Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

WHAT? Donald Trump Thinks He Invented the Phrase 'Priming the Pump'

May 11, 2017
Staff

WRITER

In an interview with The Economist, President Trump claimed to have invented the phrase "priming the pump." The rippling effect of the shockwaves made it to The Glenn Beck Program.

"'Priming the pump' is an expression that you'd never heard before? You'd never heard 'prime the pump,' and you claim to come up with it a couple of days ago?" Glenn asked incredulously on radio Thursday. "What the hell do you think 'quantitative easing' is? What do you even think 'helicopter money' is? What do you think 'tax cuts' are? You're priming the pump!"

In actuality, the phrase has been around for awhile --- a long while. First in the 1800s as related to water pumps and later in the 1930s as a liberal economic policy.

"Priming the pump is Keynesian," Glenn said. "It's been out since the Depression."

How is it possible that a man of Donald Trump's stature, a man who has been in business for decades doesn't know the common phrase "priming the pump?"

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: This is from The Economist. There's a story in The Economist now about what is the economic plan of the president?

And I just want to quote this. This is just -- this is all in verbatim, okay? So this is question, answer, question, answer. This is not somebody writing this. This is verbatim.

ECONOMIST: But beyond that, it's okay if the tax plan increases the deficit?

TRUMP: It's okay because it won't increase it for long. You may have two years where you'll -- you understand the expression prime the pump.

ECONOMIST: Yes.

TRUMP: We have to prime the pump.

ECONOMIST: Well, that's very Keynesian.

TRUMP: "We're the highest taxed nation in the world." Have you ever heard that expression before, for this particular type of event?

ECONOMIST: Priming the pump?

TRUMP: Yeah, have you heard it?

ECONOMIST: Yes.

TRUMP: Have you heard the expression used before? Because I hadn't heard it. I mean, I just -- I came up with it a couple of days ago, and I thought it was good. It's what you have to do.

GLENN: "Priming the pump" is an expression that you'd never heard before? You'd never heard "prime the pump," and you claim to come up with it a couple of days ago?

Priming -- what the hell do you think "quantitative easing" is? What do you even think "helicopter money" is? What do you think "tax cuts" are?

You're priming the pump. Priming the pump is Keynesian. It is -- it's been out for -- for -- or, Keynesian. It's come out -- how do you say it?

STU: Keynesian.

GLENN: Keynesian.

It's been out since the Depression. And before that, it was used for actual pumps.

STU: Yeah, I mean, it's obviously a phrase that's about actual pumps from the mid-1800s.

GLENN: So he's talking to a guy from The Economist that can talk deeply. And our president thinks he came up with the term, the economic term, "priming the pump."

Now, here's why this is a problem. It shows you haven't thought about this at all. If you have been in business, how do you not know priming the pump? How do you not know -- do we have that clip from Vice President Biden? Can you play that, Sarah? Do you have it?

BIDEN: Now, people say -- when I say that, people look at me and say, "What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we've got to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?" I answer, "Yeah, that's what I'm telling you."

GLENN: That's called priming the pump.

JEFFY: Priming the pump.

STU: Yeah. It's usually used by the left.

GLENN: Correct. So he's never -- he's never thought of stimulus. So when he was talking about a trillion dollar stimulus package, he didn't really understand the concept of priming the pump.

STU: Which is -- I believe an incorrect concept.

GLENN: I do too.

STU: However, if you're going to spend a trillion dollars, you should probably know it.

GLENN: So he didn't...think of that. It didn't connect to him that, yes, we're going to spend a trillion dollars, but that will get the economy starting to role.

Now, how is that even possible? More disturbing is, I think, how this happened. He wasn't just in bed going, you know what, it's like the old pump. And remember, you had to -- you had to prime it a couple of times. Push it a couple of times to get it going. And then it would -- he didn't say -- he wasn't laying in bed thinking about that. I mean, Viagra, I would imagine, is what he thinks of as priming the pump. But he wasn't sitting thinking about an old water pump and priming the pump and then tying that to economic theory. Here's probably what happened: He's sitting in a meeting and they're talking about the economy and what they're going to do. And somebody says, "Yeah, I mean, that's priming the pump." And he probably thought, "You know what, what you just said, you're all wrong about. Because you're probably all talking about the water, Viagra, something. But if we use money instead of water, priming the pump." And probably everybody in the room was too afraid or whatever to say, "Yeah. That's what this is. Priming the pump. That's what we were talking about. You don't think you just came up with that." They didn't say anything. So he goes off thinking, "I am a freaking genius. I heard some guy talking about priming the pump. And I thought to myself, wait. We're in an economic meeting. Let's tie that principle to money. You got to get that water flowing. Once you get that water up to the top, then one little push, and it all starts to -- I'm a genius."

That is --

STU: Yeah. It's not -- it's suboptimal, I would say.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Can you give him the benefit of the doubt, I mean, for this?

STU: Again --

GLENN: This is The Economist, verbatim.

STU: Yeah, no, I think you're probably right on how that's happened. Merriam-Webster today has been tweeting about how the term was first tied to economic principles in 1933. But I think honestly -- and correct me if I'm wrong here, Glenn, because it's scary that he -- you know, it's a ridiculous moment, right? But, I mean, it's sort of Trumpian. And maybe you're like, well, you know, he has these moments. And he takes credit for everything. He invented everything. He's always had the highest ratings. Like, maybe you could brush it off from that perspective, where he's just kind of bragging about what he does.

But in the -- what he's talking about is a liberal economic policy.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: He doesn't reject Keynesianism. He sticks with it. In fact, he doesn't -- well, he doesn't comment on it at all. Whether he knows what it is or not, I don't know. But the concept of priming the pump is very clearly a left-wing principle. It is -- it's Paul Krugman central. Right? Remember when Paul Krugman said --

GLENN: It's what we've been doing.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: -- remember when Paul Krugman was like, well, if we just had aliens coming down. If we thought aliens were going to attack, even if it wasn't a real attack, this economy would go crazy because we'd start spending and it would get all the spending going.

That is a left-wing principle. And the fact that, not only is that not offensive to me -- he doesn't stop the interview and go, whoa, whoa, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm not talking about Keynesianism here. That's not what this is.

He doesn't stop him because he doesn't either know or he does believe it. And the second one is worse.

GLENN: No, no, no. I don't think it's either of those.

We have to prime the pump. It's very Keynesian. We're the highest taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, this particular time of event? Priming the pump?

Yeah.

Have you heard of it?

Yes. I heard the expression used before -- or, I've never heard the expression used before. I hadn't heard it. I mean, I just came up with it a couple of days ago.

I don't even think he's listening to the guy.

JEFFY: No.

GLENN: His answers don't matter. The answers of, yes, it's very Keynesian. Priming the pump. It doesn't matter. He's just monologuing, and the answer could be anything.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: He's so convinced -- and the reason why I bring this up is, was anybody in the Oval Office saying, "Mr. President, do you know what you're going to do by bringing -- you're going to bring hell down on all of us?" There are obviously 30 people that are talking to the Washington Post that don't feel like they have -- they're being listened to at all by this guy. And they're saying these things -- I mean, his friends are -- are saying these things.

Is it because they feel like he's not listening and this could be trouble?

I mean, there is a problem when you have 30 people in and around the West Wing that are leaking on something that could be the end of a presidency. That's -- that's not good.

STU: No.

GLENN: And I think it's because, is there anyone that is around him that is saying, "Mr. President, you can't -- no. Stop."

STU: It's funny. The only two I've seen that have been reported as to opposing the Comey firing. Not because they loved Comey, but because they thought it would be this disaster of a PR issue. The only two that I've seen: Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon. Apparently they were like, "Eh, this isn't a good idea. It's not going to look good."

Everybody else was like, "Well, it might not look good, but it's worth doing." At least that's the reporting. We'll see how that fleshes out.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.