RADIOSeptember 16, 2024

Why a Kamala Harris presidency would be DEVASTATING for small businesses

Would a Kamala Harris presidency destroy small businesses? Small business expert Carol Roth joins Glenn to make the case: "They want to kill the gig economy and all the small businesses that depend on independent contractors in favor of unions and big business. So, it's very difficult to say, 'I am the small business, I am the worker candidate,' and still be in favor of these things." Carol compares this to "McDonald's being pro-cow." She also explains why Harris' claim that 19 million new business applications have been filed since she and Joe Biden took office is incredibly misleading.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. But, Carol, she does have some things she can boast about.

The small business success. She claims a record of 19 million small business applications were received, under their leadership.

And that's a record, I hear. That's what they say.

CAORL: Okay. So this is -- I think most people know, who listen to me on your program. That I'm one of the world's leading experts on small business.

I've been entrenched for decades. I heard this -- this thing. This small business application.

And I went around, to every group that I know. And I said, what is a small business application?

Because when I started my business, I didn't have to apply, at the federal level.

You know, historically, I had an LLC. I registered that with the state. Some people had sole pro proprietorship. What does this mean?

Because we have 33 million plus businesses. But that only grows on net. Less than a million a year. So how is it possible that we have 19 million new application starts. And so far, no one has really been able to give me an answer. I have one -- one committee, you know, related to the House, who thinks that maybe there's an information that came from the state census data. I asked them. They actually are having a committee hearing. And I asked them, if they could ask, the FDA administrator. And putting her on the hot seat. Because they're running around, touting these made-up statistics to sound like they're some champion of small business. At the same time, Glenn, NFIB came out with their fall business optimism index today.

The 30-second consecutive months, that small business optimism has been below the historical average. And that's a 50-year average.

GLENN: Well, that's because they fear Donald Trump is coming back.

CAORL: For 32 months, yes.

GLENN: It's crazy. Because I see this number, of 19 million small businesses. And I -- and I am like, I thought, that was just because of all the businesses, that they had put out of business. They're like, starting up new businesses. So I just thought, they were taking credit. Like they do with all the job creation.

We've created more jobs. No, you didn't. People went back to work. You had told them, you cannot work.

So, of course, there were people going back to work.

But you're saying, this isn't that, at all. This is possibly even made up.

CAORL: Yeah. It's -- it's something that nobody knows really what it means. It certainly is not a prop -- it's not a prop for new small businesses created, which is what they're intimating. And we know the number of small businesses, you know, a year ago, was 32-point-something million, and then it climbed to 33-point-something million.

You know, yes, that's on that. Unless they're killing a million small businesses a year, which we know, they're certainly trying. But I don't think they've succeeded in doing it yet. That this is an absolute -- it's just, you know, spouting off nonsense.

And they're doing this, you know, again and again to gaslight people. Into things are so great. We're so in your corner. But at the same time, she's coming out, and she's tweeting about anti-small business policies.

Like, the Pro Act, that she said she's going to put in place. Which, for people who don't know, that's the anti-gig worker and anti-independent contractor language from California's 85 (phonetic) taken nationally. And they want to kill the gig economy and all the small businesses that depend on independent contractors, in favor of unions and big business.

So it's very difficult, to say, I am the small business. I am the worker candidate.

And still be in favor of these things. Which is why I equate it to being like McDonald's being pro-Catholic.

GLENN: You know, it is -- as a small business owner myself.

I look at tomorrow. And think, if they get in, the regulations, just the regulations, alone, that are still sitting out there, that they want to impose.

Will just crush small businesses.

These guys, you know, they used to say, well, the -- the Republicans are in with big business.

Well, then we're also in with small business too.

You know, they had a business attitude.

These guys are only big business.

They are only in with the giant global corporations.

That's all they care about. And it's honestly, like they're trying to impoverish, the small business.

And impoverish the middle class.

Without moving any of the middle class up. They're moving them all down.

CAORL: Yeah. I'm glad that you brought up regulations.

Because as I mentioned, there's this House Committee meeting right now.

And they came out with a report earlier this year, that the Biden-Harris agenda. Imposed $1.7 trillion in regulations on small businesses.

Ask that was before we've had some of these pending regulations, go into place. So I am certain, that that's higher.

And that is millions upon millions of hours that are wasted. That is dollars that are wasted.

And that's a barrier to success. You know, we keep hearing this ridiculous phrase, the opportunity economy.

Well, if you want to create opportunity, you reduce war about barriers. You reduce regulations.

You reduce taxes. You reduce the government being up in your business.

And you have the government minding their own business.

So that you can go off and work in your business.

That is what it is all about.

GLENN: You know, I know that our audience is heavy on entrepreneurs.

And people who have done business for a long time.

But there's also a younger generation that listens.

And explain, why regulations hurt opportunity.

CAORL: They hurt opportunity. Because number one, they're costly. Two, you're spending time, complying with the regulation, instead of spending the time working and growing your business.

And the challenge is that if you are a big company. If you're the Amazons of the world. If you're the Walmarts of the world. You have -- not only a whole balance sheet to deal with this.

You have a whole host of people in your company. Whether it's HR. Or whether it's some other administrative functions that can deal with these regulations.

When it comes to small business, the majority, greater majority of small businesses. It's just beyond -- so it's one person, who is already wearing all of those hats trying to deal with this. Even if you have some employees, you don't have the wherewithal, the ability. You're struggling enough to deal with inflation, finding the right workers, you know, remaining competitive, dealing with cyber security and the like. You don't have time, and you don't have the bandwidth. And you don't have capital, to deal with these regulations.

And some of them are so onerous, that people want to close their business. Something that we've been talking about, Glenn, for months now.

That the corporate transparency act, which is this registration, with the financial crimes division of the Treasury. I've had hundreds upon hundreds of small business owners, and people looking to start small businesses, saying that they don't want to. They want to close their business. They don't want to start.

Because they don't want to deal with the asymmetrical risk of having their information exposed or the government coming after them, for doing something wrong.

So because the government is imposing this regulation, which, by the way, is still in flux.

It's preventing these entrepreneurs from taking those risks. And creating opportunity. Which creates jobs. Which creates more dollars in their community. Which grows the economy.

Which is what we need, to move ourself forward. This is so obvious.

But all they want to do is take away wealth. Create barriers. Redistribute it. And make it revery challenging. For a small business owner, to succeed.

GLENN: You -- I think it was you, Carol.

Said, oh, maybe six months ago, we were talking. And you said, Glenn, most of the stuff that they've done, doesn't really kick in until 2025.

So we haven't felt the full impact, of Bidenomics yet. Was that you that said that to me.

CAORL: Quite probably. Quite probably.

GLENN: Okay. So what is it that is coming still, that we haven't felt. Describe next year. Just as it stands, without any new policies. If we just continued where we are?

CAORL: Well, as I said, the House small business committee, is doing a markup on seven different pieces of legislation, trying to overturn, you know, all of these stringent rules for small business. The corporate transparency act. We have until the end of the year, for that to go into effect. If there's no delay. Which, by the way, there's two delay bills. Two repeal bills.

And seven lawsuits. If we don't get that done by the end of the year. Then people are going to be seen as compliant. Then on top of that. You know, we have the tax cuts and jobs act, you know, large pieces of that, is expiring and changing the way the small businesses have to look at their taxes and figure out, you know, what makes them -- from an administrative standpoint. So, you know -- and that's, again, scratching the surface.

So, you know, one after another, there are things in the pipeline. And then if Kamala Harris were to become president.

Again, day one. They will try to rule by executive order. One of the other things, you know, this Department of Labor rule. Very tight. Independent contractor world.

That went into effect in March. They haven't truly been enforcing it yet. I haven't seen much in the way of enforcement. But if they start to crack down on that, that is something that could kill all of the small business across -- across-the-board.

So there are just so many different things, and it's challenging enough to own your own business.

As you know, the small business owner. To not constantly having to be worried about what the next shoe that is going to drop, coming from your own government.

GLENN: Carol, one last question. I would like to take a one-minute break. And then I would like you to come back and talk about. They're talking about a 50-basis point drop in the interest rate in loans.

Some people say, that's really good.

Some people say, that could collapse everything. Can you -- can you explain if that's a good thing or a bad thing, at this point?

Carol Roth is with us. So tell me about the options the fed have, has now.

What's happened with employment. Why they might be dropping the interest rate.

And is it a good thing or a bad thing?

CAORL: Well, so I have always contented that the fed, didn't have the right tools, to address inflation.

And inflation was coming from the pie constraints, not demand. That the Fed really focus on his demand. And after 15 years of zero interest rate policy. That it wasn't them, that changed much of what was going on.

In terms of demand for new loans. Et cetera.

But they have taken up the interest rate very high.

And a lot of people in the market.

A lot of investors, feel like they are behind the curve, in terms of normalizing policy.

Because they don't want to keep it so restrictive, that they cause a recession.

That's the concern all along.

So now that inflation has come down on a headline number. We know cumulatively, it's up over 20 percent. And that's what Americans are contending with. But from a policy standpoint, they see that inflation is coming down. And they see that the labor market, hmm, isn't quite as robust as they had hoped. So they are trying to address policy, to, you know, quash any recessionary outcomes. That's really what they're trying to do.

They have a couple choices. Right? They can do nothing as they have done for quite a while. They can deliver a cut and now they're deciding between --

GLENN: We have about a minute.

CAORL: -- a half a percent. And a quarter percent.

A half of percent may be bad news for them.

Because it may give the market a signal, that things are worse off, than they are.

So I think they will be a little bit more cautious. And go for that 25-basis point or whatever percent cut.

GLENN: All right. So you don't think that it will -- unless it's 50 basis points, I don't think that it will be a bad thing. Other than signaling that things might be worse than they thought.

CAORL: Right. And it's a much bigger signal at 50, than it is at 25, given where we stand with all the data. But I know you have limited time. We can get into this in another day.

GLENN: Yeah. And I'm not sure that anybody will want to open up the purse strings at this point.

I think everybody is waiting to see, what will happen, you know, with the -- with presidential election. I mean, because we're going one way or the other. And they're in opposite directions.

So it's kind of a scary place to be, as an investor, or a small businessperson. Or just, you know, a regular worker, in America today.

Carol, thank you so much. Carol Roth.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Whitney Webb: How You Can BREAK FREE of the Chains of the Elites

Are you truly free, or is your life quietly controlled by systems most Americans never question? In this eye-opening conversation, Glenn Beck speaks with investigative journalist Whitney Webb about how the Elites, banks, and global systems have created modern forms of enslavement, all while the public remains largely unaware. They discuss the urgent need for local self-reliance, alternative financial systems, and taking personal responsibility to protect yourself and your family. This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes freedom is guaranteed, and it’s time to see the truth and act before it’s too late.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

SHOCKING: Glenn Beck Interviews 'Detransitioner' Deceived by Doctors

Claire Abernathy was just 14-years-old when doctors told her parents she’d take her own life without hormones and surgery. They promised “gender care” would save her life. Instead, it left Claire with irreversible scars, broken trust, and a lifetime of regret. Her mom was told she was required to comply. No one ever addressed the bullying, or trauma Claire endured before being rushed into medical transition. Now, years later, both Claire and her mother are speaking out and exposing how families are misled, how doctors hide risks, and how children are left to pay the price. With federal investigations now underway, their story is a warning every parent needs to hear.

Deep State NGO CAUGHT trying to restart opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan

Was an NGO with deep government ties trying to RESTART the opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan while former Taliban members were on its payroll...only to be caught DESTROYING the evidence?! The State Department's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie joins Glenn Beck to expose what he found when he was made Acting President of the United States Institute of Peace. Plus, he debunks ProPublica’s claim that DOGE “targeted” an “Afghan scholar who fled the Taliban.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Darren, welcome to the program. How are you? Darren, are you there? Is he there?

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Okay. Check if he's there. Is he? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney.

STU: Trying to shut him down. They don't want peace. They don't want peace.

GLENN: They don't. They don't.

He is -- he is a big-time anti-globalist. I've got to tell you, what we're doing with the State Department. I absolutely love. The State Department has been a big problem for this country for a very long time. It's what's gotten us into these global wars. These endless wars, and everything he is.

And, I mean, I don't know what happened to Marco rube, but he is tremendous.

And the way president Trump is appointing different people like Darren, it's fantastic. Darren, are you there? Darren.

STU: Something must be wrong with the lines. Because we are talking to him offline on the phone here. And it does seem to be working, but not coming through our broadcast board here for whatever reason.

GLENN: Well, let's see if we can get that fixed, and maybe let me just talk here for five, six minutes on something else. Then we'll take a break and come back and see if we can get him.

There's something else that I really want to talk about. And that is this flag-burning thing. Now, it's not an amendment.

This is something that the president is putting up in an executive order and has very little teeth to it.

But I -- I -- look, I understand. As a guy putting an enormous flagpole up at my house today.

I mean, an enormous flagpole.

I love the flag. I love it!

And there are a few things that make me more angry than see somebody you set our flag on fire.

For a lot of people, that's a punch in the gut, especially our military people. And it has been planted on distant battlefields. It's raced after victory. Saluted in the morning, or should be in our schools and folded and given to the hands of grieving families. It feels like spitting on every sacrifice, that ever made this nation possible. And the argument against flag burning is really simple: It dishonors the idea of all of that. Okay?

And it defends millions of people, including me. It disrespects, I think the veterans that bled. The families who mourned. The dream that binds us together.

However, here's the hard truth: Symbols only mean something, in a land where freedom is alive.

If you outlaw the burning of a flag, the you have placed the cloth above the Constitution that it represents. You have made the flag an idol.

We don't worship idols. If you can only praise the flag and never protest it, it just stops being a symbol of freedom. And starts being an idol of obedience.

Now, that's the argument for allowing it. At least to me.

Because the real strength of a free nation is -- is to -- it's -- it's how we protect, not the speech we love, but how we endure the speech we hate!

And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And, you know, they -- the line they drew wasn't an easy one. Freedom of speech, stops where it directly -- directly insights violence. And that's it same thing, kind of, in this executive order.

You can burn the flag. But if I'm not mistaken, but if it incites violence, then you're in trouble.

And that's true. But the bar of inciting violence is so incredibly high. And it's -- it doesn't have anything to do with speech that offends. It's not speech that stirs anger. Not speech that wants you to punch the speaker in the mouth. It's speech only, that provokes imminent and specific violence.

And unless it's that be with the government doesn't have any right to -- to get into the business of silencing speech. Ever. Ever. Ever.

It is a hard line. And that standard is really hard. It's painfully hard.

Because what our citizenship requires, this is civics. What our citizenships require, is that we defend -- oh, I hate this.

We defend the right of your opponent to mock everything that we hold sacred.

Now, I want you to think of this. You can burn a Bible. You can burn the Word of God. But some want to make it illegal to burn a flag. Where are our priorities? You can burn the Constitution. The words that actually are the ones that stir us into action. But you can't burn a flag.

You can't burn a Koran. Can't burn them. Can't. Can't.

You will -- you will quickly come to a quick end, not legally. But you will come to a quick end. I don't ever want to be like that. Ever!

You burn a Bible. I think you're a monster. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?

But you have a right to do it. Why are we drawing a line around the flag? It -- the reason is -- is because we feel things so passionately. And that is really a good thing, to feel love of country so passionately. But then we have to temper that. My father used to tell me, that I think this country needs to hear over and over again, every day. My father -- we would talk to somebody. And we would walk away. And he would go, I so disagree with everything that man just said. But, Glenn, son, he would say. I will fight to the death for his right to say it. He used to say that to me all the time. Which now lees me to believe, I know where I've got my strong opinions from. Because dad apparently would disagree with a lot of people all the time.

But that was the essence of freedom. That is the essence of what sets us apart. Standing for universal, eternal rights like free speech. It's not easy. It means you have to take the size of those people that offend you. It means -- it doesn't mean you have to disagree with it. You can fight against it. You can argue back and forth.

But you -- can you tolerate the insults to the things that you love most. That is so hard, and that is why most of the world does not have freedom of speech. It's too hard! But our Founders believed people are better than that. Our citizens can rule themselves!

And the only way you can rule yourself is if you don't have limits on freedom of speech. So the question is, do we want to remain free? Or do we want to just feel good? It really is that simple. It's why no one else has freedom of speech. It's too hard! I think we're up to the task. Okay. Give me 60 seconds. And then we will try again.

The -- there's certain moments in history, that test not just entire nations, but the hearts of those who live in the nations. And right now, the people of Israel are living in one of those moments. Sirens in the night. Families huddled together.

Elderly men and women. Who remember a time when help never came. All of them wonder. Is anybody going to stand with us, this time?

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews exists to answer that question. They provide food, shelter, security, and hope. Real hope and help in the middle of a crisis! And every act of generosity from people like you sends a clear message. You are not alone. When you support the fellowship, you are joining hands with believers all around the world to lift up God's people, when they need it most. And it is a promise in action. It's a testimony that our faith isn't just words. It's love delivered right on time. And this is your chance to be part of something that really, truly matters. Something that is eternal. To stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel. And say, we're with you. We're not going to fight your wars. Not going to fund your wars. But we're with you. You have a right to live and exist in peace. To learn how you can help. Visit IFCJ.org. IFCJ.org. Go there now. IFCJ.org. Ten seconds. Back to the program.
(music)
All right. Let me -- let me bring Darren in. Darren, are you there now?

DARREN: Yes!
GLENN: Oh, God. Thank goodness.
Thank you for putting up with us. I don't know what happened with the phone system. But, first of all, tell me what the US Institute of Peace is. I've never even heard of it.

DARREN: That is a fantastic question. And I'll try to give the abbreviated answer, because I know we don't have several hours.

GLENN: Good. I know.

DARREN: But US Institute of Peace is one of lesser known, but quite important member of the NGO archipelago, that was created in the '80s. It belongs to the same cohorts as national endowments for democracy.

GLENN: Oh.

DARREN: And some other -- some other better known NGOs that really in the broad context of things. In kind of the sweep of things, was created as a kind of reorganization of the government structure in the aftermath of the church type committee hearings that expose a lot of the dirty dealings of government agencies such as the CIA, and so sort of a broader response to that government lie was to create this NGO layer of governance, with an armed distant plausible deniability, a kind of chameleon character of not exactly being government, not exactly being private, in order to fulfill some of those more sensitive functions that had been exposed in the course of the church hearings.

And so US Institute of Peace is one of those NGOs that had particular focus on conflict regions. But, of course, as I think you -- you suggested earlier, peace requires at the very least, an asterisk. Because there involves a lot of things, that conventional, most American citizens would not think should belong as part of the portfolio of something calling itself an institute of peace.

GLENN: So what was the thing with the -- with this Taliban member that was getting money from us?

DARREN: Right. So this is an interesting case. So there's a whole saga of a takeover of the US institute of peace under -- under DOGE.

And that's really a fascinating story unto itself. Just to give you a sense of what these characters were like. They barricaded themselves in the offices.

They sabotaged the physical infrastructure of the building. There were reports of there being loaded guns within the offices.

GLENN: Wow!

DARREN: There was one, like, hostage situation where they held a security guard under basically kind of a false imprisonment type situation. It was extremely intense.

Far more so than the better known story of USAID. And in the course of all of that, they tried to delete a terabyte of data, of accounting information that would indicate what kind of stuff they were up to.

What kind of people they were paying. And in the course of that, DOGE found that one of the people on their payroll. Was this curious figure, who had a prominent role in the Taliban government. And then seemed to kind of play a bunch of angles across each other.

Sort of one of these sixer types in the middle of Afghanistan.

The question is, what the heck is an organization like this, having an individual, who is a former Taliban member on their payroll.

It underscores how incredibly bizarre the whole arrangement is. And to just reinforce that. I think even more bizarre than having this former Taliban guy on the payroll is the kind of schizophrenic posture exhibited by the chief -- one truly bizarre thing is that one of the US Institute of Peace's main kind of policy agendas was basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade had dissipated under Taliban leadership. They had multiple reports coming out, basically saying, this is horrible, that the opium trade is diminished under the Taliban. Meaning, finding some way to restore it. How bizarre is that!

GLENN: What was their thinking?

DARREN: Well, it's -- it's very strange, and it depends on what kind of rabbit holes you want to go down. But the whole story of opium and Afghanistan and its connection to, you know, government entities, is a -- is a very intricate and delicate and fascinating one. But it seems very clear that the US Institute of Peace was involved in that story to some degree because their public reports. They had a full-the time guy of basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade dissipated under the Taliban. And, meanwhile, they're funding this former Taliban guy.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Now, ProPublica got this. And you have released the statement on it. And ProPublica just completely white-washed this -- said this guy was a victim, and his family was taken hostage. Was his family ever taken hostage because he was exposed?

And correct the ProPublica story, would you?

DARREN: Yeah, I mean, the ProPublica thing, as usual and as expected was a total joke.

GLENN: Yes.

DARREN: I mean, this guy, I'm not an expert on this particular person's history. But what's very clear is he was a former Taliban guy, and he was probably one of these people, who was playing all sides, made a lot of enemies. I know that there were several kind of attempts on his life by the Taliban, in the course of various -- various decades.

This has nothing to do with -- with DOGE.

I mean, he's a known quantity in the region.

And somebody who has made a lot of enemies.

And he was not -- he was on the payroll of the US institute of peace.

And nobody is expecting something like that. So then, and, again, there's this sort of hostile takeover situation.

Where the people are barricading he themselves in. Trying to delete all this data.

And sure enough, what's in the data, is stuff like this.

These random former Taliban guy, making his contract with $130,000.

GLENN: You know, this is the -- this is the real Deep State stuff, that I think bothers people so much.

Look, we expect our CIA to do stuff, we don't necessarily want to do it. We expect it.

When it's in the State Department.

When every department is pushing out money to NGOs to overthrow governments and everything else.

It's out of control!

It's just completely out of control.

And who is overseeing all of that.

DARREN: That's a great question.

I think part of the NGO -- UCEF was almost a cutout of a cutout.

A fourth of its money came from USAID.

In many ways, it was a cutout of USAID. Which itself was a cutout.

So there are many layers of distance. Plausible deniability.

And UCEF, I think institutionally really perfected this chameleon structure of being able to plausibly present itself as government. When that was convenient for what they were doing.

And also to present itself as a private organization, when that was convenient.

It's a very intricate setup that they had, that was truly optimized for this chameleon character of plausible denial operations. In conflict zones. Doing God knows what, with American taxpayer money.

And it's just an absolute hornet's nest.

We have recovered that terabyte that they tried to delete. And once we get things settled in the building itself, I intend to do a kind of transparency effort, whereby we release all of this material to the public.

GLENN: Good. Good.

DARREN: Just like I'm doing at the State Department. I'm currently acting as secretary at the State Department. And doing a transparency effort here. After I eliminated the global engagement center, which was sort of the internal censorship office within the State Department, decided, we've got to -- we've got to air this out to the public.

So within the next couple of weeks.

We'll have our next tranche of helps you of thousands of emails, documenting what this were doing.

GLENN: I would love you to go back on, through those emails.

I think you guys in the State Department are doing an amazing job. Thanks for being on.