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!


 

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?