Glenn's State of the Union Preview




Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...


GLENN: I'm glad you're here. Boy, the state of the union is happening tonight and I'm all a tingle. No, seriously I am.

PAT: This is like a Super Bowl for me.

GLENN: Is it?

PAT: It's yes, yes. I look forward to this, you know, mainly for the ads that play during it because they're always so creative.

GLENN: Yeah?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. I really, I don't think there are any ads. I really like the... (applause)... from half of the crowd and then the other half stands up

PAT: Or stands? Great. With their hands firmly clasped? It's good.

GLENN: It's about three minutes of information jam packed into an hour and a half and there's nothing better than a waste of your night like that. So what we're going to do is we're going to watch it for you and then we're going to give it to you tomorrow in small little doses but on tomorrow's program more importantly I'm going to give you the state of the union address that he should have given which includes all of the corrections that he has. First

PAT: How do you know there are going to be?

GLENN: Hmmm?

PAT: How do you know?

STU: He might be accurate.

PAT: He might be dead on. This might be the speech

GLENN: So when he says I'm going to freeze spending because it will save $250 billion over the next ten years... (applause). Yes. Yes, my progressive friends, I'm going to save $250 billion a year, I'm sure he's not going to go into the rundown that I, of course, will go into that that's $25 billion a year and that's like somebody making $50,000 a year, what, having somebody else buy them four Big Macs in a ten year period? (Applause)

STU: Yeah, I love Big Macs. Throw in a snack wrap.

PAT: Big Macs we didn't have before, you know, appeared I didn't have to buy them.

STU: Does anyone believe he is actually going to freeze the spending, though? This is another example of what you always talk about.

GLENN: I do.

STU: Really? Because to me it's one of those things whether he says it, we argue whether it's a big deal or a small deal and ignore the fact he's not going to do it. By the time he leaves office, all of that will be spent either in other places or in the exact places he said he froze. (Applause). Thank you! Thank you! Good night, everybody!

GLENN: No, I think that he will actually freeze it because what he did is he rose everything up by double digits last year. If I were him, I would have done exactly what he did which is, let's while nobody's watching, let's just run the cost of this government through the absolute roof. Then when the pressure is on, I'm going to look like a big, I'm going to look like, you know, a big fiscal conservative. I say, I'm freezing spending where it's at today (applause) and then I don't have to point out that I ran it up in double digits last year, even the places where it didn't need to be run up. I mean, all of the places, I can find money everywhere.

STU: Don't, don't clap.

PAT: Oh, I'm sorry.

STU: That's not an appropriate time to clap.

GLENN: No, I think it is, I think it is for a lot of people in congress. (Applause)

STU: Yes, yes.

GLENN: My progressive friends, are you right?

STU: You are, woo!

GLENN: So Ingle freeze it. Ingle freeze it. You know, but everything is, again, freezing it will save $250 billion over ten years. Over ten years. He's only freezing it for three. Why are we counting it for ten?

STU: Wait, why did he say he was freezing it for three? Wow, yeah! Three years (applause).

GLENN: I mean

STU: Seven years of nonfrozenness.

GLENN: Why is he saying that? Why doesn't he say it will save $75 billion?

STU: You know why it's not going to remain frozen? Global warming. Thank you, thank you! (Applause)

GLENN: No, stop, stop. No, we've taken over GM. We've nationalized GM. So we're going to have cars that run, you know, on, I don't know, stamps.

PAT: Beets.

STU: Yeah! Beets and stamps, beets and... (applause)

GLENN: Stop, stop, no. Beets require watering. Watering requires pumping it out of the ground or taking it out of the rivers or the streams. No. Beets are bad; stamps are good. (Applause)

STU: Stamps are good!

PAT: Stamps! Stamp energy! Stamp fuel!

GLENN: Oh, man. So that's going to be good stuff. That's going to be good stuff tonight.

PAT: And we have to, we have to it's, really our job depends on it, it requires it. I hate this night.

GLENN: I do, too.

PAT: Because it's so hard to get through.

STU: I'm really considering watching it.

PAT: I'd love to not watch it but I have to. I have to. And it's so painful.

GLENN: America, here's the thing. We'll watch it so you don't have to.

PAT: That's an amazing sacrifice.

GLENN: It is.

PAT: Amazing.

GLENN: Go have a life!

STU: Well, couldn't I also get into that deal?

PAT: No.

STU: I mean, if you guys are going to watch it, I don't have to watch it. You are going to tell me all about it.

PAT: There must be shared sacrifice among the three of us (applause), shared sacrifice for all on the Glenn Beck program.

STU: The greater good!

GLENN: Wait a minute, wait a minute. We're in the Obama administration now. Pat, you are married. How many kids do you have? 1400?

PAT: And 55. 1455.

GLENN: I've got like 700 kids myself.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: I'm tired all the time.

PAT: Good point.

GLENN: I'm working all the time.

PAT: Good point.

GLENN: Stu doesn't have any points.

STU: Thank you, thank you. I know what causes it, make sure it doesn't occur. Sorry.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. That's your wife that's making sure that's not occurring with you.

STU: Good point.

GLENN: He's young, he's got a hot wife.

PAT: All the time in the world, nothing to do.

GLENN: He's got all the time in the world. I believe we redistribute the fun.

PAT: Yes!

GLENN: He's got more fun than he needs!

PAT: Redistribute the fun, redistribute the fun, redistribute the fun...

GLENN: We take some of the fun that he has in his life and give it to us! (Applause)

GLENN: We deserve more fun.

PAT: Yes, yes!

STU: This is not what our founders intended.

GLENN: To hell with the Constitution!

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: I say you have to watch this damn thing tonight so Pat and I can go have some fun!

PAT: Yeah!

GLENN: We take some of your fun away.

PAT: Yeah!

GLENN: Make your life a living hell.

PAT: Yeah!

GLENN: And then it really doesn't work for us because we're still with the wife and family with the kids going, "I didn't do my homework, I need help with my homework, I got a problem, she's touching me! "

PAT: I'm watching the state of the union address today! Yeah! (Applause) I'm sharing the burden with Stu!

GLENN: I'm taking the burden on myself. Honey, I shhh, shhh, I gotta go in here and... (snoring). I mean, watch the state of the union.

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?