Typical Liberal calls Glenn

GLENN: No, Linda, that's hate mongering. You and I know it. That's hate mongering. Thanks for your call.


 Kathy, you're on the Glenn Beck program.


 CALLER: Oh, good morning to you.


 GLENN: How are you?


 CALLER: I respectfully disagree with most of your policies and what you say on the air, especially in the last week. Listen.


 GLENN: Okay.


 CALLER: Let's -- I hope you don't mind.


 GLENN: I don't mind. It's America.


 CALLER: Let's refer to the war of the trillion on this war in Iraq which really didn't have to happen at all. You know, when people in this country need healthcare, they need healthcare and if they don't get it, they go on disability and more money is taken from people. And I want to tell you, if we can spend a trillion dollars on war, we can spend trillion dollars on our own people.


 GLENN: Why is government -- wait. Why is more money taken away from people? It's just government healthcare. Government just has that money.


 CALLER: Excuse me?


 GLENN: You said disability, people go on disability, then even more money.


 CALLER: Healthcare, you'll go on disability because your situation will get worse.


 GLENN: Kathy, do you read -- you're a liberal?


 CALLER: I'm not completely a liberal but I can tell you there's a lot of things that I believe Hillary Clinton is very passionate about and so am I.


 GLENN: I'm just wondering, do you read the New York Times?


 CALLER: No, I don't. I'm sorry.


 GLENN: You don't?


 CALLER: I'm not even in New York.


 GLENN: People read the New York Times in other cities. You should read it. I think it was last Sunday. May I -- may I? May I? May I?




 GLENN: I allowed you to speak. Thank you. You should read the New York Times. You can go online. You can find the story. Stu, I don't know if you have it or if I brought it in for television. It was a front page story on universal healthcare from the New York Times and what they're having a problem with right now is the story was that there are a lot of people that have the ability to buy healthcare and choose not to. Then they had a story of a woman who is in, I think she was 23 years old and she, you know, had the money to buy healthcare but she decided to buy new furniture and to buy some other things in her house, et cetera, et cetera. She got sick and now we're paying for it.


 CALLER: All right.


 GLENN: She is --


 CALLER: We're talking about one person here that you're quoting.




 CALLER: I'm talking about the trillions of people out there.


 GLENN: Trillions?


 CALLER: That doesn't have the money for healthcare and I was one of them and I was working three jobs, bringing up two children.


 GLENN: Trillions?


 CALLER: Excuse me, Glenn. If you haven't lived it, you haven't walked in those shoes, you don't know it.


 GLENN: That is universal healthcare if it's going to cover trillions of people that are uncovered. The actual number --


 CALLER: We spend trillions of dollars in Iraq to take care of the other country and make sure they go Democratic. Let's take care of our own country. Let's take care of our economy. We make nothing here anymore.


 GLENN: Okay, I don't know what that has to do with healthcare. The actual number --


 CALLER: It has a lot to do with healthcare. If you don't have the money, you don't have the jobs, you don't have healthcare.


 GLENN: We're the ones who make all the drugs because we're not -- we don't have universal healthcare, we're not socialized in our medicine. That's the reason why people, dictators and everything else come here to have medicine. We have the best access to medicine in the world because of that. I'll agree with you on spending but then you can't give the biggest spending program ever created on top of it and say we need universal healthcare. By the way, just want to give you the numbers. The number is 47 million uninsured Americans. That's the actual number that everybody wants to throw around. However when you get down to it, when you take out those people who are 20, have the money and just want to spend it elsewhere on buying other things, don't think that they're -- because they're gamblers, they think to themselves, I'm not going to get sick, I'm not going to spend the money on healthcare, when you do that, when you also take out the people who are in between jobs, who are qualified for COBRA, who are going -- the average person is about six months away from having health insurance because they're in between jobs or something like that. When you take out that, the actual number of uninsured in this country is about 14 million people. Now, I know that's -- and I'm sorry. Stu is telling me it's actually much less than that.


 STU: It depends what categories you are taking out. You also have to take out, I believe, illegal aliens.


 GLENN: Let's just say it's 15 million people.


 STU: I would say it's about half that.


 GLENN: Whatever. That's still a long way from trillions of people. And we can cover 14 million or 8 million, we're talking about covering 300 million.

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."