Ep. 503 The Swamp Wins Again on Spending and Healthcare
In this episode I address the major flaws in the just released Senate Obamacare replacement bill. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-senate-republican-healthcare-plan-leaves-taxes-on-the-wealthy-in-place-lets-people-buy-less-expensive-plans/article/2628509 https://www.cato.org/blog/are-obamacares-community-rating-regulations-system-price-controls?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=e52c706fae-Cato_at_Liberty_RSS&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_395878584c-e52c706fae-143016961&goal=0_395878584c-e52c706fae-143016961&mc_cid=e52c706fae&mc_eid=3fd7404a34 I discuss exposing federal budget and corresponding deficits. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/monthly-federal-spending-tops-400b-first-time I address the disturbing new abortion law in Oregon and the liberal love affair with population control. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449427/oregon-new-abortion-law-radical-grisly http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449426/have-fewer-children-decrease-carbon-footprint-leftists-urge https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/ending-the-myth-of-overpopulation?source=policybot Finally, I discuss the economics behind tax cuts and why they can increase tax revenues. https://www.wsj.com/articles/governors-and-mayors-should-be-begging-for-trumps-tax-cut-1499987072
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 Republic.
I'm Dan Bongino.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Man, I'm doing well.
Thanks, Dan.
Yeah, you know, last night I was thinking about this show and I'm like, Talking to my wife.
Shouldn't say like, but like, you know?
Yeah.
Very Alicia Silverstone from Clueless.
But I thought, gosh, I should just do a Saturday show for just thoughts I had during the week that I didn't include in the show that may not have been political.
Because I always feel like I have so much to say about other stuff.
But you know what it is?
I don't want to waste people's time.
I know they're in the car.
You got 45 minutes.
So, you know, I like to get right to the news.
You know, the whole idea of the show is that you listen to the show and the news of the day is covered.
But I see so much culture stuff I find interesting.
I just want to include this one story because it speaks, it's not a political story, but it speaks to a lot of what's going on in our culture right now for a number of different reasons, I think.
I don't know if you heard about this show, but Floyd Mayweather, who is widely considered to be the greatest pound-for-pound boxer of our time, he's, what, 49 and 0?
Most people know who he is.
If you don't, just know this.
He's a really unbelievable boxer, and his skills are unquestioned.
He's phenomenal.
You can't even hit the guy.
He's fighting, scheduled to fight, Conor McGregor.
Now, for those of you who don't know who Conor McGregor is, Conor McGregor is widely considered to be at least one of the best pound-for-pound mixed martial arts fighters in the world.
Now one's a boxer, one's a mixed martial arts guy.
They're fighting in a boxing match and they're out going around the country doing promotion for it.
And when I say promotion, they stick them both on a stage in front of a crowd of people and they basically insult each other and it's getting nasty.
I mean, really nasty.
You can watch the YouTubes of it.
McGregor, McGregor, and the reason I'm bringing this up is not because I care about this at all, but our society's obsessed with race, especially liberals.
McGregor's white, and he's Irish.
He has kind of an Irish accent.
He has an Irish accent.
Mayweather's black.
So, of course, there's always these racial overtones because people create them.
Again, I couldn't give a hoot.
I'm sure many of you don't either.
But McGregor said something in one of the pressers, these crazy pressers.
They're just nuts.
You've got to watch them.
You know, Mayweather's throwing money at McGregor at one point to show him how rich he is.
You know, McGregor's accusing Mayweather of having strippers on his payroll.
I'm not making any of this up.
And Mayweather made a big mistake.
Mayweather, excuse me, McGregor.
McGregor called Mayweather like a dancing monkey or something, which... You know, yeah, you just don't say it.
You just don't say it.
You know, you don't have to be an overly sensitive liberal snowflake to realize that there's probably a really sincere negative connotation to that amongst people who, you know, who are black.
They don't want to hear that.
I don't blame you at all.
It's not me being overly sensitive, but it's just kind of a dumb thing to say.
You know, it's taken on this whole different thing.
And I just I'm fascinated by this for a couple of reasons.
Number one, that the racial thing that just happened.
And of course, you know, media people are jumping on because they always want to make an issue out of that.
But secondly, is, you know, this fascination we have with fighting sports and combat.
It's just amazing that, you know, I love the Brazilian jiu jitsu.
I've been doing mixed martial arts and boxing and stuff my whole life.
And this is certainly not a competitor to Joe Rogan's podcast, where he does this all the time.
He is one of the biggest podcasts in the world.
I love McGregor, but I think he's gonna get crushed.
He's not a boxer, he's a fighter.
Now, in a street fight, McGregor destroys Floyd Mayweather, the boxer, 10 out of 10 times, no doubt in my mind.
Let me just be crystal clear on this.
McGregor, Conor McGregor, the mixed martial arts fighter, would absolutely annihilate him in a no-rules fight, an MMA fight, a mixed martial arts fight, or even like a pancreas fight where you can just like open hand slap people.
There's no doubt.
But in a strict boxing match, this guy's gonna get crushed.
Have you ever boxed?
Folks, seriously, for those of you out there who don't do a lot of combat sports or hand-to-hand stuff, have you ever boxed, Joe?
I haven't, no.
Well, I have.
A lot.
And I've sparred with amateurs, one time a pro.
Folks, I'm telling you right now, when you're in the ring with even the worst pro boxer, you're like, Oh my God, this guy, you can't hit him.
It's like trying to punch.
It's like, you know, I have a black snake in my yard.
I'm trying, I'm constantly trying to grab them and they always get away.
You can't hit them.
You can't hit them at all.
You cannot hit them.
I mean, and I'm a pro, I'm okay.
I'm not great, but it's like, you can't do it.
There's so, Evasive.
And then they hit you and you're like, oh, that hurt.
Oh man, that hurt even worse.
This guy's going to get crushed.
If McGregor wins this fight, I am going to be astounded, astonished.
I will have to call myself out on the show.
It's under boxing rules.
Again, McGregor's a far better fighter, but just a boxer.
No way.
No chance.
I don't see it happening.
All right, sorry.
Again, that's one of those stories I'm sure probably doesn't interest a lot of you, but maybe I'll throw it in on a weekend show one day with some workout stuff.
Also, thank you to everyone who went to Bongino.com and signed up for my email list.
I'm putting the show notes now in a daily email.
I put about five or six stories I think you need to hear.
It's short.
It's sweet.
I've been getting tremendous feedback on it.
We got something like 500 new email subscriptions over the last few days.
Just go to Bongino.com.
Yeah.
And join our email list and you'll get the show notes and the articles you need to read short and sweet in your email box right in the afternoon after the show.
So go there.
And I updated the debunk this section also with some new debunking of liberal nonsense.
So there's some new articles up there at debunk this.
So go check that out at Bongino.com.
All right.
So the Senate bill.
The Obamacare Senate bill has now been released.
The Obamacare thing, I get it.
It's kind of like the Trump-Russia story.
I actually got a few negative emails about that with the Trump-Russia story.
People are like, gosh, enough of this thing.
I know, I know, folks.
I get it.
But I got to cover at least the daily news so you know what to say to your liberal friends when they bring this stuff up.
But the same thing about Obamacare.
I get it.
We're all tired.
It's been going on forever now.
But the Senate bill was released yesterday, and I'm just going to sum it up for you, what you need to know, and we'll quickly move on.
Here are the talking points from the bill that was released yesterday.
As predicted, Joe, by you and I in the last two or three shows we've done, they choked on the capital gains tax.
Yep.
Obamacare hiked the capital gains tax.
Which, if you've been listening to the shows, you understand the ramifications of that.
You can listen to yesterday's show or the day before to understand the economics of it.
But it's a tax on investment.
It's a horrible tax.
It's destroying our economy.
Obamacare upped the tax from 20 to 23.8% for what they call high earners.
Married couples making over $250,000 and singles over $200,000.
Which, ironically, in the coasts, California and New York, where liberals are, that's really not rich.
You may laugh, but I'm telling you, it's not.
Not in those areas.
Because the cost of living is so high.
Not that we should be crying for people in New York, California, May 200.
I'm just saying that is by no means a high earner in New York.
They choked on it, meaning the Senate bill does not eliminate the 3.8 percentage point tax hike on capital gains, which everybody agrees is going to be destructive to the economy.
Now, this is an important point because I told you this is an ideological capitulation only done, Joe, to avoid being labeled.
With the, you know, the tax the rich thing.
Oh, you cut taxes on the rich.
You cut taxes on the rich.
That's the only reason the Republicans did this.
Now, I have a few quotes here from some pieces.
I just want to be sure that you guys get these.
I took a screenshot of an article in the Washington Examiner on this that'll be put in the show notes today up at Bongino.com too.
It says Obamacare's taxes on high-income people, including the investment income tax, the Medicare health insurance tax, and the remuneration tax on executive compensation for health insurance executives.
Those all stay.
The changes help raise more money, and this is the key point from a Washington Examiner piece.
And Republicans hope, will blunt the tax, that their legislation is aimed at cutting health care to the poor, to deliver tax cuts to the wealthy.
There we go!
You choked!
Chokers!
Joe, right now, you know the universal sign for choking?
I'm doing it right now.
You choked!
You were afraid?
You took the easy route?
Instead of taking the right route.
You, if you're a conservative and you know anything, which eliminates most of the people in Congress, I heard a guy in Congress once say, you spend the, or I read one somewhere that he said, You spent the first few months wondering how you got there, and then the next few years wondering how all these idiots got here.
So they don't get it.
I'm sure they don't.
But for the ones who do, it's even more embarrassing.
The capital gains tax is a tax on investment, which is a tax on our economy, which is going to destroy economic growth.
And instead of going out there and making the case, they were afraid of being labeled the The party of the rich, despite the fact that the limousine liberals are the real party of the rich, they were afraid to make the complicated economic arguments and they took the easy path out and they choked again to avoid political attacks.
It's just pathetic.
It's disgusting.
And even worse, Joe, some of them are saying, well, we need that money to pay for all these programs like the opioid money they're putting out there, despite the fact that if you listen to yesterday's show, I told you Categorically, using facts and data you can verify yourself, and the show the day before, and the day before that, how hikes in the capital gains tax, there's no guarantee at all they're going to raise money, and there's evidence that they could lose money in the long run.
So how you're going to pay for these programs now, by keeping the capital gains tax increase in Obamacare, using money that's going to disappear from the federal treasury, is like Doofenshmirtz Math from Phineas and Ferb.
My daughter loves that show.
You know, Doofenshmirtz?
I guess she loves it.
You probably don't watch that show.
No, not anymore.
I did.
Yeah, what is it?
The Platypus Guy.
Perry the Platypus and Dr. Doofenshmirtz.
That's Doofenshmirtz Math.
It doesn't work, okay?
I mean, that's just what they do.
Because Republicans are sellouts.
The problem with Republicans is there are a good swath of Republicans who will always align with Democrats.
There are zero Democrats that'll ever rely, that'll ever go over and vote Republican.
It just won't happen.
And that's why our party's a total mess.
Because we are constantly, we're cheap.
We don't listen.
We don't do it.
We're just afraid.
You're just fearful.
It's just cowardly.
It's just dumb.
Say, oh, that's strong language.
No, it's true.
It's actual like you just don't want to tell the truth.
The capital gains tax is a job killer.
Oh, but we can't say that.
They'll paint us as the party of the rich.
Oh, but they're not going to do that now.
Oh, so you choked on the capital gains tax and now they're going to leave you alone.
How stupid are you?
Oh, man.
I didn't intend to spend that much time on that one piece, but bottom line, they choked on the capital gains tax.
It's in there.
So this bill sucks.
I'm sorry.
It's terrible.
Secondly, this is the Republican bill, Joe.
Keep in mind that I'm talking about.
This is not Obamacare.
This is the Republican Senate replacement bill.
So they choke on the capital gains tax.
They don't take that out.
They increased eligibility for subsidies.
No, Dan, you said that wrong.
Clearly, you meant decreased eligibility.
No, no, no!
I didn't say that wrong!
They increased eligibility for subsidies, meaning if you're in the Obamacare exchange, you have to buy all this crap.
The federal government gives you other people's tax money to pay for the stuff you didn't want.
They are now increasing the eligibility to get more of other people's federal tax dollars to buy more crap you don't want.
This is the Republican plan!
Read the Washington Examiner piece.
It'll be in the show notes.
If you think I'm making any of this, and you wonder why the show's called The Renegade Republican.
Holy Moses, it never stops.
Okay.
They increased subsidies.
I'm not saying it's wrong.
Increased subsidies for out-of-pocket expenses on healthcare.
Subsidies, which is code word for higher taxes.
This is a Republican plan.
So more taxpayer dollars.
Your neighbor, you know, I love the Milton Friedman line.
The fascinating thing about government spending is you think your neighbor's paying for something, but he thinks the same thing.
So there are now more subsidies for out-of-pocket healthcare expenses.
People are like, ah, don't worry, my rich neighbor's paying for it.
Your rich neighbor's saying the same thing to you, because you're all just trading each other's money.
Nice job, GOP, on that one.
Finally, it tripled the stability funds, which is a fancy way of saying that the Republican bill puts more money into insurance company bailouts.
That's it.
There's your bill, folks.
It's terrific.
Wonderful job by the GOP again.
You know, and you may say, and fair enough, a lot of you may say, well, what's your proposal?
I already told you, repeal it.
Repeal it.
We had 52 votes.
We had 52 Senate votes that already voted to repeal in 2015.
Repeal it.
We can work on it from there.
This is a disaster.
On the good days, I don't want to leave you all with any negativity and there's always enough when we're talking about sellout Geo peers.
Sorry, I was laughing at the Doofenshmirtz thing.
Dr. Doofenshmirtz.
The Cruz amendment.
Ted Cruz.
There's an amendment in there.
It's not his exact amendment, but there's an amendment that allows people to use government subsidies to buy off-exchange plans.
So if you offer a plan, Joe, in an Obamacare exchange, Joe's insurance company, and the plan complies with Obamacare, meaning you have to sell a bunch of crap nobody wants, Cruz got... It's not his exact amendment.
It's not terrific, but it's a version of it.
I've got an amendment in there that said Joe's Insurance Company can also offer a scaled-down plan that doesn't have all the crap you don't want, and people can still use taxpayer subsidies to buy that.
So, you get what I'm saying?
Yeah.
So you can offer an Obamacare-compliant plan, as long as you offer one, you can offer a non-compliant plan, too, where people can take other people's tax money, that's what the subsidies are, and buy one of those plans.
You know, people who don't have a lot of money to buy vasectomy coverage and hair transplants will go and get a basic plan that covers maybe catastrophic.
The problem with that is what's going to happen there?
Well, everybody's going to bail out of the Obamacare exchanges because they suck, which they're already doing now, and they're going to go to these non-Obamacare compliant plans.
And I say the problem.
You say, what's the problem, Dan?
They'll get out of Obamacare.
Well, the problem is Obamacare still exists.
So now all the healthy people, Joe, are gonna exit the Obamacare exchanges and go into buying these plans.
And what's gonna be left?
We're still gonna be sending taxpayer subsidies to subsidize people to really sick people that stayed behind in the really expensive plans.
Because the really sick people need the Obamacare plans that have all the stuff.
Now, remember, you may say, well, you just said sick people need Obamacare.
No, they need the health insurance.
The health insurance.
The health insurance would have been cheaper if it wasn't for Obamacare.
The taxpayer subsidies are still flowing into the Obamacare plans, meaning you're still paying for it.
I know this is complicated, but when you give people the option of leaving Obamacare, Joe, people are going to take it.
Sure.
Now the only people left behind are going to be really sick people.
Because they need health insurance.
The problem with this is the prices are still going to be inflated because the only people left behind are going to be sick people.
Yeah, not hard to follow.
Subsidies are still going to flow into the Obamacare plans to help sick people pay for Obamacare.
I just wish they'd be honest about it, they didn't say that.
That we're going to levy a tax to help sick people pay for Obamacare.
Just be honest about it.
Stop beating around the bush.
I'm not blaming Cruz.
I know what Cruz is trying to do, and I think it's admirable.
He's trying to create a free market alternative.
I get that.
So that's some good news on it, that Cruz offered this amendment.
At least you'll see a free market alternative.
But make no mistake, you're still going to see basically an entitlement program to buy health insurance left with the Obamacare changes.
Another thing that's good is the mandates are gone.
So yeah, the employer mandate, the mandate that if you have a business with 50 or more employees you have to provide coverage, healthcare coverage, and the mandate that if they work 30 hours or more that you will have to provide insurance for that employee.
So that's where the term 49ers and 29ers come in because companies don't want To hire that 50th person because then they're going to be immediately subjected to Obamacare rules and 29ers are for companies that limit their employees to 29 work hours a week because the minute they work that 30th hour they have to provide Obamacare and the companies don't have the money.
So that's important.
That's out.
So that's kind of a good thing.
So that's kind of a summation of the Obamacare Senate bill.
I don't support it.
I think it's terrible.
I think they should just repeal Obamacare and let the free market take over.
It's just we already have Medicaid.
Medicare is not going anywhere.
There's already programs for the poor.
There's S-CHIP for kids.
Let's stop pretending the world is going to collapse.
The government screwed up medicine for a really long time.
All right, I got a lot more to talk about here.
So today's show brought to you by our buddies at My Patriot Supply.
I care deeply about preparedness.
It's important to me.
This is all we did, my prior line of work, is we prepared for stuff.
We had a boatload of equipment, you know, we had, I carried around all over the world.
You know, I remember when I was an agent on foreign trips, we'd have these special cutouts of bulletproof material we could stick in all kinds of places.
And I remember thinking to myself, Wow, it's really cool we keep these in a bag, but like in a gunfight, are you gonna think to go in a bag?
So I would like stash them all over the place, you know?
But listen, it was better to have them and never need them than to need them and not have them.
You certainly don't want to go, you know what?
We have these bulletproof things, so I really hope we get a shootout so we can test these things out.
Folks, that's the whole idea behind emergency food, okay?
My patient supply will sell you breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
A month's supply of it.
There's all kinds of varieties of food in there, folks.
It's not like bags of oatmeal only, okay?
It's real food.
You just add water.
It's actual food that's been prepared.
All you need to do is add water.
It's good for 25 years.
It's breakfast, lunch, and dinner, 140 servings.
A month's supply comes in a super slim plastic case.
You stick it in your closet.
God forbid you ever need it.
But with this threat from the North Koreans, with natural disasters, I mean, what's $99 that's all it costs to insure your food supply for a month?
It's nothing.
It's nothing.
$99.
Go to preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
99 bucks.
You get 140 servings of emergency food.
Good for 25 years.
Put it in your closet.
Hopefully you'll never need it, but better to have it, not need it, than to need it, not have it.
Be prepared.
Go to preparewithdan.com.
Okay.
Um, there's another fascinating wall street journal piece.
You know, uh, I'm again, I'll put it in the show notes.
Hold on.
I just want to pull it up on my phone here.
I try not to print.
I'm not one of these weirdo green guys or anything like that, but I do try to not waste a lot of paper if I don't have to.
Stephen Moore and Art Laffer, who are two economists I admire greatly.
Stephen Moore is really wonderful and Art Laffer, L-A-F-F-E-R.
If you don't know Art Laffer, you should.
Creator of the eponymously named Laffer Curve.
And you know, sometimes I laugh, I go, well, Democrats think that's a, that's a measure of a clown's effectiveness, the Laffer Curve.
No, not the laughter curve, the Laffer Curve.
The Laffer Curve, Art Laffer, it's alleged that he initially proposed it, not alleged, he said it on a, he drew it on a napkin once to show people what it is.
And it's really just a curve.
That's all it is.
And it's the principle behind the Laffer Curve is, If you were to have a graph, Joe, the way to raise zero tax revenue for the government would be to tax at 0%.
In other words, the federal income tax rate was 0% and it wouldn't take any of your money, right?
Right.
But Laffer showed something interesting.
He showed a curve that goes up and then it comes back down.
He said another way to raise zero money by the federal government would be to tax people at 100%.
And you may say, well, that doesn't make any sense.
You'd have all their money.
Yeah.
In year one!
In year two, there'd be no money left!
There'd be nothing to tax!
So the point Laffer was trying to make, and I'm simplifying it greatly, you can look it
up yourself, L-A-F-F-E-R, the curve, and read a little more complex analysis of it than
I'm giving here in the interest of time, is that there is a sweet spot for taxation, the
peak of the curve, Joe, the apex of the curve, where economic growth will be satisfied and
tax revenue will be satisfied.
But if that tax revenue goes, if that tax rate, rate, that's very important, the difference,
if that tax rate goes higher than that, you will start diminishing economic growth.
And even though the tax rate is higher, revenues will fall because you'll be basically taking a higher percentage of a very small pizza.
Does that make sense?
So where that point is on the Laffer curve is a point of strong contention.
Every time I try to explain it on the show, I get nasty emails about Hauser's law because no one ever understands it.
But I'll just leave it at this.
If you want to look it up, Hauser, H-A-U-S-E-R.
Hauser has a proposal about that saying it's about 18 to 20% of revenue.
The tax rate, you can look that up yourself because people get really upset when I try to explain it.
But some will suggest to you that's about the sweet spot, it's 20%.
And the reason, Joe, is after that, let's say you go up to 30 and 40 and 50%, Laffer's proposal was that people start to change their behavior.
But we would call a dynamic score, you know, if you were to score these kinds of things.
In other words, determine the effects of a tax rate hike on society.
We would call that dynamic scoring rather than static scoring.
Democrats believe in static scoring.
In other words, they don't really believe in it, but they want to use static scoring.
Static scoring is based on the principle that tax rate hikes don't matter.
People won't change their behavior.
So if Joe earns $100,000 a year and I tax him at 30%, We'll get $30,000.
If we tax them at 50%, we'll get $50,000.
Now, Joe, you and I both know in the real world that's not what would happen.
Right.
As the tax rate went from 30% to 50%, what would you do?
You would call your accountant and say, how the hell do I get out of this extra $20,000 in taxes?
That's what people do.
I'm not saying it's right.
I'm not saying it's wrong.
I'm just telling you it is.
That's a fact!
And that's basically the tenets of Hauser's Law and the Laffer Curve.
That as government increases the tax rate higher and higher and higher, people are incentivized by the cash savings of finding a good accountant to find more and more complicated ways to move their money around.
Remember folks, tax evasion is a crime.
Tax avoidance isn't.
Legal tax avoidance is not a crime at all.
Democrats don't like it, but it's not a crime.
If it was, John Kerry would be in jail.
Charlie Rangel would be in jail.
Hillary Clinton would be in jail.
I'm kidding you not, they've all been accused in the media, you can look these stories up, of complicated tax avoidance, not tax evasion, tax avoidance schemes.
Hillary Clinton through her Real estate operations with her husband.
They've been accused of secreting money into accounts, not illegally, but to avoid taxes.
John Kerry, remember the story, Joe, about him parking, the Democratic presidential nominee, parking his boat in Rhode Island, even though he was a Massachusetts resident to avoid some kind of a boat docking fee.
It was a tax, or to hide the assets.
Again, not illegal, but definitely tax avoidance.
Charlie Rangel, well, that one's a little different.
That's a little more complicated.
I'm getting ready for a workout today.
I'm going to crush it in the gym.
So, um, yeah, I'm real excited.
So I took a bunch of supplements this morning, took my B12, everything.
I'm ready to go.
But the point I'm trying to make, and this is this piece they had in the wall street journal today, and maybe I'm doing a little circuitously.
It's really, really good.
It's not a subscriber only one.
It's in these show notes and it gives you some hard numbers on what would happen to tax revenue if the rates were lower and economic growth were higher.
So here's, I'm just going to read a quote from you from the piece, a couple of them.
If state and local tax revenue had grown under President Obama at the rate it did under President Reagan, receipts in 2016 would have been greater by about $650 billion, or 26% according to National Income and Product Account data.
Think about what I just told you.
If Obama had grown at the Reagan years post-recession, we would have $650 billion in revenue more.
The federal budget's only $4 trillion.
We would have had 650 billion more if the economy in the Obama years, Joe, I'm quoting you, had grown at 3.5 to 4%, which it didn't.
It grew at 2%.
The average rate for post-recession recoveries, meaning if Obama had just grown at the average, Joe, not the Reagan years, which are above average, states and cities Would have had about $430 billion more to work with.
Well, welcome to the new normal.
Welcome to the new normal.
Low economic growth.
It's really sad.
Let me move this up.
I have another quote for you here.
It says, critics will say this forecast for economic and revenue growth is wishful thinking.
In other words, Trump is pushing for 3%.
3%, which is half of what Reagan did in 1984 of 6% growth, and is only one percentage point above Obama's average of 2%, and is 0.5% percentage points below the historical average of 3.5%.
That's not optimistic by any measure, but critics are saying, oh, Trump's way too optimistic looking for 3% growth.
They said, but critics will say this forecast for economic and revenue growth is wishful thinking, but it's based on the historical record.
In the seven years after the Kennedy tax cuts, that's right, John F. Kennedy, significant tax cut from 90 to 70% of the income tax side.
Real estate and local receipts grew by more than 60% after the Kennedy tax cut.
Let me read that part again.
Real estate and local receipts grew by more than 60%.
State and local income due to the growing economy after the Kennedy tax cuts grew by 60%.
Completely refuting your liberal friend's argument, oh, tax cuts, oh, they cost the government money.
How did they cost the government money?
If you don't rob me, I didn't cost you anything, you know?
And that's according, by the way, and they say, oh, where'd you get that data?
Well, you can read in the Wall Street Journal piece that's according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St.
Louis.
Probably not a biased right-wing operator that the liberals would like to point that out.
That's nonsense.
Federal Reserve Bank of St.
Louis.
One more quote.
In the seven years after the Reagan rate cuts, the real increase was 37% for state and local taxes.
After Obama's tax increases, or just to be clear on this to rewind, Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes.
State and local tax receipts grew by 60%, 37%.
After Obama's tax increases, Joe, the growth at the state and local level for tax growth, real growth was only 10%.
So again, you know, it's almost comical.
The point you and I, Joe, have tried to make on this show repeatedly for two years is that conservatism, the irony of conservatism, is that it actually benefits liberals.
And the irony of liberalism is that it actually wounds stated liberal goals, even though me and you know that's not... Liberal goals are control.
It's not tax revenue.
They want to control the flow of income in the economy, even when it's only a dollar left.
They don't really care about tax revenue.
They don't.
Because if liberals cared about tax revenue and bigger government, the power of government, they would support Trump growing the government, which they don't, because it's Trump's government.
They don't like it.
They don't like government.
They like their government.
And secondly, they would support tax cuts, knowing history's on our side, that tax cuts on the Laffer curve will generally generate over time more revenue.
They don't want that.
They don't care.
But it just goes to show you, they just make it up the entire time.
So I strongly encourage you to read the Wall Street Journal piece.
It's a really good one.
Stephen Moore and Art Laffer always do a really good job.
It's fantastic.
And one more note on this.
I'll include a piece in the show notes you should read from CNS News.
You know, in case you think that, oh, ever since we've been in charge, the Republicans have been doing a damn good job of controlling spending.
They haven't.
I don't blame this on Trump because his budget was very lean.
Trump can only propose the budget.
You know, the spending comes out of the House of Representatives, folks.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has done an awful job.
Federal spending for the first time, Joe, in June has crossed $400 billion for one month.
Yeah, and the deficit in one month was $90 billion.
So I'll include that article.
You can read the numbers from CNS News and you're going to cringe.
Yeah, we control the House of Representatives, and for the first time ever, federal spending for one month has crossed $400 billion.
The entire federal budget when Bill Clinton left office was less than $2 trillion, yet in one month we're spending a fifth of that.
It's just amazing.
I mean really. I mean, Republicans. They let you down constantly.
Have you signed up for CRTV yet?
I strongly encourage you to do it.
I have a promo code for you.
It's Bongino, my last name.
If you haven't signed up, you're missing out on a lot of great conservative content.
You can watch it on your PC.
You can watch it on your phone.
You can watch it on your tablet.
You can take it anywhere with you.
I work there, but I love the shows.
They're really terrific.
Michelle Malkin's new season of shows is coming out.
They're always They get tons of attention by social media and everything because she always exposes stuff.
I call it the conservative 60 minutes.
You got to check it out.
It's at CRTV.
Use promo code Bongino, B-O-N-G-I-N-O.
You can get $10 off.
It's available for less than the price of a New York turkey sandwich per month.
I mean, I saw one worth $12.
$12 turkey sandwich in New York in the Oculus train station.
I was like, man, that's an expensive turkey sandwich.
So use the promo code Bongino and be available for around $8 to $10 a month.
Go check it out.
CRTV.com.
All right.
Another story I saw.
Before I get to that, I got a lot of emails yesterday, too.
I mentioned Dr. Berman, who I love, who is my stem cell doctor in Beverly Hills.
For those of you who follow the show, you know I have horrendous arthritis.
So just on a personal note, I went to my regular orthopedist yesterday here in Palm City.
And he took an x-ray.
I have an MRI this week.
But my left knee is a mess.
It's not as bad as my left shoulder was, which had degenerated almost completely.
Thank God for the stem cells.
I feel a lot better.
And, you know, the surgeon did a good job, too, cleaning out the bone spurs.
But I was kind of surprised.
You showed me the x-ray and I do have arthritis in my left knee, but it wasn't as bad as I thought it was based on the x-ray.
We'll see what the MRI says, but I'm telling you those stem cells work.
I'm absolutely convinced.
So it's Dr. Berman.
He's out in Beverly Hills.
If you look him up at the Stem Cell Network, you'll find him.
I'm just getting a lot of emails on that.
And I can't answer every one because it's been so much.
I sent one guy's email, I think his name is Scott, over to Doc himself and the doctor personally got back to him.
But it's Dr. Berman Stem Cell Network in Beverly Hills and a lot of people are asking me what I think of it.
If you have arthritis, like I did osteoarthritis, and you have no cartilage left or very little, it saved me.
I mean, he'll tell you if you have no cartilage left, they probably can't do much.
But if you even have a little bit left, it saved my butt.
So I'll try to answer all your questions in the email with that one thing.
It's Dr. Berman.
He's out in Beverly Hills.
And if you check him out at the Stem Cell Network, he's the one who started.
He literally wrote the book on stem cells.
And yes, it did help me for those of you who've been asking about where I stand on it.
All right.
Here's a story that really made me want to cringe.
I saw it last night on Tucker Carlson's show.
Started doing some homework on it.
So Oregon, Joe, passed an abortion bill.
They're now demanding that insurance providers...
I'm gonna laugh at this one, tragically.
They provide free abortion!
That if you are a health insurer, everything's free.
No one pays, it's all voluntary.
That the Oregon bill is gonna be, any insurance provider in the state that comes into the state is going to have to provide, quote, free abortion services.
Which we know are not free, because ironically abortion doctors don't volunteer their time as they engage in this, what I think is horrific act.
They don't do it.
They still get paid.
So somebody's paying.
And I mean, obviously, I think this is a horrible, horrible thing.
But I wanted to, you know, the why matters.
And I like to take these out and talk about higher order liberal ideology and why they're in love with what they're in love with.
And there was another interesting piece at National Review, which I'll put in the show notes.
that addressed a topic that ties into the liberal love affair with abortion and you can't understand
one without the other. And the National Review piece, Joe, addresses the liberal love affair
with population control. You know, yes, liberalism in its radical form is the party of death.
They are.
They're in love with euthanasia, late-term abortion.
They are the party of death.
But it's... There's a... I don't want to say this the wrong way.
I'm going to get myself in trouble with conservatives, and I don't mean it this way.
I'm not trying to take any heat off them.
But it's not that they love death.
In other words, they'd be jumping off buildings if that were the case.
It's that they don't mind death in achievement of their goals.
Does that make sense?
That's horrendous in and of itself.
You get what I'm saying, Joe?
That death doesn't bother them should freak you out.
But it's not that they worship death.
It's not a death cult.
Again, they'd be all jumping off buildings themselves.
It's that they don't mind death in achievement of their goals.
I'm talking about the radical left.
I'm not talking about old Democrats out there.
The far left has been in love with, whether you go back to Malthus, Paul Ehrlich, Margaret Sanger, euthanasia, the population bomb author, Thomas Malthus, who thought we were all going to starve because of overpopulation.
I'll get into all this in a second.
But this abortion bill, It ties into that it's not that they see human beings as a virus, as a cancer on the planet.
They see us as a waste of assets.
Now, in case you think, where's Dan getting this?
Where's this coming from?
Well, one, it's coming because the Oregon abortion bill is all over the news and it's really riled up, rightfully so, conservatives and even moderate Democrats who are like, wait, now it's not, Joe, it's not only that we have to support abortion as liberals, but now it's that other people are going to pay for it.
You may say, well, how?
They're forcing the insurance companies to pay for it.
No, no, no.
They're forcing the insurance companies to provide it at no extra cost.
So when, you know, whatever, this woman goes in to have an abortion, the insurance company can't charge extra money to that woman.
So who pays for it, Joe?
Oh, you.
You pay for it.
There's nothing free.
Yeah.
But this is because, again, the liberals have a love affair with population control and they don't mind death.
Now, you may say that's crazy.
Well, I don't want to pin all the blame on this one woman, but in the National Review piece is a screenshot from a woman, Jill Filipovic.
She has a book out.
She's obviously a leftist.
And she tweeted, I'm not making this up.
I wrote down the exact tweet because I didn't want to, you know, I don't want to, I'm not trying to pew in the woman unfairly.
This is her tweet.
This is so, this is like, this is unbelievable.
She actually tweeted this.
Having children is one of the worst things you can do for the planet.
Have one less and conserve resources.
Folks, the reason I'm using her tweet is because it's not unusual.
The fact that she tweeted that means she thought nothing of it.
She certainly didn't think it was going to be some moral stain on her soul.
Having children is one of the worst things you could do for the planet.
Have one less and conserve resources.
Do you understand this idiotic, insane view?
This one tweet sums up the difference between conservative ideology and liberal ideology.
Conservatives will always see life as a gift.
They believe God gave us minion over the earth not to abuse it.
Minion over the animals, not to abuse them, but God created us in his likeness.
This is about us, not in a selfish way, Joe.
He gave it to us to do the right thing, and he gave us control of the earth and control over the animals.
He gave us an intellect, free will, the ability to think, to grow as a, and I'm not trying to wax philosophic.
That's not my job.
It's not a philosophy show.
It's not a religion show, but folks, I absolutely believe this.
God created us in his likeness.
To grow and to become less disordered, less chaotic, less violent over time and figure out our path during this test, which I believe life is, it's all a test for the second creation, your time in heaven, to get your ticket to the second creation.
It's your turn to sacrifice collectively and individually.
The left doesn't see it that way.
But wait, let me just rewind a second.
And in turn, Joe, What we do by sacrificing, doing the right thing, helping others, trying to better society, sacrificing your time, laboring for others, engaging in the sweat, blood, and tears of helping other people grow, helping other children, volunteering your time.
What he gives us is he anoints all of us with big R rights, as I said repeatedly.
You were born free.
You weren't born enslaved by government.
You were born free.
Men did that, Joe.
Slavery is a result of men, not God.
Government tyranny is a result of men, not God.
You were born free by God.
It's men that did that to you.
And women, to be fair.
I'm just using the term, you know, in general.
But men did that.
So conservatives believe life is a gift.
I believe at least life is a test.
And that you were born with big R rights.
That can never be taken away, but can be subordinated and subjugated by men.
But God gave them to you.
The state doesn't give you anything.
It just ensures you're right.
Liberals believe the opposite, Joe.
They believe that we are a cancer and a blight on the earth.
Most of them don't even believe in God, but even the ones, some of them who do, must believe that what God created the earth and we're a virus and a cancer on it.
Well, to liberals, abortion is a sacrament.
It's a sacrament.
You're absolutely right.
It's a right of indoctrination into the liberal movement.
But you see, Joe, how if you believe that, that human beings are a cancer and a virus on the planet, this all makes sense!
This tweet by this woman, having children is one of the worst things you could do, it's not even controversial!
To her!
You get what I'm saying?
Like, read her Twitter feed.
And you know, I don't support any attacks on her.
I literally tweeted back to her, I hope God blesses this woman.
I really meant, I hope she finds God.
I absolutely mean that.
Because how empty, how empty, Joe, the vacuum you must live in in your life to believe that your very existence is a curse to the planet, right?
Yeah, I mean, what I, you know, when I go to church down here in Palm City, I see black families, a lot of Hispanic families, a lot of Hispanic folks live in Florida, including my wife, white folks.
I can't remember in church thinking like, wow, what a contamination of viruses in this church.
I wish we could just wipe all these people out.
To understand the why of this and why this abortion bill is a big deal right now, again it goes back to the liberal love affair with population control, not death.
They don't mind death.
They don't mind death.
But it's not a love affair with death.
I can't emphasize this.
It's a love affair with population control and it's because the roots of this liberal ideology are in the works of Malthus, Paul Ehrlich, who wrote the book The Population Bomb, and it goes back prior to that.
We tend to give credit to one person, but Malthus wasn't the first person to think of this.
But Malthus had this idea, Joe, that human population, I've said this before, would grow almost exponentially, geometrically, and that, you know, The food, the growth of the food supply would only grow arithmetically.
So food supply wouldn't be... I always say this in a way too complicated way.
We would outstrip our food supply and we would all starve.
Simple as that.
That's what Malthus said.
And he was sure of it, Joe.
Malthus was sure this was going to happen.
Of course that's BS.
Now, I have some numbers from the Heartland Institute and I'll put this link in the show notes today as well.
China and India, if that was true, Joe, where population growth has exploded, we can agree on that, right, Joe?
China and India, the population's really gone through the roof.
If that theory were correct, that mouthless put out there, that we're gonna eventually overpopulate the earth, therefore death, we shouldn't mind death, and therefore abortion's a good thing, you following my logic?
He won't say that, but that's what they mean.
That's why they have this love affair with abortion and other things.
China and India are now net exporters of food.
So if that theory was true, that population growth was going to lead to mass starvation and we're all going to be dead, why aren't there massive numbers of people dying?
That's not happening.
I'm not saying there's not starvation in China and India.
I'm not saying there's not poverty.
I'm saying that countries are now net exporters of food.
So they outstrip their food supply so much that they're shipping it out of the country?
Really?
Are you that stupid?
Another thing from the Heartland Institute, and this is an older report from 99, but the numbers are still accurate.
The growth rate, not the number of people, the growth rate.
In other words, the number of human beings on the planet, Joe, is still going up, but the rate of growth.
You get what I'm saying?
Like if we grew at 10% of the human population and 5%, the rate of growth peaked back in the 70s.
They predicted back then, and these are UN numbers, by the way.
They predicted that the human population would peak at 12 billion people.
Now they had to revise that back down to, oh, it's probably going to peak at about 9 billion.
And why is that?
Because people are more prosperous.
They don't need to have six or seven kids to support them when they get older or to work on a farm.
And again, I'm a Christian.
I believe the more kids, the better.
Humans are an asset.
Life is a gift.
But I'm just saying there are economic reasons why human population has peaked.
People now, Joe, especially in wealthier countries, they don't feel the need to have six or seven kids to support them on the farm, to support them when they get older, because we're a relatively prosperous society.
Make sense?
Yeah.
So populations peak.
So it's just, what I'm trying to do is totally discredit the liberals love affair with this population overpopulation narrative, which is bunk.
It's just, it's garbage if you believe in facts and data.
And Paul Ehrlich piled on I forget when the book came out, 70s?
I'm not really sure.
But Paul Erlich came out with this book called The Population Bomb, which doubled down on that.
And he made a bet about the price of resources called the bet, if you look up Ehrlich, the bet, and he lost the bet, of course, saying we were going to run out of, you know, silver and nickel and copper and oil and resources because all these, we were going to abuse all of our resources, going to be nothing.
That's all garbage, folks.
The price of oil is at historic lows right now.
I mean, it's to say that's just really dumb.
So it just doesn't make sense.
But I just wanted to put that in there and leave you off with this idea that there's always a why.
There's always a why.
The liberals never do anything without some founding bedrock ideology.
And the reason they love these abortion bills, you know, quote, free abortion, everybody's gonna have to provide abortion, is not because they love death.
It's that they don't mind death.
They love population control.
because the party's still been infected with socialist ideology, but also ideology
from people like Malthus and Paul Ehrlich who actually believe that stuff,
who believe that we were eventually gonna overpopulate the earth
and we were all gonna starve to death.
It's not true.
Again, remember what I always tell you, Joe, that don't let facts and data get in the way.
Liberals, they're supposed to be scientists, but they actually don't believe in science at all.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
I really appreciate all the feedback.
And I just want to tell you from the bottom of my heart on Friday, I really, really enjoy your emails.
Thank you for sending them.
I'm Daniel at Bongino.com.
My sincere apologies for not returning everyone.
I try to get back to...
A lot of people each day.
But thanks to you, the popularity of the show has really grown.
And unfortunately, I cannot, I just, I would never get to do the show.
But I do read them.
You have my word.
I read everyone that comes in.
Maybe one day we'll reach a point where we can't do that either.
That would be a good day due to the growth of the show.
But I read them all.
But my apologies for not getting back to you, but I read them all.
And thank you for the unbelievably kind, touching words.
Thanks a lot.
Talk to you next week.
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.
