Ep. 492 Are Republicans Getting Ready to Sell You Out?
In this episode I address the Republican Party's refusal to address the entitlements crisis worsened by Obamacare. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republicaid-party-1498690805 I also address the attempts by liberal media types to impugn conservatives and attach them to political violence. Finally, I discuss a groundbreaking study which debunks liberal talking points on the minimum wage, and the liberal efforts to destroy its credibility. https://www.wsj.com/articles/seattle-workers-pay-for-the-minimum-wage-1498692030
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
They've been tweeting to me, Bongino's a nut, Bongino's a blanker, blanker.
The Dan Bongino Show.
Everywhere big government gets bigger, corruption grows bigger, and these liberals just keep going on and on and on about how great big government is, and they can't prove to you any examples of how wonderful big government is almost anywhere.
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
Young kids, you are too stupid to figure out your health insurance needs, so we're gonna hammer your cabooses to death until you figure out that the government knows what's best and you're an idiot.
On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Alright, welcome to The Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino, producer Joseph Armacost.
How are you today?
Doing well, Mr. Bongino.
Yeah, man.
A lot going on, right?
I'm always calling Joe each day with some new business thing that comes our way.
I got an interesting one yesterday.
I got a fascinating email.
Do I know about this one?
No, this is a new one.
I actually have to tell you about it after the show.
But, uh...
Yeah, the Renegade Republican Podcast has really gone into areas we never expected.
I think Joe and I expected to reach a few people here and there and maybe get the message out.
We never expected it to become the second or third biggest conservative podcast around right now.
I don't know, man.
I think you do a pretty good job.
Well, thank you.
And thanks to everyone who listens.
I really appreciate it.
All right, a lot to talk about today, as always.
I want to get into this thing about liberal double standards with the media.
I mean, we've actually had an attack by a liberal nutbag on members of Congress in what would have been the most tragic political assassination in American history if he hadn't been stopped by the Capitol Police.
Of course, the incident with that Hodgkinson guy, Steve Scalise, and the shooting.
We actually had an attack, and yet the liberals are now, again, applying a totally different set of standards to conservatives than they do to actual liberals where there's actually been an attack.
So Joe was kind enough to cut some sound on that, which is really going to blow your mind.
So we'll get to that in a second.
Before we get to that, today's show brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
I love the email feedback on this product.
I really appreciate it, folks.
I am still yet to get any negative feedback on this, which, I'll be honest with you, is unusual.
The greatest sponsors in the world.
I usually get at least one person who's like, I didn't like the packaging tape they used on it.
I've got nothing but glowing feedback on Brickhouse Nutrition's product called Dawn to Dusk.
It's an energy pill and is a fantastic supplement.
I love it.
It's better than coffee.
It's better than energy drinks because it doesn't have the problem that these products have, which are the downs.
Yeah, you get the energy and then an hour later, you're ready to collapse and you feel terrible the rest of the day.
These guys at Brickhouse figured out a way to develop a time release energy product,
give you a nice smooth 10 hour boost in energy, help you get through the day,
nice elevation in your mood.
It's a really terrific product.
Great for cops, for firemen, crossfitters, mixed martial arts guys, working men and women
who just have long, tough days ahead, and frankly, some working moms out there
just need to get through the day.
My wife loves it.
She takes it before her hot yoga class, and she really digs it.
It's one of her favorite products she's ever taken.
Give it a shot, go to brickhousenutrition.com/dan.
That's brickhousenutrition.com/dan, and pick up a bottle of Dawn to Dust today,
I really love getting your emails about it.
Okeydoke.
So yeah, this is absolutely incredible.
I actually wrote that in my book here where I keep my notes for the show.
It says absolutely incredible.
So a Sanders supporter, a Bernie Sanders supporter, Shoots and nearly kills multiple members of Congress.
Puts one of them in critical condition, Steve Scalise, who just got out of critical condition.
Hits him in the hip with a rifle round.
Fires him.
The guy's a devout Sanders reporter, a Sanders supporter, a Sanders volunteer.
And, Joe, you listen to every show because you're the producer.
Were we not crystal clear on this that this is nobody's fault but the shooter?
That it's not Bernie Sanders' fault?
Were we not clear on this?
Now, I'm not alone in this.
No credible conservative Republican or Libertarian I know, again, is out there saying that Bernie Sanders should be held responsible for this maniac.
Now, I am not absolving groups that have actually called for violence of responsibility.
You know, if you're going to be out there in one of these one of the Black Lives Matter people calling for pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon, what do we want?
Dead cops.
You're actually calling for violence.
You have a different level of culpability.
Okay?
That's different.
But Bernie Sanders, for as crazy as his politics are, Has not called for people to shoot members of Congress, okay?
He's not responsible for this.
I can disagree with the man, and I think you should too, over his crazy socialist redistributionist failed policies.
I think those policies do cause political violence against people, but I don't think he's calling for violence against people.
He is not responsible for that, okay?
Now, why am I laying this out and rehashing what was, you know, news from two weeks ago?
Because you can listen to the show, and if you binge listen, you probably heard it a couple hours ago.
None of us are holding Bernie Sanders responsible for what one of his supporters did, because he's not responsible.
Guilt by association is a really sorry, silly, pathetic move people do when they can't make a sound argument.
They just go, oh, well, Bernie Sanders did it, or Sarah Palin did it.
Remember the Jared Lee Loeffler shooting and the crosshairs for Sarah Pack over Gabby Gifford's district?
Oh, Sarah Palin did it, like the failed New York Times happened to say.
I bring all this up because, folks, something actually happened with a direct nexus to Sanders, and sound, sensible Republicans have said, no, Bernie's not responsible.
Now, we haven't yet seen anything happen to members of the- I mean, like, God forbid, and thankfully.
Nothing like what happened to these members of Congress.
Nothing has even happened there, to that degree.
And yet, there are already Democrats blaming Donald Trump for something that hasn't even happened, while Republicans absolve Bernie Sanders for something that has actually happened.
Now, Joe was kind enough to cut a few of these cuts.
The first one is at Clarissa Ward, right Joe, from CNN?
This is CNN already preemptively blaming Trump for the actions of a deranged supporter that doesn't even exist yet, that hasn't done anything, but it's already Trump's fault.
Play that cut.
At what point does this become dangerous?
And I'm not just talking about dangerous in terms of tearing at the social fabric.
I'm talking about dangerous as in a journalist gets hurt.
Because I can tell you working overseas in war zones, you know, people are emboldened by the actions of this administration, emboldened by the all-out sort of declaration of war on the media.
So, Joe, let's get this straight.
You and I are reasonable guys.
Let's just be clear on this.
We're going to try to do a reasonable analysis, right?
Trump called catches.
Well, other people caught the media, but Trump puts out there the message that CNN has been caught, which they were, on hidden camera, humiliated, admitting the Trump story is a nothing burger.
There's no evidence.
All the Project Veritas tapes, if you haven't seen them, we covered them in the last few shows.
There are CNN producers and CNN talent, CNN like Van Jones, on hidden camera.
And you can disagree with the tactics, but nobody's disavowing the content of those tactics.
On camera, saying that they're basically setting up Trump for a witch hunt, that there's nothing there in this Trump-Russia thing.
Trump calls him out, and now according to CNN's own talent, after they got called out for lying, Joe, Trump is now responsible for violence against CNN talent in the future, even though Trump's not calling for violence against CNN.
Again.
You, you, you wonder why I, I, every day I wake up, you know, I heard something once, uh, if someone knows where this quote comes from, please email me, danielatbongino.com.
I'd appreciate it.
I read once, he said, there are two kinds of people that see the world differently, the super political and the super rich.
You know, they see the world differently than us.
Well, I'm the super political guy, like everything's political to me.
And you wonder why I wake up in the morning a lot of times a happy warrior, but a warrior nonetheless.
Because I see stuff like this and I'm just, folks, I'll be honest with you, I'm just frustrated because there's nothing you can do.
Two plus two to any rational person equals four, except if you're a liberal of the liberal media.
And we try to take the moral high ground, because it's the right thing to do, by saying things like, Bernie Sanders is not responsible.
It's irresponsible for me, as a, I think, a decent person, a sinner nonetheless, but a decent person, it'd be irresponsible for you too, Joe, to say, no, Bernie Sanders did that, he should be responsible.
Because it's not true!
No, you wouldn't say, Joe, I know you would, because it's not true.
But you understand how the left has no problem lying at all about an incident that hasn't even happened?
Steve Scalise is still in the hospital recovering from a deranged liberal lunatic.
Republicans absolve the liberals that aren't calling for violence of any responsibility for it, even though they have crazy ideas, by the way.
Nothing has even happened yet, thankfully.
But I'm sure there's some nut out there who's going to do something, not because of Trump, but because he's nuts!
And liberals are already calling Trump responsible.
Again, you guys have no backbone.
You have no morals.
You have no ethics.
You are not good people.
And the only thing I can take solace in, the only thing, is that I absolutely believe in the second creation and the afterlife.
And I know one day we will all, all be held accountable for what we've done wrong on this earth.
And I know what you're doing right now is morally and ethically abhorrent.
I know it.
And you should know it too.
That's the only thing that placates me a little bit from losing my mind on the show over how liberals are just some, are just horrible, horrible people.
So that's not it.
Joe cut another one for me this morning.
This is, what is it, the Atlantic editor-in-chief, Joe, Jeff Goldberg.
This is him directly pitting the blame on Trump for an attack that hasn't even happened yet,
again, despite the fact that an actual attack by a Sanders supporter happened. Play that cut.
The problem is, and this is what I worry about more than anything else, is that
there are people in the country who don't understand that this is a cynical reality TV
game and are going to hear over and over again from the president that the reporters,
journalists, are enemies of the state.
And someone, God forbid, but someone is going to do something violent against journalists in a large way, and then I know where the fault lies.
He already knows, Joe.
He already knows.
So again, when you're Trump, you're supposed to allow the media to impugn your character, to make up false Russia stories, to accuse you of criminal activity, to accuse you of treason.
This has all been done and said, by the way, folks.
You're supposed to allow that to happen.
You then catch the very same media on tape admitting it's all garbage and nonsense, that they're making the whole thing up.
You're then supposed to stay silent.
And if you don't stay silent, according to Jeff Goldberg, here from The Atlantic, in that quote, it is directly, Joe, it is directly your fault if someone out there in the public who's crazy decides to, God forbid, engage in an act of violence against the media.
And I do mean, God forbid.
It's Trump's fault already.
Idiots.
Imbeciles.
Far-left activists are nothing more than anti-anti-communists.
Remember, we're the anti-communists, they are the anti-anti-communists.
Meaning they don't stand for anything but being against us.
And that's because we stand for liberty and freedom.
And liberty and freedom is their enemy!
They believe in the power of the state, and the power of the state cannot coexist with a vibrant, free individual.
All they want to do, the activist far-left, is assault your freedom, assault your liberty, assault the church because it's a source of independent big R rights.
They want to assault the family because it's a source of values not given from the state.
These are not legitimate human beings.
Well, they're legitimate human beings in that they exist with the same DNA code that we all do, but they're not, I should say, they're not ethical human beings.
They are legitimate.
I don't want to, you know, I don't want to devalue human life because then we'll fit into their, you know, their narrative.
But what I- they're not- They're just containers of abhorrence.
They are, yes!
They're vessels of ab- of hatred.
They are!
And it's disgusting!
You know, I really love doing the show.
Every day I get up, but I really do get upset a lot.
And sometimes frustration and anger can be a good motivator to try to change things.
But I don't know how we change things with these people.
Like Joe said, they're like vessels of hatred.
How do you negotiate with that?
I mean, I don't understand.
How do you negotiate with people when you try to take the moral high ground?
You're like, okay, guys, even the most far left activists who says the dumbest things like socialism's great, communism's terrific.
They say things like that, but if they don't call for violence directly, they're not responsible for anybody else's activity.
For inciting, if they don't call for violence.
And we take the moral high ground and say, no, no, guys, I disagree with your stupid ideas.
But you're not responsible for anyone else's violence.
And then they turn around.
We don't call for violence or anything.
We're just calling out a mistake by CNN.
A deliberate mistake in one case.
This reporting on the Trump thing, which appears from the hidden camera tapes that they want to keep going.
And then they don't reciprocate.
They're like, no, no, you're right that we're right.
And we're right that you're wrong.
Pisses me off.
Alright, here's another one this morning.
A little salty today about this crap.
I picked a few stories.
So first we have the double standard with this guilt by association nonsense.
How we will never associate the left and accord guilt to them for the actions of crazy folks, but they will immediately do it to us even though nothing's happened.
That they can attribute to us.
Another thing.
This Medicaid fight is going bonkers, Joe, in D.C.
You know, I had mentioned this in relationship to Obamacare, but this has turned into a real sticking point.
And folks, for those of you out there, the reason I called the show The Renegade Republican was, you know, a couple of reasons.
I don't consider myself a Republican anymore because I don't know what the Republicans stand for.
The other reason was because Obama chose the name renegade as his Secret Service military code name.
So I thought we'd just take that.
We would just take the word back because it doesn't mean anything for Obama.
He's not a renegade.
He's a big government state.
He's a renegade about that.
Give me a break.
So I thought we would just fleece that for a moment and get it back to its original meaning.
But I'm not a Republican in the traditional sense now anymore, because the Republican Party, I don't know what they stand for.
I don't.
I don't even know, frankly, what the point of the Republican Party anymore is, except for some kind of organization for a national platform.
But the platform is so divorced from liberty and freedom now, that what's the point?
Joe, this Medicaid argument going on now with the Obamacare replacement bill is a perfect exemplar of this.
Now, when I say the Medicaid argument, let me define what we're talking about.
Medicaid fight.
Obama had, through Obamacare, instituted a policy to expand Medicaid to people way, way above the poverty line, including families that make up to $90,000 a year.
Now, folks, that is by no sound measure a definition of either national or global poverty.
I'm sorry.
You cannot sell to me that a family of three or four, whatever it may be, making 90,000 a year is living in poverty.
They may not be living a rich life.
You know, it is true in some areas of New York and D.C.
and mostly areas, Joe, run by liberals.
It's true, right?
L.A.
$90,000 may not go very far.
That's just a fact.
But that seems to be a liberal problem, not a national problem.
You put $90,000, you know, in Oklahoma, in certain areas of Oklahoma, and I promise you'll be doing okay.
I know that because my sister lives out there.
You'll be doing pretty well.
But liberals can even ruin $90,000 a year, which is amazing.
So expanding a program, Medicaid, which was designed to cover the health insurance via third-party payer, which is a broken model, but was government health insurance for people who are poor and telling people who are $90,000 a year plus in income that they are eligible for a program for the poor.
That's not a sound economic policy going forward.
And the example I use here, folks, constantly is the idea of, the analogy of the handicapped parking spot.
The handicapped parking spot was originally a good idea.
The idea that people who are handicapped and have a tough time getting access in and out of the car, you know, it's probably a good idea to keep a few spots.
You know, I think it's a sound business idea.
I don't, I don't think necessarily we always need a government solution to things, but it's probably a sound business idea to save a spot or two close to the doors and get in and get out, right?
The problem with the handicapped parking spot is while the original idea may have been a good one, a benevolent one, it has expanded to include now people who, and everyone's seen these stories, people who their definition of handicapped is not what you would associate with a handicap that prevents them from moving.
I mean, my wife can tell you stories left and right.
When she used to go to the bus stop in Annapolis, how people used to take up the handicapped spots and then run for the bus.
That defeats the purpose, folks.
Now, the point I'm trying to make is that when you expand the program for the poor to people who are not poor, the assets, the financial assets used to actually take care of the people who are poor are diluted amongst people who could rightly pay for their health insurance themselves and just don't want to.
The same way when someone who is not handicapped and is mobile and can move around takes a spot from someone in a wheelchair who has a really difficult time getting in and out of the car, the person in the wheelchair now doesn't have that asset, the spot, and has to park all the way down the parking lot.
What I'm trying to tell you folks, and to sum up in an economically maybe not so eloquent way here is, Resources are limited, and there is nothing, nothing liberals or weak Republicans, Greens or Democrats will ever do to change that.
You live in a tough world.
Suck it up, buttercup!
You live in a really tough world of very scarce resources everywhere.
There's a limited number of parking spots.
There's a limited amount of time a doctor can spend with you in a room.
There are a limited number of scalpels.
There's a limited number of water.
Nothing is unlimited, ever.
You don't live in utopia.
You don't live in heaven.
You are not there yet.
You got a lot of work to do.
Everything is limited.
If the Republican Party Cannot stop the growth in Medicaid because the Medicaid fight now is the Obamacare replacement, which I don't agree with, but to tell you where we stand now, they want to in four years, not even now, Joe, over a four-year timeline, they want to dial back the expansion in Medicaid.
I just talked about the people who make up to $90,000 a year.
They want to dial it back and not even cut the program.
They only want to cut the rate and grow so that there's more equitable sharing of federal and state tax dollars.
Because under the Obamacare plan, the states were only expected to pick up 90% of the bill.
I mean, excuse me, 10% of the bill.
I have it reversed.
And the states would, states 10%, the federal government 90%, which is a joke because it's all your money anyway, right?
But let's pretend for a minute that this is like phantom money, money fairy money.
They want to dial that back to a more equitable type 50-50 type split, right?
States and federal government over four years for people who are in that program.
Keep in mind, they're not even saying you're going to be kicked off.
They're just saying that the states are going to have to take on a bigger load of this, of the Medicaid.
And Republicans don't even want that!
There are Republicans from West Virginia and from Ohio, Republican senators, who are fighting this!
Now folks, I'm asking you a serious, a deadly serious question here.
If we can't stand up and say, hey listen, this is an economically unfeasible, completely unworkable plan that in the end is actually going to take assets away from the people it was designed to help, the poor, by giving them to people who are not poor and could produce said assets themselves, then we don't stand for anything.
We don't stand for anything.
You are literally taking a turkey leg off the plate of a poor person who is hungry to give it to someone who makes $90,000 a year and the Democrats are and now some Republicans are running on the fact that this is economically feasible and is a good idea?
Folks, You know, just like the last argument about correlation, causation, and guilt by association, I could blame this one completely on liberals, because, you know, liberals are married to the idea that resources are unlimited and we live in the money fairyland.
But this one I have to throw some Republicans in there, too, because there are.
There are Republicans who cannot defend this idea.
Now, I took a few notes on this, just to show you how bad the crisis with Medicaid is.
Our federal budget right now, 65% of the budget is mandatory spending, meaning Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
I'm not talking about the FBI, Secret Service, Roads and Bridges.
65% of the budget is none of that.
It's just Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.
Meaning our debt problem is almost entirely entitlement programs.
But again, Republicans don't want to even touch it.
They want to just go, you know, whistle past the graveyard like nothing's happening.
This one shocked me.
I got this from a Wall Street Journal piece today, by the way.
This, I had to read this one twice to make sure I was reading this right.
Did you know this, Joe?
The largest insurer in the world by enrollment.
Is Medicaid, it's not, it's not the British NHS, which the whole, you know, the UK, they get the National Health Service, right?
It's not the Canadian healthcare system.
The largest insurer in the world by enrollment is Medicaid.
I did not know that either.
We now have the biggest single payer government program in human history is Medicaid.
And spending grew, in case you're a goofy liberal who has no conception of numbers and how numbers relate to reality.
Spending on Medicaid grew 18% in 2015.
And what is that?
and 2015 and what is that 17 percent 2016. So for those of you saying these cuts are savage,
please explain to me how 18 percent 17 percent growth in the spending of Medicaid is a savage cut.
A savage cut to what?
What are you even talking about?
Do you understand?
Do you even do math?
Remember that guy don't tase me, bro?
Do you even do math, bro?
Do you even do math?
Like, do you understand math, or are you really that stupid?
Because you can't have it both ways.
You're either a liberal who does no homework at all, and you just don't understand the numbers, Or you're a liar.
There really is no third option.
I'm not trying to be a jerk.
There's no third option.
You either don't know what you're talking about, or you're lying to people.
And this is what frustrates me again about liberals.
They have no standards at all.
None.
They don't mention that Medicaid's broke.
They don't mention that Medicaid was designed for the poor and is now being given to people that aren't poor.
They don't mention that the program's engaged in explosive growth over the past two years.
All they say is, Remember that cut from yesterday, Joe, that you put together for me, the montage?
People will die if you do.
And you're like, how stupid are you guys?
Gosh, is it frustrating if we had an American media that ever told the truth, they would just give you the numbers.
I'm not even asking for a partisan media that leans right.
I'm just asking for a media that just tells you the truth, just basic facts.
Just go on the air and go, well Medicaid really hasn't been cut, it's grown by 18 to 17% over the past couple of years.
Just give them facts!
Just give them, they won't even do that because they're such hacks!
Oh, and they're still going, by the way, with this 22 million figure from the CBO report, which, by the way, on yesterday's show, I totally undressed the CBO.
They've never been accurate on Obamacare.
Frankly, they've never even been close.
They've been off by... I mean, the numbers, the margin is so high, it's not even worth considering what the CBO has to say.
But again, the CBO report, people are still reporting, oh my gosh, 22 million people lose insurance.
But Karl Rove brings up an interesting point today in a piece he wrote in the journal.
He says, that's fascinating how 22 million people are going to lose insurance according to the Obamacare replacement bill CBO report, Joe, when only 10 million people are actually under Obamacare.
How are 22 million going to, you know, I read that and I said, you know, You can have your beef with Rove.
I get that.
But one, he was a very nice guy.
I'll tell you that.
He had a great reputation in the Secret Service for being really, really nice to the agents.
And I don't usually get personal unless it's positive, for obvious reasons.
But in this case, I'm not making that up.
The guys really liked him.
He had, you know, occasional details once in a while.
They thought he was a great guy.
And I get it.
I totally understand.
I have some beefs with some of his political stances on the Republican side, too.
But he does write some pieces where you're like, wow, that's a really good point.
So 22 million people are going to, quote, lose insurance.
Meanwhile, that's not what they said.
The CBO report said they will choose not to buy crap Obamacare plans.
But how is that when only 10 million people are in the Obamacare exchanges?
How is that?
Well, I'll answer it for you.
This is what's so staggering about the CBO report, again, that you won't hear on the evening news.
That there are about 10 million of those people that are on Medicaid, Joe, that even though they're getting, and I'm using the air quotes here, Joe, free insurance, which we all know it's not, the taxpayers are paying for it, they don't even want that.
In other words, they will choose not to take government healthcare.
How incredible is that?
That it sucks so bad, Obamacare and Medicaid, the government-run program, that even when given it, quote, free, people still choose not to take it.
That makes up for the other, you know, 12 million or so people.
Because remember, he said 22 million people will lose insurance under Obamacare according to the CBO report under the Obamacare replacement.
That can't be!
There's only 10 million in the exchanges.
The other 10 million or so people on Medicaid who don't even want this crap plan!
Small little fact, folks.
Don't worry.
Don't let that get in the way of a good argument, of course.
It's just amazing.
And keep in mind, too.
One more thing about this Medicaid fight.
Just to sum up my overall point here, it's that the Republican Party's lost.
Not to keep quoting the journal, but they had a particularly good set of op-eds today.
There's one piece by Dan Henninger where he says, you know, what's the point of Trump even being a Republican anymore?
And Joe, I don't disagree with him.
What's the point?
Trump should just go out and say, you know what?
Until you guys figure out what you stand for, I'm just going to do this whole independent thing and you guys are on your own.
I don't blame him.
I mean, he's not really a diehard conservative anyway.
But Henninger's piece is, he's not wrong.
Like, what's the point?
These guys can't get their heads out of their asses.
They can't figure anything out.
They can't get Obamacare repealed, even though every single one of them promised to do so.
They can't get a tax cut.
They can't get this wall built.
They can't do it.
So what's the point?
They can't do anything.
What's the point?
They can't even agree that Medicaid, which is unquestionably, arithmetically going to bankrupt the country in conjunction with Medicare and Social Security.
They can't even agree that we should fix it.
All they asked is that we put a cap, a per-person cap, on the amount of spending in the future four years from now, Joe!
And Republicans don't even want to do that!
So what's the point?
You've already seeded the argument as a Republican, the Democrat argument, the liberal argument, that government solutions are best, even though government solutions are going to bankrupt us and are failing right now!
So what's the point?
There is no opposition party!
You have your Mike Lees, your Ted Cruz's, and your Rand Paul's, and that's it!
They should get together with Trump, find a few... I think this is a great idea, Joe.
You're not going to agree with Trump on everything, because he's not a doctrinaire conservative, right?
I think we can both agree.
He's definitely not a conservative on trade, and there have been some Planned Parenthood things I've been unhappy with.
There are things, unquestionably, where I think Paul, Lee, and Cruz could find some common ground with Trump.
Big tax cuts, maybe on a bolder conservative Obamacare reform, maybe school choice.
I mean, these are good, solid bedrock.
You don't have to have bedrock conservative principles.
You don't have to have everything, Joe.
Maybe they get together and they start whatever, the new conservative party or whatever, the renegade Republicans.
I don't know what they do.
I mean, you're welcome to the name, although I think we trademarked that.
I'm not sure.
I'll have to check with Conservative Review.
But you see my point?
Like, what's the point?
You know, it reminds me of what Jim DeMint, the former senator from South Carolina, said once.
He said he'd rather have, you know, what is it, one or two Ted Cruz's than 30 or 40 Arlen Specters, who, you know, God rest his soul, has died, who was unquestionably a moderate, who transferred over to be a Democrat, right?
What's the point of having a coalesced Republican movement if we don't stand for anything?
We can't even stop the growth of an already bankrupt program?
This is, like, sad.
It's pathetic.
Every one of them promised to repeal Obamacare and they can't do it.
Hey, one more point on this Medicaid before I move on to our last story of the day.
So the Urban Institute put out a study and everybody's quoting now about the Obamacare replacement.
This is hysterical, especially about the Medicaid reform.
They say this like this is a bad thing, Joe.
Like they want to force states to get a load of this.
This is the Urban Institute study.
To assume the costs of care.
What?
Really?
Let's replace the states with health insurance companies and see how ridiculous this Urban Institute report is, Joe.
They want to force health insurance companies to assume the cost of health care.
Um...
Ah...
Um...
I can't think of any more sound effects that...
I don't know where to go with that.
What did you think?
The money fairy existed?
So what you're basically saying is the states have people who live in the states that need health care and somebody has to pay for it?
Nice job, guys.
Good job, Urban Institute.
That is a five-star proclamation right there.
Okay, moving on to point two.
It would force the states to limit benefits.
Okay!
Let's remove states again and put insurance companies.
It would force insurance companies to limit benefits.
In contrast to what?
To unlimited benefits?
So, you're suggesting that if I want to go to the doctor six times a day, seven days a week, and demand urinal catheterization because I don't feel like going to the toilet every night, that that's okay.
Now, I know that sounds bad when you're a dopey lib like, limit benefits, but folks, all we're saying is that, again, to tie it back to the beginning of the show, resources are scarce, ladies and gentlemen.
Everything is limited.
You're not saying anything bold here.
They've gotta limit benefits?
Of course they're gonna limit benefits.
Nobody gets unlimited benefits.
I need a toenail shining.
Can you polish them up with, like, some compounding stuff?
Car wax?
I need shinier toenails than when I wear my flip-flops.
Folks, that's what you're saying!
Limited benefits in contrast to what?
Unlimited benefits?
In a world of scarce resources?
I want to see the doctor 47 times a day.
Yeah, but he's only in his office 8 hours.
It doesn't matter.
I'm demanding unlimited benefits.
Here's the third point from this ridiculous Urban Institute study.
Eventually the states are going to have to decrease the number of people served.
Again, in contrast to what?
In contrast to expanding the number of people served from 90,000 a year in income, Joe?
This is Medicaid, by the way.
This is a program for the poor.
Let's just give it, Joe, to people make 65 million a year.
Wow, what the hell?
Why not?
Joe, resources are unlimited.
Again, decrease the number of people served because it's going bankrupt.
Compared to what?
Increasing it now over 90,000?
That's like, think about this in relationship to the handicapped parking spots.
Someone's got to assume the cost of the spot, the people who own the business.
Secondly, they have to limit the spot's usage, right?
Of course they're going to have to limit.
And finally, it's going to have to decrease the people served.
Yes, because you want the people served to be actually handicapped.
Holy Moses, are these people dumb.
And they fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
Folks, there are two ways.
And only two ways to allocate every scarce resource in society and everything is scarce.
You can ration it or you can price it.
Once you get the government involved and you eliminate the pricing mechanism, the eBay function where we all get to bid on it, You have to ration!
What is your third way?
Please explain to me what the third way is.
If you allow people unlimited benefits, unlimited cost accumulation, and you increase the amount of people served by a government program ad nauseum, then how else are you going to allow the doctor to see all the people that now want his services because they're quote free, Joe?
You have to ration it!
Well, instead of rationing, it's prioritizing.
Yes, that's a good point.
Prioritizing to who, Joe?
To the politically connected people like they do in these single-payer systems when you're really wealthy and you get into the back door of the hospital.
But liberals are such scammers.
They don't want to tell people.
They act like there's an actual third way to do this.
Yeah, you just made one up.
I love that.
I'm going to steal that.
Joe's right.
The third way is, we'll call it prioritization, and what it's actually called is buying off a government bureaucrat to jump to the front of the line.
It's rationing by kicking everybody else off the line and sending a $100 bill to the bouncer at the hospital to let you in.
Un-freaking-believable, man.
All right, one more story, because it's another example of pure, unadulterated, far-left stupidity.
But before we get that, hey, have you picked up your one-month supply of emergency food?
I got a lot of feedback on this, my last read for my Patriot Supply.
Yeah, I think I told Joe this.
I guess it's a function of my skepticism and my overall general poor health from years of taking beatings, boxing, and mixed martial arts.
Listen, my patron supply makes emergency food, which I love.
It comes in this super slim plastic case.
You stick it in your closet, and I'm a big believer in having an emergency supply of food.
I honest to God, I think you're insane not to have it.
You're crazy.
Why would you not have, at minimum, a month's supply of emergency food?
It's nuts.
You ensure everything in your life that matters, except what?
The only ability to stay alive?
Food and water?
It's nuts.
So, during one of the reads, I've said, you know what?
The food lasts 25 years, which it does.
It's breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
You get 140 servings for just $99.
And I said, listen, I'll be long dead before this stuff goes bad.
And I got at least 30 or 40 emails from people, I'm not kidding, saying, you can't say that.
You're only 42.
By my math, you'll be 67, which is great.
Folks, I'm genuinely sorry, but I'm just a skeptic.
I am really beaten up badly.
I have like horrendous inflammation.
It won't be long.
It won't.
I've laid my hand at the life of the Lord.
I'm sure He'll take care of me.
But I'm not as optimistic.
And I thank you, everyone, who has sent me the emails, hoping a long life for me.
But I'm genuinely convinced 25 years is not in my cards.
But it is for my Patriot Supply and for their emergency food.
So do me a favor.
A lot of people are picking this up now.
I'm getting the emails on it.
Go to preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com and pick up your month's supply of emergency food now.
And thank you for caring.
I do genuinely appreciate it.
I'll try to make it past 67 and outlive your supply of my Patriot supply food.
All right.
Hey, one last story here.
So the Seattle minimum wage story I talked about the other day, National Bureau of Economic Research published the University of Washington study, which just annihilated the minimum wage.
And again, the journal had another terrific op-ed today, which I will put in the show notes available now at Bongino.com and Conservative Review.
Here's a line from an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today about the study, which totally debunked the effects of the minimum wage, which were obvious to you.
You ask employers to pay more money, Joe.
Shockingly, the money doesn't fall from the sky, and they either fire people or pay the people they have on staff less to compensate for the fewer people.
To compensate for the more money, they have to pay the few people who are left, right?
So in the journal, this is a quote, it says, let that sink in for a minute.
A campaign predicated on giving people a raise lowered paychecks by $125 a month.
So the University of Washington study showed that the Seattle minimum raise hike, which went from $11 to $13 an hour, it's going to go to $15 an hour, actually lowered paychecks among lower income folks by an unbelievable $125 a month.
So again, as I say, let that sink in, what I told you.
This was an exhaustive study, not done by a conservative think tank that had any kind of partisan dog in the fight.
Minimum wage hike costs lower income workers $125 a month.
Again, liberals don't, seriously, don't let facts get in the way of your stupid arguments.
Just keep going because it provides great fodder for my show.
But again, another example in the vein of today's show with Medicaid and these shootings by liberals that, They're just not real.
They're not genuine people.
They're just not.
They just don't live in the same universe you and I do.
Now, the reason I bring this up, the story today, the journal covered it, is because now the liberals are working the phones in the liberal unions, pushing another study by Berkeley, which showed that there really was no effect, but the study only uses the restaurant industry as a proxy.
Here's all you need to know, folks.
When you're working scientific data, you want the largest sample set possible.
If I give Joe a drug for, let's say, Joe's high blood pressure, and Joe responds nicely, but then Joe's working out or doing other things, there's a number of what they call in science, confounding variables, that you try to control, but in real life, it's really difficult to.
So the way we control for confounding variables, in other words, Joe's blood pressure may have went down because he changed his diet and didn't say anything, or he started working out.
You get what I'm saying, Joe?
It may have had nothing to do with the pill I gave you.
So the way we randomize the effects of confounding variables is we increase the sample size.
We don't only use Joe.
We use 100,000 people.
That would be a really large study.
But then if the drug still has an effect on, say, 95% of the people or whatever it may be, Joe, we can reasonably assume that there may be an effect to that drug.
You get what I'm saying?
Yeah.
What's interesting about this minimum wage story that they're pushing from Berkeley is they shrunk the sample size to just the restaurant industry.
In contrast to the study that showed minimum wage was destroying the income of lower income workers, which covered a big, huge data set of almost the entire Seattle labor market they could get their mitts on.
And all of a sudden again, the liberals who believe in science now, supposedly, are now touting a study which wasn't even as close to accurate as the University of Washington study because the University of Washington study used a larger sample set.
So again, your liberal friends just making stuff up, trying to advance a political narrative.
You know, touting themselves as being big believers in science who don't even understand basic statistical analysis.
It's pathetic.
It's sad.
They're costing you money.
They're costing us bankruptcy.
I mean, the violence thing is just disgusting, blaming Trump.
I mean, really, I woke up super salty when I wanted to cover a few of those stories.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
Thanks to everybody who picked up my book again yesterday on Amazon.
We had another big jump, my third book coming out, Protecting the President.
So I really appreciate that, and I will see you all tomorrow.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
