Rick Santorum says Paul Ryan's new tax plan "headed in the right direction" on radio

March 20, 2012

Writer

Rick Santorum has had a busy couple of weeks, but managed to find the time to call into the radio show to discuss some of the top stories in the news today. What does he think of Paul Ryan's new tax plan?

"I talked to Paul last week. As you know my tax plan is 10 and 28% This one is 10% and 25%. But it very much models the two rate idea I've been putting out there, and he does a lot of simplification in his tax plan. Not as dramatic as the tax plan that I go through," Santorum said.

"It's headed in the right direction," he added.

"His changes in the entitled programs were consistent with what they did last year which I embraced. He has a little twist on the Medicare which is the widen Ryan plan now. But it's a strong plan. It waits a little bit to do some entitlement reform. Which is I think is a mistake. I think we need to move forward quicker, and I think we need to get that $5.4 trillion over five years to be more like five trillion over five years so we've got to accelerate this to get to a balanced budget. He doesn't get to a balanced budget until after the budget window. We need to shrink government faster than that."

Ultimately, though, Santorum does not have a lot of confidence it will pass.

"But you know this was in a sense it's a budget document. He knows that the Senate will never approve this. He's put forward a great blueprint for people to campaign upon and shows clearly progress dramatic progress in the direction of shrinking the size of government, and liberating the economy through lower taxes and less regulations"

You can read the full rush transcript below:

GLENN: Rick Santorum is here, and I don't want to waste any time with him because there's serious issues happening in the country. And we're not going to talk about contraception or anything else. I'm going to talk about some of the serious issue that are happening in our world today. First of all J.P. Morgan Chase is closing down the Vatican's account. It seems to be economic terrorism leveled at the Vatican. Comment from Rick Santorum. Hi, Rick.

SANTORUM: Good morning.

GLENN: I know it's a big day for you. Can you comment at all on J.P. Morgan Chase and the President listing the Vatican as a possible money laundering organization.

SANTORUM: That's sort of shocking to hear. I don't know the details of it so I have to tell you I mean I flew in late.

GLENN: J.P. Morgan Chase has closed down the Vatican's account after last week the President put them on the watch list for a money laundering organization, and now J.P. Morgan Chase has closed down their account.

SANTORUM: You're going to give me a pass on that. I've got to dig into that. I know there are certain things that of course there are laws that provide certain triggers for this. I'm not familiar with this. We'll ‑‑ the idea that somehow the Vatican would launder money is absurd to its face. I guess it's not absurd with the Obama Administration.

GLENN: Bloomberg is now banning food donations to the homeless. He says that the DHS commissioner says that the ban on food donations is consistent with the mayor Bloomberg's emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. There's a new document that controls what can served at homeless facilities including serving size, as well as fat content, sodium consent plus fiber minimums, and condiment recommendations, and people who're dropping food off. Organizations that have dropped food off for 10 years now in New York are being banned. This is happening also in Philadelphia. It is happening in Houston, Texas where you're not allowed just to drop food to homeless shelter became it may not be the most healthy for homeless.

PAT: Well, can you imagine if starving people got too much saturated fat in their diet. I mean, that could really cause some issues.

GLENN: What is happening to us, Rick.

SANTORUM: It's the nanny state. Welcome to the nanny state, and it's also opens up the question as to these are ‑‑ these are folks who believe that they should control what people's intake, and of course these are folks as you know that believe in government programs, not private sector donations. Because if the government controls these things then they can of course have a closer relationship directly with the individual. The individual becomes more reliant on the government not on private sector donations or their neighbor. This is deeper than trying to control what food ‑‑ what calories intake, and how healthy your food is. This is also about the government knows best. And they need to get things directly from the government not from their neighbor. Because their neighbor isn't going to do what's right for them. The government is going to do what's right for them.

GLENN: It's not possible to slash the budget if you don't have ‑‑ if you don't have neighbors, local farms, other organizations.

SANTORUM: Glenn, what makes you think that they want to slash the budget.

GLENN: Oh no.

SANTORUM: They continually try to go out and grow the budget food stamp program. Try to grow the Medicaid program. They take pride in the fact that more and more people are covered by S chip and everything else. This is a source of accomplishment for them noting that should be reduced or changed.

GLENN: Paul Ryan has his budget out. It is slashing another $5.3 trillion. GOP tax plan is two tiers. It's 25% and 10% We are now at the end of the month we will now have the highest corporate tax rate on planet earth, and yet they're still talking about more. Are you for the Ryan tax plan. Where did you stand on this.

SANTORUM: Yeah, I talked to Paul last week. As you know my tax plan is 10 and 28% This one is 10% and 25%. But it very much models the two rate idea I've been putting out there, and he does a lot of simplification in his tax plan. Not as dramatic as the tax plan that I go through. It's headed in the right direction. His changes in the entitled programs were consistent with what they did last year which I embraced. He has a little twist on the Medicare which is the widen Ryan plan now. But it's a strong plan. It waits a little bit to do some entitlement reform. Which is I think is a mistake. I think we need to move forward quicker, and I think we need to get that $5.4 trillion over five years to be more like five trillion over five years so we've got to accelerate this to get to a balanced budget. He doesn't get to a balanced budget until after the budget window. We need to shrink government faster than that. But you know this was in a sense it's a budget document. He knows that the Senate will never approve this. He's put forward a great blueprint for people to campaign upon and shows clearly progress dramatic progress in the direction of shrinking the size of government, and liberating the economy through lower taxes and less regulations.

GLENN: You're in Illinois today because of the primary in Illinois. Play the audio of the police officer there. There's a real gang violence on the streets of Chicago. This is a police officer yesterday ‑‑ it was in Chicago talk about First Amendment rights that I want to hear a little bit of this, and I'll translate. Because it's a little hard to understand.

[Tape played]

PAT: He's telling news reporters to get across the street.

GLENN: News reporter.

PAT: I don't give an F about the news, and all telling them to go across the street.

VOICE: I'm going to kill you. I'm giving you a legal notice.

GLENN: That's all I'm going to say. So he then says your First Amendment rights can be terminated if you're making a scene or whatever. That's a quote.

CALLER: First Amendment aren't terminated when ‑‑ if they're causing a public disturbance or block agriculture street. I don't know what was going on. Certainly First Amendment like there's no absolute right. There is clearly is the right to exercise your First Amendment as long as you do so in a way that's not causing harm to anybody else the police have to recognize them and respect people's right to protest, and to get information. And this you know, again I don't know the details. I don't want to be critical of it. But there is a balancing act here, and we should balance in favor as I do in certainly in our campaign of letting the news media, and letting them cover what you want to cover.

STU: Senator, are you denying the making a scene clause in the constitution?

PAT: Which is of course right in the separation of church and state.

SANTORUM: Yeah that's in the fine print.

PAT: Senator, have you I know that you and Newt at least friendly before this started. I don't know how things are. Have you contacted him personally personally to get out. Get out.

SANTORUM: No. I have not.

PAT: Oh man.

SANTORUM: Look I didn't ask Newt to get in. I'm not going to ask him to get out. Obviously in Illinois it's a two person race. And Newt is picking up 12; 18% depending on the poll, and obviously we feel like a lot of those votes would be ‑‑ in fact last night the coordinator for Newt who put together his delegate announced that he and all of the delegates were going to vote for me. And we're encouraging Newt supporters throughout the state of Illinois to help us. And the same thing happened in Tennessee. So it's beginning to happen irrespective what Newt is doing. And hopefully that will be a little bump to us the day of the Illinois primary.

GLENN: Let me ask you one quick question before you go, and that is this is a question I would ask Mitt Romney if he would ever come to the show. But he doesn't return any of our phone calls. But it's important to me that the next President of the United States understands that we are dealing with radicals, revolutionaries, socialists, and communists anarchists. Tonight on GBTV we're showing video of all these literal communists gathering together to plot the overthrow of the United States and it's all part of Occupy Wall Street. Is there any doubt in your mind that there are forces that are ‑‑ that are almost cartoonish sounding. Communists, socialists, anarchists that are actively working to destroy our country inside.

SANTORUM: Well yes. I think that's been the case in this country for a long time. With the files being revealed from the old Soviet Union. We have verification of lots of people in this country who were working with the Soviets who were trying to overthrow, and cause chaos in this country, and it's because of the Soviet union failed doesn't mean all these people oh well, it failed, and therefore I must be wrong. No, I mean these people are committed. I think it's a relatively small group of people but that doesn't mean. ‑‑ they are very much engaged in the Occupy Wall Street movement. It's clear you see it with the protests in Washington D.C. with the anarchists coming out. I see them at my rallies. We had a couple of rallies yesterday, and you see some unsavory characters out there trying to disrupt things, and you know push their very radical agenda.

GLENN: Here's the Left Form 2012 Occupy the System. It's a conference where people gathered in New York City for the weekend. The speakers Pearl Granat. Jarvis Tyner of the communist party Gary Hicks Marxist library. Bill Wharton from the Socialist party. Peter Eichler Socialist Action. Larry Holmes Worker World Party. And Pearl Granat, vice president of SEIU. When SEIU, and Steven Lerner are actively engaged, is not SEIU a danger to our country.

SANTORUM: Well look. They're most labor unions are not as radical as SEIU. But SEIU is the one much the most radical left wing organizations. It's of course represents government workers, and these are folks that believe in huge and expansive government. It's good for their business and they'd like more ‑‑ the bigger the government is the more jobs they have, and more control folks like the person that runs the SEIU has in our country. So there's clearly a symbiosis between the radical left, and SEIU. You see the connection right before your eyes.

GLENN: I'm sorry. One more question.

SANTORUM: One more after one more.

GLENN: There was a big story that came out last night. It's being scrubbed from the Internet. It's about the President and I don't want to ask anything about the daughters. But the President allowed his two one young daughter 13‑year‑old to go down to Mexico which the State Department says is dangerous saying that the Americans shouldn't go. With 12, 13‑year‑old friends, 25 Secret Service agents. There's got to be adult supervision besides the Secret Service. Do you send your daughter as President of the United States to a place where the State Department your own State Department says don't go on spring break. It's a danger at 13?

SANTORUM: What I would say is that the President's actions should reflect what his administration is saying. If the administration is saying it's not safe to go down there just because you can send 25 Secret Service agents doesn't mean you should do it. You should set an example. I think this is what presidents do. You should set an example. And when the government is saying this is not safe, then you don't set the example by sending your kids down there. Again, I'm not at all being critical of what his daughter wanted to do. She obviously had friends going there. I think she wanted to go along. But I think you have a higher duty when you're President to set that example as to what ‑‑ you're not above the law. You're not someone who can say one thing to one group, and then do something else. I think that sets a very bad precedent.

GLENN: Rick, good luck today.

SANTORUM: Hey, thank you very much. I appreciate all of the folks in Illinois. Please get out there and help us out. We pulled out a big upset in Mississippi and Alabama when nobody thought we could win, and conservatives get out and vote.

GLENN: We cut him off. Rick, thanks a lot. All right.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep