Philly's Soda Tax is Progressivism at Its Worst

January 12, 2017

WRITER

It's for the children. It's for the children and their well-being. Because no one loves children and is more concerned about their well-being than progressives. That's why Philadelphia's mayor has signed into law a tax on sickeningly sugary drinks, nearly doubling the cost of beverages deemed "bad" by the city's government.

"There's three groups affected by this policy: The consumer, totally screwed. The business owner, totally screwed. The government, helped. How often is this the direction and goal of policy in this freaking country?" Co-host Stu Burguiere asked Thursday on The Glenn Beck Program.

The new tax is creating a hailstorm of backfire from consumers.

"Progressives overplay their hand every single time," Glenn added.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: The city of Philadelphia is in outrage. Why? Because the soda tax. It is in effect and people realize, "Wait a minute. I voted for, what?" And it's causing a hailstorm. But there's a fake news story that the media fails to call fake news because the media, I would imagine, would be for the soda tax. And that is the mayor of Philadelphia blaming the high price of soda not on the tax, instead on price gouging. Uh-huh. We'll give you the facts. Fake news. Philadelphia. Not here. Beginning, right now.

(music)

GLENN: If you ever want to know anything about global warming or soda tax or really bizarre fascist dictators that you've never heard of in countries you didn't even know existed, Pat -- or, Stu is your guy. Stu is absolutely the guy.

Favorite dictator, Stu?

STU: Well, Turkmenboshi, I would say had to be number one.

GLENN: His reign?

STU: Well, he died -- he was, of course, replaced by Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

STU: In Turkmenistan.

PAT: Don't insult our intelligence like we must know that.

STU: Which was actually his dentist. Was Turkmenboshi's dentist, who they put as the new dictator.

GLENN: Really? Really?

STU: So in case you want to read up on that. We can always talk about that.

GLENN: Okay. We can talk about that some other time. I just want to get your bona fides out there, that I don't just say that higgledy-piggledy. When it comes to weird dictators you've never heard of, anything on global warming, or soda tax, Stu is the guy to go to.

STU: Stunningly, not a good combination to pick up the ladies throughout the life.

GLENN: No. Stunningly not really a collection of anything that does you any good at all.

STU: It really didn't work well. No. Except for right now, while Philadelphia is putting together --

GLENN: Shine, baby. It's your moment.

STU: -- the most ridiculous soda tax of all time. And they're applying it to all sorts of different things.

If you remember, a lot of cities have tried to pass these things, which were supposedly designed not for them to get money, of course, but for -- to protect us from ourselves and our bad choices.

GLENN: Of course.

STU: We're all getting too fat. And I realize that this show is not the one to --

GLENN: We're not the one to point that out.

STU: We got it. We are too fat. However, we're fat by own decision-making.

GLENN: Right. We go in eyes wide open.

STU: Absolutely. And mouth wide open, to be perfectly honest about it.

GLENN: Right.

STU: So they decided to try to pass this in Philadelphia by saying, "Well, you know, sure, it will have some health benefits. But really what we need is new money for Pre-K and all sorts of programs that everyone wants."

GLENN: Sure. This is going to be good for you. Help the children.

STU: It's going to be good for you. So it got through. They were successful to push it through. Started this month, for the first time.

The tax is 1.5 cents per ounce. So, you know, obviously a 20-ounce bottle of soda is going to add 30 cents. He might say, "Eh, it's not that big -- if you're paying two bucks, now it's 2.30. It might not necessarily hit you that hard." However, it gets worse, of course.

For example, Carbonator Rental Services in Philadelphia sells the syrup for sodas.

GLENN: So this is when you go into -- you know, if you're lucky to have a fountain in your house or you go into a restaurant and they're just pulling it out, there's nothing better than direct out of the fountain.

STU: Right.

GLENN: McDonald's makes the best Cokes on the planet.

STU: Their straws are great too.

GLENN: Yeah, just wanted to throw that out.

STU: But -- so that's -- so normally they sell a 5-gallon box of syrup. You want to get into the straw talk, Jeffy? He seems interested.

Five-gallon box of syrup, usually 60 bucks. Sixty bucks.

GLENN: So this is the -- they come with the fizz and the syrup. And they mix it together.

STU: Right.

GLENN: So you can have a glass of carbonated water, or they can add this syrup. A little bit of that syrup. So how much is the syrup?

STU: Normally it costs $60.

GLENN: Sixty dollars for the syrup.

STU: In December, $60 for the -- it's a lot of soda for $60.

GLENN: Sure.

STU: The new city tax applies to this beverage because it's sugary and it's a beverage.

GLENN: Sure.

STU: It applies $57.60 of additional cost.

GLENN: Wait. The syrup is $60.

STU: Sixty dollars for the syrup.

JEFFY: Right. Okay.

PAT: $57 for the tax.

STU: It's 60 cents for the tax.

PAT: That's price gouging right there. That's price gouging.

STU: Because, again, we're going from $60 to up 117.60 for the same product.

PAT: So in order to service their customers, they need to lower the price of that syrup to $3.

GLENN: Well, no, no, no. No, no, no.

PAT: Right? So it's $60. Right?

GLENN: So if they could stop price gouging, they might be able to, you know, pay the $15 of a working wage that they should be paying for those minimum jobs of making that syrup.

PAT: Well, yes, that too.

STU: I know. I know. Because they're supposed to do both of those things.

PAT: It's gone up to $117.60 for the same syrup.

STU: Reason has a story on this. In the real world, sandwich shops in grocery stores, of course, are adjusting --

PAT: That's essentially doubled the price.

STU: Yes. Because they were trying to make the case, it's not going to be that big of a deal.

In the real world, sandwich shops, grocery stores, of course, are adjusting the retail price of sugary drinks to make up for the added cost imposed by the tax.

And, by the way, the tax -- you know when you go to a store and you buy something and then you get the receipt and there's like a sales tax at the bottom -- right? That's how everything -- the way they structured this tax is that it hit before the retail side.

GLENN: Oh, my God.

STU: So they put it in there, so it's not separately listed on any of the receipts. It's just all the prices are jacked up through the ceiling.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: You know what, everybody should have on their menus and on receipts: Soda is this price because of this price of tax.

PAT: Absolutely.

STU: And that's starting to happen around the city. They're saying, this is why this happening.

PAT: You'd have to.

STU: The mayor who passed the tax says, the efforts of alerting people why their soda costs so much are wrong and misleading. And suggested that it could be an extension of the expensive fight put up by soda companies.

Big soda is at fault here.

GLENN: This is so crazy.

STU: It is so crazy.

GLENN: When now Coca-Cola is sending in the mob to break some legs and get every dime out of their -- that's crazy.

PAT: Every country over 200 employees is evil now. And they only act in their own best interest. And they don't care what they destroy in their wake.

GLENN: The cities don't. The cities don't. The city council. The mayor. They don't. They're always acting in your best interest, even though the bills that they pass, the regulations that they put in, on cities, drive the jobs out, make your cities less safe, make your cities more expensive, drive businesses to other cities or other states, and they're just fine. There's nothing bad about them.

If a -- if a company decides to leave the state, the state will say, "Look at the evil company." But nobody -- who is on the bandwagon saying, "Wait. It's the state's income tax that is killing us right now."

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: It's their regulations on my business that makes it unaffordable for me to go here.

STU: Right. And in Philly, what they did was do everything they could to hide it from people. And then deny the reality that that's the reason why the prices are going up.

PAT: And sadly it works.

STU: It does.

PAT: It works.

GLENN: But will it work here?

PAT: In this article, they're interviewing the owner of a really small convenience store, who was doing really well before this tax.

Now he says he can count on one finger in the last week the number of people who have come in and bought soda, tea, or energy drinks, in any quantity bigger than a can.

Because you think about that. A 12-ounce can of soda is going to cost you, what? Sixty cents? Seventy-five? I hardly ever buy soda. So more than that? A dollar?

STU: Yeah. Yeah. More.

PAT: So then -- a dollar would be 1.18, if let's say it's a dollar. But when you're talking about the bigger quantities, like you mentioned, it can double the price.

STU: I hold in my hand Diet Arizona Blueberry Green Tea, which is for some reason I purchased. I bought two of these. These are gallon containers for $6, which I thought was a really good value.

Two gallons for $6. I thought that was solid, okay? If I was in Philly buying it, it would not be $6. It would be over, with all the taxes, over $10. Now, you talk about trying to do this with a family, to get -- when you're buying in large quantities --

GLENN: No. No. No.

STU: You are absolutely bilking the family that buys in bulk.

GLENN: No. No, you're not.

STU: You're not?

GLENN: Families should not be buying high sugary drinks.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And that's the point, this isn't even a sugary beverage. There is no sugar whatsoever in it.

GLENN: It's green tea, and it's not even green. There's something wrong with that.

STU: It's blueberry, so it's blue.

JEFFY: So if there's no sugar in it, why are you getting taxed?

STU: I know. Isn't that interesting? Well, they've applied the tax to non-sugary drinks. Because, remember, this isn't about health. This is about getting more money.

GLENN: The children.

PAT: It's for the children.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: For the children.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: Again, $6 for iced tea --

GLENN: It's your moment to shine, Pat.

STU: I thought it was my moment to shine on taxes.

GLENN: It was his. Look, very few times you can talk about sugary taxes, and even fewer times you can talk about Michael Jackson.

PAT: That's right.

GLENN: So this is his moment to shine.

STU: Okay.

PAT: Did I stole your moment? Steal it?

STU: No. These are good moments. Soda and Michael Jackson. So $6 turns into $10. That's a 67 percent tax.

PAT: That's madness. That's madness!

STU: Think about that. That's incredible, that they expect people to swallow this.

GLENN: They're going to.

STU: It's insane.

PAT: They literally need a tea party revolt in Philadelphia. Literal tea.

STU: I think they may have even in Philadelphia, overreached so badly --

JEFFY: This has been coming for years.

STU: I mean, a lot of these cities have tried to do this with small taxes and saying it's about health.

They've tried so hard, and they've gone so overboard, that perhaps, maybe we have a chance here to push back against this movement and say this is insane. Because people rally are pissed off about this, even in Philadelphia.

PAT: Well, they have to be.

STU: You have to be. It's killing you.

PAT: One and a half cents an ounce!

STU: An ounce.

GLENN: If I were Pepsi or Coke, I would be buying massive, massive ads on anything that anybody in Philadelphia is watching.

I would be buying massive ads and saying, "Look, here's what your mayor said. We want you to know, Coca-Cola is the same price." Go to New Jersey.

STU: Buy it in New Jersey.

GLENN: You'll buy it for the price you bought it last week.

PAT: Well, in this case, it's even easier than that. Go to Bala Cynwyd. You know, that's all you have to do.

GLENN: Go across the city line.

PAT: Across the line and go to their suburb, and you'll pay a lot less.

GLENN: Right. The only ones who are being hurt by this are the ones who are trapped in their food deserts, having to go buy their -- because they can't afford to go to Bala Cynwyd and drive out of the city. Anybody who uses a bus, anybody who walks to the supermarket, anybody who does that, you're the one being hurt.

STU: Think about that.

PAT: It's so easy to do too. Because you have Wawa in the city limits, right? Then you'd have Wawa just outside the city limits. And you can just show them the price. Here's the price in Philadelphia. Here's the price in Bala Cynwyd.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: No-brainer.

STU: Think about this. There's three groups affected by this policy: The consumer, totally screwed. The business owner, totally screwed. The government, helped.

How often is this the direction and goal of policy in this freaking country?

PAT: Almost always is.

JEFFY: Really, and the government hasn't really helped because they're selling less product.

STU: Yeah, but they're getting a huge income stream from people like me who would still go and buy it because I'm an idiot.

But if you need to fight this stuff, this needs to be overturned.

JEFFY: I agree.

STU: And I think like -- you look at this, and like, they get money, for whatever stupid policy, they say they're achieving, which of course, will wind up in ten years realizing they didn't achieve it and they'll ask for more money and more taxes.

GLENN: Well, what they'll do is they'll -- if this hangs on long enough, they'll say, "Well, we have to replace this money," and they'll just find a group that they can pin that on, that they can make everybody hate.

STU: Need to kill it fast, right?

GLENN: Yes. Because if it holds on, then they'll have the money and they'll say, "We need to raise this much money because we have to replace it." And they'll just find a group that is in a minority or can be sold to let people. Gas companies. Oil companies. Big business. Whoever. And they'll drive the jobs out even more.

PAT: It's for the children. And we love the children.

(chuckling)

GLENN: You won't let him have that moment. You won't let him have that moment. Yeah.

STU: When you talk about the overreach, you know, you can talk -- you can get people to pay an extra little bit here and there.

To go from $60 to 117 is completely ridiculous. But, I mean, look at the guy -- this is the guy who owns the company whose product is now from $60 to 117.60.

He says, "We're not talking about a couple of bucks on a 60-dollar item." If it was, probably people wouldn't be bitching and there wouldn't be an opportunity to overturn this and push back against this. That's bad.

GLENN: Progressives overplay their hand every single time.

STU: Which is weird, because progressive, it's designed not to overplay your hand.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Progressivism is, let's take the very little bit that we can and keep --

GLENN: They always think they're at the finish line. And only once did the Americans choose a nonprogressive to reverse it all, and that's in the 1920s. Usually they just -- they grab somebody who is offering those progressive ideas, just in a different package. Richard Nixon is a good example.

STU: '80s, I would say they did not choose progressive.

GLENN: But I don't consider him a progressive, as much just a flatout bad Marxist. Jimmy Carter.

PAT: Who?

STU: In the '80s. Ronald Reagan. Do you know the guy I'm referring to?

GLENN: He wasn't a progressive.

STU: Right. You said only one time have they chosen -- I think -- oh, you're saying --

GLENN: I would say, you know, the big progressives --

STU: Right. Okay. I see what you're saying.

GLENN: Woodrow Wilson.

STU: Not an ideological, necessarily progressive, that was reversed by conservatism -- that's only happened --

GLENN: Correct.

PAT: They're tired of waiting. And they've gotten so close lately. I think they're just tired of waiting, and now they're trying to push it the rest of the way. Don't you think?

They've gotten a little impatient lately because Obama brought them so far. And they're like, "We're right there. Let's just push it the rest of the way."

GLENN: Because they know what I have been saying is true.

PAT: The pendulum. Pendulum.

GLENN: Yes. And this doesn't last.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: It doesn't last long. It's on the verge of collapse.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: The question is, who is going to be the one holding the reigns when it collapses? Is it going to be the left or is it going to be the right?

PAT: I don't know. But it's horrifying.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

Glenn's Show Prep