Glenn Beck: Time to Go Beyond Symbolic Budget Cuts

This week we're making the changes I believe need to happen in order to save America from going broke and if you think America can't go broke, this isn't the show for you. You're in denial.

The people at the Cato Institute have put together some ideas — "old think" will not get us out of this mess. We can't just go back the Republicans and think that's the solution. Because, contrary to popular belief, I don't think the problems we talk about originated solely with Obama. We've been walking towards the cliff for a long time and Obama is going in the same direction, except he's sprinting really, really fast. But the problem runs deeper than just him.

It's time to think out of the box and think bigger than the empty symbolic budget cuts like Obama did a year ago (just after passing the $787 billion stimulus bill). He boldly proclaimed government must find a way — somehow — to cut $100 million dollars from the budget:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: And so what we're going to do is, line-by-line, page-by-page, a hundred million dollars there, a hundred million dollars here, pretty soon even in Washington it adds up to real money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

"Pretty soon"? You'd have to make that $100 million cut 7,870 times before you broke even with the stimulus. Call me crazy, but I just don't see that happening. And most of the big ticket items are all locked in: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security — can't touch those.

And remember, under the president's big spending "freeze" only 17 percent of the budget is actually going to be frozen.

By 2025, interest payments, combined with the cost of Social Security, will eat up every single tax dollar that comes in. None left over for defense. Nothing for the new health care package. Nothing for roads, bridges, infrastructure, etc.

Last night I told you we need to abolish the way our entitlements are set up; we still have to make good on those who are now receiving or about to be receiving it, but everybody else — sorry, the money isn't there. We have to stop acting surprised; we knew this as kids.

Tonight we'll take a look at education. But first I want to go over two things in the health care bill: one of them America didn't know and the other Congress didn't know. First: According to The New York Times, the bill actually threatens something near and dear to the politicians' hearts: Their generous government health care plans.

The article states: "The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges."

Even better, the health care bill does not specify a start date and, according to standard interpretations, when there is no specified date, it goes into effect immediately. In other words: Anyone in Congress still receiving their fat-cat health care plan is breaking the law and they must join a state-based insurance exchange, which doesn't exist yet.

Even The New York Times realizes that maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all: "If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?"

No, they didn't realize it, because not only did they not write it, they didn't read it! However, this could be the only good idea in the bill.

The derived value of benefits (that's health care, pension and other benefits) for the average private industry employee is just under $10,000. For a federal employee those benefits are worth over $40,000.

If I were president, I don't care what the bill says, I'd be shouting from the rooftops that government employees should not have health insurance better than what citizens will be forced to get under what just passed. Government employees shouldn't get better benefits and they shouldn't get better salaries.

The average congressman makes $174,000 a year. That's a very interesting number because what is the government's definition of "rich"? $200,000. Seems they are coming pretty close to the threshold without going over. What a coincidence.

(By the way, the president makes $400,000 a year. Why? Everyone knows they will be filthy rich about 14 seconds after office. Why pay them anything?)

The average federal employee earns about $70,000 a year, while the average private sector employee earns about $50,000. Can someone please explain to me what it is that government employees do that is so special — so unique — that they deserve almost double the compensation that the private sector worker gets?

(Wait, it does take about twice the amount of time to do the work, so....)

Just by paying people what they would get if they didn't work for the government, we would save $44.5 billion. And if we made their benefits and perks mirror that of the private sector, that would save another $60 billion.

So just by evening the playing field, that's $104.5 billion saved. Wow. That kind of sounds like windfall profits, doesn't it. Hillary Clinton doesn't want to confiscate those? Do you know how many hungry children we could feed with $104.5 billion?

Sally Struthers told me for just the price of a cup of coffee per day I could save a child. That's about $50 bucks a month or $600 a year. If these greedy federal employees would just agree to give up their windfall profits, we could feed over 174 million starving kids.

Why do federal employees want hundreds of millions of children to starve to death?

Remember, Barack Obama also took over the student loan industry because those greedy middlemen had the gall to take $68 billion in profits for services rendered. So why wouldn't he be appalled at the windfall profits (of over $100 billion) of federal employees?

And that brings me to education. That was the other thing jammed in the bill that Americans didn't know about. Now the government is controlling all of these loans and, coincidentally, they are also creating more and more incentives and ways to have those loans forgiven — like, working for the government.

Well, you just saw the nice perks of working for the government, it's actually quite lucrative. But now, it's even more so. At what point do we stop calling it "service" to work for the government? It really doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice. The only one's sacrificing are the taxpayers.

We're dumping all this money into education, but what if we stop and turn the car around and go in the opposite direction. (Right now, liberal bloggers are in their basements — well, their moms' basements — their typing away: Glenn Beck doesn't want to educate children!)

No. I want to educate children. But dumping billions of dollars at schools that are failing isn't the way to do it. Since the 1960s we've been dumping money at the problem — from $12 billion in 1965 to $94 billion for the 2011 budget.

How's that strategy working out?

Between 1973 and 2008, achievement scores for math rose just two points; reading scores just one point. We've flat-lined.

Money doesn't do it. Money never does it. How do you fix education? It starts with families. James Madison's mother taught him to read and write. John Quincy Adams was home-schooled until the age of nine. Abraham Lincoln largely learned at home from books he borrowed. The story goes that Thomas Edison's teacher thought he was "feeble minded" — un-teachable — his mom taught him at home. "Good Will Hunting" got his education for $2 at the public library.

And yet this society scoffs at those who are self-educated.

When my daughter Mary was in second grade, I asked the teacher for a syllabus. Mr. Beck, she said, this is my job. I replied, "Mrs. Hoffelmyerbergwitz, teaching my child is my job. You are my assistant. That's the only kind of government assistance I want."

Unfortunately, many also try and help assist my kid with learning to have sex then helping them get abortions, while indoctrinating them about how evil the free market is and attending meetings on Marx.

It makes no sense to teach the way we've been teaching for the last 100 years considering the technology we now have. Our Founders and many others proved you don't need money to get a great education. You need desire and a good book.

Control needs to go back to the parents, back to the states. And the best way to do it is abolish the Department of Education. The federal government should only be responsible for things states cannot do. You want a State Department? Great! Department of Education? I think we can cover that one.

But let me show you how out of control our government and our thinking has become. Doing those two things — creating a disincentive to work for federal government and completely eliminating the Department of Education would only save $200 billion. That's only about a quarter of the stimulus bill.

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

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

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 multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


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.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.