Glenn Beck: President Obama's Unsustainable Budgets

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

There was another Super Bowl ad that ran; perhaps you caught it. It was for the census. Yes, our government spent 2.5 million taxpayer dollars on a commercial during the Super Bowl. Hey, I don't know about you, but I really am excited to participate in the census now. How about you?

It was only part of the $340 million campaign to promote the once a decade count — $340 million dollars not to count but to promote the fact that we will be counting. And the president has the nerve to lecture America on wasting money?


PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you're trying to save for college.


Do we really have to listen to this president preach to us about fiscal responsibility? It's like an abstinence only sex-education program taught by Tiger Woods.

President Obama is a lot of things — smart, accomplished, married to a woman with great arms — but he's as fiscally responsible as a "Real Housewife of Orange County" at a Louis Vuitton sample sale.

When you look back in history, who do you think of when you think of huge government programs? FDR, right? Let me show you FDR's spending compared to our GDP — high single digits, occasionally getting up to low double digits.

OK, well what is President Obama planning to spend? Take a look.

How is this sustainable? Forget sustainable; how is this sensible? How is this not suicidal?

I can hear his defenders now: "No! Bush is the one responsible! It's his fault!"

Is it? Let's look at the facts for a second. How much debt have the past couple of presidents racked up?

Bill Clinton through his eight years ran up an average of 0.8 percent of GDP in deficit per year. Is that good? Well, not in any context other than government. If your company was losing money like this, you'd be thinking about blowing management out. If your household was losing money like this, you'd be getting an extra job and cancelling the cell phone and pay channels. But in politics, Clinton looks like the most fiscally responsible man in the universe.

(Of course, this was mainly because of the yet to be discovered Internet bubble and the yet to be discovered financial scandals. But honestly, if you want to believe it was because of his magical policies, that's fine with me for the moment.)

Now, let's look at Bush. Here is his number for eight years: 2 percent per year on average. Is that bad? Yes, it sure is. But I can hear those on the left saying: "Well, 2009 was Bush's fault — not Obama's!"

OK, I'm in a giving mood. Let's blame everything from 2009 on Bush. That raises his average to 2.7 percent. We can all agree that this number is unacceptable. Right?

So what about President Obama? Surely, the man who spends all of his time criticizing the last administration must be creating less debt than that irresponsible President Bush did during his presidency, right?

Nope. The average debt in a theoretical eight-year Obama presidency is: 5.9 percent. Remember, this is based on President Obama's budget numbers, not Glenn Beck's crazy opinion.

But hey, that's not fair. We need to eliminate 2009 out of Obama's score because we already gave that to President Bush. Fair enough. (I could mention at this point that Obama voted for TARP, so he's at least partially responsible for that debt too, but that's another story for another day.) If we delete 2009 from the Obama score, it lowers all the way to 5.5 percent — still more than double Bush's average.

But I'm feeling incredibly generous today. Let's just eliminate the debt from 2009 and 2010 from Obama's score. That brings him way down to 4.7 percent.

But hey, only eliminating the entire first half of the first term of his presidency is isn't enough — that must all be Bush's fault too. So let's take away the first three years of the Obama presidency and see what we have: 4.1 percent.

Remember, that's still double what Bush actually did in his eight years in office.

But maybe I'm still being too tough on Obama. Maybe I need to go further than giving him an Immunity Tiki for three quarters of the time he was elected for. Let's go to the most crazy extreme any of us can think of: Let's just look at the best year of Obama's theoretical eight-year presidency. This is as good as it gets, even if he gets elected for two full terms — as optimistic as Obama can bring himself to be, the most hopeful side of hop — 3.6 percent. This — again — is according to Obama's own budget.

Think about that for a second: Even if we give Bush full credit for a disastrous year that he wasn't even in office and for good measure add in Bill Clinton for no reason, their combined total is still less than Obama's best year.

Now, maybe sometimes I over-generalize. I say this stuff has been happening in both parties for a long time and it has. But we've never seen anything like President Obama. His own budget amounts to a confession. He is admitting he can't solve our debt problems with his policies even if he gets re-elected. How many terms would this guy need to get this country out of the red? Five? Twelve? Is there any theoretical point in the distant future where this president doesn't see us hemorrhaging money?

President Obama has broken a lot of promises over his first year: closing Gitmo; health care debate on C-SPAN; no lobbyists serving in his administration. And he's not the only one. George W. Bush promised to decrease the debt — and remember "no new taxes"? They all do it.

But what Obama's budget is telling you right now is that he's promising to keep us at incredibly high levels of debt throughout his presidency. And that is a promise he will keep.

Here's another promise: If this is what he admits to, it's going to be much, much worse.

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

The number of people serving life sentences now exceeds the entire prison population in 1970, according to newly-released data from the Sentencing Project. The continued growth of life sentences is largely the result of "tough on crime" policies pushed by legislators in the 1990s, including presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Biden has since apologized for backing those types of policies, but it seems he has yet to learn his lesson. Indeed, Biden is backing yet another criminal justice policy with disastrous consequences—mandatory drug treatment for all drug offenders.

Proponents of this policy argue that forced drug treatment will reduce drug usage and recidivism and save lives. But the evidence simply isn't on their side. Mandatory treatment isn't just patently unethical, it's also ineffective—and dangerous.

Many well-meaning people view mandatory treatment as a positive alternative to incarceration. But there's a reason that mandatory treatment is also known as "compulsory confinement." As author Maya Schenwar asks in The Guardian, "If shepherding live human bodies off to prison to isolate and manipulate them without their permission isn't ethical, why is shipping those bodies off to compulsory rehab an acceptable alternative?" Compulsory treatment isn't an alternative to incarceration. It is incarceration.

Compulsory treatment is also arguably a breach of international human rights agreements and ethical standards. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have made it clear that the standards of ethical treatment also apply to the treatment of drug dependence—standards that include the right to autonomy and self-determination. Indeed, according to UNODC, "people who use or are dependent on drugs do not automatically lack the capacity to consent to treatment...consent of the patient should be obtained before any treatment intervention." Forced treatment violates a person's right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment.

It's a useless endeavor, anyway, because studies have shown that it doesn't improve outcomes in reducing drug use and criminal recidivism. A review of nine studies, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, failed to find sufficient evidence that compulsory drug treatment approaches are effective. The results didn't suggest improved outcomes in reducing drug use among drug-dependent individuals enrolled in compulsory treatment. However, some studies did suggest potential harm.

According to one study, 33% of compulsorily-treated participants were reincarcerated, compared to a mere 5% of the non-treatment sample population. Moreover, rates of post-release illicit drug use were higher among those who received compulsory treatment. Even worse, a 2016 report from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health found that people who received involuntary treatment were more than twice as likely to die of an opioid-related overdose than those with a history of only voluntary treatment.

These findings echo studies published in medical journals like Addiction and BMJ. A study in Addiction found that involuntary drug treatment was a risk factor for a non-fatal drug overdose. Similarly, a study in BMJ found that patients who successfully completed inpatient detoxification were more likely than other patients to die within a year. The high rate of overdose deaths by people previously involuntarily treated is likely because most people who are taken involuntarily aren't ready to stop using drugs, authors of the Addiction study reported. That makes sense. People who aren't ready to get clean will likely use again when they are released. For them, the only post-treatment difference will be lower tolerance, thanks to forced detoxification and abstinence. Indeed, a loss of tolerance, combined with the lack of a desire to stop using drugs, likely puts compulsorily-treated patients at a higher risk of overdose.

The UNODC agrees. In their words, compulsory treatment is "expensive, not cost-effective, and neither benefits the individual nor the community." So, then, why would we even try?

Biden is right to look for ways to combat addiction and drug crime outside of the criminal justice system. But forced drug treatment for all drug offenders is a flawed, unethical policy, with deadly consequences. If the goal is to help people and reduce harm, then there are plenty of ways to get there. Mandatory treatment isn't one of them.

Lindsay Marie is a policy analyst for the Lone Star Policy Institute, an independent think tank that promotes freedom and prosperity for all Texans. You can follow her on Twitter @LindsayMarieLP.

President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani joined Glenn Beck on Tuesday's radio program discuss the Senate's ongoing investigation into former vice president Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and reveal new bombshell documents he's currently releasing.

Giuliani told Glenn he has evidence of "very, very serious crime at the highest levels of government," that the "corrupt media" is doing everything in their power to discredit.

He also dropped some major, previously unreported news: not only was Hunter Biden under investigation in 2016, when then-Vice President Biden "forced" the firing of Ukraine's prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, but so was the vice president himself.

"Shokin can prove he was investigating Biden and his son. And I now have the prosecutorial documents that show, all during that period of time, not only was Hunter Biden under investigation -- Joe Biden was under investigation," Giuliani explained. "It wasn't just Hunter."

Watch this clip to get a rundown of everything Giuliani has uncovered so far.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

For most Americans, the 1980s was marked by big hair, epic lightsaber battles, and school-skipping Ferris Bueller dancing his way into the hearts of millions.

But for Bernie Sanders — who, by the way, was at that time the oldest-looking 40-year-old in human history — the 1980s was a period of important personal milestones.

Prior to his successful 1980 campaign to become mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders was mostly known around the Green Mountain State as a crazy, wildly idealistic socialist. (Think Karl Marx meets Don Quixote.) But everything started to change for Sanders when he became famous—or, in the eyes of many, notorious—for being "America's socialist mayor."

As mayor, Sanders' radical ideas were finally given the attention he had always craved but couldn't manage to capture. This makes this period of his career particularly interesting to study. Unlike today, the Bernie Sanders of the 1980s wasn't concerned with winning over an entire nation — just the wave of far-left New York City exiles that flooded Vermont in the 1960s and 1970s — and he was much more willing to openly align himself with local and national socialist and communist parties.

Over the past few weeks, I have been reading news reports of Sanders recorded in the 1980s — because, you know, that's how guys like me spend their Saturday nights — and what I've found is pretty remarkable.

For starters, Sanders had (during the height of the Soviet Union) a very cozy relationship with people who openly advocated for Marxism and communism. He was an elector for the Socialist Workers Party and promoted the party's presidential candidates in 1980 and 1984.

To say the Socialist Workers Party was radical would be a tremendous understatement. It was widely known SWP was a communist organization mostly dedicated to the teachings of Marx and Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution.

Among other radical things I've discovered in interviews Sanders conducted with the SWP's newspaper — appropriately named The Militant (seriously, you can't make this stuff up) — is a statement by Sanders published in June 1981 suggesting that some police departments "are dominated by fascists and Nazis," a comment that is just now being rediscovered for the first time in decades.

In 1980, Sanders lauded the Socialist Workers Party's "continued defense of the Cuban revolution." And later in the 1980s, Sanders reportedly endorsed a collection of speeches by the socialist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, even though there had been widespread media reports of the Sandinistas' many human rights violations prior to Sanders' endorsement, including "restrictions on free movement; torture; denial of due process; lack of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; denial of the right of association and of free labor unions."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Comrade Bernie's disturbing Marxist past, which is far more extensive than what can be covered in this short article, shouldn't be treated as a mere historical footnote. It clearly illustrates that Sanders' brand of "democratic socialism" is much more than a $15 minimum wage and calls for single-payer health care. It's full of Marxist philosophy, radical revolutionary thinking, anti-police rhetoric, and even support for authoritarian governments.

Millions of Americans have been tricked into thinking Sanders isn't the radical communist the historical record — and even Sanders' own words — clearly show that he is. But the deeper I have dug into Comrade Bernie's past, the more evident it has become that his thinking is much darker and more dangerous and twisted than many of his followers ever imagined.

Tomorrow night, don't miss Glenn Beck's special exposing the radicals who are running Bernie Sanders' campaign. From top to bottom, his campaign is staffed with hard-left extremists who are eager to burn down the system. The threat to our constitution is very real from Bernie's team, and it's unlike anything we've ever seen before in a U.S. election. Join Glenn on Wednesday, at 9 PM Eastern on BlazeTV's YouTube page, and on And just in case you miss it live, the only way to catch all of Glenn's specials on-demand is by subscribing to Blaze TV.

Justin Haskins ( is editorial director of The Heartland Institute and editor-in-chief of

Candace Owens, BLEXIT founder and author of the upcoming book, "Blackout," joined Glenn Beck on Friday's GlennTV for an exclusive interview. available only to BlazeTV subscribers.

Candace dropped a few truth-bombs about the progressive movement and what's happening to the Democratic Party. She said people are practically running away from the left due to their incessant push to dig up dirt on anybody who disagrees with their radical ideology. She explained how -- like China and its "social credit score" -- the left is shaping America into its own nightmarish episode of "Black Mirror."

"This game of making sure that everyone is politically correct is a societal atom bomb. There are no survivors. There's no one that is perfect," Candace said. "The idea that humanity can be perfect is Godless. If you accept that there is something greater than us, then you accept that we a flawed. To be human is to be flawed."

Enjoy this clip from the full episode below:

BlazeTV subscribers can watch the full interview on Use code GLENN to save $10 off one year of your subscription.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.