Common Sense - Age gap



Glenn Beck's Common Sense


Now available in book stores nationwide...

VOICE: And now another scenario in which common sense was clearly not applied.

GLENN: Okay, today's story could have been easily avoided with about two minutes of thought and if the participants involved had listened to this program, they would have heard the common sense and they would have had the two minutes of thought and then from day number one we have been talking about this story and telling you that this was just not possible. In fact, it was going to end in destruction. Didn't take a genius to see it, but it's finally happened. Billy Joel and his wife Katie Lee are calling it quits after four years of marriage. I mean, I just have to rack up yet another prediction made in my magazine Fusion. If you need evidence, you can find if you are a Fusion subscriber you know yet another wouldn't you say, Stu, yet another prediction on this program.

STU: I like to wreck your predictions but this one was clearly right by you.

GLENN: This one was clearly common sense would tell you that a 56 year old man marrying a 23 year old is bad enough.

STU: Disgusting.

GLENN: But when it's a 56 year old aging celebrity marrying a 23 year old college chick, the chances are slim to none, wouldn't you say, Stu?

STU: What is going on with this country?

GLENN: I mean, it just doesn't happen, you know. She's going to want to go out to parties and experience things and he's just going to want to stay home and relax. I mean, he's 60, for crying out she's 27. She's in the prime of her life.

STU: Insane.

GLENN: She's going to be stuck going to bed like at 6:00 at night after an early bird and you know when the newness wears off in a relationship sometimes, you know, you see things that you didn't see before. And if the relationship isn't solidly grounded like it wasn't in this case, you know, the 23 year old college girl was in awe of one of the most influential musicians of all time and perhaps not making the most rational decision. I think he was a dirty old man, don't you think?

STU: Anybody can see that, Glenn.

GLENN: Anybody can see that.

STU: Anyone.

GLENN: Once she's over the celebrity thing, I mean, then it's have you seen Billy Joel? I mean, Brad Pitt he ain't.

STU: This is a really good point by you and this observation has been so consistent.

DAN: Uh huh, yep.

STU: Dan, we're just trying to finish this break real quick.

DAN: You do that.

GLENN: Some people made an excuse for the couple saying they seem to be in love, why not get married, she's in college, she's smart enough to know what she's doing.

STU: Idiots.

GLENN: Age difference doesn't matter... those people were dumb. Clearly it did matter. What 27 year old wants to be at home playing shuffleboard, you know, in bed by 6:00. Nobody. Obviously Katie Lee didn't want to.

STU: It's a disgrace to our founding fathers.

GLENN: If she just would have listened to me and to Stu, just use some common sense, this marriage, you know, which is really, was a compact that was made in some sort of sleazy, dirty old man porn store.

STU: Preposterous sham, Glenn.

GLENN: It would have been avoided. What were you saying, Dan?

DAN: Are you done with the segment?

VOICE: Next time try applying some common sense directly to the forehead and if that fails to solve the problem, read Glenn Beck's new book Common Sense: The Case Against an Out of Control Government. Get the details at GlennBeck.com.

DAN: This is a

GLENN: If you are a regular listener of this program, this is, what, a five year

DAN: Not quite five years. Four, a little four. They didn't quite make it five, Glenn.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It's 2004, right?

DAN: October.

STU: October.

GLENN: And I have to tell you this is something that has been driving me crazy because Dan first of all, he's always changing the argument.

DAN: Well

GLENN: Yes. Yes, you are.

DAN: I stand by the ones I've made, though, over the years.

STU: He stands by the ones that he would like to

GLENN: You've made everything. You've made every possible statement on this.

DAN: You have kind of also backtracked a little, my friend, from being so hardlined for it and you kind of backed off a little bit, if I, you know, heard the clips.

STU: We have listened to some of the back audio and there's

GLENN: Do we have the back audio?

STU: We do have some first.

STU: Dan, if we can start of clip 4

GLENN: This is a four year argument, for anybody who's this is a four year argument.

DAN: And I'd just like to point out for the record now that the argument now has lasted longer than the marriage.

STU: All right. So this starts off, it started off off the air. This is the first appearance on the air of the argument. Go ahead, Dan.

GLENN: Coming out of Dan Andros, our technical director on the program, he was in the office and he said, when this story broke I think on Monday, Dan came into my office and said, "You think this is gross, don't you? This is..." what were the words, Stu, he used?

STU: The quotes were gross, disgusting and hell.

GLENN: Yes. Married Billy Joel marrying a 23 year old hottie, that's got to be hell. If that's hell, could you please be Satan? If that's your version of hell, I want who nominates Dan for Satan! (Laughing). Can somebody second the motion to make Dan Satan? Because being married to 23 year old hotties, I think I could do it for all eternity.

STU: If that's hell, church just got a lot less popular.

GLENN: All right. So

DAN: You guys are so cute.

GLENN: So you really, you really thought, Dan, that this was gross.

DAN: Yes. Now, let me clarify. May I talk down for just a second?

GLENN: Go ahead, John Edwards, talk to you.

DAN: Oh, this is funny, the clip just ended right there before my explanation.

GLENN: Yeah. So here's Clip 2. What is Clip 2?

STU: This is well, it was actually a strange part to get that cut off. Basically there was Dan's explanation to that after a clarification. A clarification meaning it's not necessarily what he said the first time.

DAN: Because that was your telling of what I said in the meeting. My clarification was that, no, it is not I don't think it's obviously like any man would want to

STU: Yes.

DAN: Would like to have relations with a

GLENN: Why can't you finish any of these sentences, Dan? I don't think it's I mean why can't you finish any sentence on this?

STU: He was for this marriage the whole time.

GLENN: Say it. Say it. Say it, Dan. You don't think that a 60 year old man having a relationship with a 23 year old girl is gross.

DAN: No.

GLENN: Say it.

DAN: Look

GLENN: Say it.

DAN: What I'm going to say

GLENN: Say it.

DAN: No.

GLENN: He won't say it.

DAN: What I'm going to say is obviously thoughts of sleeping with a 23 year old hottie is great, but the marriage was going to be hell eventually because they had nothing in common. There's no possible way these two had enough in common at all.

GLENN: Argue this one more time. You don't know that. Obviously it turned out right but you don't know that.

STU: Again this argument turned into is it possible for a very old you know, the central argument was never for Billy Joel specifically. It was about a very older man and a younger woman. And Dan, eventually and again we've backed off on this both ways. But that is it possible. And Dan basically said, no. We basically said it's unlikely but possible. And that's basically where this thing settled.

GLENN: And I still settle on it's unlikely.

STU: Very unlikely.

GLENN: You've got 40 years of history that are just gone on top of, what, nine years difference? I think Tania's nine years different than me and what was it we were talking about the other day?

STU: There's no way that's lasting.

GLENN: Not for ages. And she's like Woodrow Wilson again! We were talking about something the other day and she didn't pick up on the reference and I'm just like, oh, my gosh. Can you imagine 40 years difference?

STU: Now, I will give Dan credit here as his clarification essentially was that she was going to want to go out to Britney Spears concerts and he was going to want to stay home and play shuffleboard. And according to reports, that is exactly the reason they broke up.

DAN: Yes, thank you.

STU: Is that she wanted to be the kind of party girl and, well, she was also apparently cheating with some fashion designer.

DAN: No way. She was cheating on the 60 year old husband? Uh uh!

STU: And so I will give Dan credit, although the way he's presenting it now I would like to take it away, but I will give Dan credit on this argument.

DAN: Come on.

STU: Because I'm giving you credit.

DAN: I get one prediction right.

STU: I'm giving you I'm giving you credit.

GLENN: Dan, you and I you ready for this? This is what I said to Stu this morning. We were in the morning meeting and I said, "So let's see. I got the economy thing. Dan's got Billy Joel's marriage. Stu, what are you good at predicting?

STU: Nothing is the way that's what I'd like to

GLENN: There's really nothing there. There's really nothing there.

STU: And really when you look at it, I mean, no offense, Dan, but between the economy and Billy Joel's marital status, I think I'd take the economy looking at my 401(k). But I will say

GLENN: But you know what, Dan? Looking at his arguments against my economy prediction and your Billy Joel prediction, he's got we each have one right.

DAN: Yeah, we got something.

GLENN: He's got them both wrong.

STU: I've got to find something now. I need to find something I've been right over the past 20 years and I will dig it up. I think I need to find something.

GLENN: All right. Don't look long at the vegetarian thing.

STU: No, I will not. Here's the second clip where we're talked about the this is 2004 Clip 2, Dan, where we're talking about true love versus age. Clip 2, 2004.

DAN: She's going to be 38 when he's 70 and wetting his pants and she's in the prime of her life.

STU: She's an adult.

DAN: What happens when he puts on one of his songs and she's like, oh, I love oldies, they're awesome, and he's playing Uptown Girl?

GLENN: She was 5 when it was written, she was 5 when he wrote that.

STU: The problem is, and I'm not trying to make the argument that it's the best scenario but Dan's looking at it in such a mathematical way. Love is not a mathematical thing.

GLENN: Oh, please.

STU: It's not something I guarantee you, I mean, Dan is married to his beautiful wife Tara. If they had met and had the same connection, he would not feel this way. He just feels

GLENN: I think without money or fame, they wouldn't have met. You never see this, you never see this without fame or money.

STU: I don't think that's true.

GLENN: Come on.

DAN: Not much.

GLENN: Tell me where you've seen somebody who's poor

STU: Well, the ones that they don't look like Billy Joel, poor, not famous and has a hot 23 year old.

DAN: Funny how true love never seemed to intervene in those situations.

STU: I would say people who are artists and teachers. I've seen it with teachers.

GLENN: Okay, not that it when it doesn't end in jail.

STU: Michael Jackson, clearly a

GLENN: When it doesn't end in jail.

STU: No, I'm just saying that you can it can occur. It doesn't necessarily occur all the time.

GLENN: Show me examples in real life.

STU: They don't cover an unknown people on TV when they get married.

GLENN: No, no. In your life tell me when you have ever seen that, when you've met someone, you know anybody where that's happened, where they are regular people.

STU: How many years apart?

DAN: 32.

GLENN: 32 years. That's not happening in real life.

STU: I mean, my mom and my stepfather are about 20 years apart. Is that enough? Neither one are rich.

GLENN: Okay, 20, that's on the edge there. I do have to you know, and I think my folks are I think my folks are about 12 or 15 years apart.

STU: And let's be honest. Dee, she's hot. Your dad's wife.

GLENN: Hey, that's disturbing. That's let me ask you this.

STU: The update to this, by the way

GLENN: This is what I was going to ask.

STU: The update to this story here now in 2009 is my mom and my stepfather are getting divorced.

GLENN: Dan?

DAN: Yeah.

GLENN: Just sayin'.

DAN: Yeah.

GLENN: So what happened with Billy Joel? She was out screwing around?

STU: Yeah, it appears that she was the reports are that she was hanging out with a 36 year old fashion designer, described as hunky in all the papers today which I appreciated, that fair and balanced reporting. And she was, like, liking the party life. He wanted to live in Long Island and go on his boat.

GLENN: He's an alcoholic.

STU: You'd think that would go well with the party life but apparently not. It's the sad alcoholic.

GLENN: Yeah, it's the sad alcoholic. It's the, you know, it's the one that sits at home and I mean, he's not drinking now, is he?

STU: I don't believe so.

GLENN: The party life goes with the alcoholic.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And wasn't he married didn't he marry her when he was drunk?

STU: Yeah, because he wanted to crash into cars I believe. That was later, wasn't it?

GLENN: Right. I mean, maybe this is actually a really good sign that he's no, seriously maybe this is a really good sign that Billy Joel is getting his life in order. That, you know

STU: Well, this is interesting that you're saying that because it was kind of the Dan also took the opposite side of this argument in 2006 Clip 1 here, Dan. Which remember his first argument was that she how did we frame that, Dan, basically that she was going to be too exciting for him and

DAN: I said he was going to ruin her life and she wasn't you know, she was going to be bored and, you know, that was essentially my argument.

STU: Well, that's no, you

DAN: It was.

STU: You said that you thought she was going to have this horrible life and live basically, you know, basically not be able to, you know

GLENN: Get what she wanted.

DAN: Right. And she saw that happening and she got out of there.

STU: Let's play 2006 clip 1.

DAN: Billy Joel's ruining her life. It's just a matter of time.

GLENN: Billy Joel is ruining her life?

STU: She's going to have that terrible time walking away with $8 million cash.


[ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]

DAN: On the Glenn Beck program, you heard it, money is happiness.

STU: Now, the thing about this here is he did not ruin her life. She was cheating on him and going out on parties. So that is not an accurate

DAN: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. So she's going through a divorce now because she dot

STU: It was her choice. He didn't do it to her.

GLENN: Excuse me. She's getting a divorce from Billy Joel.

DAN: Prenup.

GLENN: Oh, there's a prenup?

STU: There's a prenup, she's going to get plenty of money but generally these things are quite lucrative.

DAN: What's perfect? She got the divorce and she got some money. I'm sure she's thrilled.

STU: But he didn't do it to her. She did it to her. You cannot blame him on this.

DAN: This was the whole premise of my argument at the beginning that he was doing it to her because she's so young and immature and he's a celebrity and witch.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. So wait a minute. Should we have some marriage oversight czar? Should we have an oversight czar that she was 23 and she's not old enough?

DAN: You are free to do it. You are free to do it. I'm just saying this is what makes it a dirty old man.

GLENN: How could you possibly see, this is why this argument has been going on for four years.

STU: Four years.

GLENN: How could you possibly say that Billy Joel wrecked her life? He's 60, she's an adult, she's 23. She was yeah, okay, Billy Joel, the piano man, play me a song, Mr. Piano man and he did and she's like, I'm bored with it. She started cheating on him. She wrecked his life.

STU: Yeah.

DAN: Are you saying hold on a second. Glenn Beck, you're telling me that four years of marriage where you end up in cheating on your wife and in a miserable divorce

STU: Not miserable.

DAN: Oh, and divorce I'm sorry. They are having a happy divorce.

GLENN: No, all divorces there's no children, right? Wait, wait, wait.

STU: Then why use the adjective?

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait. Are there any children?

DAN: I just think divorces all suck.

GLENN: Are there any children?

STU: No, there are not.

GLENN: Well, then, you know, whatever.

STU: She gets a payday.

GLENN: It's miserable, when there's children involved, you've just screwed everything up.

STU: Yeah, it's not necessarily pleasant but to act like this is ruining her life I think is an overstatement. She's cheating on him.

GLENN: She's coming out of this her whole life changed because of Billy Joel. Her whole life changed. What was she before? Was she I don't know.

GLENN: She turned into a I know she was on Top Chef eventually. What was she before?

STU: She was a chef. Eventually she got the job of Top Chef after she married Joel and now is dating fashion designers in New York City.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. So she was a student.

STU: I don't know that she was a

DAN: So hold on. I want to get this straight. So if you get a good career out of a marriage

STU: Your qualification is ruined

DAN: This is why she got out because it was going to ruin her life. I mean, I didn't know when they were going to get divorced.

GLENN: She ruined somebody else's life!

DAN: It led to cheating and a divorce. How is this

STU: This is classic liberal thinking by Dan Andros.

DAN: Oh, come on.

STU: She cheats on him and he's responsible for it.

DAN: It's both of them.

STU: That is so liberal thinking.

GLENN: How is he responsible? How is he responsible?

DAN: I don't know why you are nitpicking this point. Of course it's both of them but I think it's more him.

GLENN: Wait a minute, wait a minute.

STU: She was the one doing it. How is it him?

DAN: He's the veteran in this situation. He should know what should happen. He's 60. He's been through this twice, for crying out loud!

GLENN: Everybody he marries cheats on him.

DAN: He should quit. He should quit marrying!

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: I will agree with you on that.

STU: That's probably a fair point.

GLENN: I will tell you this, that if I'm Billy Joel today, I am thinking to myself, what the hell is wrong with me.

STU: Yeah. It's got to be a little depressing.

GLENN: Life, life you know, we're all supposed to learn lessons in life. We all come to the table with our own problems and our own, you know, whatever. And when life keeps dealing you the same card, it's not them. It's you. There's something that you're attracting these kinds of people. You know and I only say this because I was this kind of guy, that I would go, you know, "Gee, all the people, how come I keep running into all these people." I'm attracting them. There's something about me. This happens with abuse. People are like they get into an abusive relationship and then they get out and then they're in another abusive relationship and then they get out and then they get in another. And then they are like, why is it. Because there's something about you that attracts these people. So what is it that Billy Joel has not put right in his life that he doesn't get that he is attracting the kind of women that would cheat on him over and over again? What is it? It's I mean, they have to make the choice, but he's choosing improperly. There's something that he hasn't learned yet.

By the way, we had this woman Melissa who calls every time we talk about this. I mean, we haven't talked to her in about a year, but she was like 20 something and he was 47 or 50. Wasn't there like 30 years difference or 27 years difference?

STU: Call in if you hear us, Melissa.

GLENN: Yeah. I think they're from Pittsburgh.

On Monday, Biden exercised his veto powers for the first time to strike down a bill that would ban states from taking ESG into consideration when investing state pension funds. In his veto message, Biden said:

Retirement plan fiduciaries should be able to consider any factor that maximizes financial returns for retirees across the country. That's not controversial — that's common sense.

At the risk of using the loaded word "gaslit," it continues to be the operative word in describing the policies coming out of the Biden White House. It is painfully obvious that ESG itself inhibits investors from "maximizing financial returns." That was never ESG's goal in the first place. Yet Biden said the opposite.

ESG aims to incentivize investors to make "socially conscious" (a.k.a woke) investments, even if they are at odds with the greatest return on investment. It has enabled state governments and investment firms to use their monopoly over the investment space to force companies to choose between adopting their woke ESG standards and losing critical investment. Isn't there a word for that? Extortion? Or modern-day politics?

ESG enables state governments to force companies to choose between adopting their woke ESG standards and losing critical investment.

That is the sole reason why Republicans brought the bill to his desk in the first place: As Glenn said, "ESG poses a clear and present danger to the American way of life, the soul of our nation and every sector of our economy. ESG was never about ROI. It was always about pushing a leftist agenda.

And Biden knows this.

Why would he want to give up something that enables his political party and corporate elites to control and manipulate the political affiliations of their people? Who would want to give up that power? Biden certainly doesn't.

And he didn't.

Instead, he boldly asserts the exact opposite: that ESG itself "maximizes financial returns," relying on the divided American people to debate the policy into oblivion, while he gets exactly what he wants: the retention of power over the American consumer. Dare I say again that "gaslit" is the operative word here?

If one thing is clear, it is that we cannot rely on the federal government to act in the best interests of the American people. However, in this critical moment, the state governments are stepping up to do what the federal government refuses to: protecting the rights of the American consumer.

In a joint resolution led by Florida Governor Ron Desantis, 19 states have pledged “to protect individuals from the ESG movement" at the state level. This is critical.

We cannot rely on the federal government to act in the best interests of the American people.

Florida leads Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming in signing the historic policy agreement among all 19 states, pledging to ban ESG practices within their jurisdictions.

The anti-ESG alliance calls ESG what it is:

A direct threat to the American economy, individual economic freedom, and our way of life, putting investment decisions in the hands of the woke mob to bypass the ballot box and inject political ideology into investment decisions, corporate governance, and the everyday economy.

This alliance takes aim at two specific practices used by left-leaning states to force companies to adopt ESG-approved practices.

First, the alliance promises to protect "taxpayers from ESG influences across state systems."

While other states are using YOUR taxpayer dollars to fund pro-ESG corporations, these states pledge to BAN this practice to ensure "that only financial factors are considered to maximize the return on investment."

The chief factor behind any investment should be determining whether that investment yields the maximum return on their investment. However, many states are using YOUR taxpayer-funded pension and retirement funds to invest in ESG-approved businesses. This not only forces businesses to consider adopting ESG standards in hopes of obtaining investment. Moreover, states are using YOUR taxpayer dollars to fund them! Would you want your government to invest your hard-earned money for partisan purposes?

The anti-ESG alliance is taking the politics out of investment and putting consumer power back in the hands of the American people. These state governments pledged to make investment decisions based solely on maximizing the return on investment, not in using your taxpayer dollars to fund their political agendas.

Second, the alliance promises to protect "citizens from ESG influences in the financial sector."

ESG standards force businesses to consider the political leanings of their customer base. For example, Discover announced they will begin tracking its customers' gun-related purchases. One of the leaders behind this push is Amalgamated Bank, which boasts on their website that their institution "supports sustainable organizations, progressive causes, and social justice." Amalgamated Bank CEO Priscilla Sims Brown said:

We all have to do our part to stop gun violence and it sometimes starts with illegal purchases of guns and ammunition The new code will allow us to fully comply with our duty to report suspicious activity and illegal gun sales to authorities without blocking or impeding legal gun sales.

This virtue signaling at the cost of your privacy is earning both Discover and Amalgamated ESG brownie points.

There are countless stories of Americans, like YOU, getting locked out of their bank accounts, dropped as clients, tracked and targeted, all because their personal political beliefs don't align with big corporations' ESG goals. Their individual privacy and dignity as a consumer aren't worth the risk of lowering the company's ESG score.

That's why the anti-ESG alliance is pledging to protect the residents in their states from this corrupt ESG exploitation. The alliance promised to ban "so-called social Credit Scores' in banking and lending practices aimed to prevent citizens from obtaining financial services like loans, lines of credit, and bank accounts."

They also promised to stop "financial institutions from discriminating against customers for their religious, political, or social beliefs, such as owning a firearm, securing the border, or increasing our energy independence."

In short, they have targeted the political extortion hidden behind the virtuous ESG veil to protect citizens from being discriminated against based on political affiliation.

It's time to step up.

Biden may have struck down the effort to restore the freedom of the American consumer at the federal level. However, these states are taking it upon themselves to do what they ought: to ban practices that threaten the freedoms and privacy of their citizens.

If your state did not joining the anti-ESG alliance, it's time to demand that they step up and do their job to protect you and the rest of your fellow citizens from corrupt ESG practices. As Glenn said, "The conservative movement is best when it moves in unison." We must act and unison and push our states to protect our economic freedom and our way of life.

How prepared are YOU to weather a future crisis? We recently published a brand new quiz so you can find out exactly how prepared you are. Whether you're a "prepper" with a bunker fit for the apocolypse or just want to feel more secure for the future, there is always something more to learn. That's why Glenn wants to give his newsletter subscribers his "Ultimate Preparation Guide," filled with practical tips for building a solid foundation to weather future crises. And let's face it—in our crazy world right now, who couldn't use a bit more peace of mind?

Enter your email below to get "Glenn's Ultimate Preparation Guide" sent straight to your inbox!

Editor's Note: Arizona House Bill HB2770 has since been shut down! AZ Rep. Rachel Jones tweeted that the AZ Freedom Caucus shut down the bill before it could reach the board. It is encouraging to see states stepping to protect the American people from getting one step closer to a Central Bank Digital Currency. Hopefully, Arizona will be a precedent for the other states!

On today's radio broadcast, Glenn warned about dangerous Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) language being smuggled into routine legislation in REPUBLICAN-led states. This is unacceptable, and as Glenn said, we can't let this legislation pass as it now stands.

The legislation being used to smuggle in this CBDC language is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a routine piece of legislation passed on the state level that helps standardize commercial and business transactions. However, a new round of UCCs being deliberated RIGHT NOW amongst a swath of Republican-led states anticipate the use of "electronic money." In a public letter sent to the Republican states currently deliberating this legislation, the Pro-Family Legislative Network said this can only refer to the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) under consideration and testing by the Federal Reserve. Biden's Executive Order 14067 issued in March of 2022 started the push for CBDC, and now these states, knowingly or unknowingly, are laying the legislative groundwork for making CBDC a reality.

There is absolutely no reason why Republican-led states should aid in laying the foundation for CBDC, yet 12 of them are deliberating it RIGHT NOW, with one UCC bill already on one GOP governor's desk! We have to act NOW to stop these UCCs in their tracks and demand our lawmakers amend the bills without the "electronic money" language.

If your state is listed below, contact your representative NOW to put an end to CBDC language.

1. North Dakota

North Dakota House Bill HB1082 passed BOTH chambers and is now sitting on Governor Burgum's desk. Burgun has 3 DAYS to veto this bill once it's placed on his desk—if not, it will pass automatically. If you are a North Dakota resident, it is absolutely CRUCIAL that you contact Governor Burgum's office NOW and demand that he veto this bill and re-introduce it without the "electronic money" language.

2. Arizona

Arizona House Bill HB2770 has been SHUT DOWN! See the above editor's note for more details.

Arizona House Bill HB2770 passed the House majority and minority caucuses. Arizona residents, contact your representative's office NOW so that they amend this bill without the "electronic money" language.

3. Arkansas

Arkansas House Bill HB1588 is in committee, and if passed, will head to the House floor. Though the bill is only in its beginning stages, it's important for Arkansas residents to stop this bill in its tracks and amend it without the "electronic money" language.

4. Missouri

Missouri House Bill HB1165 is also in its beginning stages in committee. That means it's important to contact your representative as soon as possible to amend it without the "electronic money" language.

5. Oklahoma

Oklahoma House Bill HB 2776 passed the House Committee and will go to a chamber vote soon. If passed, it will go to the Senate, then the governor's desk. If you are an Indiana resident, contact your representative's office NOW to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

6. Indiana

Indiana Senate Bill SB0486 passed the Senate and is headed to the House. Republicans control Indiana's executive office and BOTH chambers of the legislature. There is no excuse for this bill to pass. If you are an Indiana resident, it's vital you contact your representative NOW and demand they amend this bill without the "electronic money" language.

7. Kentucky

Kentucky Senate Bill SB64 passed the Senate and is now being deliberated in the House. If you live in Kentucky, contact your representative's office to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

8. Montana

Montana Senate Bill SB370 passed the Senate and was sent to the House on March 3rd. If you are a Montana resident, contact your representative's office NOW so that the bill doesn't without changing the "electronic money" language.

9. Nebraska

Nebraska's Legislative Bill LB94 passed committee and the first floor vote. As Nebraska only has one legislative chamber, this bill is dangerously close to passing the legislature and being sent to the governor's desk. If you are a Nebraska resident, contact your representative's office NOW and demand they amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

10. New Hampshire

New Hampshire House Bill HB584 is currently in House committee deliberations and has not yet reached the House floor. If you are a New Hampshire resident, contact your representative's office NOW to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

11. Tennessee

Tennessee House Bill HB0640 didn't successfully pass the House. However, it was deferred to a Senate committee and has now taken the form of Senate Bill SB0479, which is now in committee. This bill is still alive, and it's important for you, Tennessee residents, to stop it before it reaches the floor! Contact your representative to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

12. Texas

Texas House Bill HB5011 was filed and is ready to be taken up by committee. Fellow Texans, let's not let this bill progress any further! Contact your representative and demand they amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

6 things you NEED to know about the Silicon Valley Bank collapse

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Silicon Valley Bank's collapse is sparking traumatic memories of the 2008 financial crash. Should we be worried SVB is signaling a similar economic catastrophe, or is everyone overreacting to the media's hype? Glenn told his listeners to be "healthily terrified." This event is sure to have ripple effects throughout the economy, but the more you are informed about it, the more you can prepare. Here are 6 things you need to know about Silicon Valley Bank's crash—explained in simple words.

1. The short answer to what happened: SVB didn't have enough money to pay its depositors.

Remember the scene from It's a Wonderful Life when all of the residents make a run on George Bailey's bank demanding their money? Fortunately for them, their money was in the altruistic hands of George Bailey, who used his honeymoon savings to give the depositors the money they demanded.

Silicon Valley Bank's depositors weren't so lucky.

In short, the depositors made a run on Silicon Valley Bank, demanding the withdrawal of their money. But SVB simply didn't have the liquid money available to give their depositors, causing regulators to shut down the bank shortly afterward.

2. It all started with COVID...

Why didn't SVB have enough money for its depositors? To explain this, we have to go back to the pandemic era.

The pandemic saw a rapid decrease in spending and a massive increase in bank deposits. Due to the uncertainty of the future and lockdowns limiting ways to spend money on recreational activities, like restaurants, bars, and other outlets, many Americans stocked up money in their accounts. In fact, SVB's deposits doubled in 2021 alone, bringing in more money than they could lend out to their clients.

To make a return on their available cash, SVB wanted to invest it, as many banks do. Since they had reached their lending limit, they decided to invest it in U.S. Treasury Securities, which are the government's means of funding itself without using taxation (in a nutshell). These are considered "ultra-safe" investments because they are backed by the "full faith and credit of the federal government."

Unlike other forms of investments, investing in Treasuries means the government will do everything within its legal power to pay back the money used to fund itself. In other words, it is typically very safe... so what happened?

3. Then came the magic cocktail—record-high inflation and rising interest rates...

Interest rates ruined the typically "ultra-safe" investment. Due to 40-year record-high inflation, the Fed lifted rates eight times by a total of 4.25 percentage points in 2022, raising interest rates from 0.25 percent to 4.375 percent. This means the value of U.S. Treasuries investments plummeted rapidly. SVB reported that it lost $1.8 billion due to the decreased value of its Treasuries investments after a year of rising interest rates.

This raises the following question: why didn't SVB just weather the storm and wait for interest rates to decrease? There are two issues with this. The first is that, with so many of their assets held up in Treasuries investments, SVB still wouldn't have enough liquid assets to give their depositors during the bank run.

The second issue is that Treasuries investments have a ten-year limit. In 2021 during the Trump administration, interest rates were at an all-time low of 0.125 percent.

The record-fast increase of interest rates in 2022 caused very little chance for rates to go back down to their historic 2021 lows within ten years for banks to make their money back on their investments.

To avoid this, SVB planned to sell their investments at a loss and re-purchase Treasuries investments at the decreased value, giving them an extra ten years to bet on decreased interest rates in the future.

But people caught on to SVB's plan and didn't want to ride with the risk.

4. Account holders withdrew their money... FAST.

As aforementioned, SVP lost $1.8 billion when it sold its depleted Treasuries investments. While they were betting on being able to re-purchase the devalued securities, hoping that they would go up in value in the future with lowered interest rates, investors were worried about the risk.

Once they made the announcement of their $1.8 billion loss, their stocks began to drop, and venture capitalists warned the companies they invest in to pull out of SVB. This had a snowball effect, leading to a "bank run" of depositors demanding to withdraw their money from their SVB accounts.

This led to the perfect storm: SVB's investment losses coupled with the influx of withdrawals were so immense that regulators had to step in and shut the bank down to protect depositors. The government currently "running" SVB, for all practical purposes, is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC closed SVB on Friday and reopened the bank on Monday, March 13th as the Deposit Insurance Bank of Santa Clara.

5. Some people may lose their money. 

Banks insure accounts with $250,000 or less with FDIC insurance. That means, in cases of bank failure, exactly like this one, the FDIC covers all accounts less than $250,000. The FDIC said SVB customers who had less than $250,000 in their accounts will have access to all of their money when the bank reopens. Since it reopened this week, they should have access to their funds.

However, many of SVB's depositors had more than $250,000 in their accounts—it is Silicon Valley after all. Therefore, their accounts were not covered by FDIC insurance. Will they get their money back? There is a chance that they will not.

It is unclear how much SVB currently has to cover uninsured deposits. It is likely not enough. The FDIC has issued a "Receiver's Certificate" to the uninsured account holders with the amount in their account that is not covered by FDIC insurance.

The FDIC said it will pay some of the uninsured deposits by next week by liquidating any additional assets held by SVB. However, if the liquidated assets are not enough, many of SVB's uninsured account holders could lose their money for good.

6. Is this 2008 all over again?

SVB's collapse was the largest bank failure since 2008, when Washington Mutual failed with $307 billion in assets. Its failure, along with the collapse of the Lehman Brother's investment bank, triggered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Are we in danger of repeating 2008?

Some argue that we are not in danger of another economic catastrophe, simply because SVB holds less than 1 percent of the nation's assets. However, as Glenn warns, there is a danger of banks repeating the same mistakes as SVP.

SVP wasn't the only bank to use its surplus deposits to invest in U.S. Treasuries, which means that other banks are wrestling with the depleted value of their securities investments due to rising interest rates.

Bank of America, for example, lost $109 billion in their securities investments due to rising interest rates, the most among its peers—and Bank of America is no small fish in the ocean of assets.

Other major banks recorded other massive losses in their securities investments due to rising interest rates. JP Morgan Chase lost $36 billion, Wells Fargo lost $41 billion, Citigroup lost $25 billion, and Goldman Sachs lost $1 billion. If the little banks collapse, will they get the same effort and attention from the federal government as the "big guys?"

The critic may argue that these are still small values given the incredibly large amount of assets held in banks nationwide. However, this is missing the point. Major banks have majorly invested in securities since the pandemic-era skyrocketing rate of deposits. Now those investments are depleted in value.

They can either sell those investments at a loss, or they can wait and hope that they will recover over time. However, if those investments are no longer liquid, what happens when their depositors come knocking? Will they have enough liquid assets to cover a massive bank run? These are the lingering questions that our banks need to address.

As Glenn says, this will impact you—it is only a matter of time. What will you do to prepare?