Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

What Should Bush Say in State of the Union?; Is Al Qaeda Planning New U.S. Attack?; Who Should Win Oscars?

Aired January 23, 2007 - 19:00   ET

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

GLENN BECK, HOST: Coming up, what the president should say in a speech tonight.
Plus, spank your kids and go to jail? That`s what some in California would like. That and more, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight`s episode is brought to you by the State of the Union address. If you`re having trouble sleeping, tune in to the State of the Union address. It will be...

(sound of snoring)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Come on. That`s not even right. It`s the State of the Union! This is the one we all wait for all year. It`s going to have all the thrills and excitement of my wedding night, at least according to my wife, and I apologize, Tanya, for that.

Nobody is going to be paying attention to this thing. I mean, people will watch, but we all know what he`s going to say already, which, by the way, brings me to an ADD moment.

What`s with the releasing of the word for word text of the speech hours in advance? If you can do that, why don`t you just e-mail the speech to each of us, and then we can just sit back and watch "Laguna Beach" instead.

Here`s the point tonight. When the president gives his speech, I`m going to make a crazy prediction and say half of Congress will stand up in parts and cheer and the other half will just sit on their hands. And then at other times the exact opposite will happen.

And you know what? It doesn`t matter, because as it is with all things in Washington, it`s just going to be a bunch of promises followed by a bunch of arguing followed by total inaction.

However, there are things that George Bush should say to America tonight, but because he`s a politician and he`s surrounded by more politicians, I predict he won`t say them.

Here`s how I got there. Things the president should say tonight. Iraq, he should say, "Guys, you know what? I made a ton of mistakes in Iraq, but my biggest mistake was not telling you the real reason we were there in the first place, and that`s Iran. Whoops, sorry, my bad.

"We went in there. We tried to put the squeeze on Iran by putting free people on both sides, hoping that the Iranians would stand up and topple their own government. These guys are bad dudes. They`re the real source of problems in the Middle East.

"Now it hasn`t worked out as I planned, but just know that every time I say it`s important that we win in Iraq, what I really mean is we`ve got to get rid of the regime in Iran. Our very lives depend on it."

Now he`s also going to discuss the Patriot Act. OK. Here`s what he should say. "Patriot Act. Um, show me the people who have been abused by it. Oh, no one? Great. Let`s move on."

Here`s what he should say on taxes. "The economy is going great: 7.2 million new jobs created since `03. Unemployment rate fell to 4.5 percent, almost full employment. Tax increases, read my lips."

Immigration, here`s what he should say. "You know what? You know what I really learned in the last election is that both the Democrat and Republican voters think that the border is a huge problem, and they really don`t understand why we in Washington aren`t paying attention to it.

"Well, America, I`m going to be honest with you. It`s because some of us in Washington have cared more about getting new Hispanic voters into our base, while others of us have only really cared about protecting big business.

"OK. That era is over. This is a threat to our national security, physically and financially. We`ve got to secure the border, and you know how we`re going to do it? We`re first going to start by going after those businesses who employ illegal aliens, and we`re going to go after them with a sledgehammer.

"Plus I called Jimmy Carter. He`s going to take some time off from that Habitat for Humanity thing and personally build a fence. Bring a hammer. We start Thursday."

On global warming, which he`s going to talk about tonight, he should say "Wow, so this might actually be happening, huh? I`m not sure how much man is affecting it, but with that being said, I`m going to bring the left and the right together on this issue.

"To the right, you know and I know we`re getting out of control with foreign oil. In ten years I want this country to be 100 percent oil independent.

"To the left, I`m going to make us foreign oil free without drilling in ANWR, and in ten years we won`t be using fossil fuels, and here`s how I`m going to do it.

"I`m going to federally fund a Moon Shot program. Scientists are going to discover a new form of efficient and earth-friendly fuel within 10 years, and, you know, by discover, I mean actually, we`re just going to dust off the fuel alternatives we`ve been burying because oil has been making everybody rich.

"The fuel alternative, you know, I don`t know, might be made out of Aqua Velva and Gummi bears but you know what? Darn it, this is America. We can do it, and all of us can get behind this. It solves our Middle East problem, and it solves our earth is turning into a giant ball of fire problem.

"This is a plan that can have George Clooney and Dick Cheney playing canasta together in ten years."

Now here`s what I don`t know tonight. Even though it would take, I mean, cajones the size of basketballs for a politician to say all this stuff, it`s exactly what we`re starving to hear. America is desperate for a leader who is open and honest, somebody who says what he means and means what he says.

Here`s what I don`t know. Are we ever really going to find a politician with the guts to deliver speeches like that?

Jerry Seib -- Seib, he is the Washington bureau chief for the "Wall Street Journal".

Jerry, any of us going to live to see that day?

JERRY SEIB, "WALLS STREET JOURNAL": I don`t think we`ll live to hear the exact speech that you just gave.

BECK: Right.

SEIB: But there are parts of -- there are parts of what you wanted to hear that you will actually -- probably will hear tonight.

BECK: Shut up.

SEIB: Not the full bore version but some paler version of it.

BECK: OK. Give me -- give me what you think he`s going to say that matches what I just said.

SEIB: Well, one of the things he`s going to say that comes close to what you said is he is going to stand up and say we should cut our use of gasoline by 20 percent in the next 10 years, and we`re going to do that by going full bore on producing ethanol, not by necessarily cutting back on how much we burn but by burning something different.

It`s going to be a fairly ambitious goal, and he`s going to say this is a Democratic end, a Republican idea. And you know, on that score, he`s probably right. This is a Democratic and a Republican idea. It`s one of the few things where you can say there`s common ground between the Democrats, who will not be applauding so much, and the Republicans tonight, who will be applauding too much.

BECK: Jerry, why wouldn`t we -- you know, why wouldn`t we do a Moon Shot? When Kennedy said we`re going to put a man on the moon in the next 10 years. Why wouldn`t we do that? This is a problem, really, that makes Al Gore and Dick Cheney happy.

SEIB: Well, because the fear is wrecking the economy along the way, but this is pretty ambitious. This will be three, four, five times as much ethanol use as the government was looking for previously.

So, you know, it`s not clear it can happen. You`ve got to get the corn grown. You`ve got to get the cellulostic (ph) ethanol produced. You`ve got to change the way people buy. You`ve got to change what gas stations pump at the pump. You`ve got to change the kind of cars that the automakers here and abroad produce.

It`s not a small thing and, it`s -- you know, maybe it is or it isn`t comparable to the Moon Shot, but it`s a lot more than George W. Bush said on this subject a year ago.

BECK: OK. Immigration, I`m tired of all the rhetoric and absolutely nothing happening.

SEIB: Yes.

BECK: I mean, I don`t think anybody really wants to solve this thing. Ronald Reagan had the solution back in the `80s, and part of his solution was $1 million fine for companies who are hiring these guys. No chance that`s going to happen, is there?

SEIB: No. You`re going to get -- you`re going to get half of what you want on that subject, I think. You`re going to hear a lot about better enforcement at the border. You`re going to hear about high-tech enforcement. You`re going to hear about cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens, which in fact the administration has started to do.

But you`re also going to hear the president say let`s fix this by having a guest worker program that takes the people who are going to come in here and do jobs Americans aren`t going to do and make them legal. Let`s give them papers so people will know that they`re here legally. Let`s give them a time limit that says how long they can stay. And let`s make sure they go back home when the time limit expires.

BECK: You know what? I...

SEIB: You`ll have the sort of the hammer border enforcement and you`re going to have kind of the more employer friendly let`s get more workers but let`s make them legal.

BECK: You know what? I`ve got to tell you. I don`t think -- I don`t know of an American that has a problem with legal workers coming in across the border and having paperwork. I don`t know anybody who has a problem with that. We just have a whole problem with the whole under cover of night thing.

Pork spending. I mean, everybody says we should balance the balanced budget. Come on. Are we really going to balance the budget here?

SEIB: Well, you`re going to hear rhetoric on pork barrel spending. You`re going to have the president -- look, he can take the high ground on this. He can say the pork barrel spending you guys in Congress have been doing has gotten completely out of hand. We should do something to stop it.

You know, Social Security reform, I mean, it`s not really going anywhere. There will be some mouthing of the rhetoric by the president on that one, but I don`t think a Republican president, a Democratic Congress in this environment are likely to come to much agreement on how to stop Social Security spending.

You know, the truth is voters did say in November we`re tired of pork barrel spending, we`re tired of ear marks. We`re tired of bridges to nowhere. Let`s stop it.

And if the president says that, they won`t have any choice in Congress except to stand up and applaud.

BECK: I hope he does say that. Jerry, thanks a lot.

SEIB: Thanks, buddy.

BECK: If you haven`t heard there is a State of the Union drinking game. For instance, every time Bush says the word "nuclear" -- "nuclear" - - I don`t even know. I can`t even say it wrong. You`ve got to do a shot of Jagermeister.

Well, I`m an alcoholic, so what I mean, what do I get to do to enjoy the speech tonight?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Introducing the State of the Union eating game.

OK. Here are the rules. Each time the audience stands you must eat one chocolate eclair.

If the president says the word...

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Ethanol.

ANNOUNCER: ... immediately, eat one corn dog.

Each time the cameras cut away to Hillary Clinton you`ll have to chew on ice.

And finally you must eat one hot buffalo wing every time the president says the word...

BUSH: Freedom.

Freedom.

Freedom.

Freedom. Freedom. Freedom. Freedom.

ANNOUNCER: Oh, yes. And when it comes time for the Democratic response, by all means forget the food. It`s now time to start drinking, heavily.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is GLENN BECK.

BECK: Coming up, is al Qaeda planning another attack on American soil? Documents found in Iraq reveal a frightening plot. And just wait until I tell you how they plan to get here.

Plus the president`s latest plan to save Social Security. Guess what? Cha-ching. It`s going to cost you big. I`ll give the story to you in the "The Real Story".

And a proposed bill in California bans of spanking any child 3 and under. All for protecting our kids, but should government be telling us how to parent them?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Today is the State of the Union. This is always a frustrating day for me, because I have to watch it for work. It`s the same thing over and over and over again.

It`s "America is strong tonight! Yes, yes. I have found that I wear blue suits. You wear blue suits. We all wear blue suits with red ties. Yes."

Stop! I can`t take it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Last year I did a story on 17 Egyptian immigrants who got into this country with student visas, remember? Then they went missing. Well, I wanted them found. After all, violation of a visa is a crime and in post-9/11 America, shouldn`t we take that one seriously?

After that story you wouldn`t believe the heat that this program took. A lot of people went on saying you can`t go on a Muslim witch hunt. You`re advocating racial profiling. Really?

I want you to listen to this. Counterterrorism officials confirmed yesterday that coalition forces discovered documents while raiding an insurgent hideout in Iraq. The head of the Defense -- of the Defense Intelligence Agency backs it up.

The documents spelled out a 9/11 copycat plot by al Qaeda in Iraq involving as many as 20, not 19, but 20 terrorists, who would enter the United States using student visas.

Wait a minute. You mean terrorists might lie and use student visas just to get into the country? Now don`t tell me that, well, they just found that out yesterday. No, they discovered that plan six months ago.

Those Egyptian students that were missing, now turned out to not be a terrorist risk, but considering their disappearance, which was against the law, at the same time the government knew this information, was it really the wrong call to call for an investigation?

America, when are we going to start living in the real world and not the ideal one? Nine eleven was five years ago. Have we forgotten already? Just because a question may be difficult to ask doesn`t mean we shouldn`t ask it.

You know, I am not -- I`m not up to rounding up all the Muslims. I`m not for it in "24". I`m not for it in the real world, but we`ve got to protect the country with as much conviction as those who are hell bent on destroying it.

I am not a fear monger, but there are some things I fear. Unless we take our security seriously, we are as much as inviting another terrorist attack.

Now before you send me a bunch of hate mail, because, brother, I know it`s coming, listen to Erik Stakelbeck. He`s a terrorism expert for the CBN network. The terrorists mentioned in these al Qaeda documents, did these guys ever make it into the U.S.?

ERIK STAKELBECK, TERRORISM EXPERT: No, Glenn. You know, this plan never got operational. Now what it did get, basically before al Qaeda carries out an attack it goes through what`s called Ashura Council.

Now what Ashura Council is is basically the al Qaeda hierarchy either in Iraq or in Pakistan, wherever they are, basically approve of the attacks. Sources tell me that the attack was approved, but it never got to the operational stage. There are no al Qaeda in Iraq, boots on the ground, looking to carry out this attack.

Another crucial thing here, Glenn, al Qaeda before an attack will often send out an advanced scout to kind of scout out the location. If you remember, back in 2001, we had an al Qaeda operative took a lot of photos and blueprints of financial institutions in New York and North Jersey. That never happened here, never got to the operational stage, but it`s disturbing nonetheless.

BECK: OK. So this is actually -- I mean, this we found out about on the day that I was actually making an al-Zarqawi bake-in cake to celebrate his death. This is -- we found these documents in the same raids or the same buildings where we found Zarqawi after we killed him.

STAKELBECK: Right, well, Glenn. I actually talked to some military sources earlier who told me we actually found these in the fall. Everyone has been reporting so far that these were found back in June, as you said, when Zarqawi was killed.

Another source tells me this was actually found about three months ago, so it`s interesting there. What it does show, though, regardless of when they were found, is that al Qaeda in Iraq has plans to carry their jihad to American soil.

BECK: This plan actually called for -- this is our worst nightmare. We`ve all known it was coming. I mean, you want to talk about racial profiling, how stupid it is, here`s an example.

You`ve got the Belgian, the white woman from Belgium that was a suicide bomber. There`s a British nationalist that we -- we just caught. This one called for people that were really pretty much off the record -- off the radar and had no record.

STAKELBECK: Right. That`s the thing here, Glenn, with student visas. Now after 9/11 we are doing a better job of vetting who comes into this country on student visas. It`s still a mess in a lot of respects. People overstay their visas, or what have you.

But in this case al Qaeda in Iraq was looking to send operatives who really had a clean slate, who had a clean record, who might not have drawn the attention, who aren`t on a terrorist watch list.

And that`s one of the reasons, Glenn, I`m very concerned with the program that President Bush put into effect back in 2005.

Now what he did is come to an agreement with Saudi Arabia that basically will see thousands, over 10,000 Saudi students, young Saudi males, arrive at American universities over the next several years. This is something I don`t think he`ll want to mention to the American people in his State of the Union tonight.

BECK: Yes, yes, I`ve got to tell you, the good thing is Saudi Arabia, there are no nut jobs in Saudi Arabia.

The disturbing thing that I`ve also seen is that al Qaeda we believe has 10,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. The army of the Mehdi, or the army of the messiah, has 40,000 to 50,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. And we`re bickering about putting another 10,000 to 20,000 troops.

What happens if this surge doesn`t work? What -- what does this look like?

STAKELBECK: Absolutely. Glenn, think of Afghanistan in the late `80s, early `90s, really before 9/11. That`s what Iraq is going to look like. It`s going to be an Islamic state.

The only real question here is if it`s going to be a Sunni Islamic state or a Shiite Islamic state, Islamic theocracy. So you have the worst elements of the Sunnis, the worst elements of the Shiites in Iraq represented by Iran and Hezbollah. So it`s a real trouble if we pull out right now.

BECK: Great. Erik, thanks a lot.

STAKELBECK: Thank you.

BECK: The long-awaited Oscar nominations were announced today. Can`t you just feel the excitement? I`ll tell you who`s in and who`s out and my picks to win, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, the Oscar nominations were announced this morning, and while everybody`s up in arms because "Dreamgirls" just didn`t get the nod for best picture, there`s another great movie that was tragically overlooked, "Garfield: Tale of Two Kitties." I`m just saying.

Here now with a look at the major nominations, Katrina Szish. She is from "Us Weekly".

Hello, Katrina.

KATRINA SZISH, "US WEEKLY": Hi, Glenn. Did you really like "Garfield"?

BECK: Didn`t see it. Proud to say I didn`t see it.

SZISH: See, there you go.

BECK: But made for a good joke.

SZISH: It was a good joke.

BECK: So I can`t believe, speaking of jokes, Al Gore, two Oscar nominations, wow.

SZISH: Yes. I mean, who would have thought it? I mean, you know, he didn`t get to be the president, but, hey, got two Oscar nominations. New career for Al.

BECK: If he -- if he loses, do you think he`ll have the people doing this and kind of looking for a recount on the -- looking for the vote -- the intent of the voters?

SZISH: He`s going to be tackling those guys who come in handcuffed with the results, and he`s really going to try to be rooting through, thinking there`s got to be another envelope in here for me.

BECK: There`s not a chance this guy loses in Hollywood. Do you really think there`s a chance that Al Gore loses? They`re looking to give him an Oscar.

SZISH: Yes. They`re begging to give him an Oscar. Al, will you please have an Oscar?

BECK: No, I`m being serious. Are you?

SZISH: I am completely serious.

BECK: You`re making fun of me now.

SZISH: I`m honestly not. Really, I agree with you. I think you`re right.

BECK: I would have never thought that he would have gotten an Oscar nomination unless he starred as "Pinocchio", the wooden boy.

Peter O`Toole.

SZISH: Yes. "Venus".

BECK: He`s going to get it because he`s old.

SZISH: But you know, Forest Whitaker for "The Last King of Scotland" has been the favorite in terms of getting the Golden Globe. Everybody is saying, you know, if you see anything, see "The Last King of Scotland". He really seems to be the shoo-in for best actor, as does Helen Mirren for her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth in "The Queen". Those two kind of have it locked up.

BECK: She was good in that, actually. I can`t believe I saw that. I saw that movie trapped in a plane.

But she was really good. But Peter O`Toole, I mean, he`s never really gotten an Oscar. They gave him an honorary Oscar, which he almost turned down.

SZISH: Yes.

BECK: I mean, but he`s a really good actor. How about if he fakes his death? Would that sway them at all? Because that`s usually when you get it. That`s a sign...

SZISH: It would be a posthumous award. That would be a totally different category.

BECK: But I mean, that`s when Hollywood gives you the awards. If I were old and they gave me the award I`d be like, "Oh, geez, I`m right around the corner from death. Everybody is ready for me to die."

SZISH: Exactly. He`s not going to get it. And the Oscars don`t tend to just be benevolent in terms of, "Well, you`ve been around for a long time. You`re been a good actor. You`ve done a great job. Here you go. Here`s the gold statuette." They don`t do that. So I don`t think he`s -- he`s not going to get a sympathy vote.

BECK: May I bring up John Wayne and a long list of others.

Scorsese. He`s healthy. Does he get one or not? Eight times, nothing. Right?

SZISH: This is so difficult. It is -- it seems like it should be his time.

BECK: Yes.

SZISH: But then again, it seems like it should have been his time several times before.

BECK: I couldn`t believe -- I couldn`t believe he`s never won one.

SZISH: It`s hard to imagine. When they say Scorsese hasn`t gotten an Oscar, you think, you`re crazy, you`re kidding. He did get the Globe, so that`s very good. That`s a good premonition. I think it`s his year. It`s got to be his year.

BECK: Biggest surprise to you?

SZISH: Biggest surprise.

BECK: Besides the fact that most people have never seen any of these movies.

SZISH: You know, they`ve seen more this year than last year, I have to say. A lot of people have seen "Dreamgirls".

BECK: Yes.

SZISH: They have seen "Babel". I think, again, you mentioned earlier people are surprised that "Dreamgirls" didn`t get a nod for best picture. Also that Brad Pitt got shut out again. "Babel" got lots of nominations in other categories. Brad did not get one.

But to be honest after seeing that film, his role was smaller. There was a debate whether he would be a supporting actor candidate or a best actor candidate.

BECK: OK. OK. Katrina, thank you very much.

SZISH: Thank you, Glenn.

BECK: We`ll talk to you again.

Back with "The Real Story" in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. Welcome to "The Real Story."

Tonight, the State of the Union address apparently going to focus on those kitchen table topics that we all care about, you know, the things like education, energy, health care, instead of that pesky war thing that`s going on in Iraq, jeez, and the anti-Christ. Oh, he`s buying a three- bedroom ranch in Iran. Let`s move on.

But even though the president is going to announce all sorts of really impressive-sounding programs tonight, "The Real Story" is most of them are never even going to get off the ground. They never do with any president.

Now, I`m not trying to play Scrooge on Christmas morning, but history has proven that the State of the Union is always more pep rally than reality. For example, last year, the president proposed something that sounded really simple. He said, quote, "I ask you to join with me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."

You know what? A year later, we got commissions to analyze our commissions, but the baby boomer thing? No, that went nowhere fast. But that`s not the only idea that was dead on arrival.

According to ABC News, just a third of the promises made in last year`s speech have been kept. But for everybody out there saying, "See, I told you, he lied. They died." Come on down from the soap box, OK? Bush didn`t exactly invent the State of the Union exaggerations.

In 1971, Richard Nixon said, quote, "I propose that we reduce the present 12 cabinet departments to eight." Yes. That worked out well. We now have 15.

In 1977, Gerald Ford was mad at how much foreign oil we were using. He said, quote, "Today we`re 40 percent dependent on foreign oil. Such vulnerability is intolerable and must be ended." Good for you, President Ford, putting your foot down on that one. Now we import at least 60 percent of our oil.

In 1990, George Bush decided to focus on schools. Quote, "By the year 2000, U.S. students must be the first in math and science in the world. Every school in America must be drug-free." I didn`t even waste the time checking to see if that one worked out.

In 1999, Clinton proposed committing 60 percent of the budget`s surplus for the next 15 years to reform Social Security. Yes, not so much. We should have figured out how to pay for this thing when there aren`t any surpluses.

But in case you`re starting to feel, you know, a little down in the mouth, let me leave you with one promise that was kept: 1998, President Bill Clinton stood up in front of Congress and made this pledge. Quote, "Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber when I say to him: We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again," end quote.

It only took a few years and another president, but at least one promise in the State of the Union was finally kept.

Next, there`s been so much speeches. And has there ever been a president, at least in recent memory, who hasn`t talked about fixing Social Security during their State of the Union address? It`s like they write these things just by filling in the blanks in a Mad Lib book.

But "The Real Story" isn`t that everyone wants this thing fixed. It`s what it will actually take to fix it. And, trust me, you`re not going to hear about that in tonight`s speech.

According to one columnist, new Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has been engaging in, quote, "secret bipartisan talks." I love those, because they always end up being so good for you and me.

Anyway, they`re reportedly talking about increasing or eliminating the cap on how much of your salary is subject to Social Security tax. All right, let me translate. This is going to be a tough one. Let me translate into English for anybody who still doesn`t use an abacus.

You put aside all the fancy numbers, and you think about it this way. If you eliminate the cap on Social Security, then the largest tax increase in the history of the country has just happened. The Heritage Foundation estimates that $1.4 trillion in new tax revenue will be spilling in over the next 10 years.

Now, I know that numbers like $1.4 trillion aren`t exactly relatable. We used to make those numbers up in kindergarten, but here`s how it works. Right now, you pay about 6 percent, 6.2 percent, of your salary to Social Security taxes. They take it before you even see it. The company pays another 6.2 percent, so the total tax is 12.4 percent. Got it? You still with me?

All right, the key is that the current tax is only paid on just under the first $100,000 of your income. For every dollar you make over that amount, the tax is zero. Wait a minute. Did I just hear him say that it`s 0 percent? My goodness gracious, that doesn`t sound fair. The wealthy should pay more, not less.

Yes, yes, right. Here`s the point. What the people are always missing is, it`s not really 0 percent. In fact, if you`re somebody lucky enough to be making over $100,000 a year, you`re already paying a ridiculous amount in taxes, possibly near 50 percent of your income in taxes, depending on where you live and where you work.

Now, remember, earlier I said that the company pays half of the 6.2 percent or half of the 12 percent, which is 6.2 percent. Well, what happens if you own that company? Well, if you own it, then you`re going to be paying both halves, the full 12.4 percent on your entire salary, not to mention the additional percentage that you`ll also be paying on the salary, the high-paid salary on your employees.

Any increase of the cap is going to hurt a lot of people who are the ones spending a lot of money. And the part that so many people just want to gloss over is, a ton of that money is spent on creating jobs. But who is going to be hiring when the taxes have just virtually doubled?

Besides, let`s all remember, there`s no guarantee that any of this money will ever be used for Social Security. They`re politicians, for the love of Pete! And as far as I know, Al Gore`s lock box is still stuck in the year 2000 with that Y2K computer bug.

You know, everybody keeps saying that the president won`t learn from his past. Well, you know what, Mr. President? Prove them wrong tonight. Prove them wrong. Get your constituents back. You can do it all in about three seconds.

Then, you know, you stand up and you say, in front of all the Democrats controlling Congress, in front of all the weasels that are wearing Republican suits, you look them right in the eye and say, "I have learned from the past. I will not repeat the same mistakes that others have made before me. So let me say this plainly and clearly: Read my lips, no new taxes!" And this time you keep that promise.

Scott Hodge, he`s the president of the Tax Foundation. Not a prayer, Scott, that`s going to happen, is there?

SCOTT HODGE, President, Tax Foundation: No, I really doubt it. It looks like the president is going to throw another trial balloon out there, but I don`t think we`re going to see any real action.

BECK: Scott, the odds that this Social Security nightmare actually happens, what do you think it is?

HODGE: Well, I think it`s very good. We`re on a path to basically the bankruptcy of the Social Security Trust Fund, because it is a badly designed program that requires current workers to pay taxes to pay for today`s retirees. At some point, you run out of workers to pay for the retirement benefits of yesterday`s workers, and that`s why it begins to fail. That`s why they need more taxes.

BECK: But this plan that we`re talking about, taking the cap out, you`re talking about -- some people will be paying 61 percent of their income to taxes now. That will cripple this economy. How do you expand -- if you`re a business owner, how do you expand when you`ve just done that to your business?

HODGE: Well, American businesses are already competing with one arm tied behind their back, because we have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. And the only thing that`s keeping us in the game is the fact that our European competitors are having to pay these high social insurance costs because their systems are going bankrupt. We`ve got to look at what`s happening over there and decide not to follow their lead.

The last thing American businesses need right now is higher social insurance taxes. And all we`re going to do is encourage them to outsource even more, so instead of being back office jobs, they`re going to outsource their legal services, their tax services, and all of those things, because an Indian lawyer does not pay those high Social Security taxes.

BECK: It`s crazy to me -- and I`ve asked this question a million times before -- how many people who make $50,000 a year have you worked for? You know, everybody wants to eat the rich. How many poor people, how many people who are making, you know, $20,000 a year are employing people? It takes the rich to create business.

You know? And it`s amazing. I grew up in a poor -- relatively poor family. I don`t even know what my father made, but it wasn`t a lot, you know? We weren`t stereotypical poor, but we were lower middle class. I`m lucky enough to make a good living now. If I would have been hammering the rich, now you get to the other side, dream a little. You can be rich in this country!

HODGE: Well, we all want to beat up on the rich, or at least the left does, but fact is that, if we look at the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, about two-thirds of them are business-owners, so that`s how you create wealth in America.

BECK: Self-made.

HODGE: They are self-made. These are the entrepreneurs of America. And why are we beating up on them? And why are we trying to force them to pay higher and higher taxes, rather than putting that cash into new investments, into hiring new employees, or expanding their business? We are simply going to cripple the entrepreneurs of America, and that`s bad for the economy in the end.

BECK: It`s what built this company. You know what I keep thinking about? I keep thinking about Ayn Rand`s book, "Atlas Shrugged."

HODGE: "Atlas Shrugged."

BECK: I mean, I keep -- all I hear, when I hear this plan is, where is John Galt? Scott, thank you very much. That is the "Real Story" tonight. And if you`d like to read more about this or if you`ve found a "Real Story" of your own that you`d like to tell us about, please visit glennbeck.com and click on that "Real Story" button.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: The Oscars came out, the 79th annual Oscars, yes! Here are the nominations. "Blood Diamond," Leonardo DiCaprio, didn`t see it. Peter O`Toole, "Venus," didn`t see that one. I`ll tell you who`s going to win, though: Peter O`Toole. Peter O`Toole is like 8,000 years old, been nominated -- listen to me; think like Hollywood -- been nominated a bajillion times, I believe, never won an Oscar. He could have played a penguin in "Happy Feet" and they`d give it to him because they`re like, "Ah, he`s going to die."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: As a father of four wonderful children, my kids fill my life with more joy than I could possibly put into words. Now, there are moments, of course, when they inspire other emotions, and I think you know exactly what I`m talking about: anger, frustration. And sometimes those things get the better of us, and that`s the last place you should be is around your kids disciplining when you feel that way.

But when you get -- you`ve reach the end of the time-out corner, have you ever contemplated spanking your kids? While spanking a child may be against some better instincts, California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber actually wants to make it against the law. She`s proposing a bill that would ban any form of spanking on children less than 3 years old. Governor Schwarzenegger has expressed an open mind on the subject.

You know what? I was spanked as a kid. I was going to say, I turned out all right, but no. I was spanked as a kid, and I`m not a good example, but others that were spanked as a kid, I`m sure they turned out fine. For the record, I`ve never spanked any of my children, never felt the need to. But I do have a spirited 2-year-old that, you know, I`ve got to tell you, I see a spanking in his future more than any of my other kids.

Now, I am not only uncomfortable with a law that tells parents how they can discipline their children, quite frankly, I`m outraged. I have heard plenty of Californians preach to me about keeping government out of my stinking bedroom. Well, you know what? Right back at you. Keep government out of my family room.

Joining me now is Assemblywoman Sally Lieber.

Assemblywoman, let me ask you something. What was the motivation for this? What was the catalyst that made you say, "I`ve got to stop people from swatting their kids on the butt"?

SALLY LIEBER, California State Assemblywoman: Well, what the catalyst was, was a conversation that I had with a local law professor here in Northern California who has worked extensively in this area of the law and has been very focused on child rescue internationally.

And what he brought forward to me in the context of a conversation on juvenile justice and the increasing violence among youth was that one thing that we really needed to consider to make sure that young people are less violent in the future was that they`re not being punished physically at very young ages.

BECK: Right. You know, we probably have gotten better as a society about not punishing our kids. I would think that that`s probably not the big thing that`s leading to violence with our children. But you are in California. You already have a law on the books that says you can spank your kids, but not to excess. It can`t be an excessive spanking. This really is a law that could put me into jail if I swat my kid.

LIEBER: Well, I think you raised the point that California`s law, like the law of many other states, most other states, says that parents can discipline physically or whatever -- or whoever is in control of the child, be it a baby-sitter or a relative, can discipline, so long as it`s not to an unjustifiable degree.

And that`s the difficulty, is that there are parents who use physical punishment very sparingly, who use it very prudently. I`m glad to hear that you`ve never used it so far.

BECK: And you know what? If I did -- excuse me, if I did, it would be none of your frickin` business. I`m the parent, not you.

LIEBER: Well, the point that I was making was that, unfortunately, there are some parents and some guardians and some individuals out there in society that have grossly abused this privilege, and they are...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: And you have a law on the book that will put those people in jail. You are talking about a law that would put a parent in jail for up to a year. Now, don`t you think, if you put the parent in jail -- I`m not talking about excessive spanking; I`m talking about swats -- you don`t think that putting that child away from their parents and putting the parent in jail is worse for that kid?

LIEBER: Well, I understand that you appear to think that there is some kind of a law in the line that differentiates between extreme physical discipline...

BECK: Yes.

LIEBER: ... and a normal amount. But that line just simply is not there, and that`s what we`re trying to do with this bill. It`s to create a very bright line that says, for infants and toddlers, no amount of physical punishment is appropriate.

BECK: Right. You see things as completely -- there is no appropriate amount. I can`t -- I cannot discipline my child at all unless it`s just having a talk with them. I cannot give my child a swat on the behind if they misbehave in your world, right, yes or no?

LIEBER: For infants and toddlers...

BECK: Yes or no?

LIEBER: For infants and toddlers, yes. Under this bill, yes.

BECK: Sally, may I ask you a question? What the hell are you people drinking in California? Because the rest of the country doesn`t understand you. I honestly don`t know what you people are thinking in California.

LIEBER: Well, California is clearly the first on so many laws, and clearly California is a place that many people throughout the U.S. would like to come.

BECK: And I wish them well. Assemblywoman, we`re out of time. Thanks very much.

LIEBER: Thank you.

BECK: Let`s check in with Nancy Grace now and see what she`s got coming up on the show tonight -- Nancy?

NANCY GRACE, CNN HOST: Glenn, she should be her very own class in law school, at least one semester. Legal troubles come to a head for cover girl Anna Nicole Smith. Alleged unpaid legal bills, a paternity dispute, inquest into the death of her young son, and how does a multimillionaire cover girl get evicted from her mansion in the Bahamas?

Also today, D-Day in court on paternity. And, Glenn, I hope you`re sitting down. Tell me, how does an adult male sex offender end up enrolled in Arizona middle schools, passing himself off as a 12-year-old boy? And think about it: To how many schoolchildren has he now been exposed?

BECK: Don`t forget, you can check out Nancy at 8:00 and 10:00 p.m. Eastern.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Last week, we brought you the story of the Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, who was stopped attempting to walk through an airport security with a water bottle. He hesitated handing it over to security, which they found a little suspicious. Well, after he got onto the plane, the police looked a little closer at the bottle and discovered a secret compartment behind the label.

In the police report, they said, quote, "Immediately we noted a strong odor of marijuana and a few dark flakes hidden in the compartment." Then, suddenly after the police initially said, you know, the tests would take weeks, the assistant attorney general of the state came out and issued a memo that said there were no drugs found.

OK. I`m glad to know that it wasn`t drugs, but what was it? And why did we have a water bottle with a secret compartment in the first place? I think I would have felt better hearing that it were drugs; at least then we`d know what the deal was.

Their general manager, Rick McKay, said, "I think Michael feels sorry and feels bad. He knows he let a lot of people down." This just gets more and more bizarre. How did he let people down? If he`s not getting charged with anything, he didn`t let anybody else.

The Falcons` vice president of football communications, Reggie Roberts, with a very specific job title there, said, "This is just another reminder of the high-profile nature of the professional athlete and the close scrutiny players undergo related to their conduct on and off the field."

Wait a minute. Hang on. The guys tries to smuggle in a bottle with a secret compartment onto a plane, and no one has even taken the time to figure out what was in it, and you think that`s close scrutiny? You know, if Vick were an innocent man, falsely accused, I think he`d be out in front of the media right now, saying so at every opportunity, but he`s been utterly silent throughout.

However, to be fair, he has been a man who in the past has chosen to communicate with fans with sign language, so he could be in his home right now just signing a full denial at his mansion, right now, watching the show. He`s probably doing that.

By the way, the story coincides with the announcement that the Cincinnati Bengals have had their ninth player arrested in nine months. That`s 17 percent of their roster size. When you`ve got 17 percent of a group being arrested, you need to start investigating them for organized crime. We might as well have gone after the Bengals under the RICO Act. The world makes no sense.

By the way, you can send me your ways to smuggle things onto planes in water bottles at GlennBeck@CNN.com. We`ll see you tomorrow on the radio, then back here tomorrow night, you sick, twisted freak. Good night.

END