'We explode the code' - Rick Santorum's tax plan eliminates the IRS as we know it

A good friend to the program and 2016 presidential hopeful Senator Rick Santorum joined Glenn on the radio Tuesday to talk about his revolutionary tax plan he announced Monday.

Santorum said his tax plan will feature a flat tax on all income, without a value added tax, which is something he said differentiates his plan from Rand Paul's.

"It's a 20 percent income tax on all income. It's on individual income. 20 percent on corporate income. 20 percent, capital gains, dividends and interest. Everything is taxed at the same level," Santorum said.

He went on to describe how his plan would eliminate the IRS as we know it.

We explode the code. It's gone. There's no IRS as we know it. It's simple. I mean, there's -- there's the tax credit that I talked to you about. There's the deduction for home mortgages and for charitable donations.

The difference is, everybody can take that deduction, not just those who are high income. So everybody has this available to them. So it's really helpful for everybody to have this deduction. And that's it. No other exemptions. No other exclusions. Same thing with the corporate side. Nothing. No special energy provisions or any kind of things. All that -- all that stuff goes away. It's a very simple code. And it gets the IRS out of everybody's hair.

Listen to the full exchange or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: A good friend of the program. A good friend and a very good man. 2016 presidential hopeful. The thing that made Pat fall in love with Rand Paul, I think, the love story may begin here with Rick Santorum. Because yesterday, he announced his tax plan, and it sounds similar.

PAT: Oh, nice.

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Rick Santorum.

RICK: Just a little better, I might add.

GLENN: A little better. I don't know. That's hard to beat.

RICK: Well, here's why I say it's better than his. Because -- well, his rate is 14.5 percent. It includes the value-added tax. Mine is at 20 percent, flat tax with no value-added tax. It has a tax on corporate --

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

PAT: Wait. I didn't know it included a value-added tax.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. He put a value-added tax on that?

RICK: Yeah.

PAT: I didn't know that.

GLENN: I had no idea.

RICK: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Can you look that up, Stu? That's really bad.

PAT: At what percent? What percentage?

GLENN: Doesn't matter.

RICK: Fourteen and a half. That's how he's able to accomplish fourteen and a half because he does a value-added tax.

GLENN: He was doing 14 and a half and a 14 and a half VAT tax?

RICK: Yeah. Fourteen and a half income and fourteen and a half VAT.

PAT: That's like 29 percent.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. That is really bad -- that's dishonest. That's dishonest. The way he presented that, I think that's dishonest.

RICK: Well, I think -- if you look it up, that's exactly what his, quote, business tax is, is value-added tax.

GLENN: Okay. Wait. Wait. That's business or that's income?

RICK: He has an income tax. He has what he calls a business-something tax. But it's a value-added tax. That's what it is.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Okay. All right. So we'll look that up. We'll look that up.

PAT: Okay.

RICK: That's why mine is better. It's a 20 percent income tax on all income. It's on individual income. 20 percent on corporate income. 20 percent, capital gains, dividends, and interest. Everything is taxed at the same level. There's no playing around from one to the other. It is a powerful, you know, corporate tax reduction from 35 percent now down to 20 percent, with full expensing, which is really important, if you're going to encourage manufacturing in this country. Which, as you know, Glenn, I mean, that's been my passion for a long time, is to make sure that America can be number one in manufacturing again. And we'll have a tax code that's going to be as strong on manufacturing -- has a repatriotism provision to get that $2 trillion sitting overseas to come back to America. Invest it in plant and equipment here. You know, there is a guy in this race who is famous for saying you're fired. I want to be famous for saying you're hired. And that's -- this thing will -- this tax plan will explode the code. It's a single rate plan. There's no deductions. No special tax provisions. The -- we eliminate everything on the individual side, except every person gets a 2,750-dollar tax credit. So depending on how large your family is, multiple that by $2,750 for every person in your house. Get a credit off your taxes for every person in your house. It's pro-family. It's pro-growth. And it keeps the rates low, and that means growth high.

PAT: So you're talking -- Rick, you're talking run rate for everybody, including --

RICK: One rate for everybody.

PAT: Wow.

RICK: All income. All income is set to 20 percent. So there's no gaming. Oh, I can move this money here. Move this money there. It's all passed at the same right. Provides generous -- for the corporate side, this being able to write off capital, equipment, and buildings. You can expense the year -- so it's a very powerful incentive.

GLENN: Tell me about capital gains. Is that income?

RICK: Just a flat -- everybody pays a 20 percent capital gains tax.

PAT: Okay. So the capital gains would be 20 percent as well?

RICK: And we get rid of the marriage -- we get rid of the death tax. So there's no estate tax.

PAT: That's good.

RICK: Get rid of all the Obamacare taxes. And under our plan, obviously you want to get rid of Obamacare. If you look at how it's scored by the tax foundation, if you get rid of all the Obamacare taxes, as well as the Obamacare subsidies, it comes out over a ten-year period of time at actually increasing revenues over ten years by $600 billion. It does that, and it's while still increasing growth by 1 percent a year for ten years. So it will go from 2.3 to 3.3. We add another 3.2 million new jobs, above what's projected. And wages go up almost 1 percent a year.

GLENN: What happens to the IRS?

RICK: We explode the code. It's gone. There's no IRS as we know it. It's simple. I mean, there's -- there's the tax credit that I talked to you about. There's the deduction for home mortgages and for charitable donations.

PAT: Oh.

RICK: The difference is, everybody can take that deduction, not just those who are high income. So everybody has this available to them. So it's really helpful for everybody to have this deduction. And that's it. No other exemptions. No other exclusions. Same thing with the corporate side. Nothing. No special energy provisions or any kind of things. All that -- all that stuff goes away. It's a very simple code. And it gets the IRS out of everybody's hair.

GLENN: Okay. So I love this. From what I know -- then, again, I loved Rand Paul's until you just told me some things.

RICK: Sorry to burst your bubble there, Glenn.

GLENN: So I loved this. With one thing you said. And it's a red flag to me. And if we can get really geeky to me. Most people won't even think this way. But I believe, Rick, you and I believe that what the fed has done is just absolutely disastrous. You said you wanted to repatriot $2 trillion into the United States. That money comes flooding back into this system, and we could have hyperinflation. Are you concerned about that at all?

RICK: Well, I mean, there will be a tax on it. It's a 10 percent tax when you bring it back. Am I concerned that it will have economic growth that will cause inflation? Yes. Any time you have -- you know, we look at going from around 2 percent growth, to under our plan, about 4 percent growth, that's a concern. In there, we talk about sound money policy and obviously auditing the fed and putting the fed back on the course of being a -- a sound money fed, not a, you know, growing the economy fed, not a lowering unemployment fed.

GLENN: And how do you do that?

RICK: Well, I think part of it is who you appoint to the fed and the messages you send out. You know, that's -- that's the -- that's the leverage you have. Look, there's no question this president hasn't had a huge impact over the fed and its policies. By his policies and what -- and the governors he's put on the fed. And that's what you have to do. You have to put sound money governors on the fed and as chairman of the fed.

GLENN: Yeah, but you don't as president get to pick that person. They give you a list to pick from.

RICK: Well, that's true. And as you all know, you have some influence on that process. The president is not -- if you look at the people that they put on the fed, they've been put on the fed who are very much in line with where the president wants to take the fed. And I think that's been the case really since the fed has been around. There's an accommodation made to where the president wants to take the fed.

GLENN: Okay. So, Rick, let's get down to brass tacks on you and your campaign. I was with a candidate on Friday, and I heard him -- actually it wasn't him. It was somebody in his campaign. Talking to a group of people. And they were saying, you know, they were just going through all the people. And they said, and Rick Santorum is going to be in this thing even if he has no money, he will go and he will go door to door on foot if he has to, he is never leaving this campaign because there's a chance of a lightning strike and he will take advantage of that. Is that -- is that where you're at -- that you're just -- I mean, because we're looking at a new debate two weeks away on CNBC. I don't know if you'll make it. I don't know if Rand will make it. I don't know who will make it to the big table. They're playing all these games. How long do you survive? And do you believe that it's the right thing to do, if you continue to poll the way you are?

RICK: Well, all I can tell you, Glenn, four years ago I was in the same situation. In fact, in national polls, I was at 2 percent the week before the Iowa caucuses and won the Iowa caucuses. And, you know, I don't know if you saw, Gallup is no longer polling national elections. Pew is saying that they may not do it because the polls are simply wrong.

I can tell you. I mean, I was talking to one of our folks. And she works with five people. And they're all for a particular candidate. I won't say who. And she asked the question, have any of you ever been to an Iowa caucus? And they all said no. And she said, well, do you know what a caucus is? And they all said no. And she said told them. And all of them said, oh, we're not going to do that. We're not going to show up at 7 o'clock at night and spend two hours at some place to vote.

There's a lot of polling that goes on that simply doesn't reflect who will actually vote. I saw it. I witnessed it in reality. And what I have to do is I have to trust what I see on the ground. I did that four years ago. I trusted what I saw on the ground. I trusted that, even though in the state of Iowa, four weeks out, I was at 3 percent in the polls. I knew what I was seeing from caucus goers in Iowa who actually make these decisions. And so had I gotten a good break, which is to win on caucus night, instead of getting an errant count that didn't declare me the winner, I think it would have been a very different situation.

But here's what I do know. The media focuses in on polls and how much money you've raised, both of which feed into each other. They don't focus on what's going on on the ground, which counts, which is, who will vote? And that's what I focus on, and that's what I'm going to trust.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you, you have the -- the image of the hardest working guy in politics. You have the image of a good who is just not going to let a single door go unknocked.

RICK: Well, here's the thing, Glenn. I mean, you can spend all your time raising money. A lot of guys do it. And you look at their campaign schedule. They don't have a lot of town hall meetings. They don't get out and talk to voters. And they're relying on people presenting their image to the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. I do the opposite. I don't spend a lot of time raising money. I spend a lot of time out there, and I try to present that image directly and try to obviously build a very loyal cadre of folks who in a caucus state will make a difference.

GLENN: So tonight is the Democratic debate. If you had one question to ask all of the candidates, what would the question be?

RICK: You know, as you know,, I mean, my focus is on right now, the biggest problem -- this president is going to deal with, is a potential nuclear Iran. So my focus is, you know, will you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? Because there's no question in my mind that under this deal, Iran is on a pathway to getting a nuclear weapon. And it's necessary to make sure that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. And I suspect that the policy of containment, which is what the Obama administration has now put us toward, is the policy that every one of those candidates will follow along.

STU: Rick, I was wondering, maybe this will be a good question to answer, maybe you'll have a good answer to it. Can you identify anything that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, would identify as an actual violation to this agreement? It seems like they could do literally anything, and it still would fall within their framework.

RICK: Yeah, this is -- if you look at what's going on in Syria right now, in Syria, we have an agreement with Syria that supposedly is the model for verification and making sure that they're following along with it. And, of course, Syria has been using chemical weapons since this treaty was put in place. There's no question that chemical weapons have been used and that the Assad regime is the one that's been targeted. Yet, there's been no claim of violation of this treaty, even though they're using chemical weapons. And the reason is, they structure the treaty to where if they don't have weapons at this site and at this location or at that location, they're not in violation. So they can go ahead and use chemical weapons. Develop them somewhere else. Use them on their people. And still be in full compliance of a chemicals weapon treaty. This is the problem, is that we have a president who doesn't want to act. And he's trying to create a facade that he's actually doing something, when he's actually enabling people to move forward with their weapons of mass destruction.

GLENN: All right. Rick, just last night on TV and the rest of it is happening tonight. Last Friday, we spent an hour on radio with Bobby Jindal. And I'd like to offer this to you. I'm not offering this to everybody. I'm just offering this to about six of the people that I think America needs to see and meet. Would you come in and spend a couple of hours with us here in the next couple of weeks.

RICK: I'll spend a whole day with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

RICK: I'll take you out to breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

GLENN: No, and you're not going to knock on my door and ask me for my vote either. I mean, no.

STU: Also, Rick, you don't know how much he eats. I don't think you have those kind of campaign funds.

GLENN: Yeah, you haven't seen me for a while, Rick. It's gone down quickly.

RICK: I know the rest of the family doesn't eat much. They're in great shape.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: Rick, God bless you. If you want more information, go to RickSantorum.com. It's RickSantorum.com. Rick, thanks a lot. We'll talk to you soon.

Let's get him scheduled to come in.

STU: Yeah, that would be great.

GLENN: Do the same thing we just did with Bobby Jindal. By the way, the rest of the Bobby Jindal interview is tonight at 5 o'clock on the Blaze TV. You don't want to miss it. Really, really a good candidate.

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.