RADIOJanuary 09, 2024

How did the government FAIL THIS MUCH on 2023 jobs reports?!

After spending all year boasting about how many jobs it has created, the Biden administration has quietly DELETED 439,000 jobs from its 2023 jobs reports. These revisions mean that almost a quarter of all jobs added in 2023 didn't exist. So, what's going on here? Economic and small business expert Carol Roth believes there are 3 possible explanations: Either this was an oddity, laziness, or the admission of a nefarious lie. Carol joins Glenn to break down what she believes is happening and whether this is a sign that a recession is coming. Plus, she reveals the data that people should be paying much more attention to than jobs reports.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Former investment banker who went legit. Got off Wall Street and started talking about Main Street.

Hi, Carol, how are you?

CAROL: Yeah. Well, Glenn, thank you for legitimizing. I guess that's the right word.

GLENN: Yeah. So I don't understand the job report.

And how you can make a mistake, this massive, over the entire year.

CAROL: Well, as Mark Twain -- it's attributed to him, anyway. Said, there are three types of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. And this goes back to how data is collected.

How it is modeled. How it's manipulated.

How it's revised. And why it makes absolutely no sense.

I have seen the -- the different reports, and, yes. There has been massive downward revisions.

Obviously, we just got the first December number.

So only 11 months of last year have been reported.

And ten out of the 11 months, have been revised downward.

The scope of that, I looked at multiple smart people's analysis, it's anywhere from 14 percent to 24 percent.

There's a piece everyone agrees on. There's another piece that I can't tell if people are possibly double counting.

But either way, it's just a massive shift.

And the strange thing here, you expect data to be revised based on how it's collected. But, you know, usually that averages out over time.

You know, maybe it's not a perfect amount. But like in 2022, the revisions, I think it was revised, you know, downward for maybe five months.

Then upward with no revisions.

When you netted it out, it was only off by 66,000. Having ten out of 11 months being revised downward. Is either -- an oddity.

It's lazy or nefarious. Those are your three choices.

Pick whatever your favorite door is.

STU: Okay. So. So. But what I understand is, if you -- if you have to revise. You take that into account. Especially if it's repeated a couple months in a row. You start to change the algorithm. And it's like, no. It's slowing. Things need to be slowed down.

Because that's what we keep seeing. So it's -- it's not unusual, to miscount for a while.
Because you're not actually counting. It is a projection.

CAROL: Right.

GLENN: But if you're doing it for a year. It shows that like you said, you're either lazy or you're trying to cook the books.

Because you should have made those adjustments. And what would account for this, is that we're going into a recession. Is that true?

CAROL: That's one possible interpretation. I think it's helpful perhaps for people to understand, you know, how this data is collected and massaged. Because we have these different methodologies. We have, what was called the non-farmed payrolls, or the establishment survey, which is that number that everyone focuses on.

What they do, is they only look at the payroll records of -- last time I checked, it was just shy of 150,000 businesses and government agencies.

And then they take that and put it into reducible adjustments. And all these different models that come up with this projection.

Then there's an entirely different survey, called the household survey, or the current population survey, which only goes about to 60,000 households.

And they're getting their employment status and the demographic data.

And it's very different. Because in the household survey, they're saying, are you employed?

But when they employ out to the, they say, how many people are on the payroll?

So, first of all, the household survey captures things like agricultural workers. People who are self-employed, which we know is a huge portion of the population. That don't have corporations.

Some other things. The establishment doesn't even have any of that. And if you have multiple jobs, that you show up on multiple payrolls.
You're counted multiple times in that survey.

So the data is bastardized, and I would argue not even relevant to how our country's economy is growing, given the large amount of self-employment we have.

But with all of that, we've seen, Glenn. A record high, almost 8.7 million people. Who are holding down full jobs.

We are seeing a loss and, again, the time period is disputed. But over recent months, of 1.5 million full-time workers. And adding 796,000 part-time workers. So going back to your question of recessionary trends. See, those are things that will make you scratch your head saying, that's moving in the wrong direction. But who is picking up the slack for that?

Well, that is the government. And the government jobs keep getting -- the last three months, like 50,000 government jobs, on average, for the last few months. Like, that's not sustainable.

And those are -- those don't have the same level of productivity. Because they're paid for by our tax dollars, and/or the printing of money.

GLENN: Right. Correct.

CAROL: So all those scenarios don't look great in terms of the trends for the economy.

GLENN: Right.

So we haven't seen the numbers for December, but 216,000 jobs were added.

This has not been revised yet, and 52,000 of those were government jobs.

Which brought us to an all-time high of 23 million employees for the federal government. It's an astounding -- astounding --

CAROL: But what I want to say on that. Is that -- as I said, in December, we just got the first print. We haven't gotten the revision to it. Same thing with the previous periods.

They keep revising that down. That means, not only is it 52 over, you know, 216,000.

But if they revise that down, it means, it will be even a larger percentage, that is government jobs.

GLENN: Correct.

CAROL: And that's what we've been seeing in terms of the trend.

Is that the government, and all of the deficit spending, that we're paying for in terms of inflation in our lives.

You know, is really what's creating the differential.

But what's crazy. Jobs haven't even been the issue.

They keep touting this is jobs. And look how many jobs were created.

Even though, many of them were reclaimed. Not created from when they shut down the economy.

But that really hasn't been the issue for quite some time for people.

It's really been the inflationary pressures. And the cost of living. Which is why so many are even tuned into this. And don't notice. Where we have these massive revisions.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I am in Florida right now.

And specifically, I'm in -- in West Palm.

And it is one of the bigger bubbles, I've seen.

Florida is a bubble in and of itself.

Here in West Palm.

It is.

I mean, there's a guy. I found out at dinner last night. There's a guy who bought a bunch of houses right on the ocean.

He bought $500 million in land. And he's building a 500 million dollar house. And he's not a seller. And, you know, he probably has -- you know, he probably has two or three children. So you can understand this.

CAROL: Right.

GLENN: You're in Florida. Especially in places like this. Boy, it doesn't feel like anything is wrong.

With the economy.

CAROL: Right. So this is the have and the have-nots. And it's part of what makes it so difficult, when you talk about the economy.

Because what we've witnessed over the last decade and a half, is the massive fed and government policy and youth wealth transfer from Main Street America, to the wealthy and well-connected.

So when you go to the West Palm beaches, when you go to the -- you know, these little bubble areas, in Southern California, and what not, you know, the prices of real estate are going through the roof. People are driving McLarens.

You know, it's this crazy display of wealth, that they have want to be through the inflation of the asset. Because there were these massive asset holders. At the same time, that the people, who are on Main Street America, didn't have the opportunity to participate in that upside are seeing their cost of living go through the roof. And not being able to keep up.

So it's really a tale of two different economies. When you average that amount, with this massive wealth. At the top. It looks like things are -- you know, kind of moving along.

And that's why, I don't think that the way that we portray data, is fair or gives us really a great sense of what's happening for most of the country.

And why some people in the Democratic parties seem to be scratching their heads. And going, I don't understand.

This is a fantastic economy. Bidenomics works great, when we know that the middle class is getting crushed.

GLENN: Well, if you're living in the Washington, DC, area, of course, there's lots of employment.

Because the government is employing lots of people.

CAROL: Yes, they are. And they are doing it on the backs of adding more at the time and more inflationary pressure.

That is, you know, been -- really, what we've been paying for quite literally. Particularly over the past couple of years.

So there is this delusion, and it's happening on Wall Street. It's happening in these different bubble areas. That people who are in these areas that have created this tipping of the playing field. That has tilted things in their direction. They're going, this is working great. I don't understand why everybody is complaining. When they have been doing it, at the expense of free true -- fair and true capitalism, that has been impacting the lives of the people who are working and who are the back bone of our economy.

GLENN: So I'm driving in some of these neighborhoods. I was driving by Mar-a-Lago yesterday. And that was from the 1920s. A lot of these homes, that are huge like this, were from the 1920s. And those were the Jay Gatsby. F. Scott Fitzgerald days. And I started thinking.

When did the Newport, Rhode Island, thing fall apart? Was that during the Depression, when people started out like not living like that anymore? Do you know?

CAROL: I don't think so.

Because just being a Jackie Kennedy researcher, and if you think about all the time that -- that their family and the Kennedys spent out.

And the Hammer Smith Farm, where she got married, that whole area.

That was pretty extravagant, and their marriage was in the -- in the early '50s, '53-ish. So I don't think it was at that point in time.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

All right. Well, there was something else that I want to get to. Can we take a quick break?

And then we'll come right back in just a minute. Stand by.

We're talking to Carol Roth about the economy. So I don't know if you saw the Wall Street Journal today. But the headline. Do you have that headline by any chance, Stu.

STU: Don't have it handy, no.

GLENN: Yeah. The headline was, the latest dirty word in corporate America.

ESG.

CAROL: Yeah.

GLENN: It says, following the year of simmering backlash. Political pressure. And legal threats over environmental, social, and governance.

A number of businesses, corporate have shed ESG.

Now they're just calling it corporate responsibility. Is this a win, Carol?

Or is this just a shell game?

CAROL: So I would -- can I answer both? Can I give all of the above?

GLENN: Okay.

CAROL: I definitely think that there is some win. And I think the part that we need to take to heart is that by the noise that you've made, Glenn. And the others have made. And the action that your listeners and others have taken.

And talking about this, and really putting it under a microscope.

Has -- it's given pushback to corporate America. And they're seeing, that it's not only not working. That it's detracting from their businesses.

Even BlackRock. Which we know has been sort of patient this year in the US.

They're laying off a bunch of employees.

Something around 600 employees, mainly in their ESG division because of the pushback.

So I do think, that piece is a victory. But it's kind of like the ant problem, that many of us have in our house.

That, you know, you can spray them. Kill them. In one season.

But they will come back the next season.

So you still have to bring the exterminate out again.

And unfortunately, that's the case with ESG.

It's something that you and I had begun to talk about.

You actually brought to my attention. Were these natural asset companies. That are looking to, you know -- same kind of went.

Bastardize capitalism.

Use corporate money.

Use pension money, to buy control, or management of land.

Whether those be public or private, to try to take them out of productive use. Threatening our food and our land and our water.

GLENN: That's insanity.

They decided to wait on that, right?

They didn't say, no. They're not going to do it.

They decided to wait. The SECC decided. Correct?

CAROL: So they were due with the rule January 2nd, and they have extended the comment period to January 18th. I sent comments. I actually posted them on my Twitter feed.

If anyone wants to, they are welcome to copy and paste and send them in to the SECC.

Or to anyone, whether it be their representatives, whether it be their state treasurers, whether it be their governors.

I know that Marla Oaks, from Utah, who you've had -- one of the key voices against it.

You know, we need more people like that.

Because not only do we need the SECC to say, no. The New York Stock Exchange can't list them. That's just one way that these groups connect.

It doesn't mean that they don't exist. It doesn't mean that they can't go to the private market. Or sovereign wealth fund, you know, privately to try to do this.

So we really do need legislation that says, this is something that needs to go away.

So a little bit of a celebration, Glenn.

But the job isn't done yet.

Maryland Governor wants MORE gerrymandering instead of THIS?!

Democratic Maryland governor Wes Moore is now saying that he wants to gerrymander his own state's congressional districts (despite Republicans only holding ONE seat) to fight Texas' redistricting efforts. But Glenn Beck has a simpler answer to this whole debate - and it stems from Moses.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Gerrymandering started by -- Stu, can you look this up, for me?

Is it Elbridge Gerry or Gerry? I always thought it was Elbridge Gerry.

STU: Yeah, you're remembering that right.

GLENN: It is?

STU: Yeah, it is Elbridge Gerry. There's a weird quirk basically in American history, where his name was Elbridge Gerry. It was first called gerrymandering essentially in a newspaper, at the time. People read the newspaper, didn't know how to pronounce his name. Started saying "gerrymandering," and that's what stuck. So it was actually different than the way his name was pronounced, even though it was named after him.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, that's why you spell your name G-A-R-Y, not G-E-R-R-Y. Hello!

STU: Lesson learned.

GLENN: Yes, so gerrymandering is when a salamander-shaped district gave America a new word, and a new really bad habit. Okay? And we have perfected this really bad habit.

It -- it started about 18- -- yeah, about 1818, 1850, some- -- someplace around there, and it wasn't known as gerrymandering, until the mid-1800s when everybody was doing it. Now, here's how bad it has gotten: Today, in Massachusetts, one-third of the voters choose a Republican. But not one of the nine House seats. They can choose it for president. But they -- one-third vote for Republicans. But because of the way they have the map set up, you don't get any House seats. So a third of the population has zero representation.

And not because they didn't show up. But because the lines chose first. In, Illinois, pretty much the same situation. Forty-seven percent of voters cast a ballot for Republicans in 2024. Forty-seven percent. Now, why do we all think that Illinois is so far left in Congress? Why?

Because 47 percent, they must get their choice. Forty-seven percent of the voters cast a ballot for Republicans in 2024. And they got 17 percent of the seats! Now, that's -- that's magical. There's -- there's some magical forces making that happen. Okay? Now, you see competition. Now you don't! Maryland.

The courts called one map an extreme partisan gerrymander. Why?

Well, because there's only one Republican serving in Maryland. Only one.

Now, how is that possible? Because you know there are people that live in Maryland. Only one of the -- the House seats go to a Republican? One?

Come on! Now, here's the latest. The governor now says, all options are on the table. This is the governor of Maryland. We just played this clip. Can you play it again, please?

VOICE: Are you actively looking at it now?

VOICE: Yes. And I think we have to.

VOICE: You are?

VOICE: Because I think what's happening is this is what people hate about politics in the first place. The fact that the President of the United States, very similar to what he did in Georgia, where he called up a series of voter registrants and said, I need you to find me more votes. We're watching the same thing now where he's calling up legislatures around the country and saying, I need you to find me more congressional districts.

VOICE: He's doing it. That may be different. But Democrats redistrict. You know this. But Gavin Newsom is doing it right now, a few years ago in New York. We saw this. This can be backfire.
Do you really want to go down this road?

VOICE: I want to make sure that we have fair lines and fair seats. Where we don't have situations where politicians are choosing voters, but that voters have a chance to choose their elected officials.

We need to be able to have fair maps, and we also need to make sure that if the president of the United States is putting his finger on the scale to try to manipulate elections, because he knows that his policies cannot win in a ballot box.

GLENN: Okay. So stop.

If you -- if you don't know anything about Maryland, you would be like, well, that's reasonable.

And most people don't know anything about Maryland. Okay. That's reasonable. He just wants fair maps and fair lines. Okay. If you really wanted the people to pick, you wouldn't -- it's mathematically impossible in Illinois.

It's mathematically impossible in Massachusetts. And in Maryland, to have the representation for the G.O.P. that they have.

It's math mat -- Massachusetts has zero Republicans in the House!

Zero, in the whole state!

Zero.

Maryland, only has one. And then he says, well, I might have to redistrict.

To get rid of the one?

One place, where -- where a Republican won. And you want to redistrict that, out of existence?

That doesn't seem fair, to me.

Right?

Okay. This isn't a blue problem. It's not a red problem. It is a power problem. And it has been happening almost since the founding of the country. And it's got to stop. Now, in 2019, the Supreme Court had a decision. Said, the courts aren't going to interfere. And they won't referee partisan gerrymandering.

Well, that was a message that was sent to everybody, very clear. Do what you -- do what you want. The raw what you can. Draw what you can get real estate with. And so they did!

Now, in Texas. This all started in Texas. Which, by the way, the -- the senses.

These are all based on the census, or they're supposed to be. But for the very first time, the 2020 census was rigged, and then it was not fair.

When you have Texas. Think of this. Just think -- I want you to think of this logically. Texas in -- what was it? 2020. Texas in 2020 had lost people? Or had not gained any citizens?

What planet are you living in?

Texas is growing by leaps and bounds, as it was in 2015. 2010.

You're telling me, nothing!

Nothing!

No new growth.

Wow! That's amazing.

So Texas is trying to correct this problem. Where they fix the census.

Okay.

Now, the left is shouting, this is crazy!

I can't believe they're doing -- it's an arms race of hypocrisy.

It really is. It really is.

Which one could launch the biggest hypocritical missile.

I'm not sure. I can just tell you, this ends -- it ends where legitimacy ends. When -- when somebody will look up in one of these states and say, this is -- and with -- with real facts on their side. That -- that's not -- that's not representative of me. The House of Representatives. That's not representative of my district and my state. You can draw a district any way you want. You know, cut us all apart so you -- you can't have a Republican in. You've been doing that forever.

Here's the thing: Safe seats. That's what everybody wants. A safe seat. Safe seats do not create better leaders. They create unaccountable leaders. Let me say that again: Safe seats do not create better leaders. They create unaccountable leaders. Why?

Because a safe seat doesn't reward persuasion.

You don't have to persuade anybody. They reward purity tests. This is why we have become so incredibly extreme. It's why -- everybody wonders why the center feels like it's collapsing. You know, every -- every compromise feels like a betrayal. Because you're not dealing with people. You're dealing with people who are extremes. Okay?

So what do we do? Well, there's a couple of solutions. One independent map-making. Yeah. That's going to work. Put the pens in the citizen's hands. Oh, good. Michigan. Arizona. California.

They have shown independent or court-drawn maps. Reduced extremes. And increased competition. Okay.

Maybe. California. Has an independent committee. This was passed by the people voted for. People were like, you know what, we want fair! We want fair districts. Okay. But at the first time of trouble. They'll violate that, as you're seeing with California.

You have the governor of California coming out. We will redraw all of them. Because they don't care about the voices of the people in those districts. They care about the Democrat voice in Congress.

So the governor is going around it. And it will only be stopped if the people of California stand up. Are they going to?

I don't know.

Now, if we don't solve this at the local and state level, believe me, there are going to be people in Congress that want to change the rules. And the left is already working on it.

It's called the fair representation act. Stu, they already have an act. It's the Fair Representation Act.

STU: I like fair representation.

GLENN: Right! It's about representation, and it's going to be fair.

See what could go wrong with this. They just reintroduced it this summer. It would use independent commissions. Multi-member districts. And ranked choice voting for the House.

Oh! Ranked choice voting? What could possibly go wrong with ranked choice voting. Why is that a problem, Stu?

STU: Well, currently, the Democrats really love rank choice voting. Because it's benefited them, mostly.

And that's just a small part of that particular act. But basically, you know, if you -- you know, unless the other -- the other team is smart enough to actually understand the rules of it. Which so far, the Republicans have not been, they will nominate people that will split their own vote. And you will wind up with someone who is the -- not the majority candidate, wound up winning the seat.

GLENN: Yeah. Really bad idea. Really bad idea.

So may I make a suggestion on how we fix this?

And I would like to base this on Moses.

Moses already did this. Okay? He divided people in hundreds and 50s and tens. Let me -- let me call -- let me just -- I want you to think of the United States under one big tent. Okay? One big tent. Let's say we look at the United States as a big block. And we want to put everybody under a tent. But we can't put them under one big, big tent.

So let's say we put them in tents of 100. Or a thousand.

Or 5,000.

And we think of the map, as you have to have a tent, over these people.

All right. Well, I know we have four corners.

And we put a steak in the ground. And those four corners, we build a tent.

And then we build a tent right next to that one, that holds the same amount of people, and we put four steaks in the ground, and we build another tent. In other words, each district has to have four straight lines. Just like a tent. It's just a box. Okay? It could be a rectangle. However you want to design it, that is fine. But it's just a box. And when that box becomes too full, you split it in half. And now it becomes two boxes, and you keep splitting them, until they're more and more boxes. The more the population grows, the more boxes there are. Okay?
It's really easy. Do you know what that would do? It could mean that in some districts, a couple of apartment buildings, not snaked all the way around the city and into the countryside. But a few apartment buildings in New York City, right in a four-block area, that might be a district.

What does that do? That means the people who are representing the people in that apartment complex, the -- that four-block radius. He has to know that four-block area. That's his deal. He's not sneaking around, going around everywhere else. He knows those people. He represents just those people. Not people five blocks away. Just maybe four blocks away.

And four blocks in each direction. That way, you don't have these people who don't have any idea, they don't look like you. I mean, as far as the way you vote. They don't look -- vote like you do. They don't -- they're -- they're not some sort of foreigner from a different area of town. They know what your issues are.

If we did that, and we made everything in just squares, you would -- you would localize much more. In a much better way. But you would also stop all the extremes. Because unless everybody in that four-block radius is an extremist, an extremist isn't going to win. An extremist Republican. Extremist tell me. Extremists aren't going to win. Because most people aren't like that. That's why the gerrymandering thing happens. Because you can have people on one side of the street in one district, people on the other side of the street, in another district, and then it snakes up four blocks, and then it makes a hard left. Then it goes straight up for another street, then there's a big bubble at the top of it, where a whole bunch of blocks are included. That makes no sense. That's making a safe seat.
Again, safe seats do not -- do not reward anything! They create extremism.

What you MUST KNOW about Trump's computer chip stock deal

President Trump has announced a deal to buy a 10% stake in computer chip maker Intel. Is this a smart business move that will make the US government money to pay off its debt, or is it just another unconstitutional public-private partnership? Glenn and Stu discuss ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I would love to open -- openly embrace the -- you know, on the surface, there's a new deal with Intel.

And it sounds really smart. And it sounds like, yeah. That's the way we should do business.

It sounds capitalist. It sounds patriotic. But then, again, so did the Patriot Act.

So here's what's happening. Donald Trump is taking $8.9 billion. Money already set aside by the Chips Act. And instead of handing to Intel as a grant, he bought stock in Intel.

Now, that sounds really smart. Right? Sounds like what a businessman would do. Really smart. I'm not going to just give them the money, we'll invest. And that way, we get some profits, when they succeed. So we now own 10 percent of the company. Nonvoting shares. We got it at a discount, and we have $2 billion now worth of paper gains.

I love that! Right? It sounds really good. Why aren't we running this place more like a business? It's pro-capitalist, right? No more government giveaways. Taxpayers are investors. And we benefit when Intel rebounds. Okay. Any other things? Well, yeah. It's really important for national security. We're keeping chip manufacturing at home. We stabilize the economy, without running it. We reassure the markets, and attract other private investors. On paper. It's really good. It's clean. It's efficient. It's savvy.

Now, what is it that's bothering me? Well, it's not exactly the American system. In fact, it might be everything we're not supposed to do. You know, we were never -- government was never supposed to use our taxpayer dollars to be a shareholder in private enterprise.

But, again, we're doing all kinds of things that we've already gone there. Haven't we?

Hasn't the government picked winners and loses now forever?

Haven't they been wasting your money. I would rather extend them a grant. I would rather have it in stock. So if we win, we win. No. We all win. But that's actually the model of state capitalism in China. That's not the free market in the United States. Intel is vital. Absolutely vital. Chips are the lifeblood of anything that will happen for national security. And our economy.

But we cannot get into the habit of -- of -- we can't normalize it anyway.

Washington, DC, buying stock in struggling companies.

Because what's next. Ford? Boeing?

How about your grocery stores?

That's Mamdani, isn't it?

And once that door opens, government no longer just regulates the market. They own a piece of it, now.

What happens after we own a piece of that?

So in 2008, I had a big sponsor.

It was a sponsor that Premiere Radio networks had worked 20 years to get.

We finally landed them. And I had a good working relationship with them.

It was General Motors.

And then the government bailed them out. In 2008. And they promised it was temporary. And I said, great! Call me back, once you've paid them off. I don't -- I don't like this. The government should not be involved.

But they were not going to be involved.

But they were

The first thing they did. Was they cancelled the hydrogen car. Something they really believed right before the election. I know. Because I was talking to him about it all the time. And then after the election, Barack Obama cancels all hydrogen products. And GM was like, yeah, that stupid hydrogen thing. We're with them.

And the precedent was set. And I was out. I was out. I cancelled General Motors. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Business-wise, stupid. Ethically, the right thing to do. And ever since, whenever there's a crisis, that temptation is there. Why not just buy a slice of the company? Why not stabilize it? Make a little profit on it? And that's how you slip to capitalism to corporatism. You know, free markets backed by government winners and losers.

You do not want to go down this road. You know, when we are both the investor and the regulator, which one wins.

Come on!

Not a hard question to answer. Which one wins? Not the regulator. The investor wins. If the investor is also the regulator, look, if we do this, we will make a lot of money, you're going to make a lot of money. You'll have more money for all these projects you want. Okay. All right. Okay.

It's -- it's not -- the taxpayers aren't the one. The company -- the politicians, who really wins? What happens when an administration leans on its own company, for political purposes?

You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We love the hydrogen car. You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We hate that hydrogen car. Boy, we hate it.

He -- Donald Trump looks at Intel losing $8.8 billion last year. Lays off 20,000 workers.

Choke hold of Taiwan, South Korea on semi conductors. He wants America protected.

He wants taxpayers to share the upside.

He doesn't want to just bear the cost. We should get the upside. All of those things are good, right?

It's really tempting. But is it what we're supposed to do. Is it the right thing?

I don't like it when Washington holds stock certificates. Not a good thing. It should be reforming taxes. Cutting red tape. Letting capital flow to strong ideas. Making sure national security is cured through policy, but not ownership of these things.

Are you comfortable if the United States just took over AI, or just took it over and said, we're just going to own 10 percent? Oh, they need another bailout. We're just going to own 20 percent. Oh, they need another bailout. Okay. We're going to own 40 percent of that. Do you think that that company wouldn't become beholden to the United States government? And who are they beholden to? The Defense Department? The Deep State? The president, or you?

I think you know the answer to that one. Stu, how do you work around this one. Because I love this idea. I love the fact that we're running things like a business. And if we're giving people loans, why not take a stake? Why not?

STU: Well, first of all, can we step back one little bit and just acknowledge that the original sin here, in the first place, was the Chips Act. The Chips Act was not a good bill in the first place.

And that's not the president -- the current president's fault.

But, you know, he has to live under that law.

And he's trying to improve it. But like, that was a disaster in the first place. And should not have been something that we did, certainly the way that we did it.

With buying into this. Look, I understand, it is better to have some of this money. That, by the way, we're just borrowing and printing anyway. Right?

These are taxpayer dollars that we don't really have. That we're spending on something. That it's good that potentially we have a return. I mean, this was the argument under TARP as well. Where we would go and do all of this. And take control of some of these banks and companies. And they would eventually pay us back. And many of them did, by the way. Many of them did pay us back.

GLENN: With interest. With interest.

STU: Yeah, exactly. And so why not?

Why didn't we do that? We have done it from time to time. Normally, it's been in extreme circumstances. Right? When there's an emergency going on. And I would acknowledge, and I think you were on this, as well, Glenn.

These were not things that we supported at the time. But they were things that the government did at the time. What they saw as a time of financial crisis. And reached in, and took ownership of a bunch of companies.

GLENN: I would say, we went further than not being for them.

STU: I would agree with that analysis.

GLENN: Very much against them.

STU: Very much against them.

The reason for that is: We don't want the government involved in -- you know, jumping into companies and micromanaging companies.

Now, they will say, voting rights.

They will say all sorts of things. We now have a situation where the president of the United States has an interesting interest in Intel's stock price. And like, I know that --

GLENN: Money does not talk, it screams. It's a bad idea. It's a bad idea.

Once the government becomes your partner in business. They're always your partner. Always.

STU: Uh-huh. And I understand where the president is coming from.

Because it -- at some level, it really is important to acknowledge, he's been put in this position to try to make the best out of a bad thing.

Now, I know, you know, the president does really care about the chips. And he does care about these industries, being here in the United States.

That is a -- something that is actually legitimately important. I'm not denying that.

GLENN: Right. He also cares about America doing well, financially. He's tired of America getting screwed. The taxpayers getting screwed every time.

STU: But on that point, because I get what he's saying there. It would be great. Like, we're up a couple billion dollars. Let's say we double our profit. Let's say we make 10 billion dollars off the deal. Nothing wrong with making $10 billion.

Let's acknowledge what this is, though. We have $37 trillion in debt. Making $10 billion does absolutely nothing to this. Nothing.

We're going to waste that -- like, we could just instead, be -- we could have someone actually look at the next spending bill we have. And just cut a few things around the corner, and easily save $10 billion.

It -- the only way that this makes any impact. And this is what makes me nervous. Is if you do it at scale. If you start doing this, in every single company you can think of, that is having problems. Or is in an industry of interest to the United States of America. Then you start getting to a place to where the government is in bed with lots of businesses. And maybe you can make a financial impact. And if we accept this argument now, I'm afraid we accept it then too.

GLENN: But how do we already accept it -- when America embraced public/private partnerships. I haven't accepted that.

I don't -- I'm dead-set against public -- but isn't this a public/private partnership. This is what they were pushing.

STU: Well, this is the concern, right?

Who is cheering this on?

Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders put the -- he actually had this idea, as an amendment, in the Chips Act.

This was his proposal.

He's cheering it on right now. I -- that doesn't mean that every -- you know, everything a Democrat brings up is the wrong idea.

Maybe this was a good one.

You can make that argument.

GLENN: Is he a Democrat or a socialist?

STU: Socialist please. Socialist.

GLENN: So everything a socialist brings up. Probably is fine.

STU: Yeah. Again, it's a road, we should really, really be careful going down.

I would argue, we shouldn't go down it. At his lead to bad things. And it leads to bad things, by the way, when this president is long gone.

It's not just him.

You know, what -- I know we say this all the time. What are Democrats going to do, with this newfound ability to invest in companies?

And -- and, by the way, we should note, Intel doesn't need to accept this. Right? This is -- the Chips Act doesn't require them to sell part of the company. What's happening here is we're pressuring them into this.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And, you know, I -- I understand the reasoning for that. You brought up really good arguments on this front. We're already suckered into giving these -- these companies money because of the Chips Act. Why not make the situation better?

And Intel is saying, well, they can make our lives miserable. In 25 different ways. Let's partner with them.

I get it on both sides.

That doesn't mean it should be a foundational part of our economy going forward. And, you know, if this is a one time thing. It probably won't be a big deal. If this is a precedent that goes on. It can be.

GLENN: It will be.

Once you start this. Once you start this.

And how long. My whole life, I said, I wish we had a businessman as the president. I wish we had somebody that would look at the country and look at everything. And go, how can we make money?
How can we save money? Let's run this a tighter ship. Well, he's doing that.

Although, we're spending more money.

And he's here. Here he's like, well, let's just offset.

Let's get -- yeah. And he might pick the winner. I don't know if he will or not. But he might -- but tell me the last president that we had, that ever said anything about industry, that you were like, oh, you know what, that was a really good stock tip. No! No!

STU: He would be the guy.

GLENN: Yeah. He would be the one, I think in my lifetime, for sure. Maybe the lifetime of the country.

WARNING: Mark Zuckerberg’s "AI Friends” Are Designed to Control You!

Mark Zuckerberg and Big Tech want you to believe that AI can be your “friend.” But Glenn Beck reveals the chilling truth: these bots aren’t here to connect with you... they’re here to control you. From social media addiction to mental health crises, we’ve already seen what “connection” platforms have done to our families and children. Now, AI is at its next stage where it's smarter, more personal, and far more dangerous. Glenn warns that this isn’t just about privacy or data. It’s about your soul. Real friendship is sacrifice, loyalty, and love. AI offers only a hollow imitation all while whispering lies in your ear...

Watch This FULL Clip from Glenn Beck's Radio Show HERE