That's what hit me as well. I haven't seen the actual wording of Limbaugh's plan, but he'd have to mean $46 billion in relief; not additional spending.
I think Rush means $460 billion in non-revenue neutral tax relief, which the Dems consider to be "spending" which must be paid for somewhere else.
OK, I'll buy that. But not accepting revenue is not "spending", it's acceptable lower income. It's the use of the term "spending" I have a problem with.
The Dems being Dems, they have little clue about such things (at least most of them). So to have a shortfall in income being considered a "spending" increase by them is believable.