Gov. Scott Walker reveals new details of his tax plan modeled after of that of Ronald Reagan

Wisconsin Governor and GOP 2016 hopeful Scott Walker joined Glenn on radio Thursday morning to share his thoughts on the prior night's debate and to dive deeper into some of the policies he has been running on.

Topics ranged from repealing Obamacare to marijuana use to taxes. When Walker expressed frustration that the debate didn't focus enough on the issues, Glenn invited him to set the record straight on radio right then and there.

"You got 10 million people across the nation that listen to this program. So let's take that opportunity right now," Glenn said.

Walker proceeded to explain how his tax plan would follow that of Ronald Reagan, which he said led to the economic boom that occurred thereafter.

"It's pretty similar to what Reagan did. He had two tax rates. Same sort of concept back in 1986. It was 15 and 28 percent. We'd adjust it for current numbers today," Walker said. "We can say to the American people, 'this has worked.' This is not in theory, this is something that has worked."

Listen to the full dialogue or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Governor, how are you?

SCOTT: Hey, I'm doing well. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: How did you feel last night?

SCOTT: Well, really I felt like we had scored some real points, if that's what you call it, I guess, in terms of getting the message out. If you want someone who has been tested, I'm the guy. If you want an apprentice, someone who has never been tested before, then you're likely to get someone like we have in the White House right now.

STU: The apprentice line was fantastic.

GLENN: It was.

SCOTT: And I think we used the limited time CNN gave us, even though we tried to get in there many of times, we used it to the best of our effect to get our message out.

GLENN: When you walked off the stage, did you have one opinion of what happened and then you listened to the people, the press and then saw the reviews and everything else and have another, or did they sync up for you?

SCOTT: Oh, I think I knew going in, we knew the narrative, no matter what happened, they were going to say that Carly had a big night no matter what. And obviously they said that. I think the other impression was -- the feedback I got back from folks, not just from the press but from across the country I talked to was a frustration that there wasn't more talk. I mean, I mentioned I broke in at one point and said, "That's what's wrong with this campaign. We're not actually talking about issues. We're talking about personalities." But it seemed pretty clear that CNN was trying to pit people against each other for ratings instead of talking about issues.

GLENN: I will tell you that I heard you say that and I heard a couple of candidates try to get it back. What are we doing? We're attacking each other and the real challenge here are the policies that are -- well, the policies of Donald Trump and the other side of the aisle.

And I think that actually -- at least for me because it was such a circus at times, for me, I actually found myself saying about people like you, even Chris Christie who I'm not for at all, when he was saying some things like that, "I'm like, yeah, fine. Can we just have an adult conversation here, please?"

SCOTT: Right. Because -- I mean, I mentioned briefly, I would have loved to have them question, push back, put me on the spot, I've got a plan to repeal Obamacare. Literally to repeal Obamacare and to get Congress to have to pass it by signing an executive order that requires them to live under the same rules as everybody else. Ask me about it. Probe me about it. Ask me about my tax plan. Ask about energy independence. Ask about using all of the abundance of energy that we have here in America. Ask about any of those things. But those weren't the questions they were asking. It was, "Well, hey, you said this about this person, or you said that about that person." Ironically, one of my sons pointed out something interesting. He said, "Dad, you didn't get asked any of those questions because you don't attack other Republicans. You just attack Hillary Clinton."

PAT: That's a good point.

GLENN: Let me ask you this, Scott. Let's go through some of these things. I know the tax plan of Rand Paul, which I'm in love with. I know the tax plan now -- I heard for the first time, flat tax from --

PAT: Ted Cruz.

GLENN: -- Ted Cruz, which is great. I heard somebody else say they'll abolish the IRS.

PAT: Huckabee.

GLENN: Was that Huckabee?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: What is your tax plan?

SCOTT: You know, we're going to wrought week by week. So we'll wrought in greater detail. But for us, I mean, I wish I would have got more time. It was right in the Reagan Library. Our plan is modeled after the tax plan of '86, what Ronald Reagan did. You simplify the code. You had two rates. Brought about one of the most extended periods of economic prosperity in American history. There is a model there. It is a proven model. It has worked. A simple flat concept that we've done in the past. It didn't just apply to individuals. I think you have to do the same thing to job creators. We did that. We've actually seen more of these jobs that have parked overseas come back to America. Put more of our fellow Americans back to work. But, again, instead of spending a lot of time talking about that, we were asked about who took a jab at whom and what they thought about that. And I hope in the future we'll have more chances to talk about tax policy, true immigration policy, all sorts of other things.

GLENN: But we have one right now. Hold on just a second. We have that opportunity right now. You got 10 million people across the nation that listen to this program. So let's take that opportunity right now. And let me go back to tax policy. You know, what used to sound really good to me was the Ronald Reagan plan. That -- and if we could get that done, I'd be happy with that. However, we're in such a place now to where I think the bolder the idea, the better the chance of getting it done. Because people are tired of eating around the edges.

Why not abolish the IRS and give me a flat tax? Russia does it. It's 18, 15 percent. Whatever it is. Here's what it is. How much did you make? What's 18 percent. Put it in an envelope and send it to us.

SCOTT: Well, it's pretty similar to what Reagan did. He had two tax rates. Same sort of concept back in 1986. It was 15 and 28 percent. We'd adjust it for current numbers today. To me, it's essentially almost the same sort of thing you're talking about. But the difference being, we can say to the American people, "This has worked." This is not in theory, this is something that has worked. It brought about this extended -- people talk even last night about the 1990s and the balanced budget. The balanced budget wasn't because of Bill Clinton in Congress. The balanced budget was because we were still benefiting from the economic boom -- the residuals of Ronald Reagan's economic policies, not just with tax benefits, but reducing the size and scope of the federal government. Imagine what we could do if we had a Republican leader who was willing to push in the White House to get both the House and the Senate back on these issues, instead of having a split Congress like Reagan did. We could go even further.

GLENN: I had a hard time listening to the nonsense last night about the War on Drugs. You know, marijuana, smoke it, don't smoke it, that's really not the crux of our problems in America, especially when we're about to vote for a deal that says, "Hey, Iran, we're you're buddy and screw Israel." What do you do as president --

SCOTT: It is unbelievable. I mentioned this last night. I'd love to play cards with President Obama because the guy folds on everything. On this deal, almost all the major things he talked about that had to be in the deal are not in the deal. We have moved to Iran when Iran -- I mean, Iran didn't come to us because they wanted to be really nice people. They came because they were on their knees. They were crippled because of economic sanctions that were in place. They were ready. They were ready to give in. And instead of negotiating on our terms, the United States basically backed up and said, "Do whatever you want. Or do just about anything you want out there." We need to terminate the bad deal on day one. To me, anybody who says that they're not prepared to terminate that bad deal on day one is not ready to be president of the United States.

So I spent the time -- and I got knocked on this. President Obama came out and said that I was -- needed to bone up on foreign policy, to which I laughed saying, "This is the guy who called ISIS the JV squad and Yemen a success story." He wants to talk about boning up on foreign policy. Bottom line is it's a bad deal for America. It's a bad deal for Israel. It's a bad deal for the world.

It doesn't just open the door towards a nuclear race in the Middle East. In the short-term, the money that will be freed up from these sanctions being lifted will go, not into helping the Iranian people who really do want to be free of this oppressive government, it will go into Hamas and Hezbollah, some of the worst terrorist activities in the world that are directly aimed at Israel. And, ultimately, for Iran, who hates us just as much as they hate real Israel. This is a bad, bad deal.

GLENN: Let me ask you this, let's switch over to ISIS. I said six years ago that there would be a caliphate established. It would sweep the Middle East. And then it would begin to destabilize Europe and the western world. That is exactly what happened. We are now in the final stage of destabilizing Europe. It's amazing to me that all of the refugees. I should say the vast majority of refugees that you see that are trying to flee into Hungary and everything else all seem to be 20-something guys. You're the only ones. Really? Just these 20-something guys trying to get in everywhere. This is not the way that you save people. This is not -- you know, Saudi Arabia has room for 2 million people. They can take in all kinds of refugees. They should be taking their own kind. How do we separate the Muslims that you don't know who the good Muslims and the bad Muslims are, how do we separate those guys from the Christians who you do know who they are? And how do we do something to help the Christians who don't have a -- any kind of history of trying to behead people?

SCOTT: Well, you got a combination of things. You've got refugees. You've got people seeking asylum. I think there's a difference in asylum. You have to sort that out. And I said we should be taking in more refugees. Because right now, we've already done a lot. In the last year we've permanently settled something like 70,000 refugees in total in the United States. We spent $4 billion.

GLENN: But, Scott, we picked up whole Somali Muslim communities. We're resettling people who don't want to blend and who are Muslims. And a lot of them are Islamists. We're saving the wrong people.

SCOTT: And when you talk about refugees, that's the issue. To me, a refugee is someone who is fleeing, but who ultimately should be restored to their country, which means you have to fix the real problem as opposed to someone seeking asylum who is fleeing from political and sometimes religious persecutions just like you mentioned the Christians there. There is a distinction. But with the refugees, that's why we draw the line and say, "Until we actually deal with Assad, until we deal with ISIS within Syria, why would we be taking any more refugees when we're not fixing the fundamental problem?" We're only going to exacerbate the symptoms of those problems.

GLENN: Would you grant asylum for those who are being marked for death?

SCOTT: Christians, absolutely. The Christians, Jews, others. For people being targeted and persecuted because of their religious beliefs, particularly in that region as Christian, absolutely.

GLENN: Scott, we have -- three, four months ago, we didn't know who you were exactly. We've had great conversations with you. We knew your record. But we didn't know you. And we've been lied to so many politicians that we don't trust any politician anymore. We have grown to like you. The audience has grown to like you even more. And yet your poll numbers are slipping. What do you think this is? What's happening?

SCOTT: Oh, I think -- you know, it's interesting being in the Reagan Library, being reminded that Reagan, even in September of 1979, had some challenges. He was behind, even days before the 1980 election. He came through. And I think right now what you see amongst a lot of the mix of different conservative candidates out there is that there are so many good candidates, and then there's Trump out there who has kind of gotten all the media attention.

I think for a lot of people -- and I see it not just in the polling. We see it out on the campaign trail. Just in Iowa the other day. People routinely say to us, "I like you. I like what you did in Wisconsin. Like your ideas for America. You're one of my top two or three choices." And so they're still trying to sort out between the mix.

They also say, "You know, I'm not high on the -- I'm not excited about the guy that is the frontrunner right now. I like you." They say, "I like Cruz. I like Carson." Whoever it might be. I think in the end, for us, it's about grassroots. We have a good organization in Iowa. We're going to have to get the grassroots out. That's what will make the difference. And we win in the Iowa caucuses, that's what will take us going forward.

GLENN: I have about a minute. Tell me what you would say to somebody who is currently on the bandwagon and not a -- just somebody who is so far gone. But they're on the bandwagon of Trump. They may have been a supporter of yours or somebody else, but they like the fireworks show. Talk to them right now. Why should they come to you? We have about a minute.

SCOTT: You know, I would say, we had an apprentice. We had a novice, somebody we didn't know who they were, where they were going in the White House, someone who said many things that many Americans liked and it didn't work out very well. We don't need to do that again. If you want to take on Washington, if you really want to shake things up, the best way to do it is to get behind somebody who has actually done it. We took on the machine. We took on, not just big government union bosses, all the liberal special interest groups from Washington who tried to stop us. We didn't back down. We fought. We won. We got results. We did it without comprising our conservative principles. If that's what you want out of the next president, then I'm your guy.

GLENN: Scott, I would like to sit down with you and talk to you specifically about progressivism because you are at the belly of the beast and you have taken it on. So maybe sometime in the future we can actually sit down and have a real conversation about some -- some deep issues about what the country has to choose right now.

PAT: Meantime, where do people go if they want to help out?

SCOTT: ScottWalker.com. ScottWalker.com. We appreciate it. Thanks, guys.

GLENN: Thank you. God bless you. ScottWalker.com.

Featured Image: Scott Walker speaks during the Western Conservative Summit at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver, Colorado on June 27, 2015 in Denver, Colorado. The Western Conservative Summit attracts thousands of conservatives and a number of prominent politicians; this year the lineup includes Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Scott Walker. (Photo by Theo Stroomer/Getty Images)

This week on the Glenn Beck Podcast, Glenn spoke with Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias about his new book, "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger."

Matthew and Glenn agree that, while conservatives and liberals may disagree on a lot, we're not as far apart as some make it seem. If we truly want America to continue doing great things, we must spend less time fighting amongst ourselves.

Watch a clip from the full interview with Matthew Yglesias below:


Find the full podcast on Glenn's YouTube channel or on Blaze Media's podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

'A convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists': Why is the New York Times defending George Soros?

Image source: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg via Getty Images

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday, Glenn discussed the details of a recent New York Times article that claims left-wing billionaire financier George Soros "has become a convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists who have falsely claimed that he funds spontaneous Black Lives Matter protests as well as antifa, the decentralized and largely online, far-left activist network that opposes President Trump."

The Times article followed last week's bizarre Fox News segment in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared to be censored for criticizing Soros (read more here). The article also labeled Glenn a "conspiracy theorist" for his tweet supporting Gingrich.

Watch the video clip below for details:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The former ambassador to Russia under the Obama Administration, Michael McFaul, came up with "7 Pillars of Color Revolution," a list of seven steps needed to incite the type of revolution used to upend Eastern European countries like Ukraine and Georgia in the past two decades. On his TV special this week, Glenn Beck broke down the seven steps and showed how they're happening right now in America.

Here are McFaul's seven steps:

1. Semi-autocratic regime (not fully autocratic) – provides opportunity to call incumbent leader "fascist"

2. Appearance of unpopular president or incumbent leader

3. United and organized opposition – Antifa, BLM

4. Effective system to convince the public (well before the election) of voter fraud

5. Compliant media to push voter fraud narrative

6. Political opposition organization able to mobilize "thousands to millions in the streets"

7. Division among military and police


Glenn explained each "pillar," offering examples and evidence of how the Obama administration laid out the plan for an Eastern European style revolution in order to completely upend the American system.

Last month, McFaul made a obvious attempt to downplay his "color revolutions" plan with the following tweet:

Two weeks later, he appeared to celebrate step seven of his plan in this now-deleted tweet:



As Glenn explains in this clip, the Obama administration's "7 Pillars of Color Revolution" are all playing out – just weeks before President Donald Trump takes on Democratic candidate Joe Biden in the November election.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn:


Watch the full special "CIVIL WAR: The Way America Could End in 2020" here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Start your free trial and get $20 off a one-year subscription with code BANTHIS.

Modern eugenics: Will Christians fight this deadly movement?

Photo by Olga Kononenko on Unsplash

Last month, without much fanfare, a new research paper disclosed that 94 percent of Belgian physicians support the killing of new-born babies after birth if they are diagnosed with a disability.

A shocking revelation indeed that did not receive the attention it demanded. Consider this along with parents who believe that if their unborn babies are pre-diagnosed with a disability, they would choose to abort their child. Upwards of 70 percent of mothers whose children are given a prenatal disability diagnosis, such as Down Syndrome, abort to avoid the possibility of being burdened with caring for a disabled child.

This disdain for the disabled hits close to home for me. In 1997, my family received a letter from Michael Schiavo, the husband of my sister, Terri Schiavo, informing us that he intended to petition a court to withdraw Terri's feeding tube.

For those who do not remember, in 1990, at the age of 26, Terri experienced a still-unexplained collapse while at home with Michael, who subsequently became her legal guardian. Terri required only love and care, food and water via feeding tube since she had difficulty swallowing as a result of her brain injury. Nonetheless, Michael's petition was successful, and Terri's life was intentionally ended in 2005 by depriving her of food and water, causing her to die from dehydration and starvation. It took almost two excruciating weeks.

Prior to my sister's predicament, the biases that existed towards persons with disabilities had been invisible to me. Since then, I have come to learn the dark history of deadly discrimination towards persons with disabilities.

Indeed, some 20 years prior to Germany's T4 eugenics movement, where upwards of 200,000 German citizens were targeted and killed because of their physical or mental disability, the United States was experiencing its own eugenics movement.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas documented some of this history in his concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., Justice Thomas describes how eugenics became part of the academic curriculum being taught in upwards of 400 American universities and colleges.

It was not solely race that was the target of the U.S. eugenics movement. Eugenicists also targeted the institutionalized due to incurable illness, the physically and cognitively disabled, the elderly, and those with medical dependency.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, which wiped out pro-life laws in nearly every state and opened the floodgates to abortion throughout the entirety of pregnancy. Since then, 60 million children have been killed. Abortion as we know it today has become a vehicle for a modern-day eugenics program.

Since the Catholic Church was established, the Truth of Christ was the greatest shield against these types of attacks on the human person and the best weapon in the fight for equality and justice. Tragically, however, for several decades, the Church has been infiltrated by modernist clergy, creating disorder and confusion among the laity, perverting the teachings of the Church and pushing a reckless supposed “social justice" agenda.

My family witnessed this firsthand during Terri's case. Church teaching is clear: it is our moral obligation to provide care for the cognitively disabled like Terri. However, Bishop Robert Lynch, who was the bishop of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida, during Terri's case, offered no support and was derelict in his duties during the fight for Terri's life.

Bishop Lynch had an obligation to use his position to protect Terri from the people trying to kill her and to uphold Church teaching. Indeed, it was not only the silence of Bishop Lynch but that of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which also remained silent despite my family's pleas for help, that contributed to Terri being needlessly starved and dehydrated to death.

My family's experience, sadly, has turned out to be more of the rule than the exception. Consider what happened to Michael Hickson. Hickson was a 36-year-old, brain-injured person admitted to a Texas hospital after contracting COVID-19. Incredibly—and against the wishes of Michael's wife—the hospital decided not to treat Michael because they arbitrarily decided that his “quality of life" was “unacceptably low" due to his pre-existing disability. Michael died within a week once the decision not to treat him was imposed upon him despite the efforts of his wife to obtain basic care for her husband.

During my sister's case and our advocacy work with patients and their families, it would have been helpful to have a unified voice coming from our clergy consistently supporting the lives of our medically vulnerable. We desperately need to see faithful Catholic pastoral witness that confounds the expectations of the elite by pointing to Jesus Christ and the moral law.

A Church that appears more concerned with baptizing the latest social and political movements is a Church that may appear to be “relevant," but one that may also find itself swallowed up by the preoccupations of our time.

As Catholics, we know all too well the reluctance of priests to preach on issues of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other pro-life issues. We have heard that the Church cannot risk becoming too political.

At the same time, some within the Church are now openly supporting Black Lives Matter, an organization that openly declares itself hostile to the family, to moral norms as taught by the Church, and whose founders embrace the deadly ideology of Marxism.

For example, Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, Texas, knelt in prayer with a cardboard sign asserting his support for this ideology.

Recently, during an online liturgy of the mass, Fr. Kenneth Boller at The Church of St. Francis Xavier in New York, led the congregation with what appears to sound like questions affirming the BLM agenda. Moreover, while reading these questions, pictures of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, assumed victims of racial injustice, were placed on the altar of St. Francis Xavier Church, a place typically reserved for Saints of the Catholic Church.

Contrast these two stories with what happened in the Diocese of Lafayette, Indiana, where Rev. Theodore Rothrock of St. Elizabeth Seton Church fell victim to the ire of Bishop Timothy Doherty. Fr. Rothrock used strong language in his weekly church bulletin criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement and its organizers. Consequently, Bishop Doherty suspended Fr. Rothrock from public ministry.

In 1972, Pope Pius VI said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God." It seems that too many of our clergy today are enjoying the smell.

I encourage all who are concerned about the human right to life and about Christ-centered reforms in our culture and our Church to raise your voices for pastoral leadership in every area of our shared lives as Christian people.

Bobby Schindler is a Senior Fellow with Americans United for Life, Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and President of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network.