Glenn breaks down the "essential" elements of government

Below is a partial transcript of Glenn's opening monologue tackling the looming government shutdown:

I’m in New York mainly because I’m a little concerned about the panic that is coming, and there’s no place safe than New York City when panic happens.  And the panic, of course, is because the government is going to shut down, and you should be afraid, and I’m telling you, be very afraid.

The country is going to grind to a halt.  If the government closes its doors, what will you do?  The market is going to collapse.  I’m afraid I have to bring you the bad news, but the national parks are going to close.  They’re going to gouge the eyes out of anybody who tries to look up at Mount Rushmore.  It’s going to happen.

And the economy – I was going to say the economy will get worse, but I don’t know if it really can do that, but oh yes, yes, it can.  And that’s what they want you to believe if there is a government shutdown.  The media is feeding this kind of nonsense and propaganda, but it’s a game.  That’s all it is.  It’s not really even a shutdown.

Here’s what could happen if Congress doesn’t agree on a spending bill:  One, the government will not have the legal authority to spend money on nonessential services.  Okay, two, essential federal employees will continue to work.  That’s the border patrol and military, and nonessential employees will not get paid.  I’d vote for a candidate who said that’s what they were going to do to us on purpose.

Are they supposed to look scary?  Because this looks good.  I mean, we’re trying to trim the fat.  That sounds like that’s a pretty good start, doesn’t it?  Make it a felony crime for politicians to spend taxpayer money on nonessentials; that’s what we should be doing.  This is the least frightening list I’ve ever seen in my life.  It actually sounds like a pretty good idea.

I mean, if you really think about it, the candidate who would make this their platform wins my vote.  Bring it on, bring it on.  Shut it down, I’m all for it.  You know, the only people who should be afraid of a shutdown are the Progressives who have been, you know, making a living lying to people, convincing them that they couldn’t live without government handouts.

Please shut them down, please.  People will realize that their life, their small business, their job, their state, their economy is actually better off without Congress constantly interfering in it and messing it up.  People might actually realize that they can be self-reliant.  Now, that’s crazy.  And that the Life of – do you remember this – the Life of Julia that the president put out, it’s a load of garbage.

Think about the concept they’re trying to get you to accept, that you should be afraid that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will lose their ability to legally waste your money.  That’s a good thing.  You should be terrified that government won’t have the funds to do things like this.  For instance, let’s see, do we need the White House?  Not really, not really.  All the tours, cry your eyes out, little kiddos, we can’t do it.

Department of Education, oh, turtle crossings, $3.4 million, sorry turtles.  Department of Education, do you really think if we took the Department of Education off, do you really think that your schools wouldn’t be able to run?  Do you really think you couldn’t fix that and make it work better just locally and through your state?  Come on.

Fannie and Freddie, it would be a dream come true.  Military, let’s keep.  Consumer Protection Bureau, what the hell have they even done?  Buh-bye.  Amtrak, I can’t get that one off the board fast enough.  Border patrol, I’m kind of torn on that one, because if I have a border patrol, of course I’m a racist, but we’re going to have to leave it there.

Congress, if I could only do this to Congress.  Believe it or not, we are spending $200 million a year creating a reality show for India.  Robo Squirrel, this was to create…$350,000 to create a robotic squirrel to figure out how snakes would react to a robotic squirrel.  What the heck?  Martian food tasting, $950, almost $1 million on out of this world food tasting.

Amtrak snacks, okay just took Amtrak down.  Do you know that we give Amtrak $84.5 million a year, and they lose it on snacks?  They lose $85 million a year on snacks?  I don’t even know why that’s even in the budget.  One hundred forty-one thousand dollars to study pig poop…and air traffic control, I’m going to leave that.  I have no problem with a government that does that, do you?

I think everything else could go away.  One of the best-run states is Texas.  That’s the way the country should run is like Texas.  In Texas, their House and Senate meets every other year, and each session goes a maximum of 140 days, but that’s usually about three months.  That’s all they can do.  That’s how it should be it, and believe it or not, that’s the way it used to be.

It used to be a Senator or a Representative, it used to be a part-time job.  They would show up for a maximum of six months.  They’d get a per diem, and they’d go back to their regular job the rest of the year.  Guess when that changed.  I know you’re thinking I’m going to say Woodrow Wilson, but who’s the next guy?  1933 and FDR when Congress ratified the 20th Amendment.

Now landing a job in Congress doesn’t look anything at all like service.  It’s more like winning the lottery.  There is no sacrifice.  They are paid more than three times what you, the average American, gets paid, and they have incredible benefits.  They don’t have to worry about health care.  They’ve got it.  You, no, you’re going to be held to ObamaCare but not them.

And all they do is just increase the size of government.  George Bush increased the national debt, doubling it from $5 trillion to $10 trillion, and remember when that was horrible?  When Bush enacted TARP, it was all about stabilizing the economy.  I told you no, it’s not.  But then when the president, President Obama, enacted the stimulus, it again was all about stabilizing the economy.

When they did QE1, QE2, QE3, printing money from the Federal Reserve, that was also about stabilizing the economy.  Over five years of stabilizing the economy, the economy is anything but stabilized, and that’s because all of the money pumped into the system wasn’t ever about stabilizing.  It was about leveling the playing field.  Oh Congress, would I like to level the playing field.

If you could just live within your own laws, and you had to live by all the laws and the rules and regulations that we have to, wouldn’t that be a level playing field?  They devalue our currency and take America down a notch or two or all the way to the bottom so we’re not a global colonialist superpower anymore.  We’re just part of global equality.

I don’t want to be a global colonialist, and I don’t want to be at the bottom of the barrel, either.  I just want to really be left alone.  If we keep spending and flooding the market with printed dollars, that’s exactly what’s going to happen, because what are your long-term prospects?

...

America is going the way of Greece and Cuba, and at best, by 2016, with an estimated 100 million Americans on food stamps, we will be Venezuela, who by the way just put military, stationed them, and I’m not making this up, stationed military at the toilet paper factories because it’s an evil capitalist plot to destroy their toilet paper factories, and so they had to send the government out there.  Why is it that every time somebody tries to do global Socialism or Communism, it always ends up with guards at toilet paper factories?

That’s where we’re headed, gang, because every government, bloated government disaster, is currently imploding all around the world, and it’s going to implode here.  The only way to stop it, to stop some epic form of collapse, is to send people down to Washington, D.C. with spines.  You saw some of them last week.  Ted Cruz is being the poster example of this.  He and anyone standing with him and the principles that they are promoting, I believe, will be remembered.

I believe what they did to Ted Cruz, they made him into such an evil poster child, that by the time people really figure out what ObamaCare is, and it’s cutting their hours, it’s making them lose their doctors or the health care coverage that they did have, or destroying jobs, they’re going to look at this guy and say he was right.  And anyone for the status quo or the establishment who caves into that idea to keep expanding the government and spending money will also be remembered, but in a more notorious sort of way.

We are learning now on the right, and this is the good news, this weekend, The New York Times had a piece on how we’re not the people we were just a few years ago, that the party relied on Newt Gingrich and his progressive Republicans in Washington to be our voice, but according to the Times, “Today, a fervent group of Conservatives – bloggers, pundits, activists, and even members of Congress is harnessing the power of the Internet, determined to tell the story of the current budget showdown on its terms.”

Let me translate from The New York Times, its terms, translation: truth, the truth lives here.  And the truth is that America cannot afford nonessential spending bonanzas.  It can’t.  It is time to boil things down to the essentials.  We’re done playing the game, and we’re not going to let Progressives do things like scare us with a government shutdown debate.

I don’t know about you, but I celebrate that idea.  We won’t let progressive Republicans get away with protecting the status quo, either.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.