Mrs. Thatcher was not absent from the recent campaign. In fact, the Labor Party deliberately attacked and mocked Mrs. Thatcher. As reported in Slate Magazine, in what can only be described as a "controversial" move: Labor unveiled a get-out-the-vote poster that combines mockery with Thatcher-bashing. Next to a composite image of William Hague's face and Margaret Thatcher's hair is the tag line "Get out and vote. Or they get in." http://slate.msn.com/pol/01-06-06/pol.asp

Rush Limbaugh: Get out the truth. Or he wins.

May 31, 2001

RUSH: Following California Governor Gray Davis’ meeting with George W. Bush this week to seek federal price caps on electricity, Rush found a surprising ally in the war against electricity price caps.

"It's not just Bush who said 'no' to price caps. The most liberal appeals court in the country is the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. A three-judge panel in that court rejected Davis' request for price caps. A bunch of liberals did it. And they used the same reasoning that Bush did: It's anti-free market. It's not a solution. It's not even a stop-gap. It recreates the situation that led to the current problem. Don't forget that! Don't forget that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected his plea for price caps. It was when that failed that he went—that Davis went to Washington—and pled with Bush." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / May 31 Ninth Circuit]

REALITY: Of course, the Ninth Circuit judges did no such thing.

First, in his zeal to divert blame for California's flawed deregulation plan to the Democratic Governor, Rush mistakenly credited Gray Davis with filing the appeal. Minor point, but Davis wasn't the appellant. It was California Senate President John Burton, along with the Speaker of the California Assembly, who filed the suit against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Second, Rush grossly misstated the three-judge panel's May 29^th decision. He said the judges based their rejection on broad political principles that dovetailed with Bush's free-market, hands-off philosophy on energy prices. Here's what the Ninth Circuit panel's complete decision actually said in Burton vs. FERC—

Before: KOZINSKI, FERNANDEZ and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. Petitioners have not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See California Power Exchange Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 245 F3rd 1110, 1120 (9^th Cir. 2001). Accordingly the petition is DENIED. [See the Decision: Files /Text 2001 / May 31 Ninth Circuit]

That's it. A three sentence decision. No philosophical pontificating on the superiority of free markets, or the inherent weakness of price caps. All the Court said was it would not use the "extraordinary remedy of mandamus" (forcing a remedy on the FERC) at this time. Which explains the Court’s reference to a related case (Calif. Power Ex vs. FERC). That, too, was a Ninth Circuit three-judge panel decision earlier in the year. Only in that case it was the power companies suing the FERC to lift an FERC $150/MWH price cap (the power companies wanted $250/MWH), and there the Court refused to lift the FERC's price cap.

A summary of Calif. Power Ex vs. FERC, found at the Ninth Circuit’s web page, notes that: The panel refused the California Power Exchange’s request to grant extraordinary mandamus relief and stay the FERC orders, which were not yet final and subject to direct review….the panel concluded that the $150 per megawatt hour "soft cap" imposed in California Power Exchange markets was not discriminatory…. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/Opinions%20by%20date?OpenView&Start=1&Count=100&Expand=1.3#1.3

So, far from criticizing price caps, the Ninth Circuit’s Calif PX vs FERC decision, cited in Burton, actually supported the FERC price cap the power exchange was trying to void—the complete opposite of Rush's distortion of the Court's findings. What the Court did in both cases was procedural—it refused to use its "extraordinary" mandamus power to reverse FERC orders that "were not final and subject to further review."

Rush Limbaugh: judicial botch.

May 29, 2001

RUSH: Although he hated to do it, Rush was forced to bring up Bill Clinton. He begrudgingly felt the need to remind his listeners of the terrible mess Bush inherited from his incompetent predecessor. And while Rush didn’t mention the country’s historic economic gains under Clinton, or the gigantic budget surpluses BC left to W., in his commentary called, "What Clinton Left Bush," the Truth Detector explained why our flight delays are Clinton’s fault.

"Air travel. Another area that we are saddled with thanks to Clinton. Only two runways have been built since 1991. You wonder why you can’t get anywhere on time? We haven’t increased the capacity of our air traffic system! Why haven’t we? The environmentalist wackos owning Bill Clinton! It’s environmentally unsafe and unwise to build airports, expand runways. It might kill birds!" [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / May 29 New Airport Runways]

REALITY: Many more than two runways at major US airports have been built since 1991. One airport alone, which was built as a brand new facility and began operaitons in 1995, accounts for five new runways: Denver International Airport has three north/south and two east/west runways. http://www.flydenver.com/z401-3.html

In addition, the FAA’s 1995 Annual Report cites new runways completed or under construction at:

Philadelphia International Airport ("…new 5000 foot commuter runway is underway…")

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport ("…new $320 million east parallel Runway…is under construction and scheduled to be completed in late 1996")

Austin-Bergstrom International Airport [Austin, TX] ("…a new 9,000 foot parallel runway [completed February, 1999]…will supplement the existing 12,000 foot runway….")

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport ("The new third runway…is under construction and scheduled to be completed in 1998)

Salt Lake City International Airport ("The new $120 million east parallel runway… was completed in November 1995. It was started in FY 1992")

Indianapolis International Airport ("A new 11,200 foot parallel runway is under construction….When completed in early 1996….")

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County ("The new crosswind runway…). http://www.airportnet.org/depts/federal/faa/aip14th.htm

Rush Limbaugh: Could it be he thinks they're Frequent Liar miles?

May 25, 2001

RUSH: A caller, puzzled that public opinion polls continue to show less than solid national support for the Bush tax cut plan, was treated to Rush’s theory of why so many middle-income Americans today are dependent on government spending: they perceive a tax cut as a threat to their middle-class benefits. Rush listed some of these middle-class boondoggles.

RUSH: "One of them is Student Loan Program. Now you might say, ‘Student Loan?’ Yeah! Check the number of people who get away with not paying it back!"

CALLER: Really?

RUSH: "Yeah, the Student Loan Program is a giveaway program!"

CALLER: It’s not really benefits that we see in our daily lives. It’s kinda like little tiny bones that they’re throwing at us that some of these people see this as this great thing, you know, that’s basically what it is?

RUSH: "Yeah. Earned Income Tax Credit. These are people that get a tax cut that don’t even pay income taxes! Ostensibly aimed at the poor, but the program has expanded so much that people in the thirty, thirty-five thousand income bracket can access it now." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / May 25 Middle-Class Benefits]

REALITY: Federal Student Loans are anything but a "giveaway" program. An October, 2000, announcement by the US Department of Education noted that the default rate for the federal Student Loan Program fell to an all-time low of 6.9% in fiscal year 1998. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/defaultmanagement/defaultrates.html And preliminary statistics cited by the General Accounting Office indicate that the default rate fell even further in FY 1999, to between 6.6% and 6.7%. http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?recflag=&accno=577086&rptno=GAO-01-68

In addition, the government actively pursues student loan defaulters to repay their loans, which conceivably makes the program’s dollar loss rate even lower than the default rate: …the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 permits the Department to garnish up to 15% of disposable pay. Garnishment may continue until the entire balance of the outstanding loan is paid. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/DCS/defaul/awg/index.html

And what about all those families with $35,000 incomes receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) benefit? Wrong again. According to the IRS, the maximum qualifying household income for EITC is $31,152. http://www.irs.gov/plain/tax_edu/teletax/tc601.html

Rush Limbaugh: check the number of lies he gets away with.

May 25, 2001

RUSH: To bolster his own theory that Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords really decided to leave the Republican Party for petty, self-aggrandizing, personal reasons, Rush addressed one of Jeffords’ publicly announced motives: that the Bush Administration was shortchanging federal education funding.

"Public education today is hurting, and it’s hurting badly. About 95% of all money spent on public education comes from States and localities, and the federal government share is quite small. The notion that if the federal government would only pour more federal tax dollars into the existing education system, or any failing system, would improve education is a prescription for failure and a prescription for waste." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / May 25 Education Funding]

REALITY: The federal government spends three times as much on education as Rush claimed. According to the US Department of Education, the total amount spent in the United States on all levels of education (elementary through post-secondary) in fiscal year 1999 was $618.6 billion. Of that amount, federal spending for State and local educational programs totaled $52.3 billion (8.5% of total US spending). http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget01/BudgetSumm/apndx-1.html

But that’s not all. Fiscal year 1999 expenditures under the Federal Student Loan Program, which are not included in the $52.3 billion but are included in the $618.6 billion total figure, came to $42.9 billion, according to the US General Accounting Office. http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?recflag=&accno=577086&rptno=GAO-01-68

Therefore, $52.3 billion plus $42.9 billion results in total federal education expenditures of $95.2 billion, or over 15% of the total $618.6 billion spent on education in the US—three times what Rush claimed.

Rush Limbaugh: five will get you fifteen he’s wrong.

May 17, 2001

RUSH: Reading a newspaper account of recent nighttime attacks in Southern California by unidentified vandals who shot out the windows of dozens of vehicles (most of them SUVs), Rush instinctively grasped what the local police missed.

"Glendora police detective Jamie Caldwell, searching for clues for who is responsible for more than 60 smashed windows—he simply hypothesizes that the shooters are not some ideological group bent on the destruction of annoying large vehicles. Instead, he said, ‘I suspect they’re the vehicle of choice because their windows present a large target.’ That’s a crock. You know what, I would wager it’s the opposite. I would wager that this is a splinter group, like Earth First, that went out spiking trees with nails, or worse. But I wouldn’t be surprised if this is some branch, a wacko branch, of an already wacked-out environmental group." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / May 17 SUV Attack 1]

The motive for this SUV assault was abundantly clear to Rush. "And they’ve been listening to all this talk about how the SUV is destroying America, and so this is how they’re getting even with the selfish owners of these cars. It’s just a big target? Please! Windows in standard automobiles are not that much smaller than a window in an SUV. When they’re targeting SUVs there’s a reason for it, and it’s silly to deny it, and this was predictable." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / May 17 SUV Attack 2]

REALITY: On May 31, the culprits in the Glendora automobile window attacks, all local youths, were arrested. As the police suspected, the vandalism was not politically motivated. The San Gabriel Valley Tribune recounts: Four people were arrested Thursday in connection with a May shooting spree that left more than 250 vehicles—mostly sport utility vehicles—with broken windows….The motive? Kicks. "They said they shot one out and because it made a neat sound, they continued," said Glendora Lt. Rob Castro. He said the group went for SUVs because their large windows made an easy target. Brian Ashby, 20; Amanda Dakai, 25; John Chairamonte, 19; and Rebecca Johnston, 20, were booked on suspicion of felony vandalism. Chairamonte lives in Covina; the rest are from Glendora. http://www.sgvtribune.com/S-ASP-Bin/Ref/Index.asp?PUID=1498&Indx=903873

Rush Limbaugh: sleuth.

May 14, 2001

RUSH: Reports that the Senate might reduce the top marginal tax rate to only 36% instead of the Bush Administration’s target of 33% led Rush to reflect on why, in our misguided society, the rich suffer so needlessly. He found the answer lay in the massive tax cuts of the Reagan years, and in a misinformed populace that actually expected those cuts to "trickle-down." (How on earth could they have gotten such a ludicrous idea?)

"The rich got their tax cut, as did everybody else, but they didn’t give money away, because it never happens—other than charitable cases. The poor are always poor, by definition. I mean, there’s always a group of poor. Even if people move out of the group, and move up to the middle class, there’s always the same percentage of the population who’s poor. It is a fluctuating group of people, it’s not the same group of people, but you can always point to it as the same size. So the people of this country are under the impression that the 80’s was a lie." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / May 14 The Poor]

REALITY: Is Rush right? Is poverty constant? Are social programs designed to raise people out of poverty a waste of money because a constant segment of the population is condemned to existence as a permanent underclass?

Of course not. The percentage of Americans living in poverty is not "always the same." According to the US Census Bureau, in the forty-year period 1959-1999, the percentage of Americans living in poverty fell by 50%. In 1959 24% of the US lived in poverty. By 1999, that rate had dropped to 11.8%.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/img/incpov99/fig04.gif

Rush Limbaugh: constant.

May 11, 2001

RUSH: Peeved that a national poll found a majority of Americans favor conservation over increased oil production as the solution to rising gasoline prices, Rush tried to set the record straight.

"I don’t understand where—how we’ve gotten to the point that the people of this country are against the production of additional energy! They certainly have got no problem using energy. The people of this country have no quarrel using gasoline, using electricity, so why in the world do they oppose producing more of it? And the only thing I can think of is, that they have successfully been scared to death by the environmentalist wackos and the liberal Democrats who want us to believe that creating and discovering and producing more energy pollutes! Which is a crock!" [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / May 11 Pollution Crock]

REALITY: Are the environmentalist wackos and liberal Democrats right? Does finding and producing oil lead to pollution? Well, it’s not easy finding examples of oil drilling or oil production-related pollution. You literally have to go back weeks (March 15^th) to find a major example (CNN): The world's largest offshore oil platform sank in just a few minutes Tuesday, five days after powerful blasts rocked the rig and killed 10 people. Petrobras has confirmed the platform has started to spill oil in waters north of Rio de Janeiro state. http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/americas/03/20/brazil.rig.04/index.html

CNN also chronicled this disaster, last July: Brazil is struggling to contain a spreading environmental disaster after more than 1 million gallons (3.8 million liters) of crude oil spewed into a tributary of the Iguacu River, endangering drinking water, farmland and animal life along a 140-mile (224-km) stretch. Parana state officials said the leak on Sunday into the Barigui River, at a refinery operated by state-owned oil giant Petrobras, constituted the worst river contamination ever in Brazil. http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/07/18/brazil.oil.spill.02/index.html

Closer to home (EPA): On March 28, 1993, a rupture occurred in an oil pipeline in Fairfax County Virginia, sending a 100-foot plume of fuel oil into the air. The high-pressure pipeline, owned by the Colonial Pipeline Company, released over 400,000 gallons of oil to the environment before it could be shut down and fully drained. The rupture resulted in one of the largest inland oil spills in recent history, the oil affected nine miles of the nearby Sugarland Run Creek as well as the Potomac River. http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/colonial.htm

And, of course (EPA): Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling more than 11 million gallons of crude oil. The spill was the largest in U.S. history…..Through direct contact with oil or because of a loss of food resources, many birds and mammals died. http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/exxon.htm

Rush Limbaugh: Crock and bull.

May 11, 2001

RUSH: Listeners to Rush are familiar with his practice of fabricating on-air conversations with real or imaginary foils to make a point. He used this technique to justify deployment of a US missile defense system, an act which violates the 1972 ABM Treaty with the Soviet Union.

"Why are we dealing with a treaty with a country that no longer exists! I have to laugh when I listen to these namby-pamby little sissy Liberals sit up here—

(Rush in a mocking, prissy voice): 'We have the SALT II, we have the ABM Treaty, we can't violate the treaty—'

"It doesn't apply! There is no country anymore that's a party to the treaty!"

(Prissy voice): 'But we still signed it—'

"But it's not—it's null and void, you idiots!" [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / May 11 ABM Treaty]

REALITY: In 1992, shortly after the demise of the Soviet Union, Bush Administration Secretary of State James Baker set the tone for US policy towards the States of the former Soviet Union. From the Washington Post: At a joint press conference on Jan. 29, 1992, following a meeting with President Yeltsin, Secretary of State James Baker stated: "I made the point to President Yeltsin that the United States remains committed to the ABM Treaty . . . [W]e expect the states of the commonwealth to abide by all of the international treaties and obligations that were entered into by the former Soviet Union, including the ABM Treaty." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-09/04/011l-090400-idx.html

The Clinton Administration formalized Baker's policy towards the former Soviet Union. A State Department Bureau of Arms Control press release noted the signing of an agreement on September 26, 1997, between the US and the States of the former Soviet Union: The second set of agreements signed today in New York relate to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and theater ballistic missile defenses (TMD). These agreements will ensure the viability of the ABM Treaty, a cornerstone of strategic stability for over twenty-five years, by clarifying the line between strategic and theater ballistic missile defenses and by settling the ABM Treaty succession issue following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Specifically, Secretary Albright and Foreign Ministers Primakov, Antonovich, Tokayev, and Udovenko, of the Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, respectively, signed a Memorandum of Understanding providing for succession to the ABM Treaty by those four states of the former Soviet Union http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/factsheets/wmd/nuclear/start2/abmtmd.html

The language from that ABM Treaty Memorandum of Understanding: Article II: The USSR Successor States shall assume the rights and obligations of the former USSR under the Treaty and its associated documents. http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/factsheets/missdef/abm_mou.html

Rush Limbaugh: exposing idiocy, again.

APRIL 27, 2001

RUSH: A Democratic Party TV ad criticizing George W. Bush's decision to rescind a Clinton-era EPA decision to revise standards for arsenic in drinking water (from 50 parts per billion to 10 ppb) appalled Rush (a reliable sign the ad was effective).

"At no point in this debate, by the way, was it ever seriously discussed that these levels that we’re talking about are harmful, or deadly. At no point! It’s only been a matter of economics, it has never been a matter of health. The Democrats have turned this into a matter of health because this is all they’ve got! This is what they’ve decided is their main angle of approach, which is what they’ve been doing since Bill Clinton lost Congress for them in 1994. Fear-mongering. Lying. Demagoguery. Distortion left and right. That’s all this is. There is no substance whatsoever to any of these claims that the arsenic levels that Bush has allowed to stand are in any way harmful!" [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / April 27 Harmless Arsenic]

REALITY: Here's the EPA's opinion: Studies have linked long-term exposure to arsenic in drinking water to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate. Non-cancer effects of ingesting arsenic include cardiovascular, pulmonary, immunological, neurological, and endocrine (e.g., diabetes) effects…The current standard of 50 ppb was set by EPA in 1975, based on a Public Health Service standard originally established in 1942. A March 1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the current standard does not achieve EPA's goal of protecting public health and should be lowered as soon as possible. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/ars_rule_factsheet.html

Rush Limbaugh: arsenic and old lies.

April 26, 2001

RUSH: Still focusing on the claim by House Minority Leader Dick Gephart that a friend of his, who made $2 billion during the last decade, actually favored government spending on social programs over a tax cut, Rush was forced to reveal a dirty little secret.

"If he wants people in the middle class to have more money, this guy knows damn well that they're going to be a lot better off if he gives it to them directly, as a gift or as a charitable contribution, than if it goes to the federal government where it's inefficient as hell. Twenty-eight cents out of every welfare dollar actually gets to a welfare recipient. The administrative cost is seventy-two cents! You donate a dollar to the federal welfare system, twenty-eight cents is going to get to wherever you intend it to go. Seventy-two cents gets absorbed in the bureaucracy. Undisputed figures! And this guy'll know that!" [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / Welfare Costs]

REALITY: The actual administrative cost for the federal welfare program is slightly below Rush's 72% figure. In fact, the federal government requires welfare administrative costs to be under 15%; the actual rate is even less.

The US Department of Health and Human Services is the agency in charge of the federal welfare program, which used to be called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). This federal agency provides the money the States use to run these welfare programs, and according to HHS's most recent statistics: Fiscal Year 1998 was the first full year that all states implemented the new welfare program now called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)….In FY 1998, state administrative expenditures amounted to $913 million, or 9 percent of total federal TANF expenditures---well below the TANF administrative cost limit of 15 percent. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/archives/fy1998.htm

Rush Limbaugh: America’s administrative burden.

April 26, 2001

RUSH: Rush had yet another bone to pick with House Minority Leader Dick Gephart’s alleged billionaire friend—the one who preferred government social spending over the Bush tax cut.

"If this guy has earned two billion over the last ten years, his tax cut in the first two years of the Bush ten-year plan is not going to matter at all. His overall rate reduction is going to go from 39.6 to 33, if that survives—it may not—it may go 39.6 to 35. But at the level of $2 billion, the amount of money he’s going to get, or save, pales in comparison to what he has. It would be the same thing as if you earned $10,000 and somebody gives you a tax cut of 3 bucks! You’re not going to think it’s any big deal. Well, a billionaire who gets a tax cut of a hundred thou—it’s not that big a deal—given what you can do with a billion versus what you can do with a hundred thousand. Now, to you who don’t have a hundred thousand, it’s a big deal. But not to somebody who’s got two billion! All things are relative here. So, I doubt that any billionaire wants this tax cut for the money, per se. Most billionaires—most wealthy people—want the tax cut because of moral reasons. They’re the ones who work for it, not the government. They don’t want to give it up on principle!" [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / Apr 26 Billionaire Taxes]

REALITY: While Rush made an admirable attempt to help us comprehend the exhausting moral struggle over taxes confronting the very rich, he wasn’t entirely accurate when it came to dollars and cents. In fact, he wasn’t even close.

Rush’s claim that "All things are relative here" when comparing billionaires to $10K a year people is true. And it’s arguable that $100,000 means as much to a billionaire as $3 to Mr. $10K. But what cannot be reconciled is Rush’s clear assertion that the proposed Bush tax cut for Dick Gephart’s "billionaire friend" will reduce his taxes by anything as paltry as $100,000.

This "billionaire" friend of Dick Gephart made $2 billion over ten years, or an average of $200 million a year. Even if Rush’s example had half that income, $100 million, and filed in the most beneficial category (married jointly), the tax savings under the Bush proposal (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001) dwarfs the $100,000 figure he suggested. Details provided by The Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation. http://www.house.gov/jct/x-3-01.pdf

Current taxes for (married filing jointly) income over $297,350 = $89,567 plus 39.6% of the amount over $297,350. The projected rate under the Bush plan for 2006: over $190,300 = $41,805 plus 33% of the amount over $190,300.

Doing the math: currently someone with $100 million income pays $39,571,816. Under the Bush plan (in 2006) $100 million income pays $32,979,006. Savings? Slightly more than Rush’s $100,000—almost $6.6 million.

Even in its very first year (2002), when the Bush tax plan only reduces the highest rate from 39.6% to 38%, the tax saving for someone with income of $100 million is over $1.6 million.

Rush Limbaugh: leave no billionaire behind.

April 25, 2001

RUSH: A report that some Senate Republicans may succeed in killing, for this year at least, a bill providing Medicare prescription drug benefits was welcome news to Rush.

"We hear about this free prescription drug plan as part of a Medicare benefit, but it isn’t free! Other people are paying for it! It’s like all of Medicare. Medicare is a gift! It’s not Social Security, folks. I know some of you seasoned citizens get angry about this, but it’s not like Social Security where people have had payments withheld from their paycheck—the idea that it’ll be reimbursed to them as they retire. This is strictly a transfer of wealth from one group to another." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / April 25 Free Medicare 1]

The thought of senior citizens having their prescriptions covered by Medicare at no cost was so abhorrent to Rush, he revisited the subject later in the same broadcast.

"This prescription drug thing came up as nothing more that a vote guid—ah, buyer, a vote-getter. That’s all it was! There’s no sense to it, because there are a whole lot of people who don’t need any assistance buying their prescription drugs, certainly not from people who don’t make very much money. When all of Medicare is a gift anyway! It isn’t like Social Security. Nothing is withheld from your paycheck from the time you start working for your Medicare account like Social Security. This is purely a transfer of wealth from certain people to others." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / April 25 Free Medicare 2]

REALITY: Medicare is not a gift. The web site for the US Department of Health and Human Services, which runs the Medicare program, describes the two parts to the program—Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (medical insurance), and notes that most people qualify for Part A benefits: …because they or a spouse paid Medicare taxes while they were working. Nor are Part B benefits freebies, either. The HHS Department also notes that people qualify for Part B benefits when: You pay the Medicare Part B premium of $50.00 per month. http://www.medicare.gov/basics/whatis.asp

It's a relief to know the elderly sick aren’t getting a free ride at taxpayer expense after all.

Rush Limbaugh: the gift that keeps on living.

April 20, 2001

RUSH: An email from a listener who accused him of insensitivity towards the environment made no sense to Rush. It mentioned something Rush never head of before—American rain forests, and that they were casualties of deforestation. Despite on-air suggestions from his production staff that American rain forests might exist in the Northwest, Rush wouldn’t buy it.

"Somebody tell me where the American jungle is, ’cause that’s what a rain forest is. Seriously now, Mike, HR, do you guys on the top of your head know where the---’cause he talks about ‘America has destroyed its rain forests.’ [Voices from control room…] Well, there’s not a jungle in Seattle! You need, you need tropical for a rain forest. A rain forest is a jungle, a rain forest is tropical, a rain forest is where the cure for AIDS is and all that!"

Rush continued deliberating with his staff, but remained unconvinced.

"Where is the American rain forest, the American jungle? Where was it, ’cause this guy says that we destroyed it. We gave back the Panama Canal. Chinese run that now. Um, maybe he’s talking about the Everglades. [Voices from control room…] No, it’s not Hawaii. We’re not destroying anything in Hawaii. We’re not destroying anything anywhere is, is, is the point."

REALITY: Not surprisingly, Rush was wrong on several counts. There are American rain forests---in Hawaii, Washington, and Alaska (and American Samoa, but that’s outside the 50 States, so we won’t count it).

The National Park Service’s Olympic National Park site explained: The temperate rain forest in the valleys of the Quinault, Queets, and Hoh rivers are protected and contain some of the most spectacular examples of undisturbed Sitka spruce/western hemlock forests in the lower 48 states. This ecosystem stretches along the Pacific Coast from Oregon to Alaska; other temperate rain forests are found in several isolated areas throughout the world. What defines a rain forest quite simply is rain--lots of it. Precipitation here ranges from 140 to 167 inches--12 to 14 feet--every year. http://www.nps.gov/olym/edurain.htm

From the NPS site for Kalaupapa National Historical Park, on the Hawaiian island of Molokai: The park contains habitats ranging from the ocean to the upland rain forest. http://www.nps.gov/kala/docs/resource.htm

From the NPS site for Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska: The only road in the park runs 10 miles between Bartlett Cove and Gustavus. Seven miles of trails wind along the beaches and through the rainforest in the Bartlett Cove area. http://www.nps.gov/glba/pphtml/basics.html

Nor was Rush’s assurance that "We’re not destroying anything anywhere" accurate, according to the non-profit Northwest ecology organization, Ecotrust. Displaying a map on its web site, it notes that almost half the rain forests in the Pacific Northwest has been lost to development: Forty-four percent (in red) has been developed; the remaining mature rain forest (in green) is mostly north of Vancouver Island. http://www.ecotrust.org/publications/rain_forests_atlas.html

Rush Limbaugh: suffering from jungle fibber.

April 20, 2001

RUSH: A thoughtful dittohead called Rush to warn him that a Chinese dust cloud had made its way half-way around the globe and was now hovering over the Eastern US. This led Rush to contemplate on the essence of air pollution.

RUSH: Now wait a minute, pollution doesn’t know borders. I mean, pollution doesn’t know, "Oooh, we are Chinese pollution, we stay here in China." Pollution doesn’t know those things. So pollution will travel according to, ah, the winds, and, ah, other meteorological elements, that have to do with its transportation.

CALLER: Right. Yup, that, that sounds good. I just wanted to let you know about that anyway.

RUSH: Well, what is your primary concern? Are you worried about the pollution—because you should be! China is a third world country. They produce far more pollution than we do!

CALLER: Um, the bottom line concern?

RUSH: That’s what I’m after. That’s exactly what I’m after.

CALLER: Bottom line concern is China’s nuclear testing. They do above-ground nuclear testing. Where’s the fallout gonna go to?

RUSH: Well, it’ll dissipate. [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / April 20 China Pollution]

REALITY: Well, pollution indeed knows no borders. But "it’ll dissipate?" Poor Rush. Imagine his dilemma. He’d love to bash China. But for nuclear testing? Then he’d be on the record as being anti-nuke! What’s a self-respecting wingnut to do? It’s almost enough to feel sorry for him. Almost.

The irony is, "it"---China’s nuclear fallout---won’t dissipate. Or do anything. Because there’s no Chinese nuclear fallout from above-ground nuclear testing. By saying China’s nuclear fallout will "dissipate," Rush was wrong.

China hasn’t conducted an above-ground nuclear test since July 1996.

Jane’s Defense Weekly, possibly the world’s most respected consultant on military armaments, noted on August 7, 1996: After conducting a nuclear test on 29 July, China became the last declared nuclear power to announce a moratorium on further testing. The declaration coincided with the resumption of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty talks in Geneva. http://www.janes.com/defence/news_briefs/jdw960807_09.shtml

There’s no indication China resumed nuclear testing during the last 18 months. Three years later (the latest search engine hit I could find on Chinese nuclear testing), the moratorium was holding (CNN October 25, 1999): China has pledged to maintain its moratorium on nuclear test explosions. http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/east/9910/24/china.france.02/index.html

Rush Limbaugh: stupidité sans frontieres

April 19, 2001

RUSH: When a caller wondered why Rush invariably dismissed scientific studies that exposed health and environmental dangers, he turned to his mistrust of so-called "junk science."

"That’s like saying we’re going to inject rats with 200 times the annual consumption of saccharin in one day, and if they get bladder cancer we’re going to ban saccharin from the mar—and that’s what they did—they gave a rat 200 times the annual human consumption in one day and the rat got bladder cancer! You can get bladder cancer with that much water! And then they banned saccharin from—and now, guess what’s legal again? Saccharin, because they found out it was bunk, and it was a worthless survey—worthless science." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / April 19 Saccharin Rats]

REALITY: The artificial sweetener saccharin was never banned in the US. It was never "illegal," so it isn’t "legal again." In 1977, the FDA proposed a ban but it was never implemented. The Calorie Control Council, a saccharin trade organization, recounts the sweetener’s battles over safety: In 1977, Congress passed a moratorium preventing an FDA-proposed saccharin ban. The moratorium has been extended seven times….In 1991, the FDA formally withdrew its 1977 proposal to ban the use of saccharin. http://www.saccharin.org/backgrounder.html

A 1987 FDA press release confirms: FDA's proposal called for a ban on saccharin as an additive in food, primarily diet sodas….However, a public outcry over the proposal motivated Congress to enact a law which prevented FDA from taking any action to ban saccharin. http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00296.html

I've been unsuccessful getting details on the 1997 Canadian study. However, two things suggest Rush’s assertion that rats in that experiment were given saccharin at a rate "200 times the annual human consumption in one day" is ludicrous.

First: a National Institutes of Health advisory panel, voting in 1997 to continue listing saccharin as an "anticipated" human carcinogen, advised that the vote came in part because: Several panel members said they were surprised to find the doses used in rats were not so extreme as they supposed, particularly when compared to possible consumption by children. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc////////news/advfri.html

Second: The FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition estimates the daily use of saccharin at 50 mg per person per day. http://www.eatright.org/adap0598.html [The ADA also notes that a 160 pound person can safely consume up to 360 mg per day].

The math: using that lower average rate, 50 mg per day over a year (50 x 365), results in an annual human saccharin consumption of 18,250 mg / yr. (or 18.25 grams / yr). Rush claimed the rat was given (in one day) 200 times the annual human consumption of saccharin, or 3,650 grams (200 x 18.25g). That equals a little over 8 pounds of saccharin given to (or injected into, as Rush described it) one rat in one day.

Ever hear of a rat that could ingest 8 pounds of anything in one day? (No fair saying Rush).

Rush Limbaugh: does he even give a rat’s ass about the truth?

April 18, 2001

RUSH: Opening a new front on his unending war against the liberal media conspiracy, Rush took us to school---and to the movies.

"The schoolroom in this country on energy and nuclear power is the movie theater. Erin Brockovitch---Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, Julia Roberts---The China Syndrome: those are the two great teachers. Those two movies have done more to misinform the American people about nuclear power, and it’s not being corrected in the real classroom because most of the teachers in these places are just extensions of the paranoid liberal left, who think nuclear power equals death. And had there not been this paranoia about nuclear power, there wouldn’t be an energy crisis in California. And, um, nuclear would not have been shut down. Those two movies did the trick." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / April 18 Erin Brockovitch]

REALITY: Pretty good trick! Sure, China Syndrome, the Jane Fonda-Michael Douglas movie about a near meltdown at a fictional nuclear power plant, may have been instructive to some, especially when its release eerily coincided with the real-life nuclear accident at Three Mile Island. But Erin Brockovitch?

Perhaps Rush can be forgiven for completely missing the Erin Brockovitch story-line. After all, it was a somewhat obscure picture, garnering only four major Academy Award nominations (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor).

Alas, Rush will have to find another "great teacher" to replace Erin Brockovitch (but the liberal media conspiracy being what it is, that should be a snap). The Julia Roberts movie, based on a true story about a class action lawsuit against California utility PG&E, did not carry an anti-nuclear message. It had nothing to do with nuclear power or nuclear waste or nuclear anything. As a segment on ABC TV's 20/20 noted, the culprit was: "… chromium, the chemical dumped in the water of Hinkley, Calif., by giant utility company PG&E…." http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000714_gmab_brockovich_feature.html

(Remember the negotiation scene when Erin offered the PG&E attorneys glasses of drinking water from Hinkley?)

Furthermore, the PG&E power plant in Hinkley, California is not a nuclear plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission lists all commercial nuclear power plants in the US [http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1350/V12/part11.html], and the Hinkley plant isn't on the list.

Rush Limbaugh: based on an untrue story.

April 13, 2001

RUSH: The apologetic tone of the Bush Administration’s April 11, 2001 letter to the Chinese government, which finally secured the release of the US spy plane crew, left a bitter aftertaste with one conservative caller, which in turn brought out the instinctive liar in Rush.

CALLER: "I think there was an element of weakness there that I felt was detected by the fact that, you know, they drafted this letter over several days—"

RUSH: "Now you—you—you—think—"

CALLER: "—we reacted, we’re ‘very sorry’—"

RUSH: "No! There wasn’t a ‘very sorry’ in there!"

The astonished caller, understandably bewildered by Rush’s denial of something so widely publicized as the inclusion of "very sorry" in the US letter to China, began stammering.

CALLER: "Well, the, uh, the, uh, he says, uh, we’re sorry about landing in your, on your air, uh, air strip. I wouldn’t have said any of that." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / April 13 Very Sorry]

REALITY: Even though the caller pointed out that the US letter indeed expressed sorrow for the spy plane’s unauthorized landing in China, Rush didn’t retract his blatant lie. Perhaps Rush’s contempt for dittohead intelligence has sunk so low he actually thought he could get away with denying that the US letter to the Chinese contained the words "very sorry." Or perhaps years of exaggerating and lying on behalf of his philosophical causes has become so instinctive that now it’s beyond control. Whatever the reason, it’s there.

As the entire world knows, the US letter to China that secured the release of the spy plane crew prominently used the term "very sorry" not once, but twice.

From CNN's complete text of the letter signed by US Ambassador to China Joseph Prueher: Both President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have expressed their sincere regret over your missing pilot and aircraft. Please convey to the Chinese people and to the family of pilot Wang Wei that we are very sorry for their loss….We are very sorry the entering of China's airspace and the landing did not have verbal clearance, but very pleased the crew landed safely. http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/11/prueher.letter.text/index.html

Rush Limbaugh: one sorry individual.

April 9, 2001

RUSH: In a valiant effort to help his listeners grasp, in easily understood, down-to-earth terms, the $28 trillion the Federal government will spend over the next ten years, Rush looked to the heavens.

"If you laid $28 trillion in $1 bills end-to-end, and placed them in the Earth's orbital track around the Sun, $28 trillion in $1 bills end-to-end would go around the Sun thirty times! Now we can't comprehend that. That's how much it is! $28 trillion on the Earth's orbital path, $1 bills end-to-end, would orbit the sun thirty times!" Rush crunched the numbers. Painfully. "Here's the way this is arrived at: $28 trillion times 6 1/4---that's the length of a $1 bill, 6 1/4 inches---which then equals 175 trillion feet. 175 trillion feet divided by 12 inches will give you the number of feet, which is about 14 trillion, 583 feet. Then you take that, divided by 5,280 to get miles. So 14.5 trillion feet divided by 5,280 is 2 trillion, 761 billion---I'm sorry, 2 billion, 761 million, 994 thousand, 949 statute miles---then you can convert that to kilometers if you want---the Earth's orbit is 149 million 600 thousand kilometers---that's the length of the orbit around the Sun. So, thirty times!" (no words were changed; that's what he actually said) [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / April 9 Earth Orbit]

REALITY: Now $28 trillion is a lot of money in any denomination, and 28 trillion one-dollar bills would cover a lot of distance laid end-to-end. But it wouldn't equal how far the Earth travels in 30 orbits around the Sun. Not even close.

To begin with, perhaps Rush should master the ruler before graduating to a calculator. The length of a dollar bill is not 6 1/4 inches. It's 6 1/8 inches. Check it out (it makes a difference when you're adding 28 trillion of them, although that's not why his numbers were off). Let's do the math:

28 trillion x 6 1/8 inches = 171,500,000,000,000 (171.5 trillion inches)

171.5 trillion inches / 12 inches = 14,291,666,666,666 (14.292 trillion feet)

Therefore, 28 trillion dollar bills laid end-to-end measures 14.292 trillion feet.

There are 5,280 feet in a mile (Rush got that right!), so dividing 14.292 trillion feet by 5,280 gives us the distance covered by 28 trillion dollar bills laid end-to-end: 2,706,755,050 miles (2.7 billion miles).

The Earth's orbital track around the Sun is approximately 583.4 million miles, according to Encarta: The approximate length of the earth's orbit is 938,900,000 km (583,400,000 mi) http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761569459&cid=3#p3

The length of 28 trillion dollar bills laid end-to-end (2.7 billion miles) divided by the length of the Earth's orbit (583.4 million miles) = 4.64 orbits. Not 30.

Rush Limbaugh: space oddity.

April 2, 2001

RUSH: Almost two days after a US reconnaissance aircraft with a crew of 24 was forced to land on a Chinese military airfield after a mid-air collision with a Chinese jet, Rush sorted out fiction from fact.

"Red China definitely flexing its muscles. It looks to me like these people do want another cold war, or maybe even worse! There is no reason for any of this. We’ve extended most favored nation status to these people, we’ve bent over back---we’ve sold them or given them every--- in fact, I wonder if whatever we gave them or sold them helped them shoot down or capture our guys? They’re using—I mean, the propaganda that the ChiComs are using is right out of the cold war handbook, here!" [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / April 2 Planes Collide 1]

Yes. He said the Chinese shot down our plane. And it wasn’t a slip, because just minutes later: "So we extend most favored nation status to ’em. When they come over here we give ’em tours of the military, we fly the Chinese flag in Washington DC, do all sorts of stuff just to show ’em we mean ’em no harm and what do they do? They shoot down a plane! And now they have American citizens captive! And who knows what---and another thing about communists, this you can take to the bank: they lie! All of communism is a lie! When a communist leader from China, when one of the ChiCom guys comes out and says whatever it is he says about this, it’s a lie!" [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / April 2 Planes Collide 2]

REALITY: There were no credible reports or assertions that the US plane was shot down. From one of the very first reports of the incident (CNN April 1), it’s clear both sides were agreed on one thing: A U.S. reconnaissance plane made an emergency landing in China on Sunday after colliding with a Chinese fighter sent to intercept it. U.S. officials said the EP-3 Aries II, a U.S. Navy electronic surveillance aircraft, was on a routine mission over international waters off China when the collision occurred about 9:15 a.m. (8:15 p.m. Saturday EST)….Chinese state television said the F-8 fighter jet involved in the collision crashed into the South China Sea off Hainan, and its pilot was missing. The collision appeared accidental, said Air Force Lt. Col. Dewey Ford, a spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/01/us.china.plane.02/index.html

Rush Limabugh: reminding us that the Chinese lie.

April 2, 2001

RUSH: With an American spy plane and crew detained by the Chinese government, it didn’t take long for Rush to work some Clinton-bashing into the equation. And some rocket science.

"Well, I look at what the Chinese have been doing ever since Clinton took office, and the things that they’re doing definitely appear to have aggression behind them, and the want to know how—they can’t, prior to Clinton and our relationship with Loral Space—they couldn’t get a rocket in orbit! They could launch it, but they couldn’t place it in orbit!" [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / April 2 China in Space]

REALITY: An April 25, 2000, article in Spacedaily.com chronicled China’s achievements in space, including its success in launching several satellites into orbit before Clinton took office:

Thirty years ago China launched its first satellite Dongfanghong-1…using a domestic launcher, the Changzheng-1 (CZ-1) rocket. The mission caught world attention and propelled China to become the fifth country to achieve independent launch capability….Launch of retrievable satellite, 26 November 1975. A CZ-2 rocket launched the retrievable satellite Fanhui Shi Weixing-01…into orbit with a successful recovery three days later….Launch of geostationary communications satellite, 8 April 1984. A CZ-3 rocket launched the experimental communications satellite DFH-2 enabled China to reach the space technology application phase in its space program. China became the fifth nation to have the capability to develop, manufacture and launch geostationary satellites….Launch of sunsynchronous meteorological satellite, 7 September 1988. A CZ-4 rocket launched meteorological satellite Fengyun-1….Launch of heavy-lift rocket, 14 August 1992. A CZ-2E rocket with strap-on boosters launched the Australian communications satellite Optus B1….the first commercial launch of Asiasat-1 comsat on 7 April 1990. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-00u.html

Rush Limbaugh: space junk.

March 30, 2001

RUSH: With Senate passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill appearing likely, Rush continued his dishonest assault on the legislation, repeating an old lie and adding a new one.

"It’s really hard to believe the Supreme Court is going to agree with that aspect of McCain-Feingold that says you cannot give to a cause you believe in. So if you can give to a cause, but if you cannot give to a party, then the Democrats are worried, because if the soft money ban is in place but you can give to a cause, then Democrats would be put at the mercy of independent groups that could launch attack ads against them while the parties would be helpless to fight back on their behalf---no First Amendment here---so while the Sierra Club can run all sorts of ads, or the National Right to Life Organization run all sorts of ads against their opponents, you’re not going to be allowed to contribute to the party anymore. You’re no longer going to give---if this ever passes muster in the Supreme Court---you’re never going to be able to give another dime to the Democratic or Republican parties, folks." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / March 30 ]

REALITY: More Rush disinformation.

As a previously cited Common Cause summary of McCain-Feingold explained, the bill permits: non-profit corporations to make electioneering communications as long as they use only individual contributions (not corporate or union funds) and make certain disclosures. http://commoncause.org/issue_agenda/summary012401.htm If "individual contributions" may be made to non-profits (e.g., Sierra Club or National Right to Life), then individual contributions are, by definition, permitted.

But Rush wasn’t done fabricating. In a transparent effort to scare Democrats into thinking that McCain-Feingold is bad for them, too, he suggested they won’t be able to fight back against well-funded issue ads because "you’re not going to be allowed to contribute to the party anymore." Untrue.

Not only are individuals still able to contribute to political parties under McCain-Feingold, their individual limits are increased. Again, from the Common Cause summary: McCain-Feingold…would also double the amount of "hard" money individuals may contribute to state parties for use in federal elections, from $5,000 to $10,000. It would increase the amount of "hard" money an individual may contribute in aggregate to all federal candidates, parties, and PACs in a single year from $25,000 to $30,000. http://commoncause.org/issue_agenda/summary012401.htm

From Section 102 of the McCain-Feingold bill:

INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR STATE COMMITTEES OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT FOR INDIVIDUALS.

(a) CONTRIBUTION LIMIT FOR STATE COMMITTEES OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 [2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)] is amended…by adding at the end the following:

(D) to a political committee established and maintained by a State committee of a political party in any calendar year which, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000.

(b) AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT FOR INDIVIDUALS

Section 315(a)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 [2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)] is amended by striking ``$25,000'' and inserting ``$30,000''.

Rush Limbaugh: counterfeit contributions.

March 26, 2001

RUSH: Every so often we’re treated to a Rush vs. Rush moment. A caller named John predicted that in time even Democrats would turn against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Rush agreed. "But the truth of the matter is, John, that a lot of Democrats who had expressed support for the McCain-Feingold bill are now fleeing because the Democrats’ collections in this last Presidential cycle, in the soft money side, outdid the Republicans. They actually contributed, ah, raised more soft money! So, they're re-thinking it now." Then, without skipping a beat, Rush turned the tables on his own argument. He continued: "Which proves another thing. That for those who support campaign finance reform, all it is, is really an attempt to punish the Republicans, because they happen to, at this point in time, be raising more money." [Listen to Rush: Files /Audio 2001 / March 26 Soft Money]

REALITY: Whether "a lot of Democrats are fleeing" McCain-Feingold is open to interpretation, especially since the terminology is vague and arguably not limited to elected Democrats (of whom relatively few have fled thus far). Also open to interpretation is Rush's assertion that Republicans are now being punished by McCain-Feingold because "at this point in time" (today? last year?) they're raising more soft money.

However, the amount of soft money raised by the two major parties in the last election cycle (1999-2000), and which party raised more, is less difficult to pin down. Against all odds, Rush was wrong: the Democrats did not raise more soft money in 1999-2000. The soft money trail, courtesy of Common Cause--- http://commoncause.org/publications/feb01/020701st.htm

Total Democratic Soft Money	$ 219,343,172
Total Republican Soft Money	$ 243,780,583
Overall Soft Money Total	$ 463,123,755

Rush Limbaugh: a little soft himself.

UPDATE: AGAIN (for the second day in a row), Rush changed his story. This time on whether the Democrats have raised more "soft money" than Repubilcans. On March 26, as we know, Rush said Democrats raised more soft money during 1999-2000. On March 29th, Rush said the following (but not as a retraction for his earlier misstatement):

"The Democrats don’t want it now because their soft money and hard money collections, or donations, are rapidly catching up to the Republicans. They only claim to want campaign finance reform when they were being out-raised by the Republicans. But now they’re getting close!" [Listen to Rush: Files/ Audio 2001/ Mar 29 Soft Money Update]

March 26, 2001

RUSH: