Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Spitzer Steps Down; Economist: Rolling Back Tax Cuts Won`t Solve Problems; Arizona State Senator Proposes Allowing Guns on Campus

Aired March 12, 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 Spitzer steps down amid reports he`s negotiating a plea deal. Excuse me. A plea deal. No deal, amigo. This hypocrite should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And I`ll explain why.

Also, where was Spitzer`s security detail during these high-level meetings with hookers? Should the state troopers guarding Spitzer bear any blame for the fiasco.

And one woman`s crusade to allow guns on school campus. I`ll explain why this is actually a good idea.

All this and more tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Well, hello America. You know what I really, really hate? I hate -- I hate when somebody quits before you have a chance to fire them. You know what I mean? When they really deserve it?

Earlier this afternoon, Eliot Spitzer, the hypocritical, unethical low-life slug, resigned as governor of New York.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELIOT SPITZER, OUTGOING GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK: From those to whom much is given, much is expected. I have been given much. The love of my family, the faith and trust of the people of New York and the chance to lead the state. I`m deeply sorry that I did not live up to what was expected of me. There is much more to be done, and I cannot allow my private failings to disrupt the people`s work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Holy cow, does she look like she wants to stab him to death? Maybe it`s just me. Sorry.

Here`s "The Point" tonight. Eliot Spitzer had to resign for paying for sex with hookers, and -- which is weird. On his way out he managed to screw the people of New York, as well. Isn`t it great? Where`s my $4,000? Here`s how I got there.

Once the news of Spitzer`s connection to a prostitution ring came out Monday, just about everybody expected him to, you know, resign that day. It would be the smart thing to do. But he didn`t. And then the next two days he basically held the state hostage. Albany couldn`t get any work done, which is kind of a good thing in some ways, because the governor and his lawyers were reportedly wheeling and dealing. They were negotiating the terms of his resignation. What?

As of right now, speculation suggests that Spitzer`s resignation was conditional on him receiving no jail time and keeping his license to practice law. The U.S. attorney for New York denies any such arrangement. But forgive me for being just a wee be cynical. I think I`ve seen this movie someplace before.

I think it`s about time we start making examples out of people like Eliot Spitzer. Scum like him, you know, they think they can get away with this crap, because they do get away with this crap over and over and over again. The last thing we need is now an attorney who we know is dirty, knowing he can break the law and manipulate the system to get what he wants.

If this guy was found guilty, Spitzer should go to jail. He should be stripped of his license to practice law in New York and every place else.

Tonight here is what you need to know. Unfortunately, we live in today`s America. Spitzer is probably going to keep his license. His wife will stay with him for some unknown reason. He`ll write a book. He`ll make the talk show rounds. He`ll get richer. Everybody will forget and everybody will say, "Oh, but he was abused as a kid" or whatever it is.

It`s tragic, because Eliot Spitzer didn`t just betray his wife and family and put their lives at stake. He betrayed the public trust and put our lives at stake. And for that he deserves no mercy.

Strangely, I heard a report today that said the Justice Department says that they consider Spitzer`s mere resignation a victory. Well, maybe a victory for the Justice Department, but I don`t think it`s a victory for justice.

James Tedisco, he is a New York assembly minority leader.

Hello, James. You`re -- you`re actually the steam roller guy, right? You`re the guy who Spitzer said, "I`m going to be like a steam roller over you and people like you," right?

JAMES TEDISCO, NEW YORK ASSEMBLY MINORITY LEADER: It was all downhill after that conversation with me, Glenn. And it`s good to be with you. I wish we were here under better circumstances.

BECK: Well, it`s an honor to meet somebody that Spitzer said that to. Jail time or no jail time for this guy?

TEDISCO: Well, before I became a legislator I was an educator. I wasn`t an attorney. So I don`t know -- I`m not privy to exactly what the negotiations were all about.

But I can tell you this: this has been a tragedy, not only for Eliot Spitzer and his family, but for the entire state of New York. You`re absolutely right. We`ve been in gridlock right now, and we`re kind of bittersweet about the fact that he has called it quits, because now we can move forth when one door closes, you know, another door opens. We`ve got Lieutenant Governor Paterson, who is going to take over, and we think he can do a much better job.

BECK: Really? Isn`t this the guy who said that all cops should, when they`re shooting, they shouldn`t shoot to kill; they should aim for the criminal`s hands or feet?

TEDISCO: Yes. He was way off base on that. And he`s way off base on a lot of issues. The difference between him and Eliot Spitzer is he knows how to negotiate and compromise. It`s not his way or the highway. He doesn`t involve himself in the politics that Eliot Spitzer involved himself with. So we`ll have better communications. We`ll still have to debate him, though.

BECK: Have we asked him if he likes hookers?

TEDISCO: We haven`t asked that question yet.

BECK: Probably -- probably good.

TEDISCO: I`ll leave that up to you, Glenn.

BECK: I don`t think he`ll come on if knows I`m going to ask that question. We won`t tell him.

TEDISCO: Oh, you will.

BECK: Let me ask you -- let me ask you this question. It came out that Eliot Spitzer didn`t like to wear condoms with prostitutes. Do you think he knew about the gigantic New York program that gave millions of condoms away for free every year?

TEDISCO: Well, I think this is why this whole situation is so difficult for Eliot Spitzer. His whole policy was ethics reform. He based his administration on, at the highest level of ethics reform. And as you can see, he failed miserably, he broke that contract, he breached it with the people of New York state, not only ethically but allegedly illegally in many ways.

I don`t think anybody could sustain this job with what he`s done, but especially Eliot Spitzer. He knows he has done something wrong. I think this indicates that he has a problem emotionally and psychologically. And that`s something he`s got to deal with.

BECK: If he keeps his law license, has justice been served?

TEDISCO: I don`t think so. I think the law enforcement people and the FBI should prosecute. And they know he broke the law. And maybe he can serve in some other ways but not as a public servant or as an attorney. I think you`re right on base with that.

BECK: Thank you very much, Assemblyman.

TEDISCO: OK. Now the governor has a security detail, and they`re made up of New York state troopers. These men and women work for the state, the people of New York, not the governor. So my question this morning was, while Spitzer was having these meetings with chicks in halter tops and fishnets, did any of them say, "I don`t think that`s an economic adviser"? Is there any way that they didn`t know what was going on?

And if they didn`t feel comfortable blowing the whistle while they were on the job, should they have resigned and upheld their oath to protect and serve New York citizens, the ones who paid their salaries, not the hooker-loving governor?

David Townsend is a New York state assemblyman and former state trooper himself.

David, I want you know, I am a big fan of cops and troopers. I support them 110 percent. I`m not blaming them for this at all. But I am trying to figure out if an elected official is doing something illegal, don`t they have the responsibility to arrest that person or blow the whistle on that person?

DAVID TOWNSEND, NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLYMAN: Well, most assuredly they would if, in fact, they knew what the governor was doing was illegal or if, in fact, they even knew what he was doing at that point. You`ve got that fine line between protection and privacy when it comes to officials that you`re protecting.

BECK: Yes. Well, OK. So should they -- look, if somebody is having an affair with somebody, that is none of the Secret Service`s business or the state troopers or whatever. The scum bag, I personally wouldn`t want to give my life for that kind of person. I would just ask for a transfer. But you know, hey, to each his own. That`s private.

TOWNSEND: Right.

BECK: But if you`re going from city to city, and somebody is coming up to the hotel room and they -- I mean, is he just extraordinarily lucky with women? Is that what they were thinking?

TOWNSEND: Well -- well, it`s the governor. I`m sure they follow around TV stars like you, too, Glenn.

BECK: No, they don`t. They don`t.

TOWNSEND: OK.

BECK: TV stars.

TOWNSEND: You know, you`d have to say that they knew exactly that she was coming from New York to Washington or New York to Florida, wherever the heck they were going. And that`s not part of their detail. They`re there just to protect him from people attacking him and make sure that the perimeter of where he is staying and involved in is secure.

BECK: Sure.

TOWNSEND: And once the governor or anybody decides it`s time to retire for the night, you let them go. You don`t go in the room and sleep with them.

BECK: The...

TOWNSEND: You don`t have any way to control -- sorry -- don`t have any way to control where -- where he`s IM-ing, who he`s calling on the phone, who he`s doing it on the computer with. And, you know, it`s a fine line between a gentleman`s privacy.

And then again, too, he`s the boss. And when he tells the trooper, you know, "Get out of my way. I`m going to go down and have a couple of cocktails, you stay here," what`s the trooper to do? Say, "No, I`m going to go with you, Governor"? And guess what? That trooper will be gone.

BECK: Do you think that this kind of adds to the arrogance of these politicians because they`re getting away with it with cops in the hallway. I mean, they must -- at some point they must think, "I can do anything."

TOWNSEND: Yes. But you`ve got to understand, as I understand it, Glenn, that he was on the ninth floor in the 900 rooms, and the lady came down on the eighth floor in room 871. So maybe you ought to be looking at why he went down to the front desk and asked for a CD of Italian music as his escape out of 900 to get back up to 800.

BECK: I think he should...

TOWNSEND: ... to look at.

BECK: I think he should have used Atlantic Star`s "Secret Lover".

(singing) Secret lover...

(speaking) That`s the CD he should have asked for.

David, thank you very much. I`ve got to run. Thank you so much, sir.

Now, Obama may have won last night in Mississippi. But he`s losing the battle for blue-collar workers. And in the next few minutes, probably not going to help you much. I`ll tell you why both Democratic candidates might actually hurt America`s workforce, their plans and also the Republican, as well.

And we have something the government won`t tell you. We`ve been in a recession for at least four months. I`ll explain in tonight`s "Real Story."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Milk prices up 18 percent. Price of eggs 40 percent higher than the same egg that you bought last year. But somehow or another, the cost of beef is dropping. Wow. How come? And how is that connected -- connected to Washington`s obsession with ethanol? Wait until you hear the insanity in tonight`s "Real Story." It`s coming up.

Barack Obama easily won victory last night in Democratic -- the Democratic primary in Mississippi. That gives him a substantial lead in delegate count over Hillary Clinton. So what does the No. 1 Democrat have to now say about the voters` No. 1 issue?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The truth is, working families are struggling today in large measure because the failure of leadership and the failure of imagination in Washington. It`s a Washington where George Bush hands out billions of dollars in tax cuts year after year to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest few who don`t need them and weren`t even asking for them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I need them. I`m asking -- I didn`t know I had to ask. I`m asking. Can I have one, please? Jeez, talking about the middle class and their economic hardships, central to both Democratic campaigns. And don`t get me wrong. A lot of hardship happening in this country right now, because Washington had too much imagination, and they`ve screwed things up.

Now, both say they want to roll back the tax cuts that President Bush passed in 2003. Well, you know, the Robin Hood approach, it hits home with people, because there are a lot more middle class Americans than rich ones, although there are more rich every single year coming out of the middle class. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor sounds so romantic and nice, doesn`t it? But it doesn`t address the financial needs of you, the average earner.

And here is why. Maintaining the tax cuts that Bush established in 2003 is not a political favor to the rich. The wealthiest now are paying more taxes than ever before. Look it up. Go ahead, Keith Olbermann, get back to me.

It`s good for everybody, because it puts capital in the hands of business, not giants like Exxon but places like Stanley`s Plumbing and Mom`s Diner and all the small businesses that make up 70 percent of all business in America.

Those businesses have three basic choices when it comes to what they can do with their non-taxed income. They can consume it. They can save it. Or best of all, they can invest it and expand their business. All three of those choices improve the economic health of the middle class.

John Tamny, he`s the editor of Real Clear Markets and a senior economist at H.C. Wainwright Economics. Sorry, John.

Explain, if you will, because I -- I`m so tired of explaining to liberals and progressives the way the tax thing works because it works the same way over and over and over again. They have been proven wrong, that higher taxes mean more income for the government and is better for the middle class.

Can you do it maybe one last time and speak slowly for any of Keith Olbermann`s staff that might be watching?

JOHN TAMNY, EDITOR, "REAL CLEAR MARKETS": Well, I think it`s amazing that Barack Obama can say this about helping the middle class by hurting the rich. And what the middle classes have to understand is when Obama talks about raising taxes on the rich, what -- taxes on the rich, what he`s really saying is he will lower the wages of the middle classes.

Because as you point out, businesses are reliant on capital. When the rich have more money, when they get to hold on to more of their money, they can consume it, they can save it or they can invest it. All three accrue to the wages of the worker. And when we raise the taxes on the rich, we, once again, reduce the amount of income that the middle classes can receive.

BECK: I`ve never worked for a poor person. Never. I mean, I`ve never -- I`ve never heard...

TAMNY: Neither have I.

BECK: A poor person has never come up to me and said, "You know what? I`m going to create a new business." Unless it was somebody who had an idea and then became rich and created jobs.

I, as a small business owner, I`m a guy who had health insurance raised on my company. I cover everything for my employees. It`s the best health insurance we can possibly buy. It -- the premium went up 48 percent this year, and my company took that whole hit.

Now what am I going to do when I`m paying -- I saw an estimate, that if a Democrat gets in, I`m going to pay about 50 percent of my income in taxes plus out-of-control healthcare and everything else. What`s going to happen? I`m going to lay people off. How do they not understand that?

TAMNY: It`s a remarkable thing. And I think what it speaks to is that they are actually very -- Obama and Clinton are very contemptuous of the voters that want to vote for them. They think that they are so obtuse as to not understand that when you tax the successful people in society, what you do is you harm the chances of the middle classes. It`s amazing.

BECK: You know what, John? Help me out on this one, because this is why John McCain ain`t my candidate, Hillary is not, Barack Obama is certainly not. But John McCain doesn`t get it either. He`s been against the tax cuts over and over and over again. And he can say, "Oh, I get it now on immigration and taxes." But he`s never proven himself to get it.

TAMNY: I think you`re absolutely right. And I think it`s so naive for Republicans to assume that McCain has just figured out taxes. He`s been in Washington since the `70s.

BECK: That`s the problem.

TAMNY: It`s a problem, but it`s also something -- he`s witnessed the successful impact of tax cuts numerous times. And he still voted against the 2003 Bush tax cuts. We`re supposed to believe now that he`s discovered...

BECK: Yes.

TAMNY: ... the positive effect of tax cuts? To believe that is ridiculous. I think he`s campaigning right now. It`s pure politics. But to believe for a second that he`s actually going to push for tax cuts when he`s in office...

BECK: Fantasy land. John, appreciate it.

Now, I know this Robin Hood, you know, ideal of steal from the rich and give to the poor is really a popular progressive sentiment right now, almost Marxist in its thinking.

And you may be sitting here and going, "Gee, Glenn, I don`t know why you hate so many poor people." Nothing could be further from the truth. I`m just emulating the ideas of yet another hate monger who said, and I quote, "Let not him who is houseless pull down a house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself." Oh, our hate-monger of the day, Abraham Lincoln.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: OK. There is one problem that I have with gun-free zones. And that`s that bad guys shoot people in gun-free zones. They don`t seem to care about the little sign. Too often no guns results in dead kids.

Finally, one lawmaker has had enough, Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson. She`s sponsoring a bill that would allow people -- think how crazy this is -- 21 years and older, that have a concealed weapons permit to carry their firearms at public colleges and universities. Amen. Oh, no, did I just say that? Oh, no. It might save lives, because that`s what guns do. They save lives.

Let`s go to the senator now.

What put you over the edge here on this lawsuit -- this proposal?

KAREN JOHNSON, ARIZONA STATE SENATOR: Well, Mr. Beck, we had several teachers, actually, came to me and related the fact that they actually had a lot of concerns of being in their classrooms totally unprotected, especially after you have the Virginia Tech incident, and then you also had the incident that happened in Illinois.

BECK: OK. You know what? I said the same thing after Illinois. I said it after Virginia. You know what? Somebody in that classroom shooting that guy, especially in Illinois, where the guy took the time to reload. All you have to do is get down on one knee, get behind a chair and shoot the guy and stop him. But you know what? The first time it does. And that person with the concealed weapon`s permit misses and hits somebody else, all of the focus will be on that shooter and not the one who came in.

They`ll say, "Look, yes, but the person with the concealed weapons permit, look what they did. They killed somebody." Instead of saying, yes, but they might have saved ten other people.

JOHNSON: Exactly. Exactly. And I think that we absolutely have to move ahead with this. People have Second Amendment rights in this country. And when they`ve gone through the training that a CCW permit holder gets, I think the idea of something like that happening is very minute.

BECK: You know, I used to live -- by the way, I don`t know what your buttons say. But I love anybody who wears a lot of buttons, because they`re always the fun ones in the office. The -- I shouldn`t say that. I work with a few liberals that the buttons would drive me a little crazy.

But anyway, you know, I used to live in Arizona. And I remember going to the movie theaters. And it used to say, "Check your handgun at the ticket counter," at the lobby. Does it still say that in Arizona?

JOHNSON: I have not seen any signs like that.

BECK: Really?

JOHNSON: In Arizona we are allowed to carry open. There is a law in Arizona that allows you to carry open. So maybe if you`re openly carrying they want you to check it. If that it`s concealed, nobody knows.

BECK: Yes. You know what? The thing is, is everybody -- because the people who are against this will say all these crazy people will be in shootouts all the time, everybody will be carrying guns.

I carry a gun. I mean, I know people that carry guns all the time. Concealed weapons permit holders are responsible, for the love of Pete. I don`t know any of them that have ever been in a shootout.

I do know one person that happened to be at a convenience store that had the clerk being held by a gun. He walked behind the chip counter, pulled out his gun and said, "You might want to put it down." I know that one. But I don`t know anybody who`s been involved in a shootout, do you?

JOHNSON: No. No, I don`t. We have approximately a hundred thousand CCW holder permits here in Arizona. And we haven`t had any incidents of anything going wrong.

BECK: Senator. Thanks so much. Good luck. Back in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. Let`s talk about the border here for a second. You know Congress can`t do a darn thing on it. They`re not going to. If I said to you, hey, let`s just go to the NFL, let`s get a football player to come up with an immigration plan, you`d believe they had a pretty good plan, wouldn`t you? You`d probably support it.

I`ve got the NFL football player`s plan next. It`s a wormhole, I swear to you.

First, welcome to "The Real Story."

I could be breaking news here. I`m not really sure.

I don`t know if you`ve heard this yet, but here is our nonexclusive story this evening. The government sucks. There you go.

I mean, when you want something done right, do you go to city hall or Washington? You call those clowns up? Or do you go to the yellow pages or private business or maybe a neighbor? I mean, that`s what I do.

That`s why it should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that the government isn`t exactly the gold standard when it comes to interpreting economic data. For example, consumer spending. I mean, you spend as much as you were last year? Are you?

I mean, do you have as much money in your bank account as you did last year? Our homes are worth less, our food costs more. Filling up your gas tank, I did it the other day. I swear to you, I needed an equity loan on my home. But I can`t get a home equity loan anymore. Somehow that memo hasn`t made it to Washington, that it stinks on ice in the economy.

The Commerce Department recently said that consumer spending actually rose .4 percent in January. I know what you`re thinking, strip out inflation. They still claim that spending was flat compared to December, which forces me to ask the question, who exactly is supposedly spending all of that money? I mean, I live in a nice neighborhood, and I don`t know anybody throwing wads of cash out the window anymore.

"The Real Story" is consumers have been in a recession for months now. You know it and I know it. You`ve felt it. And private data, not outdated politically-rigged government models, confirms it.

There`s a company called TrimTabs. They created this measure called the Consumer Spendables Index. It tries to bring a little logic and common sense into the picture by looking at how much access to money we have every single month. That includes our after-tax wages, our investments, and everybody`s favorite source of extra cash, our homes.

Now, back in 2006, TrimTabs estimated that consumers had access to over $2 trillion to spend. Now, $500 billion less. That`s kind of a big gap considering that the entire stimulus package we`re pumping out this year is worth $168 billion.

Wall Street research firms that make huge multimillion-dollar gambles on the economy have a choice to make. They can use the government data that still uses snail mail and surveys. You know, it`s constantly revised. It`s always behind the curve. Sometimes months behind. Or they can pay big money to a company like TrimTabs, a company that makes a living on the accuracy of its data.

Let me ask you, you`re running one of these big companies, which one would you choose?

Charles Biderman, he is the founder and CEO of TrimTabs Investment Research, author of "TrimTabs Investing: Using Liquidity Theory to Beat the Stock Market."

Charles, you`ve been saying for a while we`re in a recession. How would you know? What do the numbers show you?

CHARLES BIDERMAN, TRIMTABS INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC.: Well, consumers have less money to spend this year than last year. It`s that simple.

BECK: OK. But the government shows -- like, you see inflation, you see the government numbers on inflation, you see the recession. There are still people that argue with me and say oh, no, no, no, no.

What is the difference between your numbers and the government`s numbers?

BIDERMAN: Well, every day when you get paid and I get paid, the amount of money withheld from our paychecks, are income and employment taxes, goes directly to the Treasury. It doesn`t -- it goes right past go, right to the Treasury.

The next day the Treasury reports how much they collected from every employer every day, every -- all 140 million of us who are on salaries have income and employment taxes withheld. That data has been available online for the last 10 years.

BECK: So then why are we waiting -- why are we waiting for, like, a jobs report every month then?

BIDERMAN: Good question. The BLS told us that they`re not aware that this -- where the -- how could they find this data? I mean, they don`t track it. Why don`t they track it? Well, it`s only been available for the last 10 years.

BECK: America, may I ask a question -- or Charles, maybe you have an answer for me. Universal health care, this is the way they`re still tracking data. They`re not using the Internet. I mean, it`s still going out in surveys in the mail.

If we get universal health care, do you think we`ll be drilling holes in people`s heads to relieve headaches? I mean, these guys are years behind the curve.

BIDERMAN: Well, they certainly will be bleeding us with leaches.

LEMON: You know, let me ask you this -- how do you actually trade in a market, how do you know what`s going on if -- well, let me first ask you this -- are they about five months behind, four months behind, 10 months behind the curve with the data that they have?

BIDERMAN: They are at least nine months behind.

BECK: Nine months.

BIDERMAN: Every month every employer tells the state that they`re in how many people worked for them and how much money for unemployment insurance.

BECK: OK. All right. So how do you not trade on fear if you don`t know what the real numbers are?

BIDERMAN: Well, that`s my point, is that that real-time data that`s available by withholding, from state unemployment insurance forms, the BLS does not -- says, well, they can`t get that data in real time. Why not? Well, there`s too much paperwork, it`s too complicated.

So I asked them, have they ever heard of the Internet? Give each state their e-mail address and tell them, send us the monthly data as soon as it comes in. And we`ll add it up.

BECK: Oh, I think...

BIDERMAN: And we`ll now how much money people are making this month, how many are employed. We wouldn`t have this, well, what`s going on? Is the economy in recession? Is it not? Who knows?

BECK: Charles, here`s the problem -- they`ve only got 6400 baud on the Internet. So it would take a long time to download.

Thanks.

Now, let me just state it right now. It`s not overstating to say that I think that corn-based ethanol is the worst idea since Stalin`s five-year plan. In fact, I`d go so far to say that if Iowa -- my apologies Iowa. I love you, and you know it. If Iowa weren`t an important election state, the whole corn-ethanol thing would have been trashed years ago.

It`s a stupid idea. Not only is corn ethanol highly inefficient -- I mean, it actually takes more energy to produce it than it ends up providing.

Hello?

But "The Real Story" is -- you know what, actually? Tonight, let me allow Mr. President to tell you the real story. I think he finally figured it out just last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Corn ethanol holds a lot of promise, but there`s a lot of challenges. If you`re a hog raiser in the United States, you`re beginning to worry about the cost of corn to feed your -- feed our animals. I`m beginning to hear complaints from our cattlemen about the high price of corn. The high price of corn is beginning to affect the price of food.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I don`t raise hogs, and I got that a long time ago.

Welcome to the party, Mr. President.

I`m a recovering alcohol rodeo clown, and even I knew that using America`s farms to feed its cars would make our food cost more. Did you really need a call -- wait a minute, I got a call from a rancher. Hello?

I can`t believe sometimes I voted for this guy.

Prices on everything from milk and eggs, vegetables, double digits. But beef prices, they`re not up. Why is that? Well, think about how the market works.

Some ranchers are now paying over twice as much for their corn feed as they were a few years ago for that ethanol that we, you know, can`t find anywhere, at least in this city. Then they can`t sell their cattle for twice as much. So they can`t feed their cattle.

You know, what do they do? So, instead of sinking their money into months of expensive corn feed, some ranchers are sending their cows to slaughter early. Others are selling their cows up the food chain for less money because the next farmer won`t pay as much knowing that corn prices are going to kill his profits.

Got it?

So what do you think happens when all that excess beef is gone? Prices will skyrocket on beef. We`ll be out of -- we`ll be out of food and beef. That sounds perfect.

Our farmers will suffer. And when that day finally comes, the geniuses in Washington who put ethanol on the shelf in the first place will move it right next to the whale oil. We`ll be left with nothing but corn farm after corn farm after corn farm built to support a fuel that was never meant to power anything but political campaigns.

A country that prioritizes fuel over food is not just shortsighted and arrogant, it`s doomed.

Steve Erdman, he is the managing partner of New World Trading.

Steve...

STEVE ERDMAN, MANAGING PARTNER, NEW WORLD TRADING: Hi, Glenn.

BECK: ... can`t feed our cows because the cow feed is to expensive.

ERDMAN: That`s right.

BECK: So we`re killing them.

ERDMAN: That`s what they`re doing.

BECK: That doesn`t seem like smart long-term thinking here.

ERDMAN: It isn`t. It`s going to be -- it`s going to come to bear in about probably 12 to 14 months, and the futures market is reflecting it.

BECK: OK. We`ve got a couple of problems. It`s not just ethanol. It`s been bad for farming, bad crops all around the world.

I don`t know -- please verify this. I read that America, the world`s bread basket, is actually going to have to import wheat for the first time in our history.

ERDMAN: There is a critical shortage in the world of coarse grain stocks in general. But the price of soft red (ph) winter wheat went up to $25 about two weeks ago. There`s certain segments of the wheat market that are just going nuts.

BECK: OK. So we`ve got bad crops around the world. Now we`re burning our food for ethanol. But it`s going to get much, much worse because, how many ethanol plants are we now building?

ERDMAN: I think in 2006 they had over 75 new plants. There`s -- the margins for ethanol aren`t as attractive as they were about a year ago. So that ethanol expansion has slowed. But we`re going to grind probably 4.1 billion bushels of corn this year for ethanol production.

BECK: And real quick -- beans, rice, cotton. I mean, let`s look at the price of our cotton clothes. Cotton is going up as well because everybody is fighting for acreage now, right? There`s not enough acreage for all this stuff.

ERDMAN: Absolutely. The only way the government can do anything to address it would be to release the conservation reserve acres that...

BECK: Oh, no, no, no.

ERDMAN: I agree.

BECK: No, we wouldn`t do that.

Steve, thank you very much.

Now, I`ve got to tell you, I can`t take it anymore.

And then we`re in a political campaign with superdelegates. Let me introduce you to some of the superdelegates, 794 superdelegates, who, as I figure, could decide this year`s Democratic race, have at least 6,000 times each more powerful of a voice than you do. Maybe it`s time you meet some of these superdelegates.

Tonight`s mystery superdelegate was forced to endure private schools during his childhood before finally attending Princeton. After getting a perfect score on his law school exam, he went on to get a law degree at Harvard, which then he parlayed into a losing campaign for state attorney general.

But that didn`t keep this man down. It didn`t keep him down. No. No. Years later he won that job, and then even a higher job.

Ladies and gentlemen, a big round of applause for tonight`s soon-to-be former superdelegate, Eliot Spitzer, perhaps better known as the governor hypocritical, cheating scumbag that we all know and not love.

Aren`t you happy that people like him are 6,000 times more important than you are, at least to our political parties. What a truly democratic process we`re living through.

Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Breaking news. A tough new immigration bill is being proposed in Congress. Yeah, yeah. I know, how many times have you heard that before?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 4,244 times, and shame on me. I`m just dumb as a box of rocks.

I want to tell you about this new bill. It`s called the SAVE Act.

I don`t want you to get excited. You know, some of it`s commonsense provisions like tougher workplace enforcement, or adding 8,000 more agents to the border. You know, I don`t want you to think it will actually get passed. I`m just telling you about the bill because it was proposed by a Democrat.

Of course, the Democratic leadership doesn`t want that bill to ever see the light of day because it`s an election year, after all. But Republicans are hoping to actually unite with the Democrat on immigration reform.

What a concept. Get something done that we all want done? Whoa.

They`re using a rare procedural motion to move it forward. I just -- I do have a news flash for Washington. The American people don`t care about the election year. They don`t care about the procedural motion or anything else. We want our borders secured, and we`d like it done, oh, I don`t know, about four years ago.

If a Democrat can deliver it, great. I`m the first one to shake their hand. A Republican, great. Independent, Ron Paul, I don`t care. Get it done.

Former NFL player and North Carolina Congressman Heath Shuler, this is the guy who introduced SAVE Act last year.

And first of all, tell me about the bill, because I`m always afraid of these bills. You know, somewhere in the middle of the bill is, like, oh, yeah, by the way, the Constitution no longer exists.

REP. HEATH SHULER (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Well, Glenn, I don`t think we`ll have to worry about this. It`s truly a bipartisan bill.

When we dropped the SAVE Act, we had 25 Democrats and 25 Republicans on the bill. We went and did a press conference. People said that they had been watching tough issues, especially the immigration issue. And they never thought they`d have a bill that would actually have so much bipartisan support.

BECK: Any path to citizenship in this?

SHULER: No path to citizenship.

BECK: None?

SHULER: None whatsoever.

BECK: Nobody -- what do we do with the citizens -- or the non- citizens that are here that are here illegally?

SHULER: Well, it will be self-deportation. It`s -- with an employer verification piece, using eVerify, a program that will be phased in over three years that, you know, when people can`t find employment and they`re fined from the employer`s side, if they actually have someone employed that has -- that is here illegally, then it`s fined by the employer.

But it will also -- the people who do have legal status, that they`ll be able to take the burden off the employer to decide whether or not the information that the employee is handing to them is correct by using the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

BECK: There`s got to be something to this, because this is starting to make too much sense that it`s coming from Washington.

Now, McCain is the guy who says, oh, I know now, I`ve got it. I`ve got it from -- no, I heard this time. This one has no path to citizenship. This is exactly the kind of bill that he should support.

Have you heard, is he for this bill?

SHULER: Well, we`ve actually reached out to all the presidential candidates and asked them to endorse this bill.

BECK: Any of them?

SHULER: No. So far we -- not a surprise, but no one has actually endorsed this bill from the presidential side.

BECK: Right. OK.

And you`re going up against Nancy Pelosi. She doesn`t want this introduced now. What`s it like going after Nancy Pelosi being a Democrat? Are you getting a lot of heat for it?

SHULER: Well, I think you have to look at it. Why were you -- you know, why was I elected to the U.S. House to go represent my district and represent the American people? And, you know, this is -- far too much is both leaderships, both Democrats and Republicans, use this as a political tool. And it`s time to get some common sense about it and start doing what`s right for the American people and doing what`s right for America in general.

And we`re playing too much partisan politics. And so I want to make sure -- I`m going to do whatever it takes.

BECK: Heath -- Congressman, I have to tell you -- I`ve got to cut you off here, but I`ve got to tell you, I`m a conservative, but you know what? I`m looking for politicians like you. I don`t know much about you, sir, but I`m going to look into you.

That`s exactly -- you`re exactly the kind of politician I think Americans are looking for, someone who says, screw the parties, man. Let`s do the right thing for the country.

SHULER: Absolutely.

BECK: Thank you.

SHULER: Thank you.

BECK: And we hope to talk to you again.

SHULER: Yes, sir. Thank you.

BECK: We`ll be back in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, we spent a lot of time in the last couple of days talking about the governor of New York. But another governor has given me an idea.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was having a problem. He wasn`t seeing his kids enough. Why? Because they live all the way down south in their mansion in O.J.`s hometown of Brentwood, California. And he`s all the way up in Sacramento.

Well, now, from what I`ve heard, there is some real estate in California that is available at some pretty good prices right now. But, instead of moving his family up, Arnold commutes every day on a private jet. And not just any private jet. It`s a Gulfstream.

I mean, that`s one big, big ass jet. Man, that gets me really, really jealous. You can put like 13 to 18 people on these jets depending on how you configure them.

Now, there`s no problem for somebody like Arnold to fly anywhere he wants on his own money. It`s called capitalism, and I`m in love with it. But there is a problem with Arnold doing it, because Arnold has presented himself as Mr. Global Warming.

Just one hour of flight in this jet hurts the environment as much as a small car does in an entire year. And he`s flying an hour from L.A. to Sacramento and back every day.

How could he possibly justify this?

Well, I purchase carbon credits. Right.

These carbon credits pay for environmental programs all around the world like planting trees and building pretty windmills. And while many of the programs have been largely discredited even by sources in lockstep with the global warming movement, they remain a key lifestyle adjustment for that rich person on the go who still wants to keep their environmental street cred. You know what I want?

You can do whatever you want. Just buy your way to purity.

And that`s why tonight I`d like to propose something else. I like to call them hooker credits.

Are you listening, Eliot Spitzer?

Every time you sleep with a hooker, you send me a check. And that`s one less hooker that I`ll sleep with. You can be Client Number 9 to every escort service on the Eastern Seaboard, and I`ll be happy to take your check for the equal amount of prostitutes and not sleep with those prostitutes every time you feel the need to do something unsafe with one of them.

Yes.

Sound a little ridiculous? Well, Eliot is, you know, making sweet tender love to somebody who is willingly available for rent.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is buying his way out of supposedly murdering the earth. In that scenario, Eliot looks like a saint in comparison. Well -- well, a horrible, lying, cheating, hooker-loving saint, but, OK, maybe saint isn`t exactly the right idea.

In the e-mail newsletter tomorrow we`ll send you the story on the $5,000 global baby tax. Yes, it gets worse from there -- glennbeck.com.

From New York, goodnight America.

END