Chris Wallace rips Treasury Secretary Jack Lew: ‘Your history is wrong’

Glenn opened the radio program this morning with some incredible audio from yesterday’s Fox News Sunday interview between Chris Wallace and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. Wallace grilled Lew – repeatedly asking him questions regarding President Obama’s refusal to negotiate with Republicans.

“Chris Wallace, I think, hit a home run with Jack Lew. I think most of our audience will understand this, but most of America will not,” Glenn said. “They will say, ‘I think Jack Lew is making some great points’ because they have no foundation on which to build anything. Listen to the lying liars lie.”

LEW: Good to be with you, Chris.

WALLACE: This week both you and the President seem to be trying to panic the markets about both raising the debt ceiling and the government shutdown saying that they should be more concerned. Here's the President:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think this time's different. I think they should be concerned. When you have a situation in which a faction is willing to default on U.S. Government obligations, then we are in trouble.

“Stop. This is really important for people to understand. Never before. Why did I say in 2008, the President is not telling you these things,” Glenn said. “I sat with George W. Bush and I asked him specifically, ‘Mr. President, this is what the American people need to hear.’ And he said, ‘I can't. First of all, I made a promise. Second of all, the president has a bully pulpit unlike any other bully pulpit. They're watching everything I say all around the world. I cannot telegraph any kind of trouble because if I say it, it's worth ten times.’ For the president of the United States to say specifically on CNBC to the markets, ‘You should be worried.’ That's the president yelling fire. Now, here's the good news or bad news, depending on how you look at it. Bad news long term. This president has such little credibility that it didn't panic the markets. The markets stayed flat. Nobody believes the President of the United States.”

WALLACE: The markets are shrugging it off. The Dow Jones dropped just 1.2% this week. NASDAQ was actually up more than half a point. Aren't your efforts failing to try to use the markets to put pressure on Republicans to cave?

LEW: You know, Chris, it's my job to make sure that we strengthen the economy and I spend every day trying to do that. That's why it's so important owner Congress to act, to open up the government, to make sure we pay our bills.

“We have closed 15% of this government… If you can't make it with 15% of this government closed for two weeks, six weeks, six months, you can't make it for six months with 15%, then let me tell you something: You are the leanest corporation I've ever seen. Ever seen,” Glenn interjected. “Does anybody believe that they don't have 15% of fat to cut? This is the biggest game I've ever seen in my life. This is the biggest lie I've ever seen anybody try to pull off in the United States of America.”

LEW: …There's no question that if we were to have the unthinkable happen and have the United States default, it would cause real problems. The only question is how serious the problems would be and there's kind of ‑‑

“Nobody's talking about defaulting. By not raising the debt ceiling, you don't default. It means you can't take on additional debt. It means you're going to have to go back and cut,” Glenn said. “Are you telling me that you don't want to get another credit card? Well, then we default on our car and our house and there's no food. No! No. You pay for the important things. You're going to have to cut some spending, money, and we're not taking on any new debt. That's what that means.”

The President and many on the left have been claiming that Republicans are the fearmongers; Republicans are the ones looking to shutdown the government. But Glenn argued the actions of those like President Obama and Lew prove they are the ones who want American to default.

“Now, I find it amazing the lies that they are telling. And our President and our Treasury Secretary are trying to spook the markets. This goes into a longer conversation, but I think that they have everything they need,” Glenn said. “I think the fundamental transformation of America is done… I will tell you that they are farther ahead on taking control than you think. And I think they do want to go into default.”

“So you know, what the Treasury Secretary is saying here is the Republicans want us to go into default. The President is legally required to pay the interest on our debt. Nobody's going to be defaulting,” he continued. “The countries that say, ‘I want my money,’ we are legally required to pay those bills first. It's exactly the way bankruptcy works. We're legally required to do that. Now, the President picks and chooses laws to enforce and not to enforce all the time, so he might throw us into default. But that's not what a debt ceiling means.”

While Lew continued to pedal the Democratic talking points that the U.S. has never been in this situation before, Wallace was not about to let him get away with the lies.

WALLACE: What's unprecedented is not Congress tying strings. What's unprecedented is the President refusing to negotiate.

LEW: You know, Chris, let me be clear. The President has always been looking for a way to negotiate with a bipartisan group of members and Senators to do the right thing for the American people. He was. He is. He put out a budget that actually took an enormous step to do that. So the President is open to negotiation.

“I love this. He's put out a budget. He's put out a budget every year. His own party rejects it every year. He is not willing to negotiate. Who is he negotiating with,” Glenn asked. “His own party rejects it. 98‑0. I mean he doesn't even get anybody in his own party on board.”

LEW: And frankly I think your history is wrong. If you look at places where the debt limit was involved, there were many other things attached to the debt limit. The question of threatening to cause a default of the United States, not until 2011 did it become a positive agenda.

WALLACE: With all due respect, your history is wrong. In 1973 Democrats in the Senate to put in Ted Kennedy and Walter Mondale wanted to attach campaign finance reform under Richard Nixon during Watergate to raising the debt limit. It ended up being a filibuster. Republicans had to filibuster to defeat it and take it out. This has happened over and over again, and presidents have negotiated and this President, what's unprecedented is, he's refusing to negotiate.

LEW: You know, Chris, I loved through the budget debates of the 1980s, the 1990s, the early 2000s. I know that there were many occasions when the debt limit was tacked onto other things. I actually remember ‑‑

“Oh, wait a minute. Now he admits he knows there were times when it was tacked onto other things,” Pat said exasperatedly. “You just said that never happened!”

“No, no, no. What he's saying is, they always intended on passing it,” Glenn corrected. “There were just never any terrorists in the Republican Party. That's what they're saying here. Unbelievable.”

The themes of healing and redemption appear throughout the Bible.

Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. — 1 Corinthians 15:43
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. — Mark 2:17.

So, for many Christians, it's no surprise to hear that people of faith live longer lives.

Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved, for you are my praise. — Jeremiah 17:14.

But it is certainly lovely to hear, and a recent study by a doctoral student at Ohio State University is just one more example of empirical evidence confirming the healing benefits of faith and religious belief.

RELATED: MEDIA BIGOTRY: The New Yorker hates on Chick-fil-A over 'pervasive Christian traditionalism'

Moreover, the study finds that religious belief can lengthen a person's life.

A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. — Proverbs 17:22
Lord, your discipline is good, for it leads to life and health. You restore my health and allow me to live! — Isaiah 38:16

The study analyzed over 1,000 obituaries nationwide and found that people of faith lived longer than people who were not religious. Laura Wallace, lead author of the study, noted that "religious affiliation had nearly as strong an effect on longevity as gender does, which is a matter of years of life."

The study notes that, "people whose obits mentioned a religious affiliation lived an average of 5.64 years longer than those whose obits did not, which shrunk to 3.82 years after gender and marital status were considered."

And He called to Him His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. — Matthew 10:1

"The researchers found that part of the reason for the boost in longevity came from the fact that many religiously affiliated people also volunteered and belonged to social organizations, which previous research has linked to living longer. The study provides persuasive evidence that there is a relationship between religious participation and how long a person lives," said Baldwin Way, co-author of the study and associate professor of psychology at Ohio State.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

In addition, the study showed how the effects of religion on longevity might depend in part on the personality and average religiosity of the cities where people live, Way said.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

And the power of the Lord was with him to heal. — Luke 5:17
Heal the sick in it and say to them, The kingdom of God has come near to you. — Luke 10:9.

In early June, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual report on the fiscal health of these programs, and the situation looks dire. Medicare is scheduled to run out of money in 2026 (three years sooner than anticipated), while Social Security is expected to run out in 2034. The rising national debt is only one of the well-known financial struggles the millennial generation faces. The burdens of student loan debt, high housing prices (thanks to zoning restrictions), stagnant wage growth, the rising cost of healthcare and lingering aftershocks of the Great Recession are among the biggest sources of economic anxiety millennials feel.

Progressive politicians have been very successful at courting the youth vote, partly because they actually promote policy ideas that address many of these concerns. As unrealistic or counterproductive as Senator Bernie Sanders' proposals for single-payer health care or a $15 an hour minimum wage might be, they feel in theory like they would provide the economic stability and prosperity millennials want.

RELATED: Time to reverse course: America is being corrupted by its own power

Republicans, on the other hand, have struggled to craft a message to address these concerns. Fiscal conservatives recognize, correctly, that the burden of the $20 trillion national debt and over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities will fall on millennials. Some conservatives have even written books about that fact. But the need to reform entitlements hasn't exactly caught millennials' attention. Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, in her book The Selfie Vote, notes that millennials generally view protecting the safety net as more important than reducing the deficit.

Clearly, Republicans have a problem. They need to craft solutions that address the millennial generation's struggles, but they can't seem to sell entitlement reform, their biggest policy preference that addresses those problems. The Republican approach to wooing millennials on policy is failing because talking about stopping the debt from reaching an unsustainable level is long-term and abstract, and offers few immediate tangible benefits. A new approach to both pave the way for entitlement reform and give millennials an immediate financial boost is to first reform not entitlement spending, but the payroll tax: specifically, by partially (or wholly) replacing it with a value-added tax.

Under the current Social Security model, workers pay for the benefits of current retirees through the payroll tax. This system creates the illusion of a pension program, in which what you put in is what you get out, but in reality Social Security is a universal safety net program for the elderly paid for by taxes. The payroll tax falls on workers and is a tax on labor, while the value-added tax (VAT) is a tax on consumption imposed at every part of the production process. Assuming that this policy change is revenue-neutral, switching to a VAT will shift the responsibility for funding Social Security and Medicare away from workers, disproportionately poorer and younger, and onto everyone participating in the economy as a whole. Furthermore, uncoupling Social Security funding from payroll taxes would pave the way for fiscal reforms to transform the program from a universal benefit program to one geared specifically to eliminating old-age poverty, such as means-testing benefits for high-income beneficiaries, indexing benefits to prices rather than wages or changing the retirement age.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the change would actually make the tax system more progressive. The current payroll tax is regressive, meaning that people with lower incomes tend to pay a higher effective tax rate than people with higher incomes. On the other hand, the value-added tax is much closer to proportional than the payroll tax, meaning that each income group pays closer to the same effective tax rate.

For Republicans, such a change would fit conservative economic ideas about the long-run causes of economic growth. A value-added tax has a much broader base than the payroll tax, and therefore would allow for much lower marginal tax rates, and lower marginal tax rates mean smaller disincentives to economic activity. According to the Tax Foundation's analysis of a value-added tax, the VAT would be a more economically efficient revenue source than most other taxes currently in the tax code.

Not only would replacing part or all of the payroll tax provide an immediate benefit to millennial taxpayers, it would also open the door for the much-needed entitlement reforms that have been so politically elusive. Furthermore, it would make the tax code both more pro-growth and less regressive. In order to even begin to address the entitlement crisis, win millennial support and stimulate the economy in a fiscally responsible manner, Republicans must propose moving from the payroll tax to the VAT.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate. His writing has appeared in Townhall and The Federalist. He is a federal policy intern at the Tax Foundation. Opinions expressed here are his only and not the views of the Tax Foundation. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Glenn was joined by Alanna Sarabia from "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios on Thursday for an exclusive look at Mercury Museum's new "Rights & Responsibilities" exhibit. Open through Father's Day, the temporary museum features artifacts from pop culture, America's founding, World Ward II and more, focusing on the rights and responsibilities America's citizens.

Get tickets and more information here.

Watch as Glenn gives a sneak peek at some of the unique artifacts on display below.

History at the Mercury Museum

Alanna Sarabia interviews Glenn Beck for "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios.

Several months ago, at the Miss Universe competition, two women took a selfie, then posted it on Instagram. The caption read, "Peace and love." As a result of that selfie, both women faced death threats, and one of the women, along with her entire family, had to flee her home country. The occasion was the 2017 Miss Universe competition, and the women were Miss Iraq and Miss Israel. Miss Iraq is no longer welcome in her own country. The government threatened to strip her of her crown. Of course, she was also badgered for wearing a bikini during the competition.

RELATED: Media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam bias sweeps THIS fact under the rug

In an interview, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, said:

When I posted the picture I didn't think for a second there would be blowback. I woke up to calls from my family and the Miss Iraq Organization going insane. The death threats I got online were so scary. The director of the Miss Iraq Organization called me and said they're getting heat from the ministry. He said I have to take the picture down or they will strip me of my title.

Yesterday, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, posted another selfie with Miss Israel, during a visit to Jerusalem.

In an interview, she said that:

I don't think Iraq and Israel are enemies; I think maybe the governments are enemies with each other. There's a lot of Iraqi people that don't have a problem with Israelis.

This is, of course, quite an understatement: Iraq, home to roughly 15,000 Palestinians, refuses to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country, as it is technically at war with Israel. The adages says that a picture is worth a thousand words. What are we to do when many of those words are hateful or deadly? And how can we find the goodness in such bad situations?