Return to Transcripts main page

GLENN BECK

Stimulus Plan Bad Idea?; Mexican Lawmakers Object to Tough Arizona Law; Jason Elam Book Blends Sports, National Security

Aired January 24, 2008 - 19:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, Congress and the White House have reached a deal on a stimulus plan. I`ll tell you why this is bad for the economy, and bad for America`s future.

Plus, illegal immigrants continue to swarm into the U.S. But now, Mexican lawmakers are protesting an American law that penalizes American companies that hire illegals. Our sovereignty is at risk again.

And why is John Edwards still hanging around? I mean, really. He`s running a distant third to Hillary and Obama. Does he really think he can play the spoiler? You`ll find out.

All this and more, tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Well, hello, America.

Once again, our politicians have shown that needlessly spending billions more of your tax dollars has a bipartisan appeal. They can come together on spending your cash.

Congressional leaders in the House compromised today on an economic stimulus package that includes $100 billion in tax rebates, if you make less than $75,000 a year. Other than that, you`re rich. Along with $50 billion in temporary business tax write-offs.

Here`s "The Point" tonight. For once, I really wish our do-nothing Congress would have actually lived up to their name. Your children`s future is much, much worse off tonight. And here is how I got there.

Well, everybody likes to say, "Oh, compromise, that`s a great thing." I say it sucks, because it means both sides lose. You want to compromise on stuff that really doesn`t matter, that`s fine. But when it comes to bedrock principles and values, you should never back down.

Then again, does anyone know what values these parties stand for anymore? I used to think that Republicans stood for smaller government and free markets, but that`s almost laughable now. Under this package, the people who paid no income tax will get full, as they like to call them, rebates. My grandfather would have called them what they really are, handouts. And he, by the way, was a Democrat. While all the upper income, highly taxed families get nothing.

Welcome to the new Republican America.

The package gets even worse, if you`re a fan of free markets, because it allows government-chartered lenders like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to double the size, or almost, of the loans they`re allowed to buy. Never mind that those companies may have over $16 billion in bad loans already on their books, which are your books. Why not just pile billions more on and leave you, the taxpayer, on the hook for it?

The result of this is a steaming pile of garbage dressed up as an incentive package that will bring nothing but larger deficits and a longer recession. Wait a minute. I just used the "D" word. Deficit, deficit. Where I have heard that deficit? Oh, I remember it was from the Congressional Budget Office, which just announced yesterday that the 2008 deficit is expected to grow to $250 billion, and that is without the stimulus package or a recession factored in.

Funny how all those Democratic budget hawks who have been blasting away at George W. Bush for his out-of-control spending were not only quiet today; they were leading the charge to spend your money.

Stop kidding yourself, America. We are in this mess because of massive overspending. You`re spending too much at home; I`m spending too much at home; and they`re way too much in Washington. And you just don`t get out of that by spending more.

So, tonight, here`s what you need to know. It comes directly from a guy I don`t think I`ve ever agreed with politically but who I respect on the economy. His name is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, NEW YORK MAYOR: Now, we can`t borrow our ways out of this problem. The jig is up. It`s time to start getting our house in order, once and for all, which I believe starts with a simple idea. Making decisions based on the business cycle, instead of the election calendar.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Whoa. What a concept. Why is it only real business people seem to get it? Free markets create wealth. Governments destroy it. Look around the world if you want proof. Twenty percent of the countries that have the most economic freedom have five times more wealth per person than the bottom 20 percent. If you really believe that`s a coincidence, then perhaps you could move to Washington, because I think you`d fit right in.

Amity Shlaes, she is a syndicated columnist for Bloomberg and author of "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression," which is a must-read for everybody. And Stephen Moore, the senior economic writer for "The Wall Street Journal."

I bet both of you make over $75,000 a year. You rich, rich people.

Stephen, where does this bill go right? This is a nightmare.

STEPHEN MOORE, SENIOR ECONOMIC WRITER, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": It is a bit of a nightmare. You know, you mentioned the problem of people over $75,000 not getting a tax rebate. The way this program works is, the more you work and the more that you earn and the more you pay in taxes, Glenn, the less you get back. I mean, where is the economic logic in that?

The tax rebates is a silly idea, as you mentioned. All it`s going to do is increase the budget deficit. It`s almost like saying, you know, I`m going to go on a diet this year, but the first thing I`m going to do is eat a big hot fudge sundae. And then I`m going to go on a diet, you know. It`s going to blow a hole in the budget.

The one thing that is good about this package is the -- is the business tax cuts. You know, if you want to have to have jobs and you want to have recovery...

BECK: But they`re temporary.

MOORE: Yes, they`re temporary. I don`t like that. But if you want to have jobs, you`ve got to put more incentive for businesses to invest. I think that`s the one silver lining here.

BECK: OK. Amity, your book is on the new history of the Great Depression. And you can just see the signs of where government screws up every single time, after you read -- after you read your book.

These are the kinds of things that just make things worse. It`s what -- when FDR got into office, he just made the Depression last ten years where it was over rather rapidly in the rest of the world.

AMITY SHLAES, AUTHOR, "THE FORGOTTEN MAN": That`s right. But when I think of this package, actually, though, I like the Bush administration. I do think of Herbert Hoover, which is this hand-tending, trying to fix a little bit, fussing around, doing small measures that aren`t really growth- oriented, at a time when -- what I see, Glenn, in this package is an opportunity squandered.

We need to have much bigger steps to make the U.S. economy be strong over the long run. And instead, we are spending all this political capital on fun and silly stuff. Maybe we`ll even over-stimulate. Look at the gold price today. Maybe there`s inflation.

The packages -- it isn`t so terrible as it is a real waste of political capital on the part of Washington, especially, the Bush administration.

BECK: Hang on. Stephen, here`s the part I think is a real nightmare. You`ve got Chris Dodd coming in and talking about a whole new program now to take on even more loans. These are all bad loans. Who`s going to pay for those loans?

MOORE: Yes, that`s just where I was going with this. We haven`t talked about the housing component. It`s, you know, I call this Uncle Sam subprime lender. Because what we`re going to do in this package, now that all the banks have finally smartened up and said, you know, "Maybe we shouldn`t be making these -- these loans to people who can`t repay them, who don`t have good credit ratings, who can`t make a down payment."

And now under this package what`s going to happen is the Federal Housing Administration, which is insured by you and me, Glenn, and Amity, we`re now going to be the subprime lenders. And you`re going to have another catastrophe in housing. But now, it`s not going to be the banks that are going to be losing money; it`s going to be the U.S. taxpayer.

BECK: You know, what kills me is this -- this whole thing is so unbelievably dishonest. This whole debate. They were talking about food stamp programs. That`s not -- that`s an argument on poverty. Not the economy.

Amity, you just got back from the Middle East. What is the rest of the world, they must be looking at us, saying, these guys are out of control.

SHLAES: Well, right now, their business cycles are lined up with our business cycle. So they`re paying a lot of attention. And I think it`s a time for us to show them that we can do the bigger things.

Steve identified it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that`s a big problem. Are they private? Are they public? Let`s nationalize them or privatize them. That`s the kind of problem that could lead to a real depression. Instead, we`re extending them with these higher-end loans, as part of the stimulus package.

So, the bigger issues that really do put the economy at risk are not being addressed. Instead, they`re handing out cupcakes.

BECK: Yes. Stephen, I don`t know if you saw in "The New York Times," but Hillary Clinton revealed herself today as a spooky socialist, where she was talking about all the things that she wants to do, and she wants massive control on the markets and bigger, stronger government.

MOORE: Yes. And this is my point. I mean, Hillary Clinton, this wasn`t yesterday, but a few months ago, she said America can`t afford all my ideas. And finally, she said something truthful. And we cannot afford all her ideas. But here`s the thing.

I mean, Amity was talking about these foreign countries. The one thing that`s going around the world is the flat tax.

BECK: I know.

MOORE: All these countries are cutting taxes to become more competitive. I really think if these guys were serious about helping the economy -- and Amity`s written about this -- why don`t we just put in place a simple flat tax, get rid of all the tax lobbyists, have a pro-investment approach? That`s a stimulus.

BECK: OK, Guys, thanks a lot. Now, we`ve got to move on. We just told you what our government is planning to do to stimulate the economy, but are we at the point of more return? Is it too little too late? All the answers in tonight`s "Real Story," in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, our government thinks the solution for an economic crisis is to cut each taxpayer a check for $600. I`m sorry. When I say each taxpayer, I mean those who make less than $75,000 a year, and if you`ve paid no tax, you`re first in line.

They couldn`t be more wrong, and I`ll tell you exactly why this stimulus package is nothing but a government handout, coming up in just a second.

But first, brace yourselves for this next story. It`s almost too shocking to believe. We even had trouble finding a guest on this to talk about it, because the story is getting such little attention. It`s almost unknown by most Arizona lawmakers, and it`s happening in Arizona.

Arizona, the border state, passed a new law that took effect January 1. It punishes employers who knowingly hire immigrants who are here illegally, don`t have valid legal documents to work here in the United States. Amen, hallelujah. How long have we been asking for it?

Well, it`s a great law. I really like it. But apparently, not everybody does. Nine people from Mexico, legislators from Mexico, they traveled to Arizona this week to protest our law, saying that it will have a devastating effect on Mexico. The reality is, the second-largest revenue stream for the nation of Mexico is money sent home by Mexicans living and working here in the United States.

These officials also made the point their country just cannot handle the demand for housing and jobs and schools that it will face if all the illegal Mexican workers are forced to return home.

Hang on. Let me try to pull myself together. Mexico, on behalf of the United States of America -- and I`m only one guy, but let me just say, I don`t give a flying crap. How dare you come into our country and tell us which laws we shouldn`t enforce? Because criminals are helping keep your nation, which has failed, afloat.

This is America, not Mex-America. Yet. I`d prefer you keep your two- pesos worth of opinions to yourself. Get your own casa in order and stop feeding off us like a leech.

Oh, and just to make matters worse, America. When Mexican legislators made their statements to the Arizona press, they did so in Spanish. All warm and fuzzy inside.

Ben Miranda is a state representative from Arizona who attended the meeting with Mexican legislators. And he doesn`t like the law, so, I know, Ben, we`re going to have a grand old time.

You were at the meeting. What was the purpose of the meeting? Who was there? What happened?

BEN MIRANDA, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, ARIZONA: First of all, I think it`s a multitude of issues that were covered. And by the way, Glenn, it wasn`t a protest, and also, it was simply to open up dialogue into how two neighboring states can exchange views, opinions and also...

BECK: Ben, Ben. Do you work for the United States of America?

MIRANDA: Oh, absolutely.

BECK: And the state of Arizona?

MIRANDA: Not only that, I`m a Vietnam veteran.

BECK: Thank you for your service, sir.

MIRANDA: A Vietnam veteran. I came back from Vietnam. When I was here, it was Barry Goldwater who gave me the Bronze Star when I got back.

BECK: Good for you.

MIRANDA: Thank you.

BECK: Now, don`t tell me about how Mexico can`t handle the jobs, the housing, the schools or the hospitals, because you know what? We can`t, either.

MIRANDA: Well, Glenn, don`t tell me I`m not a patriot...

BECK: I`m not telling you that, sir. I`m asking you which country do you work for? Ours is the priority.

MIRANDA: I`m a patriot, and I work for the United States of America, and, I`ll tell you, there`s nothing wrong with dialogue.

But Glenn, let me tell you. When Gorbachev came here, when Khrushchev came here, there was nothing wrong with...

BECK: Can we stop the rhetoric?

MIRANDA: ... dialogue.

BECK: Let`s stop the rhetoric. We can talk all you want. Stop all the rhetoric.

MIRANDA: But there`s a need for dialogue.

BECK: Excuse me. I get it. America gets it. Talk all you want.

MIRANDA: OK.

BECK: Don`t tell me that you care about how Mexican can`t -- Mexico can`t afford the schools and the hospitals...

MIRANDA: Absolutely.

BECK: Excuse me. And we can`t, either. So it`s a priority, then. Which one is it going to be?

MIRANDA: I care about this country because I served this country. I defended this...

BECK: Did you get the Bronze Star from Goldwater?

MIRANDA: Absolutely. Absolutely.

BECK: Good.

MIRANDA: And Glenn, let me ask you something. Are you a veteran? Are you a veteran?

BECK: Oh, am I -- hang on just a second. Am I -- is my opinion worth less because I`m not?

MIRANDA: No, it`s not. But let me tell you, when someone implies that because I`m who I am, because of the fact I`m willing to have dialogue...

BECK: See, this is exactly what`s happening between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton right now. All it is, is rhetoric coming from you.

MIRANDA: Who is Hillary here, then?

BECK: Pardon me?

MIRANDA: What I`m saying is, listen.

BECK: You`re Hillary.

MIRANDA: OK.

BECK: You`re crying racism and un-American and everything else. I`m not.

MIRANDA: That`s right. By the way, she`s going to make a great president. But that`s besides that.

But I`m going to tell you. Listen, all I`m asking for is dialogue with the foreign country, Glenn.

BECK: You`ve had it. That`s great. Thank you very much.

MIRANDA: Most welcome.

BECK: Appreciate it.

MIRANDA: You`re most welcome.

BECK: And thank you for telling me about the Bronze Star. I sincerely mean it, sir. Thank you for your service. Now I`d like some updated service and help us out of this situation while these people across the border are bleeding us dry.

Now, you`re not reading about any of this crap in the paper these days. Somehow or another, we`ve forgot the devastating effect that illegal immigration is having on the stability of our social services, our hospitals, our schools and, a little thing called national security. Don`t worry about it.

I don`t know. There`s got to be some Americans that must agree with me. But I don`t know where they are, because Captain Amnesty himself, John McCain, is doing so well.

Senator Jeff Sessions is a Republican from Alabama.

I got to tell you, Jeff. Not the best time to come and talk to me, because I`m all riled up.

There is a war on our border. It can`t be described as anything else. There is a war on the border. We just lost another Border Patrol agent this last weekend. How the hell is this not everywhere? What has happened to us? How has everybody forgotten about this?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: I really don`t know. You know, this remains, by every polling data we`ve seen, a very important issue for the American people. The phones rang off the hook here in Washington, and I think we finally got the message.

What I`m working on right now, Glenn, is a questionnaire I`ve submitted, 15 questions to all the presidential candidates, because as a former federal prosecutor, I know, the president has a great deal to do with whether or not enforcement occurs at the border and throughout our country, to ask them, will they commit to 15 specific steps that are necessary and reasonable to create a lawful system of immigration?

BECK: What are some...

SESSIONS: And we can create a lawful system in just a few years, with strong leadership.

BECK: OK. What are the questions, and, do you really think that these guys are going to answer these questions?

SESSIONS: I don`t know. It would provide them an opportunity to explain themselves and to think in more detail than these generalities that we`ve heard from candidates before.

BECK: Senator, can I...

SESSIONS: All these years we`ve been hearing is general policies about the border.

BECK: I know.

SESSIONS: And nothing ever happens.

BECK: You know, I have to tell you, there was a story -- did you read "The New York Times" today?

SESSIONS: I have not.

BECK: Good for you. I have more and more respect for you when I talk to you. On the front page of "The New York Times," there`s this whole story about how America`s more disenfranchised than they`ve ever been before. We don`t trust the weasels that are supposedly leading us.

May I got a copy of this questionnaire that you`re sending out? And may I hold their feet to the fire and -- and make sure that people know what the questions are that these candidates will either answer or not answer?

SESSIONS: Thank you. That is absolutely the right question, because if they don`t want to answer, I think some people ought to ask them why they`re not answering.

BECK: Exactly right.

SESSIONS: What they`re afraid of, why won`t they commit? If they`re not committed to specific actions and only want to speak generally, then I think the American voter has a right to be suspicious indeed.

BECK: You`re exactly right. Senator, my office will call your office. We`ll do lunch, and we`ll get that from you. And we will hold their feet to the fire, sir. Deal?

SESSIONS: Thank you. It`s an important issue. If the next president is committed, we can fix this problem.

BECK: I know.

SESSIONS: If he or she does not, we won`t.

BECK: Senator, thank you very much for all of your work.

Coming up, today`s announced stimulus plan looks more like something that will help you buy groceries than a plan to save the economy. We`ll find out if it will do any good, in tonight`s "Real Story."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, I`m honest with you every day, so I`ll just lay this out, too. I`m not a sports fan. I know nothing about sports. I hear people like it. And some Super Bowl or something is coming up, and, sometime soon.

But there is a new book out by a guy who`s kicking off his career -- that`s a sports joke -- as a novelist with a book that shows what happens when a hero goes from the playing field to the battlefield. It`s called "Monday Night Jihad." Its author is Denver Broncos kicker Jason Elam.

Hello, Jason. How are you, sir?

JASON ELAM, AUTHOR, "MONDAY NIGHT JIHAD": Hey, how are you doing?

BECK: Good. First of all, I have to ask you, being a kicker, is that is sweetest gig of all time?

ELAM: It`s pretty nice. We don`t have to get, you know, hit a lot, and, you know, sometimes we get to kind of save the game, so it`s pretty fun at times.

BECK: And then if you blow it, then it...

ELAM: Exactly.

BECK: ... must really suck. Why -- why all of a sudden are you -- I mean, you`re writing a novel. And it`s about Islamic extremism, and, really?

ELAM: Right.

BECK: I mean, sit down, have some Gatorade, kick the ball. Why did you do this?

ELAM: Well, yes. Throughout my 15-year career, I had all these funny little stories that have happened to me in the locker room or on the team flight, or just various places, and people were after me for a long time to write a book about it. But I just never wanted to do a book just exclusively on football.

So, I had this kind of "what if" scenario a couple of years ago, if I could incorporate a lot of those funny stories into something I am very passionate about, which is my faith, and also bring along some of the current events that are going on, this whole military terrorist component. I thought it would bring a compelling story.

BECK: Did -- is what happens at, like, for instance the Super Bowl, et cetera, et cetera, does that affect you as a player? I mean, did that kind of play in -- I just read a story that next week`s Super Bowl is going to be unprecedented. And I read some of the security things they`re doing. Did that play into it at all? Did you bring any of that into the book?

ELAM: We did, actually. We talked a lot about the Super Bowl, just because I had, you know, first-hand experience from playing in two of them, and just how -- how intense that is, and how just a little bit about these weeks, because it`s -- a lot of people compare it to, you know, there`s a game in the middle of a show.

So, you know, there`s a lot going on around there, and it`s an intense time, a stressful time for the players. And so we wanted to give the reader just kind of an inside look into what it`s like to play in the Super Bowl.

BECK: Who do you -- I mean, let me just change the subject. But I know I`ll be hung if I don`t ask you who you think is going to win the Super Bowl.

ELAM: Yes, I think it`s going to be hard to go against New England right now. They`re playing so good, and they`re healthy and they`re confident, so -- the producer definitely wanted me to ask you, you know, who you think is going to win.

BECK: The Super Bowl?

ELAM: Yes.

BECK: Or the World Cup? Because that`s football, too, isn`t it? I`m not really -- I`m not really sure. I couldn`t even tell you -- I know New England is in it and...

ELAM: Not Denver.

BECK: ... the other team. So...

ELAM: That`s right.

BECK: But Denver, all the way next year.

ELAM: That`s right.

BECK: Yes.

ELAM: That`s right. We`re going to do everything we can to get back.

BECK: Jason, thank you very much, and best of luck to you on your book. Coming up...

ELAM: Thanks, Glenn. I appreciate you having me on.

BECK: You bet. President Bush and Congress have put their brains together and their giant brains, and they`ve put together a stimulus package. Bad idea. Bad for the economy, bad for you. I`ll tell you why, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, John Edwards may have really good hair. I mean, really, really, really good, piss you off kind of good hair. But if you`ve looked at any of the recent polls, that`s about the only thing he`s got going for him right now.

John, what are you doing in the race? I mean, this is a date for two and you`re the third wheel.

We`ll kind of look in and maybe guess why he might still be in, and when he`ll drop out, in just a bit.

But first, welcome to the "Real Story."

I told you earlier on in the program that it looks like Capitol Hill has settled on a $145 billion economic stimulus package as they try to revive our stalled economy. But the real story is, too little, too late, and nothing more than a socialist handout.

There is a fascinating op-ed piece in this week`s "New York Times" that says this: "Historically speaking, when Congress around to enacting legislation to help resuscitate the economy, the business cycle is already at rock bottom."

Translation: when we`ve gone that low, there`s usually no place to go but up. In a sense, the economy is a little like nature. Even though, you know, a forest has been ravaged by fire, it`s eventually going to be leafy and green again. It takes time, but Mother Nature is resilient and she knows what she`s going to do, and she does it. Much like the American economy.

No matter how hard the economy has tanked from the crash of 1929, right up through today, it always comes back and begins to improve even if -- or especially if, I should say -- the government does nothing. The trouble is, the forest can take time while the birds and the squirrels move on to other forests, and our economy is on the mend. Hopefully.

While it is, we have to suffer through it. But the package discussed today and passed today in Washington is tragically late to the party, and the -- and I believe they are also encouraging the birds and the squirrels into forests overseas.

Bruce Bartlett wrote the piece in "The New York Times." He was an adviser to President Reagan and the author of "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupt America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."

I have to tell you, I can`t wait to read your book, sir. That`s exactly how I feel for George W. Bush, and I`m a guy who voted for him.

You say, and we have a chart here that shows that, history shows us every time the stimulus package has come out, it`s too late.

BRUCE BARTLETT, FMR. TREASURY OFFICIAL: Well, that`s exactly right. I mean, think about it.

The economists have to predict that the economy is turning downwards, and they are not very accurate about that. It takes them a while to figure that out. And then it takes a while for the Congress and the White House to become convinced that there really is a downturn. And then it takes them a while to figure out what to do and hold hearings and enact legislation.

So, by the time that the legislation is actually signed into law, it`s almost always right at the very bottom of the business cycle.

BECK: Well, the IRS says they`re not even going to be able to get around to these checks until June. This won`t show up until first quarter next year.

BARTLETT: Well, that`s right. Then you have, once the legislation has been enacted, you also have a lag because it takes months, sometimes years, really, for some of these programs to actually get the money flowing and get workers hired. And as you point out, it`s going to take six months for these rebates to go out.

BECK: You know, I have to tell you, Bruce, I`m so concerned about our country, I`m so concerned about our future, our children`s future. I mean, the same people, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, everybody who was screaming that our deficits were out of control, they`ve just added another $145 billion to our deficit.

There`s no plan on how to even pay for this at all. And it was nothing but a political handout.

I mean, they were arguing to increase the food stamps program. That`s not about the economy. That`s about poverty.

Let`s have an honest discussion.

BARTLETT: Yes, I think I may be the only economist in the United States that thinks what the economy really needs right now is deficit reduction. I think we need to increase saving and investment, and that`s what we ought to be doing. We ought to be reducing the deficit, not increasing it.

BECK: Well, I`m with you, Bruce. I`m not an economist, but I`m a thinker.

This particular blip on the radar is not the one that worries me. What worries me is what`s right around the corner, what`s coming our way. And quite honestly, what I think foreign governments know. They look at our debt, our massive $56 trillion debt, and say, these guys are never going to be able to pay this. And that`s when we`re in trouble.

BARTLETT: Well, as you may know, the big bond rating company Moody`s put out a report a week or two back, saying that there was concerns about whether we`re going to be able to pay off our bonds. And that`s going to add a risk premium to interest rates for a considerable period to come.

BECK: Bruce, thank you very much.

All right. Next on the "Real Story" is candidates. Sometimes -- to find out what a candidate really thinks on an issue, you have to get past all the double talk and look for the subtext.

Honestly, there was that show on FOX last night, the "Lie Detector." I want to strap all of them down to that chair and give them electric shocks, too, if they answer incorrectly. Sometimes I feel like Nicolas Cage in "National Treasure," you know, trying to track their code and crack it and look through the glasses.

Thankfully, Hillary Clinton took a break from all the cloak and dagger campaigning to tell us exactly what is on her mind when it comes to the economy, and every American needs to hear it. The "Real Story" is, I believe she was given enough rope to hang herself. Whether or not people want to believe she means it or not is a different story.

Hillary said that if she becomes president, the federal government will take more of an active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market. Wow. That sounds pretty left. But just in case you haven`t had enough, it gets much, much worse.

She also said she wants to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market. OK. That sounds like the Soviet Union.

And to top it all off, comrade Clinton has railed against the excesses of the offensive executive pay packages and out of whack tax code that favors the wealthy while holding down the middle class. I can`t imagine anybody putting it more plainly than that.

Hillary Clinton is a liberal fascist. She is somebody who wants to redistribute the wealth in this country the way she believes is good for everybody. It is the new, new deal, and it is what kept this country in a depression for 10 solid years while the rest of the world recovered.

Hillary, I just want to point this out. Executives earn big money because it`s their skills that help their companies earn even bigger money, you know, so they can hire more employees, et cetera, et cetera. And if the companies don`t like it, they should fire them and lower the pay scale.

And you don`t hear me crying when your husband takes home a million- dollar speaking fee. I, instead, say, God bless America. I can`t believe somebody would pay that.

And finally, businesses need tax breaks because they need capital to grow the business. Hire more employees, and that expands the economy. Not food stamps.

I like to call this Economics 101. You know, and it`s fine if you want to prance around like Robin Hood, promising to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but that doesn`t mean it works. The only reason it worked for Stalin is because he killed 50 million people to force them to live that way.

We are the greatest country on earth because of our capitalist system, not in spite of it. So, thanks, Hillary. Just in case people weren`t sure why they shouldn`t vote for you, your fiscal ideas are plenty reason enough. Unless you`re Hugo Chavez.

Dave Boaz is the author of "Politics of Freedom: Taking on the Left, the Right, and the Threats to Our Liberty."

David, I like the name of your book here because it`s not just a threat from the left, it`s a threat from the right. They are all doing this. They are all going down the socialist road.

DAVID BOAZ, THE CATO INSTITUTE: Well, they certainly are. And it`s not just socialism.

And you just did a good defense of capitalism and a critique of socialism. But on the right, you also see John McCain, who really doesn`t like freedom of speech, and Rudy Giuliani, who`s got an authoritarian streak a mile wide. You`ve got the Patriot Act and the wiretapping, and the president saying that he has the authority to hold American citizens in jail forever without access to a lawyer and a judge.

So, I think on a whole range of areas, the government is taking away our freedom and Americans need to be more upset about it. And they are upset. But not enough.

BECK: You know, I have to tell you, David, I am -- everybody, you know, talks about, oh, "1984," "1984." I just started reading "Brave New World." That`s really where we are headed. I mean...

BOAZ: You`re right. "1984" is such a scary, drab police state. That`s not what it`s like.

"Brave New World" was a world where everything on the surface seems happy, and you have what you want, and you have a big home, but the government is running everything. And that is a lot of what we`re getting, from having to take your shoes off to get on an airplane, to having Mike Huckabee say the government should be regulating your restaurant menus and your fat intake.

BECK: It`s crazy.

BOAZ: You know, Huckabee in Arkansas sent report cards home on whether your children were too fat.

BECK: You know, I said on the radio today -- I said -- because somebody said, OK, Glenn, who are you going to vote for? And I said, you know, I`ve got a couple of people that I like, but honestly, they all scare me. Every single one of them scares me.

I can`t vote for parties anymore. Got to vote for principles. And I`m not sure what any of these principles are.

I don`t think any of them really have read the founding fathers` words forever. I know it`s not being taught in school anymore.

How do you reverse this trend? We went from the New Deal and Woodrow Wilson and everybody thinking this is all good stuff, to where we are now, and we are on the verge of fundamentally transforming the United States of America to something that our founding fathers would never recognize.

BOAZ: Well, I`m trying to reverse it by writing a book called "Politics of Freedom." But I actually think you`re a little too pessimistic.

BECK: Good.

BOAZ: I think there`s a lot of strength in the American people and the American system...

BECK: Oh, no, no.

BOAZ: But let me say, when we talk about freedom -- and I can tell you, as I just did, all the things, all the ways the government is taking away our freedom, but I also remind the interns that I meet at the Cato Institute, today`s college students, when I was your age, we had a draft in this country. We had 90 percent income tax rates.

We had much more restrictions on free speech in terms of obscenity and pornography, things like that. We had a total regulation of transportation, telecommunications, finance. So, in a lot of ways, things have gotten better, even though we need to be very much on the lookout for the nanny state.

BECK: I tell you, David, you know, I -- we, the people, is what gives me faith, that the American people will do that. But the worlds of Ben Franklin comes to mind. We have a republic if you can keep it.

America needs to wake up.

That`s the "Real Story" tonight.

By the way, if you`re a subscriber to my free e-mail newsletter, then make sure to check out what`s coming out Monday. We are featuring an exclusive commentary article from Rudy Giuliani, who`s looking to get his message out before the pivotal Florida primary. The other candidates hopefully will be joining in later newsletters.

If you`re not a subscriber yet, it`s absolutely free. You can sign up now at glennbeck.com. Again, it`s free, and you will automatically get that exclusive piece from Rudy Giuliani.

Now, coming up next, John Edwards. I`m not sure he`s read a paper or watched television in quite some time. He needs to pay attention to maybe the debates he`s in. We`ll find out why he`s taking so long to drop out of the Democratic race, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, far be it for me to tell a presidential candidate when they should drop out of a race, but John Edwards, you should drop out of the race. I mean, I don`t know if your advisers are too scared to tell you what a disaster your poll number are, or maybe you have nothing else to do if you drop out.

I mean, I don`t know, but you`re taking federal matching funds. Think, John, how many poor children you could feed with those federal matching funds. Why?

Like so many other things about politics that I don`t understand, some candidates don`t stay in a race to win, they just stay in it to influence it. And maybe that`s what`s going on with John Edwards here, but, I mean, if that`s true, what kind of influence is he hoping to have?

Laura Schwartz is a Democratic strategist and president of White House Strategies Consultant.

Hello, Laura.

LAURA SCHWARTZ, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Hi, Glenn. Great to be here.

BECK: I have that shirt at home.

SCHWARTZ: Do you really? Thank you.

BECK: I do. It looks better on you.

SCHWARTZ: It`s a little, maybe too feminine for you, Glenn, but you could pull it off.

BECK: Well, I`m a renaissance man, meaning I dress like I live in the 1600s.

Why is -- why is John Edwards in the race at this point?

SCHWARTZ: He is passionate about his ideas.

BECK: Come on.

SCHWARTZ: And I have to tell you, I`m with the group that says he shouldn`t drop out. I mean, this guy has at least 15 percent. If he drops below 15 percent nationally...

BECK: Wait a minute.

SCHWARTZ: ... this guy will have some second thoughts.

BECK: OK. Wait a minute.

If he`s so passionate about his viewpoints, why are they so different from the last time he was in the race? He was running as a moderate. Now, put a red star on his furry head. He`s a communist.

SCHWARTZ: Well, you know...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: What?

SCHWARTZ: You look at the voter base, and you`re like, gosh, if I go to the left in the primaries, it may work in the general. Or at least get me there.

BECK: So, wait, wait, wait. That`s not committed to your viewpoint. That`s committed to being popular and winning.

SCHWARTZ: Well, when you look at his trend -- now, you really do have to look back to when he ran for Senate, when he ran for president in 2003, and vice president in 2004 -- this is a man who is passionate about these issues and is offering a variety of solutions. And when you look at the Democratic Party as a whole, and who is up on the stage, now we`ve got Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and John Edwards.

They are all really sticking to the same issues, with alternate varies on those solutions. And listen, Glenn, as long as he`s got those solutions to give out there, as long as enough people are willing to listen to him, and he`s got enough money to compete, I say have at it, because that`s what the democratic process is all about.

BECK: But wait. I generally agree with you, but here`s what gets in between my teeth that I can`t take -- the man is up there saying, we`ve got a federal deficit that`s out of control and we`ve got people spending too much money and we`ve got to help the poor, and we`ve got to help all the little Sally (INAUDIBLE) that was born without a face. And if we just had more money here in the federal system, we could get Sally (INAUDIBLE) a face. And yet he`s taking federal matching funds to run a campaign that he can`t win.

What about Sally (INAUDIBLE) face?

SCHWARTZ: You know what? I think we should be looking at programs to help that face.

You know, I think these are all valid points. Why not? Why not create a better program and not just spend, you know, more money in (INAUDIBLE). Stop spending up this deficit.

Let`s get our money out of where it should not be and put it to work here at home. And I think that`s a pretty good basis. And he`s got people that are supporting him.

Listen, if this was Mike Gravel at this point, I would say, get him out of here. But it`s John Edwards.

BECK: OK, but this is going to hurt him at some point. He`s going to become the Jesse Jackson or the Ralph Nader who just runs every time, and you`re like, you don`t have a chance of winning, what are you doing?

SCHWARTZ: I think this is his last stand. And I think he`s going to take it and pull it out as long as he can.

I think he`ll compete on February 5th because in South Carolina, OK, I don`t see the guy winning. And his campaign is even downplaying that this isn`t his last stand. It`s just very important. And it is.

But he can rely on the free media. Hey, next week on CNN...

BECK: Right.

SCHWARTZ: ... Thursday night, the Democrats face off again before Super Tuesday. And if he relies enough on that free media, and about like the $20 million he has left, he can go through Super Tuesday, but it will be a question of how many delegates he gets then and how far he can proceed.

BECK: It is too cynical to say he`s cut a deal with someone, one side or the other, and -- I mean, because, honestly, it`s the same thing with the Republicans. I mean, you know, you make this race a two-man race, and the dynamics change dramatically.

SCHWARTZ: It does. It does.

Well, I don`t think there`s any conspiracy or strategy going on behind the scenes either with Senator Clinton and the Edwards` camp or Senator Obama and the camp. But it`s interesting, Glenn.

A lot of people feel that John Edwards is splitting the anti-Hillary vote and it would benefit Barack Obama. But when you look at the Democratic base and the polling, today a new one from the "L.A. Times" and the Zogby folks said, that, listen, when John Edwards drops out, more of his supporter are likely to vote for Hillary. So, in a Democratic election, I think his support would go to Hillary. In a general it would go to Obama.

BECK: OK. Laura, it`s great to have you on. Thank you so much.

SCHWARTZ: Thanks, Glenn.

BECK: Now, if John Edwards does drop out, it might take away from what is turning out to be the biggest hit of the TV season so far.

Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BECK (voice over): This winter, to be the leader of the free world, these warriors will go head to head in the ultimate campaign death match. Raw emotion. Ferocious phoniness.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I`m happy to be here tonight.

BECK: This ain`t your mama`s debate. So, strap your pantsuit on...

CLINTON: This pantsuit is asbestos.

BECK: ... and watch the political punches fly.

RUDY GIULIANI (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You have a special immigration problem. You are employing illegal immigrants.

BECK: Oh, a political pile driver.

Will Clinton get clipped? Huckabee hucked?

Was that an Obama body slam? Good lord!

And, can Rudy 9/11 his way to the stop?

GIULIANI: ... September 11th.

September 11th...

September 11th...

September 11th...

BECK: These political powerhouses will stop at nothing...

CLINTON: I don`t mind taking hits.

BECK: ... putting the pain back into campaign.

JOHN EDWARDS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Turn up the heat.

BECK: Campaign death match `08.

Check your local listings for times.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, in tonight`s inconvenient segment, we look at media bias. In particular, a new study that supposedly reveals that the Bush administration made 935 false statements about the Iraq war.

The AP called the organization that did the research a nonprofit journalism organization. Really?

I guess it`s easy to be nonprofit if George Soros is handing you lots of the cash. Soros is among the funders of the Center for Public Integrity who is responsible for the study. And, yes, if you are counting, that is the first time that George Soros and the word "integrity" have been in the same sentence. But you don`t have to bother discussing Soros to show how ridiculous this study was.

First of all, when they say it was 935 false statements, what they mean actually is two. They admit all of them relate to either, one, Iraq having weapons of mass destructions, or, two, Iraq having links to al Qaeda. Great.

Now, the organization doesn`t go as far as Keith Olbermann, who calls them lies, but then again, I assume that unlike Keith Olbermann, they are at least attempting to look like they are trying to be honest, kind of. But the statements that they claim are false are truly laughable.

For one, among the many examples, they use -- they say any use of the verb "disarm" was categorized as a direct false statement because of the literal meaning of the word. Example: Saddam Hussein has got a choice, and that is, he can disarm.

How is that a false statement? Well, I guess you have to know the literal meaning of the word "disarm". It means to take weapons away.

If you are using literal definitions, then we certainly took a lot of weapons away from the regime. And I`m pretty sure they spent months leading up to the war, uncovering missiles that violated U.N. sanctions.

I guess we just have to wait for that massive report counting the false statements of people like Hillary Clinton, who said in 2002 -- and I quote -- "Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members."

In fact, it wasn`t just her. Just read the list of Democrats and their WMD quotes, right at glennbeck.com. It will make blood shoot out of your eyes.

The trust is, that almost everybody in the world believed that they had these weapons. Saying that those statements were lies is simply that - - a lie.

Read more about media bias in "An Inconvenient Book," now at nine weeks in the top five "New York Times" bestseller list.

From New York, good night, America.

END

Home  |  World  |  U.S.  |  Politics  |  Crime  |  Entertainment  |  Health  |  Tech  |  Travel  |  Living  |  Money  |  Sports  |  Time.com
© 2014 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.