

No Rush!


400 Million dollars?  Did you see that headline?  Rush Limbaugh is being paid 400 million dollars over the next 8 years by ClearChannel to continue to blather on talk radio.

Lets pretend that you think he is the best thing on radio.  Lets pretend that you even can agree with anything that he says.  I know, its hard to pretend that much, but think of it like imagining you are an alien monster or something.

Now, you are pretending, right?  He is your guy.

Now say to yourself, “Is he worth 400 million dollars?”  

Rush is about Rush.  If you listen to him, then you give ClearChannel the ability to sell enough ads to pay him 400 million dollars.  If you shut him off, maybe his voice will still be on the air, a constitutionally protected right, but he might see what its like to live like mere mortals on, say, a teacher’s salary?  

Think his blather would change?

Categories: General
Philip Morris

12 Responses

  1. Mark says:

    Since various levels of government will be sharing the over 200 million dollars he will pay in taxes, I say “good for him”.

  2. Sam says:

    People listen to Rush, like it or not. Obviously he’s generated some serious sales in the past 10 years – or else ClearChannel wouldn’t be paying him what they think he’s worth.

    Like it or not, there’s still a strong republican/conservative base in the US – he happens to be one strong voice in that base. Sean Hannity is another – he keeps getting multi-million dollar deals also.

    Maybe it’s time for the Democrats to wake up – they’ve got the lowest approval rating of ANY Congress – and the House Speaker, Pelosi, is even lower than that! But all you liberals can do is say that “Bush’s popularity is in the tubes”. It’s time you stop throwing rocks from your glass houses. Maybe put everyday American’s on stage instead of making back room, off stage deals, eh Mr Morris?

  3. I sure hope you are right! I just have this feeling Rush has the kind of tax advice that might make his bill way lower than you might think.

  4. Andrew says:

    A person who runs an enterprise that would probably not exist without substantial public funding and private charity, complaining about the amount of money being paid to someone by a private company?

    That’s pretty amusing.

    If Proctors had to exist in a purely competitive and subsidy free environment, like Limbaugh does, how long would it last?

  5. La vida loca says:

    I have no patience for self-entitled talking heads who trade in hate and bigotry and their supporters, such as above. Ask Rush why he didn’t serve in the army. Ask Rush if he ever worked an honest day in his life or got fat and pampered from his daddy’s newspaper empire. He’s more of an elitist than any rich Dem the Bush-lickers can ever point to.

  6. Andrew, you need to know that Proctors earns over 85% of its annual operations through sales. While private charity makes up the most of the remaining 15%, one could argue that attracting that support is as competitive as any other kind of private sector sale as there are many options for people’s charity. We work hard to deliver to our donors what we promise for their philanthropy.

    Also, is there such a thing as a “purely competitive and subsidy free environment?” Are you sure that Rush earns over 85% of his income without the subsidy of airwaves, corporate tax structures and near monopoly practices?

    Finally, my point really was not what he earns, but how what he earns affects what he says. I hold no double standard here, I thnk Obama should accept public funding, too.

  7. Andrew says:

    Thanks for the reply Philip. A few thoughts…

    You write: “my point really was not what he earns, but how what he earns affects what he says.”

    And your evidence for this is? I am not an expert on Limbaugh’s career but didn’t he begin his show in Sacramento, CA? Was he doing a liberal show then or a conservative show? I’m guessing he was doing essentially the same show as he is now. I am also going to guess he wasn’t making much, if any, more than a teacher was at the time.

    Despite what you seem to think, economics is usually not the determining factor in many people’s lives (at least when it comes to ideology or values). Perhaps you can commiserate with Thomas Frank and Senator Obama about that.

    Believe it or not, there are conservatives who are not among the super-wealthy (or even the wealthy at all), just as there are extremely wealthy liberals (as I am sure you are keenly aware).

    In your original post you asked, “Now say to yourself, “Is he worth 400 million dollars?”

    It’s an irrelevant question, it’s not my 400 million dollars nor is it yours. He’s worth to me exactly what I pay for him…zero. To the people who run Clear Channel however he is worth every penny in their estimation and that’s all that counts. Trust me, they will be making more than that.

    What difference does it make to you? He’s only worth that because he provides a service a lot of people apparently like. What’s wrong with that? My guess is you don’t really care about the money but don’t like the fact a lot of people apparently like his message.

    Since his show generates a huge amount of money, shouldn’t he get whatever they will pay him for it or would you rather the company keep most of it? Those are pretty much the two choices. Unless of course you don’t think he should be allowed on the air. You surely don’t think that, do you?

    I think a lot of people are overpaid, movie stars, singers and pro athletes come to mind. I also think a lot of people are underpaid, firemen, policemen and me to name just three. Alas, no one’s personal preferences play no role in setting the wage market.

    There are a lot of people who do low or average paying jobs, that’s why they pay little or average amounts. However, there are very few who can create and retain an audience the size of Limbaugh’s and generate such a large return on investment. Salaries are not meant to reflect the value of a job to society but rather the price necessary to get someone qualified to do the job, it’s simple supply and demand.

    My point in making the comments about Proctors is that unlike Limbaugh, it can’t generate enough money to break even, let alone generate a profit, simply by selling tickets, advertising or other self contained revenue streams like a for- profit business. Considering that, why exactly are you in a position to complain about what a private enterprise does?

    As for your other points…


    Pretty much, yeah. The reason I say that is Rush’s income isn’t directly tied to raising revenue. He gets paid by the Clear Channel which syndicates his show. Their ability to raise advertising money may be affected by those things but that’s their problem, not his. They are taking a risk in signing this contract. Of course the same could be said of anyone in business, so why single Limbaugh out?

    BTW-”the subsidy of airwaves”? Yes, the airwaves are a public resource but there’s no monetary subsidy to him or to any other broadcaster. Are you really arguing that every radio and TV star from Milton Berle to Jerry Seinfeld has been the recipient of a ‘subsidy’? I don’t think I’ve ever heard that case made before.

    A more accurate example of a subsidy would be broadcasters like NPR, PBS or someone like Bill Moyers, you know people who receive actual government funding (though I grant, it’s usually not a large percentage of their budget. Still it’s more than any commercial broadcaster gets).

    While it’s great “that Proctors earns over 85% of its annual operations through sales” that’s still, you know 15% short.

    Also, what about non-operating expenses like capital improvements? A quick Google search shows some pretty substantial public money going to Proctors from the state and the Metroplex authority.

    How exactly does someone who runs a non-profit that advertises that donations are tax deductible complain about “corporate tax structures”? I’m not an expert but I imagine that Proctors ‘non-profit’ status ensure a ‘tax structure’ far more generous than anything corporations can avail themselves of.

    And what exactly are the ‘near monopoly practices’ you refer to? Yes, Clear Channel owns a lot of stations that Limbaugh appears on but nobody forces people to listen. Many have tried to go after Limbaugh (Air America and Bill O’Reilly come to mind, though they attacked from different perspectives) and they’ve failed. That’s life in the big city.

    Do you think for one minute that if Clear Channel could make more money off running a liberal talk show they wouldn’t drop Limbaugh in a minute?

    And finally you write, “I hold no double standard here, I thnk Obama should accept public funding, too.

    Sorry, but I have no idea what Obama’s decision to renege on his commitment to public financing for his presidential campaign has to do with Rush Limbaugh and his compensation package.

  8. Sam says:

    Do you really think we believe those statistics? (85% through operations and 15% thru “charity”)? You’ve received millions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize Proctors – what percentage is that? Your fuzzy math doesn’t add up.

    The $22,400,000 expansion and conversion to a year round performing arts center is supported by a $9,500,000 grant from Metroplex

    A $170,000 “Facade” page that included $125,000 in GRANTS while only contributing $35,000 towards the project yourself.

    Taxpayer funding of your parking facilities.

    The list goes on Mr Morris … if you had to subsidize those with your own revenues, you’d be out of business faster than the State Theater. Your 85%/15% scenario is typical liberal democratic number padding. Tell the residents/visitors the real truth – Proctors, built on the backs of taxpayers.

  9. La vida loca says:

    I rest my case. Every T-U blog seems to be taken over by right wing cyberbullies who think “liberal” is a dirty word. You are all pathetic people.

  10. Sam says:

    Just because someone asks questions, that makes them a “cyberbully” ??

    Mr Morris stated a fact, as he believed it. Two people posting comments questioned those facts and he refuses to answer, instead burying it behind other posts. That doesn’t make us bullies, it makes Morris a coward.

  11. Excuse me, Sam. You have changed the subject from the blog to Proctors. Just the inaccuracy, which I am certain you fully know you wrote, “taxpayer funding of your parking facilities,” made it clear to me you were not trying to engage in a conversation. I decided to not proceed publicly. This is a now a accusational debate you might enjoy, but I don’t think many others will.

  12. I?NY says:

    I enjoyed it!