Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

New Jersey Strives to Fix Financial Crisis; Virtual Border Fence Put on Hold; Michael Bloomberg Considering Vice President Post?

Aired February 28, 2008 - 19:00   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, New Jersey`s budget inflates to the size of the hairstyles it produced in the 1980s. How the Garden State planted the seeds for a financial crisis even Bon Jovi can`t fix and how it`s a sign of things to come for the rest of us.

Plus, Democratic candidates go after NAFTA.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The problem that we have with NAFTA.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Amend NAFTA.

CLINTON: NAFTA.

OBAMA: NAFTA.

BECK: But avoid a bigger problem, securing the border. I have a theory, coming up.

And two Cincinnati teens accused of kicking, clubbing and torturing a disabled woman. Even more shocking, what the attackers are being charged with.

All this and more, tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Hello, America.

I have to tell you, just watching that open of that program, I brought tears to my eyes. You cannot miss the story about what happened in Cincinnati. It is disturbing. Let`s go back, you know, to the good old days here for a second. You know, like last fall, where people still cared about things like billions of dollars in losses and write-offs. It was great, wasn`t it?

Well, now a company, apparently, in America can lose $3.6 billion in one quarter, and you`re not going to ever hear a word about it, as long as that company is backed by the federal government.

That $3.6 billion was the loss announced by Fannie Mae -- that`s the country`s largest backer of home loans -- yesterday. But instead of outrage, our government responded as it always does: with a bailout.

Almost exactly at the same time that Fannie Mae was revealing their billions in losses and saying there`s more on the horizon, our government was announcing that they would lift the cap on how many loans Fannie Mae could fund. Let`s take on even more risk, at your expense. You`re on the hook for it, America.

Most Democrats see absolutely no problem with these bailouts, no problem whatsoever. In fact, in the "Wall Street Journal," they ran a front-page story about how many Democrats are just literally begging the government to step in with even more billions to help save homeowners. It`s all because they believe government money grows on trees. I mean, just print all you want. Borrow some more from the Chinese. We`ll make up the difference with higher taxes.

Well, here`s "The Point" tonight. This thinking is wrong. People in Washington don`t get it. We`re in this mess for one reason and one reason only: we overspent. And here`s how I got there.

The governor of the great state of New Jersey has just proposed a budget that calls for $2.7 billion in spending cuts. New Jersey, this is a budget that he calls "cold turkey therapy for our troubled spending addiction." But before you start feeling too bad for New Jersey, I want you to take a look at how they got there.

They have been charting a course back to the progressive era -- era of huge government programs and massive overspending for decades. The "New York Times," which knows a little something about liberal policies recently ran an article saying that New Jersey is actually passing Massachusetts and gaining ground on California as the most liberal progressive state in the country. Everybody celebrate.

New Jersey`s debt, including their pension and future health care costs, currently stand at about $45,000 per household. The interest alone on that debt accounts for more money each year than the state spends on higher education.

But it didn`t get that way because of New Jersey`s taxes. Oh, no, they`re so low. Quite the opposite. They rank nearer at the top of virtually every tax category in existence. Their total tax burden is the third highest in the entire country. And it got that way from politicians using their state budget like a credit card.

For decades, New Jersey has recklessly overspent on everything from health care to schools to the number of state employees, and they did it all at the expense of their future. Instead of funding their pension plans every year, they used that money to fund state programs and hire more workers: "Oh, we`ll write an IOU to ourselves."

Well, now they have the worst of both worlds: a bloated government and a massively underfunded pension that will crush the budget for years to come. I bet you the federal government comes in to the rescue.

America, here is what you need to know tonight. New Jersey`s problems are not unique. They are exactly the same problems that our federal government is facing, and we`re about to pay that price, as well.

While most Americans understand, no one wants to accept the pain, which is exactly why Clinton and Obama, with their feel-good plans for huge bailouts and entitlement programs, are so damn appealing. They offer hope, hope that we can continue to live beyond our means without ever paying the price. If you want to know where all that hope eventually leads you, my friend, it leads you to New Jersey.

Don`t believe me? Let`s ask the governor of New Jersey himself. Jon Corzine`s here. He joins me now.

Governor, I have to welcome you to the program and tell you, you are one brave man, sir, for what you have done this week. You are -- you have been named as one of the most liberal senators in the U.S. Congress. You criticized Democrats at one point as being too timid on progressive programs. And yet you`re making these deep cuts.

A, you know that this isn`t going to make you popular in New Jersey. And knowing your history, you like big spending programs. This has got to be killing you. No other choice, sir?

GOV. JON CORZINE (D), NEW JERSEY: Well, Glenn, Glenn, first of all, troubled times require strong actions. I don`t believe in doing things that you don`t pay for. I don`t believe it in my personal life, and I don`t believe that we can do that indefinitely in government. And this isn`t the federal government, where you can print money and borrow indefinitely. States have a responsibility to balance their budgets.

And I think that, in the long run, I do a better job of protecting -- educating our kids, protecting our people and protecting the most vulnerable by getting our financial house in order. So if that makes me -- gets me in trouble.

BECK: Can I spend you back to Washington? I mean, this is -- this is -- thank you for thinking like this. Finally, somebody is. How did your state get here? Because you`re not the cause of it. I mean, you just got into office recently. What is -- how did this happen to New Jersey?

CORZINE: Cumulatively, people have spent about 7 percent on average, year over year, for the last 20 years, Republicans and Democrats alike, and revenues have only grown at about 3 percent.

And then occasionally we raise taxes, occasionally we cut taxes, but that 7 percent and 3 percent lines keep going on.

And what we have done is borrow to fill that gap. Sometimes we borrowed against pension obligations, sometimes the unemployment trust fund. Sometimes we went, actually, into the bond markets or went to the bank and borrowed the money. It`s crazy. It`s ended up having debt service for those things that we borrowed against crowd out everything else we`re trying to do.

It`s a little bit like the problems of Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security that ended up being charges.

BECK: I was going to say, you just said a minute ago, it`s not like the federal government, where we can print money or borrow more. Well, you know what? The government can`t print money or borrow more. That`s why you see our dollar spiraling out of control. Our debt is going out of control.

What message -- I mean, I have to tell you, Governor, you are a microcosm of what is coming for America. So we should be watching you. We should be watching how you fix this. Because here you are, a state that has a Democrat in as the governor, and your state capital is run by Democrats. It`s what we`re probably going to have in Washington.

You`re getting heat from your own party on these cuts. Are you going to be able to cut this? And what advice do you have for Americans who are about to see this horror show in the federal government?

CORZINE: Glenn, if you don`t face your problems, if you don`t admit you have a problem, you can`t solve it. And you protect the things that you value most, you prioritize, when you actually make tough choices. That`s what we`re doing here.

I hope that I will be able to pull enough Republicans and Democrats to support the budget I`ve laid down and also the proposition that we`re going to limit spending in the future to what we can certify as growth in revenues. And we`re going to have to put limitations on borrowing.

BECK: You got it (ph).

CORZINE: You do those three things long-term, we`ll be a lot better off.

BECK: You can`t -- I mean, you raise taxes. I mean, you know this. People are fleeing from your state, taxes. I mean, people are moving to Pennsylvania like -- you know, like you`re Mexico and they`re the -- Pennsylvania`s the United States. "Get me away from all these high taxes in New Jersey."

You can`t raise any more money through taxes, can you?

CORZINE: Glenn, I think taxes are not the solution. We`re a very high cost-of-living state, as are most of the states surrounding us, by the way. We have, by the way, the highest median income in the country, so there are a lot of people that want to work in and around New Jersey. We`ve got a great educational system. We need to protect those things by making them priorities.

BECK: Look, Governor, you have received so much heat, and I really do admire you. I don`t agree with a lot of things that you say. But I really do admire you for taking the tough road here. You have -- you`ve cut hospital funds by 100 and -- what is it, $144 million. They -- your opponents say...

CORZINE: A hundred and ninety million.

BECK: A hundred and ninety. Your opponents say that`s going to shut down 70 hospitals.

Let me just ask you this. Yesterday you were with Senator Hillary Clinton onstage campaigning for her. She wants universal health care. You know that the federal government is in the same situation. How could you possibly stand and say, "Yes, we need to have universal health care, as well"?

CORZINE: Well, the problem with not having universal health care is that we end up having individuals use emergency rooms as the source of their health care. Instead of preventative care, instead of primary care, they go into the emergency room, and that ends up costing society a lot more.

I think we need an organized system that preferably would operate within the private system, some of the mandated kinds of systems that we have seen proposed by other governors, including Republican governors.

BECK: Right. Governor, we`d love to have you back. And we will watch it closely. And any time you need to get the word out on what`s really going on with spending in New Jersey, we`d love to make room for you. Thank you very much, sir.

Coming up...

CORZINE: Thanks, Glenn.

BECK: You bet.

Plans for a virtual fence on our Mexican border have been delayed. I know, it`s hard to believe, no way. Time we stopped dragging our feet and started securing our borders, but will Washington ever do it?

And New York City`s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, says he will not be running for president. But there`s rumors now that he could still end up on a ticket. We`ll tell you about it, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Coming up, both the Democratic candidates say they`re willing to pull out of NAFTA. Really? I ain`t buying it. I think they`re avoiding getting tough on the border. It`s a theory of mine I`ll explain in tonight`s "Real Story."

Now, back in 2006, remember President Bush announced his overhaul of U.S. immigration policies, the centerpiece of which would be this virtual fence. You see how the rest of that plan worked. Now how about the fence?

I spoke with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff just this week. Here`s how he described this fence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: It`s a combination of radar and cameras that allow us to see people crossing so we can intercept them. And that`s what we accepted in 28 miles of Arizona just about a week ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: That`s fantastic. The only problem is, there`s a little detail he left out: it doesn`t work. President Bush called this project, quote, "the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history." But apparently, it`s also the most ineffective.

According to "The Washington Post" today, authorities have now confirmed that the system doesn`t work as planned; nor does it meet the needs of the U.S. Border Patrol. But why worry about them?

Further development has been put on hold now for at least three years. Oh, well, nothing ventured, nothing gained, right? The whole thing would be a little bit easier to swallow if it hasn`t already cost you and me $80 million.

Boeing, the company responsible for building the fence says, "OK, Even though it stinks, it still helped the Department of Homeland Security catch 2,000 illegal immigrants." Well, that`s great. Eighty million dollars for 2,000 illegals. I think that`s $40,000 per illegal. I could stand at the border and offer everybody 20 grand at the border if you just turn around and go home, and it would be cheaper.

Jed Babbin is the former deputy undersecretary of defense for the first Bush administration and author of "In the Words of Our Enemies," which by the way, Jed, I have to say is a great book. I had it on my night stand for quite some time.

I`m not buying that now this virtual fence is on hold until 2011. I am not buying any more that these people in Washington want to have a secure border at all. Tell me where I`m wrong.

JED BABBIN, AUTHOR, "IN THE WORDS OF OUR ENEMIES": I don`t think you`re wrong. I these this is the problem with the Bush administration and, clearly, the Department of Homeland Security. They`re not serious about border security. They never have been, and this is just another indication of it.

They are saying that development is now stalled for another three years. That`s a very key word. In the aerospace industry, development means you don`t have the technology ready to produce. What you`re doing is you`re doing research. You`re trying to devise things as you`re going along. And it`s a risky business; it gets delayed.

You know, we could build a fence. You don`t have to have a virtual fence. They built a fence in San Diego, what, seven or eight years ago, and you know what? It works.

BECK: You know, I have to tell you, Jed, I`m -- I`m disgusted by my government on both the Democratic side and the Republican side on this. It doesn`t make any sense whatsoever.

If I ever suggested that we were going to put a virtual fence around the White House for security reasons, by well, maybe 2011, it would be ridiculous to suggest that. They`d haul me off to a loony bin. And yet our security is at risk, but they don`t care. Why? Why?

BABBIN: I just think that the open borders people in the administration -- and you`re dead bang right, Glenn. I mean, the Democrats are ten times worse on this. They want the illegals to come in. They want to give them citizenship. They want to repopulate the welfare state with people they think are going to vote for them.

But in the meantime, we have all of these fancy consultants out here making millions of dollars to device big, fancy plans that aren`t being implemented.

For a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the time, we could build a real life fence. It wouldn`t cost a whole lot. You can patrol it; you can use it; it will be effective. Why can`t we just do that?

BECK: OK. Jed, here`s the thing. I think you`re half right. Because you just said that the Democrats are worse. I think you`re half right. Everything you said just there about the Democrats, I believe.

But you know what? What did we get with the Republicans? I mean, you just -- you just said about, you know, this Republican or this administration, it`s a Republican administration. Look at John McCain. He`s not going to do anything about this fence. He`s not going to -- he`s not going to build it. It won`t happen.

BABBIN: I these you`re probably right, Glenn. I mean, I`m not here to defend the Bush administration on this issue. We at "Human Events" -- I`m the editor of "Human Events" -- we went out all -- flat-out all last summer to kill the amnesty bill with the help of people like you and us and a lot of others. The conservative movement in this country said, "No, we`re not going to do this."

So right now, what do we have to do? I think maybe the opposite. We have to say stop playing around, build a real fence and push the Bush administration to actually do something.

BECK: I have to tell you, Jed, I`m concerned about the future of our country. I am so deeply concerned on so many levels. This is one of them.

I don`t think the American people are going to be pushed around very much longer. You can`t continue to lie to us. You can`t -- you know, you just -- we say, "Please fix this for us. Please do this. This is important to us." And they repeatedly injure us. They repeatedly kick us in the ribs. How much longer will Americans put up with this garbage?

BABBIN: Well, I don`t know. I mean, America seems to be very willing to be diverted from it. I mean, we`ve got people running for president now, both of them on the Democrat side, and I think Mr. McCain is a little bit better, but you`ve got Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, both absolutely willing to do everything from give illegal aliens driver`s licenses, to give them a path to citizenship. They`re never going to close the border.

BECK: No.

BABBIN: People need to start thinking about that in this election.

BECK: Jed, thank you very much.

Now, coming up, Michael Bloomberg has finally announced that he`s not going to be headed for the White House, sparking rumors about a possible vice-presidential bid. I`ll tell you which candidate may be courting our New York City mayor. And why this guy is just a loser.

And treasury secretary may not support mortgage bailouts, but, guess what? Your local town might. Your local cities and towns rescuing homeowners facing foreclosure. Details on that coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, it`s officially official, officially. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- drum roll, please -- did not see his shadow. So he`s not running for president. Darn it.

I don`t know who exactly was on pins and needles waiting for him to announce that he was going to be president. But now, rumor in New York is that he`s dropped out of that, because Obama is thinking about selecting him as a running mate.

America, you need to know who this guy is. And I`ve got Jonathan Allen with us here to introduce you to him.

Hello, Jonathan, how are you?

JONATHAN ALLEN, "CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY": I`m good. How are you?

BECK: Jonathan is a reporter with the "Congressional Quarterly." And I mean, first, let`s just go why he might pick a guy like Bloomberg? He is clearly a billionaire, and he would be great for the economy if the economy is spiraling out of control. And it would look like Obama is reaching across the isle, because he was a Democrat for a while and now he`s a Republican. And oh, I think he`s an independent. So those are the strengths. Right?

ALLEN: Those are the supposed strengths. I mean, I think this is a highly unbelievable rumor. Never say never in politics.

BECK: Yes.

ALLEN: Anything can happen. But the thing that Barack Obama needs to do, going forward, one would think, in picking a running mate, is find balance. People believe that he`s trying to bring a new type of politics in. I think he doesn`t need to pick a former Democrat, former Republican, independent to go on his ticket.

And the other thing that he really needs, probably, is foreign policy experience. And that`s going to be the thing that I think a lot of his advisors are going to tell him to look for. Mayor Bloomberg doesn`t have a lot of foreign policy experience.

BECK: Yes. Well, I mean, here`s the thing. A, the economy is going to be No. 1, unless something new happens over in the Middle East. But it`s going to be No. 1.

But this guy -- what America doesn`t understand is how spooky Bloomberg is on your own personal freedoms. We were talking about liberal fascism just last week, on a new Jonah Goldberg week -- new Jonah Goldberg book. He is doing everything he can to take away your right to the Second Amendment and take away guns. He`s the kind of guy whose smoking ban -- he`s the kind of guy who says, "Oh, no. No French fries for you. This is bad."

This guy is Captain Nanny State, right or wrong?

ALLEN: Well, Glenn, you`re a lot closer to New York, and I don`t know that I want to give him that sober case (ph), so I`ll let you do that with the Captain Nanny State.

But I would say this. I mean, you have identified immediately some of the things you would hear Republicans talk about, about Michael Bloomberg, were he to be on a ticket: that he believes in a lot of government imposition into things that a lot of Republicans believe should be individual decisions.

BECK: Yes. OK. So have you noticed that -- and I think this is good, but I think so many people are just BS-ing us. There seems to be a movement here in America where there are no party lines anymore. If you`re a traditional GOP person, well, then you stink. If you`re a traditional Democrat, well, then you stink. But I don`t think that -- I don`t think any of them really mean that. Do you? Do you think these politicians actually mean that?

ALLEN: I think they couldn`t possibly be where they are without some imprimatur from the party, without being able to rally partisans. And ultimately, if they disappoint those partisans, there`s going to be a problem for them in governing or even in running the general elections.

That said, it`s a good rhetorical device, and I think that some of them mean a little bit of it.

BECK: OK. Real quick. I`ve only got about 15 seconds here. You got a name that Obama should be considering for vice president?

ALLEN: That`s a tough one. If he was going to go across the aisle, he might look for something like Tom Kean from New Jersey. If he`s going to stick to his own party, Sam Nunn of Georgia and Joe Biden of Delaware.

BECK: OK. Thanks a lot.

Coming up, NAFTA. This rhetoric is getting nasty. But Democratic candidates, are they using it to deflect their inability to talk about their real problems with candidates in Mexico. I`ve got a new theory for you, and it`s coming up next in "The Real Story."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: In just a minute I`m going to tell you about a crime so horrific that you may actually need to emotionally prepare yourself. What a teenage couple did to one defenseless 18-year-old girl will make you question humanity and the justice system that we all are supposed to look for. It is shocking. And it is coming up in just a second.

But first I want to talk to you about NAFTA without putting myself to sleep or you. It`s the North American Free Trade Agreement. It`s what I thought got the ball rolling at chipping away our national sovereignty. Eventually turning our great nation of American into Mexiamericanada.

The most recent debate had both Hillary and Barack saying that they would withdraw from NAFTA if Mexico and Canada wouldn`t negotiate the terms of the pact. Here`s the real story. This is nothing more than rhetoric, neither the Democrats or the Republicans are ever going to get tough when it comes to Mexico. It`s a pack of dogs that have a lot more bark than bite. And here is a bit from Clinton and Obama talking NAFTA in their last debate. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I will say, we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it and we will negotiate it on terms that are favorable to all of America.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Environmental standards, oh, good, thank you Obama. You can sell this as hard as you like, don`t buy it. Listen to this, the last 14 years, during the duration of our little free trade agreement, America has actually gained 25 million new jobs. Some of these jobs, thanks to expanded trade with Mexico and you can give that to NAFTA. Back in 1994, the unemployment rate was 6.7, today it`s 4.9. I don`t know how much NAFTA has to do with it, but blue collar wages are up by 11 percent. OK? Here`s my theory about what they`re really doing. Seventy percent of Americans, Democrats and Republicans say they want the border under control. But we all feel that both parties, Republicans and Democrats aren`t doing it for some reason, something that our gut says maybe they`re in bed with Mexico. You saw Clinton and Obama debating in Ohio. This is a state racked by job loss. So they talk tough on NAFTA. What are they saying in Texas? It makes them seem like they`re so compassionate to labor which allows them to make strong statements about Mexico. They hope that those things that they say will appeal to labor. OK?

But those of us who are also watching will look at them and say, gee, maybe they`re going to be tough on Mexico with NAFTA, maybe they`ll close up the border too. They don`t seem to be afraid of Mexico. Don`t be fooled, the Democrats will never do anything that makes them seem opposed to illegal immigration because that would go against the system that they themselves have built up to attack the Republicans.

Talk is cheap. There is no way America will walk away from NAFTA. Dan Stein is the president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Dan, agree or disagree with me here. I mean the primary reason we got into NAFTA in the first place, correct me if I`m wrong, was to stop illegal immigration.

DAN STEIN, FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM: Oh, you are so, so absolutely on point. Everybody in this country was told we got to have NAFTA, you`re going to jam it down our throats because it was going to solve the problem of illegal immigration. Remember, the Mexican president said it`s either going to take our goods or our people. It was basically blackmail and here it is what 20 some years later, 15 years later, it made it worse.

BECK: Now look, this was a ruse as they all are, every time they try to chip away at our sovereignty, they always tie it to something else, we have to do this, it`s for our security, it`s for in this case illegal immigration. NAFTA, and I don`t want to bash and I haven`t really made up my mind on NAFTA. Blue collar wages are up 11 percent. Forty percent of our economy growth in exports, agricultural exports are three times what they were before we got into NAFTA. Good things, bad things to NAFTA. In a nutshell, what is your problem with NAFTA?

STEIN: The basic problem with NAFTA is that it didn`t condition this trade agreement on Mexico`s cooperation to get control of our borders. It actually had increased infrastructure development right along Mexico`s northern border so it actually attracted people up to the northern border which makes it worse, instead of requiring balanced infrastructure development throughout Mexico.

BECK: Again, those are the illegal immigration problems with NAFTA that`s not what they`re even talking about. They`re talking about that we have lost jobs. You know what? The steel from the Freedom Tower is being forged in Luxembourg. Those jobs are gone. NAFTA is here, it`s gone. It`s killed those jobs.

STEIN: But look, the argument in Ohio is really a surrogate for Americans economic insecurity about the future, Glenn. Where are the good jobs going to go if we`re shipping all of our manufacturing jobs overseas. We were promised that we were going to have this post industrial information superpower economy, high value added, major increase in income, the kind of blue collar wages you`re talking about. Most of the new jobs that have been created since NAFTA have gone to foreign workers.

BECK: It`s amazing when it comes to Ohio, maybe Ohio should look at their tax policy, it seems to be helping out in Texas. Dan, thanks a lot.

Now one of the major criticisms of NAFTA has always been that it takes money out of American workers` pockets, right? Now there`s some here in this country that are critical of programs that are putting money back into those same pockets. I`m from Washington State, I was born in Everett, Washington, just north of Seattle, grew up in a little town of Mount Vernon.

Now, Seattle is one of those town where is the local governments and it`s happening all across the country are bailing out homeowners hit hard by the mortgage crisis. Oh, well, let`s help the little people. The real story is even in a liberal haven like Seattle, they hate this idea of these handouts and I don`t blame them, it`s common sense, compassion, common sense, couple them together. No question that the people in Seattle are relatively prosperous, I mean, Starbucks and Microsoft, you know what I mean? But even over-caffeinated computer geeks can agree that taking public money to bail out private homeowners is wrong.

First of all, it`s just unfair. People should read the fine print on the loan agreement. They hand it to you. Read it. And more importantly, don`t buy more house than you can afford. If you bite off more than you can chew, sometimes you choke. Suck it up, brother, learn the lesson, do better next time.

Secondly, if local governments start bailing out private citizens, who`s going to rescue the local governments when they run out of money? The state? And when you get to be like New Jersey, who`s going to bail them out? You can guarantee the federal government will. Who bails them out? We can`t start running our governments like the Salvation Army. That is not a lack of compassion, it is a celebration of common sense.

And since there`s a presidential election looming, we might as well start arguing on the national level as well. The Bush administration is opposed to those who want Uncle Sam to help struggling homeowners so both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say Bush tolerated overly aggressive lending practices and now it`s the government`s responsibility to help, even though it was those same Democrats who love those loans when they allowed some to buy their first homes, do you remember those speeches?

No matter how it shakes down, one thing is clear, one way or another, you and me, brother, we`re going to pay for this mess. Michael Machado, he`s the California State senator, he is representing the Fifth Senate District. Michael it`s my understanding that a town in your district, Stockton, California, the default rate is now 271 percent. Up 271 percent. True?

MICHAEL MACHADO, CALIFORNIA STATE SENATOR: Glenn, it`s good to be with you. Yes, we have one of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation in Stockton.

BECK: So you`re not for the city bailing anybody out. You don`t want, like, what they`re trying to do now in Seattle?

MACHADO: No, I don`t think we can bail people out. People who got into bad loans, I think have been the first ones to suffer foreclosure. But government has a responsibility to make sure the type of products that were offered are not longer offered and I think the government has a responsibility to bully pulpit the industry to take on a moral responsibility to help people work out of their problem situations.

BECK: OK. Two questions for you. A, you should be the most hated man in California. You obviously have no compassion for the little people. What do you say to homeowners because I hear it u all the time, Glenn, you can`t just let people just out on the street. And the second question is, what do you say to taxpayers that aren`t being bailed out, how do you explain to them that they`re living on the edge and that you`re going to take more tax money to bail these people out that they`re not then going to collapse?

MACHADO: Well, California is not considering a bailout program. But what we are looking at is trying to make lenders become more responsible with homeowners who may not be able to afford a reset in their loans that are current to be able to continue to make the payments. And that`s what`s important. We need to bring stability back to our communities, stability back to homeownership, stability back to local revenues and also hopefully we can get sales back in the retail markets.

BECK: OK. So hang on just a second. If I understand this right, Michael, you then want to freeze the interest rate that they`re paying? You want to freeze their payment?

MACHADO: No. That`s not what I`m saying. There are people out there, there are working men and women who are in loans now that are making their payments, but because their loan value exceeds the value of their homes, they are going to be facing foreclosure in the future.

Lenders have the ability to maintain those loans and allow them to be current. And I think that`s what we ought to be looking at. Because lenders have profited from the loans that they have made in the past, they need to be able to work out to provide some stability, otherwise we are going to have an upheaval that`s going to continue in the investment market that we have been seeing recently.

BECK: Thank you very much, sir, we`ll follow it in California. That`s the "Real Story" tonight.

Coming up, prepare yourself for one of the most emotionally disturbing story you may ever hear. A girl is tortured in her own home and it`s done by two teens, two teens and they may get of easy. We`ll give you the story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: If you have kids in the room, you might want to ask them to leave for just a second.

I want to tell you a story about what happened Friday in a rural town in southwestern Ohio. Two teenagers broke into a house and hid in the basement. Their plan was to get up the next morning and steal the homeowner`s car. But it didn`t work out. So they did something much, much worse.

After realizing the only adult in the house had left for work the two went upstairs and found an 18-year-old girl sleeping. They woke her up and then for the next six hours, they tortured here. They used a baseball bat, they shaved off all of her hair, they doused her with water and made her walk barefoot in the snow. Despite her pleas that she just had brain surgery, they repeatedly hit her over to the head. By the way, she`s disabled.

The girl`s mother found her, bloodied, bruised, helpless later that night and the teenagers that did it were found minutes later in the woods nearby. They`re being charged now, if they were being charged as adults, they would only face eight to 28 years in prison. But they`re not being charged as adults. If it were up to me, these two dirt bags would never see the light of day again. Richard Jones is the sheriff of Ohio`s Butler County. And Wendy Murphy is a law professor at the New England School of Law and author of "And Justice for Some."

Let me start with you, Richard, I have heard you quoted saying in 32 years you have never seen anything as bad as this?

RICHARD JONES, BUTLER COUNTY, OH, SHERIFF: Glenn, I have seen almost everything imaginable. That people can do that to other human beings and I have never seen anything such as this. It makes your throat swell up, it makes you have such emotion, that Ashley is the victim here, she`s 18 years old and she does have a disability.

She begged them not to strike her in the head. She had brain surgery. Approximately five years before that, so they struck her in the head. They made her stand in the shower fully clothed and with her hands tied behind her back and then made her go outside barefooted.

The temperature here was freezing at that time. There`s some other things that I can`t discuss on the air because it could jeopardize the case. But this went on for several hours and on top of all that, Glenn, they had no remorse whatsoever. None.

BECK: These two that did this, it`s not two boys that did it, it is a boyfriend and girlfriend, if I`m not mistaken.

JONES: That`s correct.

BECK: And do they not have a two-month-old baby themselves?

JONES: I that have a two-month-old child themselves. It`s probably the best thing for the child that they not raise the child. Who knows what would happen with that child. If these two -- it`s so unusual for two people from a different family to end up -- usually in something like this, one person would have sympathy and say, please don`t do this, we need to stop this, this isn`t right. Both of them continued and went on with this rampage for hours.

BECK: Wendy, before I get to you, sheriff what they are charged with?

JONES: They`re charged with aggravated burglary, felony one, aggravated robbery, felony one. Kidnapping, felony one, felonious assault, felony two. Vandalism, felony five. They are in juvenile did tension at this time. They had a hearing today. They got a guardian assigned to both of them. And they also got their attorneys today. They have another hearing in April to hopefully that they can be tried as adults.

BECK: I have to tell you something, I am not allowed to say their names. The court said that you can no longer say their names. April 1 if they`re tried as adults, I`m going to put their face and their name on television like you wouldn`t believe. These people are despicable human beings.

Wendy, in Ohio, you actually have to go to court and prove to the court that they should be tried as adults and not juvenile. Any doubt in your mind that that`s going to be able to be pulled off here in this case?

WENDY MURPHY, NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW: No. What`s really unfortunate here, Glenn is that Ohio has it a bit backward compared to the trend in the rest of the country which is that for this aged group of juveniles, they`re very close to adult. They`ve got records, this crime is the most heinous for that category of juvenile, you should start off in adult court and in some states, they let the juveniles try to prove that they should be bumped back down to juvenile court which by the way would also never happen in a case like this.

Ohio should not have to bear the expense, taxpayer expense of having to prove that this case deserves to be in adult court.

BECK: I have three daughters myself, and I have a daughter of special needs and I can`t tell you what animals it would take to do something like this. Why should we even consider giving these people a second chance? I don`t care how young you are, you strike out.

JONES: Hey, Glenn, these people had no remorse whatsoever.

BECK: Why do you say that? Give me the example of -- what did they say to you or .

JONES: There was an example, there was a dog in the house. They wanted to lock the dog up and put it in its kennel because they told my investigators that they didn`t want to get a cruelty to animal charge against them.

Remember, that they struck this young lady in the head several times and she asked them not to. And they tied her up and they took her from room to room and I`ll tell you what, Ashley is her name and what a trooper she is, I met her two days ago, and it`s a very emotional case. It`s emotional even to talk about it as we speak and I have seen almost everything.

BECK: Wendy, real quick, is there a way that we can at least get this two-year-old or this two-month-old out of these diabolical hands?

MURPHY: I think there`s no question they`re going to lose custody. Look, for a long time we had this presumption of rehabilitation if you were a juvenile, that was a disaster. We have younger people than ever before committing more horrific crimes than ever before in this country because for too long we said let`s try to rehabilitate and fix them. Some people, Glenn are not fixable.

BECK: Well, they are fixable in one way and they should both of them be fixed and then they should spend the rest of their lives in jail. Sheriff, Wendy, thanks. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: You know, sometimes you watch TV and you kind of scratch your head and you`re like, wait a minute, what is this? For example you watch certain news networks and you wonder why are they even covering this story? It`s not really even a story? It`s not important to my life at all. So with that being said, we bring you this.

The chief executive of Victoria`s Secret has said some of their recent business problems are due to the fact that the brand has become too sexy. Queue video.

Sharon Tourney (ph) is the big wig at Victoria`s Secret who made the intriguing observation during an analyst`s call to investors. I can`t imagine where they got this. It`s not like their entire business model revolves around putting supermodels in thongs and having them prance around on television in high definition or anything like that. In case you`re wondering what that might look like if you put models in thongs, that`s what`s on the screen right now. Not because my writers or producers think that it might improve our ratings, it`s because we felt that it`s imperative for you to understand the story which isn`t really a story.

Anyway, Ms. Tourney said that Victoria`s Secrets had strayed from their heritage. I don`t even know what that heritage of a lingerie company would be exactly. But I`m pretty sure it had to do with supermodels in thongs. OK, could we stop with the video? Could you give me something like from the store outside or something? I can`t even pay attention with the monitor here. Thank you. And then we have to pan down.

Victoria secret said they want to get away from sexy and return to the good old days of ultra-feminine. Whatever that means. They also said they would continue to do their annual fashion show although it might begin to look differently in the future. Maybe they`re all wearing grandma underpants. I don`t know.

And just because I mentioned the fashion show does not mean that we have to start the hard core porn again which I appreciate from my producers.

One of the main complaints on this program is I`m just too darned sexy myself. A lot of guys write to me and say my wife is so turned on with talk of economic disaster and Islamic extremism, stop it, please, I want to keep my marriage together. I have to say, chicks dig me. At least the chicks who are turned on by talk of economic disaster and Islamic extremists, those are the ones who really dig me. So I lead a very, very lonely life. But hey, there`s nothing I can do about that. OK, I think I`m uncomfortable, you`re uncomfortable, so let me remind you to sign up for my free e-mail newsletter guaranteed not to be too sexy at glennbeck.com.

From New York, good night, America.

END