Glenn Beck: Healthcare or Freedom grab?


Glenn Beck's Common Sense


Now available in book stores nationwide...

The media's saying the plan's going to cost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. By the way, you didn't know this was happening? Maybe this is the first time you heard it because they did this while you were asleep! Using the Congressional Budget Office's numbers, which seem like a lot for something that's supposed to be free ‑‑ but maybe that's just me ‑‑ $1 trillion for this free healthcare. But the problem is it's not even close to true. When you hear $1 trillion over 10 years, what do you think? What do you think? Do you think $100 billion a year, right? No. No, you've got to think like a congressman or a senator or a slime ball. That's what the left is hoping that you're thinking. It's actually far higher than that, and the reason is just like when you have liver failure on universal healthcare, most of the programs in the bill are on a long waiting list. But we are the world! We are the children! And Michael Jackson's dead. Should we talk about that some more?

The long waiting list of the programs in this bill, typical government delay. They don't actually kick in for a few years. Only 17% of the spending comes in in the first five years. 83% comes in in the second five years. So only 17% of us can have the frickin' sniffles! But once everything has kicked in, we're going to make the world a better place, just you and me. Once everything kicks in, the plan actually costs $230 billion a year, yet another lie from Washington. The cost rises every year.

Also, this cost of $230 billion a year does not include administrative costs. It doesn't account for the cost of implementing the program. It doesn't count the effects on other spending, not to mention the aspirin or the Advil that the millionaire won't give you now! So how do you pay for something that is so unbelievably free and yet so expensive? By using the only two answers these clowns ‑‑ I could call them so much more than that ‑‑ the only two answers that they ever have: One, you make the rich pay for it; and two, you let the government fix everything. Number one is, and I kid you not, an additional 5.4% surtax on everyone who makes over $1 million a year. Well, that's fine, the rich millionaire. You know, the guy who started out poor, worked his frickin' ass off. Yeah, let's penalize him so we can pay for the guy who refuses to work. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know, the job that Americans just won't do.

There are other taxes as well, you know, for those who make between $350,000 and up. The 5.4% tax is almost double the original number leaked to the press last week and, of course, this hits the small businesses the hardest. If you are not feeling bad for the evil rich people, which I understand because they're all so evil, I had the president of my company. I am a small business owner. I employ 23 people, something like that, 20 people, 23 people. I have a total staff of part‑time and full‑time of about 45 people that we are involved with, but 23 full‑time employees. They all have 100% medical care, 100%. The best money can buy. I have matching. You make a charitable donation, I match it dollar for dollar. Everybody pretty much has a nice, nice existence. I asked the president of my company, do some back‑of‑the‑envelope math. This tax, just this tax by itself, completely independent of all other tax hikes that are coming our way, will stop me from hiring five and ten people. One tax on one small business cost between five and ten jobs. Think about that against the entire scale of the economy. You'll begin to see what this p lan is going to cost in free healthcare. The higher the tax, the less people get hired. The more people need government to give them healthcare or housing! This is a freedom grab!

By the way, the tax hikes only cover about half the plan. Half the plan. Wait a minute. Really? So what covers the rest of it? I kid you not, the expected ‑‑ I'm quoting ‑‑ the expected windfall savings that the government will achieve with government healthcare. Because we all know the government has a history of achieving unbelievable savings. I mean, there's no way the free market system could send an envelope across the country cheaper! There's no way they could do that! Jeez. If that plan, if you happen to be a hate monger and that plan sounds a little unlikely, you'll be interested to hear what the plan is if those savings don't materialize. But we, of course, know the government will save all kinds of money. This is going to be ‑‑ you are never going to have to have a heart transplant because as soon as this happens, our heart will grow three sizes that day. We'll all be super healthy. We'll just be living in sunshine, lollipops, candy contains and Tamiflu will flow in every river.

This is from the Politico report. If those savings don't materialize, quote, those making more than $1 million would see a 5.4% surtax added to the tax bill. Some of the rates could climb if anticipated savings from elsewhere in the bill did not materialize. So as long as the government does a far better job on anything else they've ever done, it should only be about 5.4% tax. If they can't, at this point they are claiming that it could go as high as double, so those five to ten jobs have now become ten to twenty jobs.

I just want to point out that there's no history of our government ever doing this. When they passed the income tax in 1913, the progressive income tax, Woodrow Wilson, they promised us it would never go as high as 10%. It was only 7% for the evil millionaires. 7%. It will never go past 10. Yeah, yeah. They passed it. Never go past 10. Four years later it was 67%. Oh, and by the way, it will never ‑‑ that was an emergency! And there's no more emergencies left. Just like ‑‑ 67%, but it was an emergency. It will never go higher than 60. It's just during the emergency, until the last emergency came or the next one where, I kid you not, the income tax was 92%.

FDR wanted to make it 100% of anybody who made over $25,000, but congress would only go to 94. Now, their other option that they talked about in the past is to pay for some of it with money that they take from you, if they can just get cap and trade. Mark my words. They are going to go for cap and trade. While we are all debating healthcare, they're going to go for cap and trade. Isn't that what happened last time? They introduce healthcare and then they pass cap and trade. Now here comes the healthcare bill. You see, they have to have cap and trade to be able to pass this. Remember, all of this is based on the idea that the evil insurance companies are just so profit‑hungry. The government can beat them in efficiency because they don't have to care about profits or paying CEOs millions of dollars. They won't have all of that greed.

If you take nothing else from this monologue, remember this one thing: Health insurance profits account for .6% of healthcare costs. .6%. That's not me saying that. That's factcheck.org. CEO pay accounts for .005% of costs. This is not about healthcare. It never has been about healthcare. This is about, what does he call it, remaking America. This is government taking control of 1/6th of the economy. In one signature they will take 1/6th of the economy. They will take your arteries, your valves and your pancreas. Yes, you heard me. Your pancreas is at stake. But don't worry because the government can save it, because there's a choice we're making. We are the world. Can I get an amen!


 

The FEC is bad. The House of Representatives isn't doing anything to make it better.

When it passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 234-193 on Monday, Congress attempted to address a laundry list of nationwide problems: rampant gerrymandering, voting rights, and the vulnerability of elections to foreign interference, among other concerns. But H.R. 1, billed as the "For the People Act," also takes a shot at reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It fails.

The FEC isn't good at enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws, and, when it is does, it's often an entire election cycle after the given offense. As it is, candidates don't have much difficulty circumventing campaign finance laws, undermining the fairness of elections and opening the door to further corruption.

RELATED: Lawmakers are putting the death penalty on trial

The FEC was created by the Federal Election Campaign Act following the Watergate scandal, as Congress sought a better way to police federal campaign laws and prevent future presidents from interfering with investigations as Nixon had. The FEC has six commissioners, and no more than three can be of the same party. Four votes are required for most actions taken by the agency, and that hasn't been an issue for most of its history. But since 2008, the frequency of 3-3 tie votes has increased dramatically. It's why the FEC is slow to investigate cases and even slower to prosecute offenses. Supporters of H.R. 1 complain, with good reason, that the FEC has become toothless. But H.R. 1's reforms introduce new and potentially volatile problems.

FEC's rampant dysfunction won't be fixed by H.R. 1— the bill doesn't get at what actually went wrong. Since its inception, the FEC has been able to operate without excessive gridlock, and, for the most part, it still does. At the height of FEC turmoil in 2014, the FEC only had a tied vote 14 percent of the time (historically, it has been closer to one to four percent of the time) on substantive matters, although many of these tie votes occur on matters that are particularly contentious. The greater problem afflicting the FEC is touched upon by NBC Washington's findings that the Republican and Democratic commissioners of the FEC almost always vote as blocs. At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

H.R. 1's Democratic supporters instead believe the FEC's six-commissioner structure makes it dysfunctional. H.R. 1 introduces a new system of five commissioners —two from each party and one independent, eliminating tie votes. But that independent commissioner's de facto role as a tiebreaker would grant them far too much power. Save for Senate approval, there's nothing preventing a president from appointing an "independent" like Bernie Sanders or Angus King.

The bill's proponents are aware of this problem, creating a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel that will help inform the president's decisions. But this panel has problems of its own. The Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel's decisions are non-binding and not public, a result of its exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures the transparency of advisory committees. There are arguments against FACA's necessity, the panel's deliberate exemption from the law undermines the idea that its goal is to ensure non-partisanship. Instead, H.R. 1 will allow future presidents to tilt the scales of the FEC in their favor, a fate the post-Watergate creators of the FEC were so desperate to avoid they originally had members of Congress picking commissioners before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Apparently, the solution to excessive gridlock is one-party control.

H.R. 1 also seeks to grant unilateral powers to the Chair of the commission in the name of expediency, again giving leverage to the Chair's party, and allows the General Counsel to take actions independent of commission votes. While some of the FEC's problems, such as its notoriously slow pace and the delayed appointment of commissioners under Presidents Obama and Trump, might be solved with legislation, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the FEC's integrity is not a winning strategy.

The FEC is afflicted by the same problem that has afflicted governments for as long as they have existed – governments are made up of people, and people can be bad. The Founders, in their wisdom, sought to limit the harm bad actors could do once in power, and the FEC's current structure adheres to this principle. Currently, the consequences of bad actors in the FEC is dysfunction and frustration. But under H.R. 1's reforms, those consequences could be blatant corruption.

Michael Rieger is a contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter at @EagerRieger.

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed former Starbucks CEO and progressive Howard Schultz, a lifelong Democrat who has not only been disowned by the Democrat Party but he can no longer set foot inside of a Starbucks store because of his success in business.

In this clip, Stu explained how at one time Starbucks only sold coffee in bags until Schultz, an employee at the time, convinced the company to open a Starbucks cafe.

Click here to watch the full episode.

At one point, the owners came close to closing down the cafe, but Schultz eventually managed to purchase the company and transform it into the empire that it is today.

Stu continued, describing how Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, went on to implement liberal corporate policies that earned the company a reputation for being a "beacon" of liberalism across the country.

"And now he (Schultz) can't even get into the Democrat Party," Stu said."That is craziness," Glenn replied.

Citing a "60 Minutes" interview, Glenn highlighted the journey that Schultz traveled, which started in the New York City projects and evolved, later becoming the CEO of a coffee empire.

"This guy is so American, so everything in business that we want to be, he has taken his beliefs and made it into who he is which is very liberal," Glenn explained.

Catch more of the conversation in the video below.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

This weekend, March 17, Rep. Rashida Tlaib will be speaking at (Council on American Islamic Relations) CAIR-Michigan's 19th annual "Faith-Led, Justice Driven" banquet.

Who knows what to expect. But here are some excerpts from a speech she gave last month, at CAIR-Chicago's 15th annual banquet.

RELATED: CLOSER LOOK: Who is Rep. Ilhan Omar?

You know the speech is going to be good when it begins like this:


CAIR-Chicago 15th Annual Banquet: Rashida Tlaib youtu.be


It's important to remember CAIR's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Think of CAIR as a spinoff of HAMAS, who its two founders originally worked for via a Hamas offshoot organization (the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)).

A 2009 article in Politico says feds "designated CAIR a co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation, a group that was eventually convicted for financing terrorism."

The United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

In 1993, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

In 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad said:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Notice the slight underhanded jab at Israel. It's just one of many in her speech, and is indicative of the growing anti-Semitism among Democrats, especially Tlaib and Omar.

Most of the speech, as you might expect, is a long rant about the evil Donald Trump.

I wonder if she realizes that the Birth of Jesus pre-dates her religion, and her "country." The earliest founding of Palestine is 1988, so maybe she's a little confused.

Then there's this heartwarming story about advice she received from Congressman John Dingell:

When I was a state legislator, I came in to serve on a panel with him on immigration rights, and Congressman Dingell was sitting there and he had his cane, if you knew him, he always had this cane and he held it in front of him. And I was so tired, I had driven an hour and a half to the panel discussion at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. And I sit down, my hair is all messed up, and I said, 'Oh, my God, I'm so tired of this. I don't know how you've been doing it so long Congressman. They all lie.' And he looks at me and he goes. (She nods yes.) I said, 'You know who I'm talking about, these lobbyists, these special interest [groups], they're all lying to me.' … And he looks at me, and he goes, 'Young lady, there's a saying in India that if you stand still enough on a riverbank, you will watch your enemies float by dead.'

What the hell does that mean? That she wants to see her enemies dead? Who are her enemies? And how does that relate to her opening statement? How does it relate to the "oppression" her family faced at the hand of Israel?

Glenn Beck on Wednesday called out Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for their blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric, which has largely been excused by Democratic leadership. He noted the sharp contrast between the progressive principles the freshmen congresswomen claim to uphold and the anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, anti-Israel groups they align themselves with.

Later this month, both congresswomen are scheduled to speak at fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State.

Rep. Tlaib will be speaking at CAIR-Michigan's 19th Annual Banquet on March 17 in Livonia, Michigan, alongside keynote speaker Omar Suleiman, a self-described student of Malcolm X with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Suleiman has regularly espoused notably "un-progressive" ideas, such as "honor killings" for allegedly promiscuous women, mandatory Hijabs for women, death as a punishment for homosexuality, and men having the right to "sex slaves," Glenn explained.

Rep. Omar is the keynote speaker at a CAIR event on March 23 in Los Angeles and will be joined by Hassan Shibly, who claims Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, and Hussam Ayloush, who is known for referring to U.S. armed forces as radical terrorists.

Watch the clip below for more:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.