Glenn grills CT Attorney General


Watch Glenn Beck weeknights at 5pm ET on the Fox News Channel

GLENN: So here's Richard Blumenthal last night on the program. I started with AIG gave Chris Dodd all kinds of money. AIG executives said, hey, we've got to give him, because he's probably going to be the head of the banking committee and he's very powerful, so give, give, give. And they all gave. And I wondered if Richard Blumenthal was going to go after another resident in his state that took money from out of state. You know, not just the AIG executives but Christopher Dodd. And here's what happened.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

GLENN: Are you going to demand that Chris Dodd returns this money?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, Chris Dodd is returning the money on his own. I think he probably regrets having taken it.

GLENN: Right. If he didn't, would you demand it? If he didn't, I mean

BLUMENTHAL: I would ask him to do it. I think it's appropriate that he do it.

GLENN: Right.

BLUMENTHAL: The other question is why did congress approve all of these bonuses, which the entire congress did, not just one senator.

GLENN: Sure.

BLUMENTHAL: And why did the Federal Reserve

GLENN: Are you asking for

BLUMENTHAL: Why isn't it taking action.

GLENN: Are you going after Chris Dodd for writing that in?

BLUMENTHAL: I have asked that the Federal Reserve block these bonuses which I think

GLENN: Stop for a second.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

GLENN: You must see this. Can we post this or put this in the newsletter today? You have to see this video because this is where he starts to look like a deer in the headlights. Did you see it last night, Stu?

STU: Yes, I did.

GLENN: Okay. When I asked him, did you ask, he knew, uh oh, uh oh, and he paused. So when you're hearing the pauses, just put the big lights, you know, the big headlight eyes in there like... every time you hear a pause, just have that face in your mind like, "Oh, crap." So go ahead. I asked him about Chris Dodd and if he was going to go after. Go ahead.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

GLENN: I'm asking you about congress. I'm asking you about Chris Dodd because he lives in the great state of Connecticut. Are you going after him?

BLUMENTHAL: We don't have the power to investigate, nor does any attorney general, a federal official.

GLENN: Well, nobody's he's a resident in your state.

BLUMENTHAL: That's an issue for the congress.

GLENN: Wait a minute. He is a resident in your state.

BLUMENTHAL: He is a resident in the state but he is a federal official.

GLENN: Oh.

BLUMENTHAL: And no attorney general has the jurisdiction.

GLENN: Because it's in Washington, you can do anything about it. Kind of like if there's an AIG contract in New York, you really don't have any place?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, the AIG bonuses were paid in Connecticut and that's why we have demanded that they be repaid.

GLENN: Stop for a second. Stop for a second.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

GLENN: Now, listen to what he's saying. What he's saying is, I can't go after Christopher Dodd and ask him, even though he took money from AIG. It didn't go to Washington. It went to Chris Dodd's headquarters in Connecticut. So the money crossed state lines and came into Connecticut. He can't, he can't go after him because he doesn't have jurisdiction. He can't do anything on a federal, on a federal case against a federal, you know, representative, okay? He can't do it. He doesn't have jurisdiction. He would like to, but he can't.

Okay. When I say about the AIG, just like the AIG, "Well, no, that was paid in Connecticut." No. The checks were issued in New York. The contract is New York, but the money came across state lines, kind of like the AIG money. In fact, it's coming from the same source. Isn't that weird? It's coming from the same source and coming across state lines, but you don't have jurisdiction there but you somehow or another do? What is the law that applies here to one and not the other?

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

GLENN: Now, the one thing I was going through the interviews with you and nobody's asked this question and I'm just dying to know and I know you'll have the answer. What law did the AIG executives break when they took those bonuses that were mandated by a legal contract?

BLUMENTHAL: The AIG executives did not themselves break a contract.

GLENN: So then why were you going after them?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, we're not going after them.

GLENN: You were.

BLUMENTHAL: Going after the bonuses.

GLENN: It's their bonuses.

BLUMENTHAL: We were going after the

GLENN: No, their bonuses.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

GLENN: What he's trying to do now is, we weren't going after people, we were going after the money, we were going after the bonuses. Oh, I'm sorry, did you yell at the check? "Don't cash yourself!" Is that what you were doing? You weren't yelling at the checks.

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: Who had the bonus? The people did. No, we weren't going after the people; we were going after the bonuses. "You're obscene, you little dirty $165,000 check! You should be ashamed of yourself!" By the way, you who are holding the check, I love you. You're spot on. "You're a dirt bag, you little piece of paper! Look! Look at the way you're dressed, you little check!" Yeah, yeah, that's exactly what he was doing.

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: So he's not going after the people. He's going after the bonuses.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

GLENN: They are their bonuses. They earned that money. What right, what law did they break that gave you the ability in Connecticut to go after those bonuses?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, let's take it one step at a time. The money they received came from us, the taxpayers.

GLENN: Oh, I know how this works. I'm asking you, sir. You're the attorney general. I'm asking you for the law that they broke that gave you the ability. Are you not the defender of the law in Connecticut?

BLUMENTHAL: The law that they broke

GLENN: Yes.

BLUMENTHAL: is the law that requires that they serve the public interests, that bonuses that they

GLENN: What law is that? Wait, wait, what law is that, sir? You're the chief law enforcement officer. What law say that again? I don't recognize that law. It sounds like a good policy. It sounds like a good rule of thumb but I'm not sure I recognize that law. Could you give that to me again?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, you know, again these funds belong to us, the taxpayer.

GLENN: No, no, sir, look, you know what you've done? You know what you've done? You have you are an insult to George Washington, sir. George Washington made it very clear that we are a respecter of laws, not of men. For your own political gain you have decided to go after these people at AIG because it is a popular thing. And while I may agree with you that it is obscene, I would like to know, sir, not what's right as a rule of thumb, not what makes us feel good. You, sir, are to protect people and to stand for the law in Connecticut. So again I ask you, sir, what law gave you the right to go after them, what law did they break?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, I think you're wrong in the basic premise. We're not going after any individual. We're asking the United States

GLENN: You as the attorney general

BLUMENTHAL: Let me finish. You have to let me finish if you want to know what law I'm talking about. We're asking the United States of America, our federal government to ask that this money be returned or pursue it because they were undeserving of it. Now, I'm not enforcing the law

GLENN: They are undeserving of it?

BLUMENTHAL: against them. They are not deserving this money.

GLENN: What right do you have to say the people that worked for $1 a year

GLENN: Stop, stop, stop, stop.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

GLENN: How dare you. This just makes my blood boil. How dare you. There is a contract. There is a contract. Just as I have a contract with my mortgage company and I am required by law. And if I don't honor my contract with my mortgage company, these weasels will send the sheriff out to kick me and my family out of the house. "Well, they didn't deserve it. These banking people, they didn't deserve to have my mortgage. They aren't very good. Look how much trouble they're in." No, I have a contract and so I honor that contract because if we don't honor the contracts, then all of society breaks down. They didn't deserve it. I'm sorry. It's in the contract.

Most of these people were working and this didn't come out in the press. Most of these people were working for $1 a year. They stayed on because they were begged by the government, "Please help us. Please help us. We don't even understand how to unwind these things. Please help us." The dirtbags that caused it, most of them are gone. For some reason or another we're not seeing anybody grabbing them. Nobody in the media, nobody in congress. They're busy talking to the executives, Liddy, who was their pick! They are busy talking to him who's also working for a dollar so they can accuse the other people they begged to stay on who were also working for a dollar. And all they said was could we please just get our pay in bonuses?

Now, people don't understand bonuses on Wall Street. Neither do I. I get it; fine. But most people, because of what congress did in the 1990s with Bill Clinton and said these salaries are too high, what they did was make everybody stop making big salaries. So they make small salaries and then they get paid in bonuses at the end of the year. I've never lived in a place where when I bought my house, I live because of New York and Connecticut, it's all banking. It's all financial. It's all of this stuff. And when I went to get my loan for my house, they said, how would you like your payments. And I said, as small as possible. And they said, no, how would you like them structured; when do you want to pay them. And I said, oh, I don't know, honey. On the 16th? When do you think? And I said, what are our options here? Because he looked at me like I was a foreign life form. And he said, well, a lot of people pay it once a year. I said, what? He said, yeah, a lot of people, because their pay structure, they make a very small salary during the week or during the year and then they make all of their money at the end of the year and so they get one lump sum payment at the end of the year. I said, you've got to be kidding me. He said, no. It's a different world.

So you may look at $160,000 and say that's an outrage. Well, $160,000 if you're making a dollar the rest of the year doesn't even qualify for being rich under Barack Obama! You're not even in the millionaire tax which starts at 300 grand, which isn't a millionaire. Just like to point that out! Drives me crazy the duplicity of these people.

The themes of healing and redemption appear throughout the Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get tickets and more information here.

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

History at the Mercury Museum

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an interview, she said that:

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

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