Glenn's voting guide



Insider Extreme is the ONLY place Glenn will be on Election Night! Complete details...


GLENN: We are a week and one day away from what should be a historic election. And I say what should be because I'm actually concerned.

I had dinner with some friends over the weekend, and two people told me they're not sure if they're going to vote. They're not sure if they're going to vote. And

PAT: What is this, like 1991 or something? Is it

GLENN: I don't know.

PAT: 1981? How can you not be sure you're going to vote?

GLENN: You ready for this? My wife actually said, well, honey, I don't even know. How do you even trust these people? How do you trust these people? I mean, I sat at the dinner table and I looked around and I said, is this a joke on me? Seriously is this a "joke on Glenn" night? How do you mean you don't know who to I don't know how you trust people, either. I really look, I'm in Connecticut. I know one thing: Do not vote for Dick Blumenthal. That's the one thing I do know. I know who this guy is. This guy is a guy who will just I mean, he's the chief law enforcement officer and he'll just, he'll just disregard the law. He'll just do whatever's popular. Don't vote for that guy. Linda McMahon? What do I know about her?

PAT: She's not Dick Blumenthal.

GLENN: That's exactly right. She's not Dick Blumenthal. Can I trust her? I don't know. Can I trust Dick? No. No, I can't. No, I can't.

PAT: Yeah. It's a in that race that's where we I'm not sure we got the best candidate in the primary, but you know what? I know she's better than Dick Blumenthal.

GLENN: Let's try in California. You've got Jerry Brown.

PAT: Enough said.

GLENN: Jerry Brown. Now, what's her, what's her face, Meg Whitman, she seems like a delightful person, but do you trust her? Is she, is she another Arnold Schwarzenegger? Could be. Could be. Is that good? Nope. But she's not Jerry Brown. I mean, what part of this don't we understand? Now, look, you may be lucky enough that in your area there may be a Tea Party candidate. There may be somebody and, you know, you may look at them and say, I don't know; they're not very smart or they're not very polished or they're not whatever. You need to send people into Washington that have tasers on them. Because the people in Washington look, we've already lost the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is over. It's over. It is the Progressive Party. It is the party of the uber left. It is the Democratic Socialists of America. That's what it is. You can deny it all you want but I mean, you know, it's only your it's only your loss. I mean, just, you're just denying reality. And what happened? You had the progressives in there that were still undercover, who were still just like, oh, you know, we're just like you. And I remember Michael Moore sitting in the presidential box. It was during the John Kerry election. And I said, Democrats, what are you doing? You think you are using them as fuel. You're wrong. They're using you, and they will seize control of your party. And that's exactly what happened. Well, now the same thing, the battle for the soul of the Republican Party is there. You've got people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain who are exactly what the progressives on the right say the Tea Party is: "Oh, the Tea Party, they're just they just want big government control. They're Nazis!" Okay, all right. Nobody is a Nazi at this point. Well, Nazis are Nazis, but nobody else is a Nazi. Progressives have all of the seeds of Nazis, or Mao, or... Fidel Castro or, uh, Lenin, Stalin. All of the seeds are there. That doesn't mean that they're going to grow into that. It means the seeds are there. The big government "Control everybody, my way or the highway" seeds. It's exactly what our founders tried to stay against stay away from. Give the power to the local government. Give the power to the people and they will make sure. Because they won't have enough power to cobble together some gigantic king sort of situation. The king was just as bad as any of these progressives that want to make all the decisions in Washington and damn the people. "I know better. I'm the king." It's the same thing.

So the progressives that are in the Republican Party are now saying when these Tea Party people come, when these new people come, we have to coopt them. You need to get people that have a soul, recognize that they can lose it, that they understand what the stakes are and that we have a chance of standing. There's I mean, body after body after body is going to be piled up in Washington on the steps of the capitol. I mean, they're just going to, they are going to take these guys by the way, for the Tides Foundation, I don't mean literal bodies they're going to take these guys and they're just going to grab them by the throat. And for the Tides Foundation, I don't mean literally grab them by the throat suck their soul out of them and for the Tides Foundation, I don't mean suck their soul out of them literally and then cast them aside.

STU: Glenn Beck advocates sucking the soul out of people! We heard the, hmmm? We heard it! We heard alert! Boycott! Help!

GLENN: That boycott is so effective, isn't it? It's really working well for you guys, it really is. It really is. They're just going to crush these people. So you must vote, you must get out and vote for the people that you think we're going to make mistakes. We're going to send bad people in. But you've got to stand. You've got to stand.

You know what makes revolution feasible to our founders? 25 years of fighting this kind of stuff, going back and forth on the ocean. And people involved, and no way to vote. You've got a release. It's called the voting booth. When they take away your right to vote, then you'll have a case. You've got to vote. When there are 95% of the American people at the voting booth, then you have a case. But as long as there's 40, 50% of the American people that stay at home and don't vote, you don't have a you don't have any case. For violence? You have no case. Zero. We get what we deserve. When 50 or 60% of the U.S. population says, I don't know, I don't really care, whatever, we get what we deserve.

PAT: And we keep hearing about the founders. We've talked about this before. They went back and forth across the Atlantic ocean time after time after time trying to address their grievances with the king, with the crown, and time after time they were rebuffed. That went on for something like 20 years. And they didn't have the vote. They had no say. And they begged and they pleaded and they tried and they I mean, even up until 1775 and 76, they were still trying, and there was a huge portion of the population that were still trying to get along.

GLENN: A long train of abuses.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: That's the line in the Declaration of Independence.

PAT: And it started in the 1750s. So I mean, we're nowhere near that.

GLENN: And you're not even look. Again I bring the French Revolution up. Why? Why are you even talking about revolution? There's no reason to talk about get out and vote! Get your neighbors to vote! I'm sorry to take this out on you. I sat at that table and, Pat, I called you and you said, I know, I've heard it from my friends.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah, I heard it this weekend, too.

GLENN: What, are you crazy?

PAT: Yeah. I mean, I couldn't I looked at them because I heard it two or three times this weekend. And I looked at each one of them and said, what?

GLENN: I thought I was being punked. I thought I was being punked. I really at some point said, is there a camera in the room? Seriously is there a camera in the room because this is you're joking, right?

 

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."