Ed Schultz tries to paint Detroit as a Republican failure

July 23, 2013

Writer

Ed Schultz: Thanks to a lot of Republican policies, the city is now filing for bankruptcy. Now, it's the largest public sector bankruptcy in U.S. history, and the consequences could be devastating, if you care about people. The already small force of police, firefighters, and EMTs are in danger of future layoffs. That's only going to make it worse. Roughly 30,000 retired workers are concerned about their pensions, you know, things that they're counting on. Make no mistake: Detroit is going bankrupt is exactly what the Republicans want.

Let me give you the history of Detroit. As Pat said a minute ago, they haven't had a Republican since 1961, but it's really, it's really important to understand 1961. Let me ‑‑ let me start with the situation today and then we're going to go back to 1961. In 1960 Detroit had the highest per capita income in the United States. In 1960 they had the highest per capita income in the United States. Now, what happens when somebody is rich, when somebody is fat and sassy? We know it because we've seen it with our own society in the United States. As a whole, the United States, when it was sitting at the top, that's when we started saying, but you know what? We can screw with this a little bit. You know these principles; we still have some poor. And I hate to quote a crazy person like Jesus, but there will always be the poor among us, always. You are never going to get rid of all of the poor and lift every soul out of poverty. How do I know? Because I've been rich and I've been poor. I will probably be poor again someday in my life. But it doesn't matter, as long as I have the opportunity to try again. And there will always be those people that you can never help. There will always be those people ‑‑ I have friends in my life, and I know you do too. I have friends in my life that they ask for help, but they will never do the things that really will change their lives. You know what it is. And I speak as an alcoholic. I know. There were people, when I was drinking, that would say to me, "Glenn ‑‑" you know the truth, in fact, I'm sitting really close to a friend who said, "It's not that hard. It's not that hard. The truth is really simple. You just have to do a few things." Well, I didn't want that truth and so I wouldn't change my life and so I destroyed myself. But that's okay because that worked out in the end. We have a great opportunity... unless we don't learn from the past.

In 1960 Detroit had the highest per capita income in the United States. Today poorest large city in the United States. Once the fourth largest city in the nation, Detroit's population was shrunk from 1.5 million in 1970 to less than 700,000. Detroit's median household income today is $27,000 compared to the state median income of $48,000. Detroit's poverty level is 36.2%. The rest of the state, 15%. Detroit's unemployment rate is now over 18%. Only 53% of Detroit's residents can be part of the labor force. 45.7% have no job and are not even looking. 35% of Detroit's residents are now on food stamps. The out‑of‑wedlock birthrate in Detroit is more than 75%. 363,281 housing units are in Detroit. 99,000 of them are vacant. The Detroit murder rate is 11 times, 11 times higher than the murder rate in New York City. Detroit currently faces an estimated $14 billion in long‑term debt. Now how, how did a city that was the highest per capita income in the United States in 1960 get here? Well, as I said, Detroit hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1961 and has only had one Republican elected to the Detroit city council since 1970. So there's no way this is a GOP failure. But let's not make this about politics. What happened?

In 1960 they had a Republican mayor. They were riding high, but a new guy came to town. A new democratic mayor. 1961 was the year. He was white, but he understood civil rights, he said. He was a democratic mayor and his name was Jerome Cavanagh. He was elected by promising to give the black population the civil rights they lacked, which is great. We want to make sure everybody has the civil right to be who you are. You know, the reason why Detroit grew so fast is because Detroit didn't care for a long time, compared to the South, didn't care what your color was; could you do the job.

Once he was elected, he did everything in his power to bring the taxpayer‑funded government benefits to the black community. He was the only elected official in the U.S. to serve on President Johnson's Model Cities task force. Now, what was the Model Cities task force? What was that? What was he trying to do to Detroit? Well, he thought that there was a model out there that was great. He thought there was a model out there that could take the most prosperous city in the United States of America and make it even better because there was somebody else who had done this before. When they had revitalized Europe, but not Europe ‑‑ Eastern Europe ‑‑ to rebuild the urban areas in Eastern Europe, they looked to the model of the Soviet Union. At the time the socialists hailed the centralized approach to urban development. They said this is the Soviet innovation. This is it. That's why when you go and you look at New York City and you see things like Co‑op City, it looks like Poland. It looks like Russia. Because it was. They actually in the 1960s looked to the Soviet Union and said they have solved the problem. So he took the most prosperous city in America and said, we need to do the things that they are doing in the Soviet Union, a place that didn't have toilet paper for their citizens! And they implemented the model city system in a nine‑square‑mile section of Detroit.

To finance the project, he pushed a new income tax through and a new commuter tax. He promised the mostly poor and black residents of the model city area that the rich would pay for all of the benefits. He bought their votes with money he was taking from the rich residents. More than $400 million was spent on the model city program. The federal government democratic city mayors were soon telling people where to live, what to build, what businesses they could open, when their businesses had to close. In return the people received cash and they received training and education and healthcare.

This caused the greatest resentment among the population of Detroit that anybody has ever seen in America. It helped trigger the breakdown of civil order and the shrinking of the city's population. In 1967 after the police broke up a celebration at an after‑hours club, one of the neighborhoods began to riot. It ignited the worst race riot of the decade. Black‑owned businesses were looted and burned to the ground. 40 people were killed. 5,000 were left homeless. Democratic administrations after Jerome left engaged in massive giveaways in the form of high salaries, lucrative pensions, health benefit packages that you just couldn't get anywhere else. Public service was no longer service. This was the cream of the crop.

This caused the city's debt to grow quickly and dramatically. Public unions were also allowed to implement inefficient work rules and requirements that raised the cost of doing business in the city. Today more than 80% of the city's $14 billion in debt is due to the pensions and the benefit packages of those government workers. The same Democrat‑fostered union mentality took hold in the private sector as well, to the point where Detroit's auto industry which had formed the city's employment backbone began moving to right‑to‑work states in the South that were far less hostile. Much more affordable. They took a city where everybody ‑‑ I shouldn't say everybody. There will always be poor among us, but it was the most prosperous city in the nation. And they drove business out and they started just racking up the debt. And they made service inside the government much more appealing than actually getting a job someplace else. The private sector's demise reflected the fact that half of Detroit's top 10 employers, half of Detroit's top 10 employers are governmental entities. The city has 11,400 workers, followed by the Detroit public schools at 10,951. So the schoolchildren have less than 11,000 but the city government itself has 11,400. Two healthcare systems and the federal government round up the top five. The big government mentality of teachers unions harmed the Detroit public schools. In 2003 there was a Detroit businessman. He was a philanthropist. His name was Robert Thompson. He offered to give $200 million to a foundation to open 15 new charter high schools in Detroit because he knew things weren't working in 2003 and we had to do something. He withdrew his proposal, said "I can't do it anymore because the teachers unions." They argued that the charter schools would drain millions of dollars from the public schools. And then the excessive regulation in Detroit, multiple inspections and inspection fees, incomprehensible building requirements, expensive mandatory public hearings, arbitrary discretion of the officials, lengthy process delays the entrepreneurs from starting their own businesses. Nobody even wants to start a business venture or improve their existing one. According to one survey in Detroit, 56% of small business owners don't even know if they're operating in compliance with Detroit law. They have no idea. Detroit has the highest big city property taxes in the nation, the highest per capita tax burden in Michigan. Property assessments remain overly inflated, amounting to as much as ten times the market price on the property.

In 2011 Detroit ranked first among the 50 largest U.S. cities in taxes and last among property values. Detroit taxes on a $150,000 house were $4,885, twice the national average. And then you go into corruption. And that's a very long list. This is not, this is not a Republican or conservative failure. This isn't even a democratic failure or idea. This is a progressive/socialist/Communist utopia. And that always fails. Don't let them rewrite history.

'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