Limbaugh v. Obama

By Jennifer J. Foster

Published: January 29, 2009

You might have heard about the incident last week when GOP ubertalker Rush Limbaugh told the world he wants President Obama to “fail.“

There was context, of course, but due to all the outrage over the suggestion that one of America’s most high-profile Republicans would publicly call for the new president to fail, you might have missed it. If so, you can read where I covered it here.

Well, Obama shot back that he thought Republicans would do themselves a favor by not listening to Limbaugh.

You can imagine what El Rushbo thought about that.

Now Limbaugh is taking a new tack with an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. In it, he calls Obama to task for the massive spending that has made it into the federal stimulus bill—massive spending, Limbaugh says, that will do little to nothing to stimulate the economy.

Here’s where things get interesting.

Limbaugh issues a challenge to Obama—in the spirit of bipartisanship, of course:

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 ...

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.

Such an arrangement, Limbaugh says, “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.“

Then Rush strikes a surprisingly conciliatory tone:

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.

So far, no takers on the Hill—or on Pennsylvania Avenue.

What do you think of this? Do you find merit in Limbaugh’s proposal?