Glenn Beck: What's Driving President Obama's Agenda?




Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on FOX News Channel

If we look at everything happening in Washington and it doesn't make sense, it's because we're applying the same logic we've always used. Today, we're going to talk about green energy, health care and all of these bills in a new context.

Here's The One Thing: Everything getting pushed through Congress — including this health care bill — is transforming America. And it's all driven by President Obama's thinking on one idea: reparations.

"Oh Glenn, you are crazy! President Obama is against reparations. He said so himself."

Yes, he did say that. What the media conveniently ignores is the reason why he is against them. As I warned before the election, he doesn't think they go far enough: "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt' and to avoid the much harder work."

I had forgotten about Obama's position on reparations until a couple of days ago. It ties everything together. What is that "harder work"?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured, if we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get — should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

He believes in all the "universal" programs because they "disproportionately affect" people of color.

And that's the best way, he feels, to right the wrongs of the past. These massive programs are Obama brand reparations or in presidential speak: leveling the playing field.

But, just in case the universal-ness of the programs somehow doesn't quench his reparation appetite, he's making sure to do his part to "pay the debt" in other areas.

Written in the 1,000-plus page bill that no one will read before they vote on it, is a provision that if say, a medical school or other health related institution, pursued a grant or other contract from the government, they would have to prove their inclusiveness of minorities.

On pages 881-882 of the bill it states: "The secretary (of Health and Human Services) shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following:

Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds

A high rate of placing graduates in practice settings having the principal focus of serving in underserved areas or populations experiencing health disparities

Supporting teaching programs that address the health care needs of vulnerable populations"

Vulnerable populations?

This could have been written by ACORN — who, CNSNews.com reports, might get cash earmarked in the bill for "Community-Based Organizations." When asked about it, Chris Dodd said "I don't know."

So, you got it? That's not preference to the best institution, but the institution with the most diversity. We shouldn't be dishing out grants based on what hospital looks most like an Old Navy commercial.

Also in this bill, the Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Minority Health will be "maintaining, collecting and presenting federal data on race and ethnicity" to see if they can "identify gaps." When Obama's economic team was dreaming up the stimulus package, his adviser, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich said that: "I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers… I have nothing against white male construction workers, I'm just saying there are other people who have needs as well."

Plus, Obama's new "green czar," Van Jones, says in his book — "The Green-Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems" — that the best way to fight global warming and urban poverty is by creating millions of green jobs. A percentage of these jobs, Jones says, should go to the disadvantaged and the chronically unemployed:

"The green economy should not be just about reclaiming thrown-away stuff… It should be about reclaiming thrown-away communities."

Obama's no dummy. He knows we can't afford health care and cap-and-trade and more stimulus bills. His goal is creating a new model: Settling old racial scores through new social justice.

Is Beck right? CLICK here to join the debate

— Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on FOX News Channel

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.

President Donald Trump has done a remarkable job of keeping his campaign promises so far. From pulling the US from the Iran Deal and Paris Climate Accord to moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the president has followed through on his campaign trail vows.

RELATED: The media's derangement over Trump has me wearing a new hat and predicting THIS for 2020

“It's quite remarkable. I don't know if anybody remembers, but I was the guy who was saying he's not gonna do any of those things," joked Glenn on “The News and Why it Matters," adding, “He has taken massive steps, massive movement or completed each of those promises … I am blown away."

Watch the video above to hear Glenn Beck, Sara Gonzales, Doc Thompson, Stu Burguiere and Pat Gray discuss the story.

Rapper Kendrick Lamar brings white fan onstage to sing with him, but here’s the catch

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

Rapper Kendrick Lamar asked a fan to come onstage and sing with him, only to condemn her when she failed to censor all of the song's frequent mentions of the “n-word" while singing along.

RELATED: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Racist Message Targeting Black Air Force Cadets

“I am so sorry," she apologized when Lamar pointed out that she needed to “bleep" that word. “I'm used to singing it like you wrote it." She was booed at by the crowd of people, many screaming “f*** you" after her mistake.

On Tuesday's show, Pat and Jeffy watched the clip and talked about some of the Twitter reactions.

“This is ridiculous," Pat said. “The situation with this word has become so ludicrous."