Obama raises the roof...and taxes

GLENN: Hello, you sick twisted freak, welcome to it. The next President of the United States is going to be Barack Obama and our new national anthem is... I think, I'm just guessing is -- I mean, why not. Let's be honest. This is a kick-butt national anthem. I like it better than ours. I don't know what the words mean, but -- and don't send them to me because I'm not going to open e-mail. But -- no, I'm not. No, I'm getting yelled at that I should open up the -- I'm not. I don't want to know what the word -- look, you don't want to know what Barack Obama's policies are. I don't want to know what the words are of this cool national anthem. Sure, it's Soviet, sure, it's probably something about Lenin and, you know, great Stalin killing all the people in the middle of the -- you know. Anyway, I don't want to know it. I just like the way the music sounds, and isn't that all that's really important here? It's hope and change. I like that. This music makes me feel good. Why worry about the details of what the words mean?

Stephen Moore is with us. He's the chief editorial writer for the economic part. I don't even know. What is your title, Stephen?

MOORE: Hello, Glenn.

GLENN: How are you? I never know your title.

MOORE: I am the senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial part.

GLENN: That's way too complex.

MOORE: That's not important.

GLENN: Yeah, you write important stuff for the Wall Street Journal. I'll leave it at that. Because you yelled at me one time. Like the first time you were on, no you were like, no, no, no, that's not what I did. And I'm like, whatever. So you -- I just read an editorial that is -- when is this going to be printed in The Wall Street Journal?

MOORE: Well, we call it Obamanomics and it will be this week and basically we looked at the Obama economic program and it is -- you know, I describe it, Glenn, as the nanny state on steroids.

GLENN: He's really -- you know, I never thought I would pine for Hillary Clinton. I mean, seriously I'm thinking about putting a campaign sign in my front yard.

MOORE: I sent her $100.

GLENN: I mean, really. The listening audience, everybody should send her money.

MOORE: Well, you have it. He's going to -- you know, people say that Barack Obama is all style and no substance. That's not -- well, he's a lot of style, but the truth is he's telling us what he's going to do if he becomes President on the economy. He's going to raise taxes through the roof, especially if the evidence comes to over $200,000. Of course, those are the people Glenn who are the wealth producers and the job creators. Two thirds of the people, these rich people that he continues to say have to pay more taxes, those are the small businessmen in America. Those are the people who create the jobs.

GLENN: We have a -- hang on just a second. It's amazing to me that -- because I think we have a pretty big company and yet I'm told that I'm a small businessman. I'm not even a medium. I'm a very small businessman, and it amazes me. Because I don't know if Barack Obama, I don't know if he's going to get in, I don't know what's coming the next year, I probably have two new divisions that I would be doing right now. And Stu and I were just talking about it.

MOORE: Right.

GLENN: That if -- you know they are giving away all these tax rebates to people who never -- you know, they didn't pay taxes. If you would just say, hey, everybody gets 1% back of what you paid, if I got 1% of my taxes back, you cut me 1%, I would create jobs with that money.

MOORE: Yeah, but I've got some good news for you, Glenn. You are not going to have 1% back. You'll probably end up paying about 15% more and that's because the top income tax rate would go, under the Obama plan, from -- today it's about 35% to 40%. But then if you make over $100,000 which isn't, you know, a whole lot of money these days, he also gets rid of --

GLENN: Remember when $100,000 used to be something.

MOORE: Yeah, those were the good old days. He gets rid of the cap on the Social Security tax. Right now you pay Social Security tax on income up to $97,000. He would say get rid of that cap. So that's an additional 12% tax that you'd pay. So your marginal tax rate is going to go up to above 50%. We haven't seen tax rates like that in this country since the bad old days of the 1970s.

GLENN: Wait, wait. But in the bad old days of the 1970s and this is what drives me crazy. In the bad old days of the 1970s, we had all of those loopholes.

MOORE: Right.

GLENN: The rich never paid the tax.

MOORE: Well, that's the other interesting point. I listened to Obama last night and he did go -- I don't know if you listened to him, Glenn, but he went on and on and on and on and one of the things he keeps talking about is getting rid of the special interest groups in Washington. Well, I've lived in this town for 20 years. I'm all in favor of getting rid of the special interest groups but if you raise the tax rate up above 50%, you are going to see legions of special interest groups. You are going to create a new tax shelter industry in this town. I mean, the corporate K Street crowd is going to multiply four fold.

GLENN: So here's what you have. And let me just go through some of the highlights of your article that's coming out in The Wall Street Journal later this week.

MOORE: Yeah.

GLENN: Raise the highest income tax rate from 35% to 39.6

MOORE: Right.

GLENN: Repeal the income cap on Social Security payroll taxes. Americans pay 10.2 on Social Security tax on income up to 97,500 of income. They would also likely apply the payroll tax surcharge on all income more than $200,000. You say that this fundamentally changes what FDR did.

MOORE: It does because, you know, the original idea behind Social Security was, in fact -- this is amazing statistic. When FDR first instituted Social Security in 19, I believe it was 1936, the first tax was 1% on the employer, 1% on the employee on the first $4,000 of income. Today it's a 15% tax and it's on income up to $100,000 and Obama would just get rid of it. He would essentially transform Social Security, which is supposed to be an insurance program, a retirement pension program, into just a welfare program. And Lord knows we've got enough of those in Washington.

GLENN: Okay. Now, you also say, so the combination here would raise the highest marginal tax rate on wage and salary income in the U.S. to 52%. That's 39.6 income tax, 2.5 Medicare. Do you think that's going to sit there? 10.2 Social Security tax. For those living in high income tax areas such as California, New Jersey, New York, the combined tax increase could rise to nearly 60%.

MOORE: Right. And the real problem there, Glenn, I mean, that's a scary number. What makes it doubly scary is that all over the world other countries are cutting their taxes. I mean, there are now 20 countries in the world that have flat taxes of less than 25%. How will American companies and businesses going to be able to compete when they have tax burdens that are twice as high as the companies we're competing against.

GLENN: I just started reading Atlas Shrugged. Do you ever --

MOORE: I mean, my Bible is Atlas Shrugged.

GLENN: I just started reading it again. The first time I read it, I highlighted it. It's been probably ten years. I'm just going back and I'm reading the highlights. I've got to tell you, man, I'm looking for that place where we can all go.

MOORE: You can looking. Well, here is the amazing thing when you read that book. And by the way, I would urge all the listeners. It is a must read. If you never read Atlas Shrugged, it's probably one of the most important books ever written. What's so funny about that book is you know it was written, what, 50 years, Glenn? And she was parodying all these stupid laws that the politicians would enact but our politicians are enacting them.

GLENN: They are all there. They are all there. You know what's amazing? I read one page that I had highlighted and it was the Government saying, well, why would we help you -- or why would you want to develop your railroad there? We can't let you develop your railroad and put those lines there; we already have railroad lines for somebody else there. And the one politician looked at the other and said, this woman doesn't understand Progressive thinking; this isn't Progressive of you. And it's riddles with a slam on the Progressive movement, which I want to remind you Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are Progressives. You want to understand who these people are, man, go back and look at what they did to the country around the turn of the century. They are the reason we fundamentally change from a free society to a, sliding into a socialist country.

MOORE: Yeah. I was listening to Barack Obama last night and he kept talking about all these wonderful things the Government is going to do for us. If you can't pay your credit card bill, the Government's going to help you. If you can't get health insurance, the Government's going to help you. If you can't get into college, the Government's going to help you. On and on and on. And I'm thinking, you know, it reminded me of what Ronald Reagan used to say, that the Government's big enough to give you everything you've got, is big enough to take everything you've got.

GLENN: Yeah. It will just be a slave state really. For a lot of people it will just be a slave state. They will take everything from the producers, they will take everything and give it to the nonproducers.

MOORE: One of the things that Obama has in his plan is something called patriotic corporations and so he divides the country into patriotic corporation and, quote, nonpatriotic corporation.

GLENN: So FDR. This is so FDR.

MOORE: I mean, who is going to decide who is a patriotic corporation? By the way, Glenn, I don't think your company's going to be labeled patriotic.

GLENN: No, I can guarantee it. And you know what's funny? They all say, oh, wrapping yourself in the flag, oh, the PATRIOT Act. Like if you vote against the PATRIOT Act, you are somehow not a patriot. He wants to make patriotic companies!

MOORE: Yeah. Well, this reminds me of Mussolini.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. Now, so what he wants to do is say if you ship your people abroad, then you are not a patriotic company and you'll receive a higher tax. If you keep your people here and employ Americans, then you are a patriotic company.

MOORE: But you know what? Can I intervene and just say one thing?

GLENN: Yeah.

MOORE: If that's the philosophy -- and look, I don't like it when companies send jobs abroad. But if you want to facilitate companies moving jobs abroad, raise tax rates. If you raise tax rates, the companies are going to move abroad.

GLENN: Here's the idea. He says I'll make you a patriotic company. I'll lower your tax rate if you keep your people here. Moore right.

GLENN: If that works, why not just lower the tax rate.

Look for this in the upcoming Wall Street Journal in the editorial. Stephen Moore, thank you so much.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.