Ep. 516 Something Has Got to Give. This Can't Continue.
Obamacare premiums are exploding again but, the media will probably blame Republicans. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/02/insurers-seeking-huge-premium-hikes-on-obamacare-plans.html A bold proposal from Capitol Hill on immigration? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/exclusive-david-perdue-tom-cotton-to-unveil-skills-based-immigration-bill-at-white-house-wednesday/article/2630347 Do tax cuts cause increased tax revenue? Is Kansas a success story for tax cuts? https://www.cato.org/blog/three-lessons-tax-defeat-kansas
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Aiming to stop free speech so the speaker can no longer speak is exclusively a far-left phenomena.
I'm talking to moderates in the Democratic Party who are actually interested in what's going on, not blind lemmings walking off a cliff into an abyss of stupidity.
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
The rich did it.
Yeah, the rich did it.
They lent money to people who bought homes and the people never paid the money back.
Oh, wow, that sounds like a great business plan.
On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
All right, welcome to The Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
One for the money, two for the show, let's go.
Let's get this show on the road.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at Brick House Nutrition.
Big fans of these guys.
One of my original sponsors.
One of the best young, upcoming, hungry nutrition supplement companies on the market today.
They make a product out there that I get tremendous reviews about.
Always happy to have them as a sponsor.
It's called Dawn to Dusk.
Now, Dawn to Dusk is the solution for all of you struggling to get through the day.
Your busy lifestyles, you're into your CrossFit, working out, mixed martial arts, your 8-hour workday, sometimes 10-12-hour workday.
This is the product for you.
It's a time-released energy product, so you don't get the ups and downs of coffee or energy drinks.
It'll get you through the day.
The reviews I get about this product, product, pro-modic?
Product on my email.
That's like a product and email mix, is product on my email are absolutely tremendous
from pilots, from military guys, cops, MMA folks.
You can email me your review as well, daniel@bongino.com.
I'm sure you'll like it.
Go check it out.
The product's called Dawn to Dusk, help you get through your busy days.
It's available at brickhausnutrition.com/dan.
That's brickhausnutrition.com/dan.
And while you're there, check out Foundation as well.
Take the mirror test with Foundation.
It's really, really, really good.
My favorite.
All right, folks.
I have a stacked show for you today, and I'm debating where to start.
I haven't addressed the Young Turks-Ben Shapiro debate.
You know, I didn't address it only because this was a big deal.
It happened at Politicon.
The Young Turks are a bunch of liberals.
They really don't know anything, but they're arrogant about it, so they believe in gaslighting.
Joe, you know gaslighting?
Oh, yeah.
Which we talk about on the show all the time, which is lie about something, but lie confidently and try to isolate people from the truth and you'll get people to believe a false narrative.
So that's what the young Turks do.
I don't know this guy.
I think his name is pronounced Sank or something.
But I watched some of this debate.
It was painful to watch.
They debated Ben Shapiro, a very educated, knowledgeable conservative on the right, and the Young Turk guy just looks silly.
So I got a lot of email on this.
One of the reasons I haven't hit into it is because it was just so dumb on the Young Turk's guy's point that I'm like, why would I waste my listener's time on that?
You know, Shapiro just annihilated him.
You can go to Daily Wire and check that out.
But there was one thing he said I wanted to bring up in context of a tax cuts thing in Kansas and some other stuff I get emails on.
But I'll get to that in a second.
I want to hammer through some other things first.
Listen, some more bad news on Obamacare.
I really sincerely apologize in advance for continuing to bring this up, but it is news of the day and it's relevant to the bigger ideological fight with the left.
They are just immune to facts, ladies and gentlemen.
So yesterday the announcement came out, I don't know if you saw this, I don't know, you may have discussed this on your morning show today, Joe, that major health care plans in a number of different states, we're not talking about isolated incidents here, Are going to hike their ACA, Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, compliant plans by 30%, in some cases over 40%.
Now, states include Idaho, West Virginia, South Carolina, Iowa, Wyoming.
These are hikes that are paralyzing.
I mean, economically paralyzing for people right now who are struggling in what's a decent economy but not a great one.
30% premium hikes?
Folks, when does it end?
I mean, for those of you who continue to support this legislative debacle known as Obamacare, I'm just asking you simply, when does the good news start?
Ever?
Is it ever going to start?
This has failed on its own measure, and you know, not to beat a dead horse on this, but this has been a debacle.
Now, the reason I'm bringing it up again today is not to, you know, not to continue to batter you about it, but it just speaks to the failure of liberals to acknowledge that they're supporting a broken system.
Now, one of the things they're trying to do to gaslight us, again, to lie about Obamacare, repeat the lie confidently and isolate all of us through the truth by not telling the real story, Joe, is they're trying to link these premium hikes now to the CSR payments, which we discussed the other day on the podcast.
There stands for cost-sharing reduction payments.
What they're saying now is that the fact that Trump Is talking about not paying off the insurance companies with taxpayer money.
The insurance companies will have to then increase premiums by that 30%.
Folks, what is this hostage taking?
No, Joe, I'm dead serious about this.
This is where we're going with this now?
That the liberals' new position on Obamacare is if the premium hikes are real, the liberals can't run from it, but that the premium hikes are Trump's fault because Trump won't take your money, taxpayer money, to give it to insurance companies to beg them not to hike your premiums because they have to comply with Obamacare.
Folks, head, desk, repeatedly, Boom.
Boom.
How many times?
Is this real?
Do you ever ask yourself, Joe, is this real?
Not often, yeah.
Right?
I mean, I know poor Joe has to deal with this for four hours in the morning on a conservative show, and we have to deal with it, you know, during our show, the 45-minute podcast we do, where you're just like, is this real?
This is the liberals' new position.
Give us taxpayer money.
Go get it using government force.
Take said taxpayer money, hand it off to insurance companies we allege we hate but we're gonna pay off with your money on the hope and we beg them that they don't increase premiums to produce plans that Obamacare made them produce that they can't make money on.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's just...
It's going to leave a mark, man.
Yeah, it's my, am I already, I have dents in my head.
My skull is not particularly attractive as it is, you know, from all the pounding it's taken.
I got a lot of lumps and a lot of scars.
The continuous head desk phenomenon in the Bongino studio office is really taking its toll on my front, my cranium.
It's starting to leave some very serious marks.
Folks, I don't know how else to argue with you on the left that this is just silly.
Now, some more data points.
All right, I'm done with that because you're just... I don't get it with the libs.
I just don't get it.
They cannot make a coherent argument ever, and when they make their coherent arguments, it disrupts their own ideology.
Yes, we need these cost-sharing payments.
I thought you hated health insurance companies.
Yes, but we don't hate them enough to not bribe them using taxpayer money to not increase premiums, which they'll have to increase because Obamacare forced them to produce healthcare packages no one can afford.
Very bizarre.
In Iowa, this is pretty devastating, and I bring this up because we called it again, Joe, we mentioned this story weeks ago, if not a couple months ago.
I'm not patting myself on the back, just telling you the facts.
If you're a regular listener, you heard the story.
Remember I told you at Iowa a while back that they were losing their insurers, that there's only a few counties in Iowa, excuse me, that even have an insurer left?
Well, Iowa, the price hikes in Iowa are dramatic.
43.5% premium hikes on Obamacare plans.
And why?
Again, we called it last time because the last man standing in Iowa in many of these counties is an insurance company called Medica.
And what happened?
Well, exactly what we said was going to happen.
As insurance companies bail out of Obamacare because they cannot make money on the plans because the plans are not sustainable economically, what happens?
Well, what happens is as the insurance companies bail, the people who had those insurance companies, Joe, They then have to go to alternate insurance companies when their insurance companies cancel.
Obviously, if Joe's insurance is canceled, Joe has to go somewhere else.
Joe is going to go buy another insurance.
But as that happens and the insurance companies leave, the prices go up and up and up because what's happening, Joe, is the only people who are buying the other insurance plans that are pricier And the reason they're buying the other insurance plans that are pricier, and the other insurance plans are pricier, is if you had insurance plan A, and it was $50 a month, and insurance plan B is $52, you're obviously on insurance plan A because it's more economically feasible.
When insurance plan A cancels all their plans in the state, you have no choice.
You have to go to plan B, which is $52.
Now, the people who can't afford $52, and who could only afford $50, will not buy that insurance plan.
The people who can afford it and need it are the people who are typically sicker because even though the insurance is more expensive, it's worth it to them because they're sick.
So what's happening in Iowa?
Why are we seeing these dramatic premium hikes?
Because as the insurance companies leave the state, it's only sicker people that are willing to pay more for the remaining insurance plans left that are the most expensive.
What we would call, Joe, the death spiral.
Now, Medica's the only one remaining because they're charging a good amount of money because they're taking on all the sick people.
Folks, this can't continue.
That's why I titled this show, This Can't Continue, but it doesn't matter.
Liberals or not, they're just, you know, I keep harping on liberals, and I got an email the other day, like, ah, you know, you're beating up liberals too much.
What are you, I don't understand.
The guy who emailed me, I appreciate your listenership, believe me, but what do you want me to do?
They are ruining the country.
It's my obligation on this show to present to you the facts.
Joe, do we not savage Republicans whenever they sell out our principles?
I mean, gosh, we spent an entire week on it last week.
But folks, to the guy who complained on the email, you're beating up liberals too much.
I'm not beating up liberals too much.
Liberals are beating us up too much.
It's astounding that they cannot accept the reality of the catastrophic failure of Obamacare and the very sincere, dramatic ramifications it's having on the American public.
Moving on, a couple other stories I wanted to hit on because there's really a lot going on today in the news.
We've got this really stacked show.
The trade wars are now heating up with Japan and China.
I took kind of a silly note.
There's a beef heating up with Japan.
Pun intended.
Yeah.
And really horrible at that.
But I wrote that down because there is a beef heating up with Japan.
Pretty bad.
What's that happen?
Yeah, it's pretty awful.
The comedian?
I am not.
I have no Chris Rock-like talents or Dave Chappelle whatsoever.
That's why I'm in Conservative Talk Radio.
But I even, like, I had to, like, dramatize it.
You know, I underlined it.
The beef with Japan.
So there's a big crisis going on right now with our beef sales with Japan.
And what's happening is, because we pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP, which was a trade deal, which was multilateral, it was not a bilateral trade deal.
Just to be clear, a bilateral trade deal would be a trade deal between, say, the United States and Japan.
The TPP was a trade deal between the United States and a number of other countries.
It wasn't just, it wasn't bilateral, it was multilateral, pretty simple stuff.
Right.
Well, we pulled out of the TPP with Japan, so what's happening now?
Japan is instituting some pretty heavy tariffs on American beef sales.
We are a rather large trader of beef products, American beef products, to Japan.
They consume a lot of American beef.
And we're being now drowned out by the Australians who are shipping their beef into Japan.
And you may say, well, what happened?
Well, the Japanese instituted a large tariff on American beef, which, of course, a tariff will make American beef more expensive in Japan.
The Japanese say importing beef from America, we will slap a, say, 22% tariff, or whatever it may be, on those sales.
That makes those sales 22% more expensive, roughly, in Japan.
So people are saying, well, we'll just go with the Australian beef, which doesn't have an equivalent tariff, okay?
Also, trade war is heating up with China right now.
Trump is upset at China, understandably so, for doing almost nothing on North Korea while the North Koreans threaten the entire world.
Joe, before the show the other day, brought it up to me.
I know we don't discuss a lot of foreign policy.
I'm not going to beat it to death today either.
But Joe said, and it's rare because he doesn't usually say this kind of stuff to me.
He goes, listen, I'm getting a little concerned about the North Koreans.
Because I assume you talked about it on CBM that morning, too.
And today, yeah.
The North Koreans seem, they seem seemingly irrational now.
I think we've attributed far too many rational characteristics to the short, fat guy over there.
But, you know, the ICBMs, they can legitimately, if not now, hit Alaska and some other targets in the United States if they needed to.
With their weapons technology, and this is kind of a frightening time.
Trump is understandably upset that the Chinese, which are very concerned about a deluge of North Koreans crossing the border into China, if there was a North Korean collapse, collapse of their tyrannical system now, Trump's upset that the Chinese aren't doing more.
They have some leverage over the North Koreans.
Why do I bring that up?
We're using trade policy to kind of negotiate that.
Now, folks, one of the problems we're having with China is amongst many with their trade with China is our intellectual property and tech sharing.
So one of the stipulations China has with many industries is if you're going to come in and trade in China, you have to share your technology with Chinese companies.
Well, folks, that's a really big deal.
If you're Apple, do you really want to be sharing your proprietary technology with a Chinese company that could probably go out and steal it the next day?
Hell no!
Yeah, of course you don't.
So the trade with China, the beef has started heating up now because Trump is, it's intermingled with North Korea policy.
Now, the reason I'm bringing this up is because, folks, there's no good answer with this, but I am going to suggest to you, because I have, I feel an obligation to give you both sides, Some of the talk, again, is about, and emanating from both the Trump administration and from the Hill as well, is, well, what if we retaliate against Japan and China by increasing tariffs on products we import from Japan and China into the United States?
Again, I know this is a hotspot.
I know I'm going to get emails on this, and I appreciate it.
I'm really not trying to offend you.
I'm not saying you're crazy.
Gosh, every time.
Really, I always hesitate because it always causes so much email drama afterwards.
But folks, the tariffs are just not a good idea because they hurt you.
I don't have any other way to explain this economically.
Again, I'm not trying to poke you or prod you with a really hot 4th of July sparkler here.
They're only hurting you.
When we import Japanese and Chinese products, folks, regardless of what they do to ours, I get it.
I totally understand that the tariffs on American beef in Japan are really hurting American beef producers.
I get it.
But there has got to be a better way.
If we can link North Korea with Chinese trade policy, why can't we link our defense posture towards Japan, who's protected under our nuclear umbrella, to trade policy on that end as well without hurting ourselves?
Do you get what I'm saying, Joe?
In other words, instead of using option A, well, we're just going to put a tariff on Japanese products in the United States.
Why not use diplomacy to go another route and say, hey, guys, listen, you're under our nuclear umbrella.
Our defense position supports you with regards to the North Koreans.
We have pledged to help you in a fight with the North Koreans.
Are you seriously taxing us?
I get it.
It's a simplification.
Oh, like they're going to turn around tomorrow and go, oh, OK, sounds good.
Tariff's gone.
I get it that it's complicated.
I'm just trying to suggest to you that diplomacy is inherently complicated.
And instilling a tariff on Japanese products here, ladies and gentlemen, only hurts you.
It does.
I have no dog in the fight, okay?
I'm just giving you the facts.
It makes products sold to you at the consumer level that come from Japan and China more expensive.
I still don't understand how that's going to benefit you economically.
If there was a guarantee, Joe, a guarantee that putting a tariff, slapping a tariff on Japanese products and Chinese products coming into the United States, a guarantee that that would wipe out the Chinese and Japanese products and then the tariffs would go away tomorrow on their products, I would say, OK, that's an understandable kind of chess move, strategic move to get rid of their stuff.
But folks, I'm telling you, based on the history of what's happened in these circumstances, that's not what's going to happen.
No guarantee.
No guarantee at all!
That's not going to happen!
What's going to happen is the tariffs are going to go up even more on U.S.
products in retaliation for these tariffs, and then the tariffs on Japanese products are going to come up even more.
There's no... It's not going to happen.
It's not.
It's going to be a really, really bad situation.
And then what happens is protectionism sets in, and American producers of the products that are now protected against these, you know, because the tariffs from the imports are high, so they're protected against foreign competition, don't want this stuff to go away.
So we wind up having eternal tariffs and more expensive consumer products for you.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's a really, really bad idea.
Again, if we're linking these that these defense issues with China to trade issues as a way to engage in international diplomacy, then we have to consider other ways other than tariffs.
It's not a good idea, but this stuff is heating up.
I'll put a story about it in the show notes today.
All right, moving on quick.
So I just want to make sure I hit this because I addressed it at the beginning of the show.
I don't want to forget.
So again, the Young Turks had a, this guy sank, had a debate, a politicon with Ben Shapiro.
And the debate was just ridiculous.
Not on Shapiro's part, but on this Young Turks guy.
He just doesn't know anything.
So he keeps saying throughout the debate, I was going to put some sound, but it's kind of useless because it was just dumb.
He keeps saying throughout the debate, this guy sank the liberal.
Oh, just Google it, Google it, Google it.
So at one point he starts talking about how taxes are a benefit to the economy and he displays absolute pure unadulterated ignorance that just needs to be shut down right now because it's so silly.
Just by restating it, Joe, and quoting him, I think I lost about 30 IQ points.
I mean he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
He talks about taxes.
High taxes are great for the economy and his theory here is that, and it's really his because I've never heard about, and he calls this the recirculation of money.
I've never heard of this economic theory, the recirculation of money.
I've heard of the velocity of money, but the recirculation of money, he cites this unique theory, unique to him apparently, and he says, well, taxes are great because when you tax people, Especially the rich.
The government takes the money and it gives it to the middle class to spend so the money can recirculate.
So I said, wow, this is a fascinating theory.
I was totally unaware that this was a new econometric theory about growth.
The recirculation of money theory attributed to the Young Turk guy.
Now, folks, this is a common misconception by people who don't know what they're talking about, including this guy Senk, and I think that's how you pronounce his name.
His theory is based on pure economic ignorance, and it's based on the fact that he thinks rich people, when they have money, that somehow the money is stored in mattresses and it's out of the economy.
So therefore the money's not spent, so therefore the economy slows down.
This is old Keynesian thought.
He's not bright enough, I don't think, to attribute it to pure Keynesian thought in an ideal... you know, in a...
In a sophisticated sense.
I mean, he may cite Keynes once in a while, but I don't think he really understands Keynes and the marginal propensity for, you know, to save.
Keynes is a little more complicated than even liberals make it out to be.
It's wrong, Keynesian economics.
But they don't even get the whole thing.
But it's based on the theory, Joe, that the rich will take the money, and when the rich have the money, the money somehow just sits in a mattress and doesn't do anything.
Folks, this is so easily refuted by common sense.
I'll give you two alternate scenarios.
Let's say number one, the rich do something with the money.
So this is scenario one.
And scenario one has a few subsections to it.
So just let me just categorize this for you and place it in a neat little box.
Scenario one is going to be the rich use the money.
Scenario number two, the rich don't use the money and it disappears.
Okay.
We'll get to that in a second.
That's kind of ridiculous.
But scenario number one, they use the money.
How would the rich use the money?
Well, they could spend it.
Now, according to Senk's own economic proprietary theory of the recirculation of money, which I've never heard this economic theory, if they spend the money, doesn't the money, quote, recirculate?
Uh, I mean, is this really complicated economics or is this like fourth grade, you know, social studies kind of stuff?
I mean, this is really dopey stuff that we have to refute.
This is silly, but I have a feeling this young Turks guy, I think he won, you know, thinks he won that debate, which is outrageous.
So spend the money.
Okay.
Number one, that that's under, this is under the, you know, number one, Roman numeral one bullet for, for use the money versus not use the money so they could spend it.
Number two, they could save it.
If they save it, where does the money go?
Well, it goes in a financial institution.
Well, what does the financial institution do with it?
They lend it out!
Folks, does this guy even understand modern finance?
Banks don't even hold money overnight!
There is an overnight trading rate that they will lend money to each other overnight, banks.
Banks do not hold... Now, there is a reserve requirement.
Banks do have to keep a certain amount of money and assets in reserve.
But whatever money banks can get rid of, they will get rid of ASAP.
Now, I don't understand, like, what you're arguing for.
No reserve requirement?
So banks take your money and they have no money at all?
So God forbid the banks overnight need to liquidate some assets they're not supposed to have any left?
Because what the young Turk guy said it based on his recirculation of money theory which no one's ever heard before?
So okay number one they can spend it and it quote recirculates.
Number two it goes into the financial system where again it quote recirculates.
I mean what where else is the money gonna go?
So that's under subset one, and there's a little Roman numeral one, A and B. They can spend it, and it recirculates, or they can save it, and it recirculates.
So he defeats his own theory, like he doesn't even understand what he's talking about.
Alright, Roman numeral number two.
The rich don't use it and it disappears.
Well, this one's so dumb, it's hard for me.
I'm trying to like intentionally slow down my mind to process this in an ignoramus fashion to understand what this guy could possibly be thinking.
So I guess he thinks, Joe, that when the rich make money, it disappears and they stick it in a mattress and then they burn the mattress.
Okay, I don't know what he said, but let's just play the game for a second.
Folks, I'm asking you, Joe, drop a few IQ points here.
I know it's hard.
This is kind of tough to take.
I know it's tough to take because you're getting dumber by the moment listening to me talk about it.
So let's just say the rich suck the money out of the economy, like the greedy people, the young Turk guy thinks they are, and they take it home and they burn all the money.
Or they stick it in a mattress never to be found again.
Folks, I've mentioned this before on the show, but even if that were the case, that the rich took all the money out of the economy, I'll tell you, trillions in assets, and they burned it and it went nowhere.
It was not spent, it was not invested in financial institutions, it's hiding in mattresses which will be buried 60 feet under the ground, under molten lava.
Do you understand, under the pure principles of supply and demand, that would make your money worth more?
If money randomly started disappearing at it, remember it's a representation of value, is it not?
Yeah.
It's not monopoly money, meaning the rich acquired this money by selling you a product.
So they sell you, Bill Gates sells you, let's simplify it, an IBM computer for $1,000.
Bill Gates somehow comes across this $1,000 in cash after it filters through his company, and then Bill Gates lights it on fire.
You now have a product, and the money you have is now worth more.
What?
What are you saying, Dan?
This doesn't make any sense.
Folks, if money started randomly disappearing from the economy because the rich were burning it, and again, this is dumbing me down by the minute trying to think like a young Turk.
If the money disappeared like he thinks it does, and it's not quote recirculating, it makes the value of the money you possess worth even more.
Because then people are going to have a hard time finding what?
Money!
Because trillions would have disappeared.
So now all of a sudden you're like, wait.
Yesterday I had $1,000 in the bank and nobody really cared because there was a lot of money running around and interest rates were really low.
So let me get this straight.
Now because the rich are burning money everywhere and trillions are disappearing and mattresses hidden under the ground, people need my money and they're willing to give me 20% interest to get it?
Wow!
I bought all this stuff from the rich and my money's worth more?
Oh my god, this guy!
Forgive me, I don't mean to use the Lord's name in vain.
I shouldn't.
It bothers me when I say that.
Sometimes it's a really bad habit, but my apologies.
Folks, this takes a degree of economic stupidity.
I don't even know the guy.
Maybe he's a nice guy, but he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
But he gets on stage so confidently spouting off, and then he says Google it, spouting off about his unique proprietary recirculation of money theory I've never heard from any serious credible economist ever anywhere in human history.
Good job, Cenk.
And he's so proud of himself, too, at Politicon.
He's like, you guys are, you're all educated.
He keeps telling the audience.
Maybe tomorrow I'll try to find a few soundbites from it.
Let me pull some sound for you, Dan.
Yeah, go grab some of it tomorrow, because it'd kind of be fun.
Shapiro, and one of the reasons, too, just to be clear, I didn't cover it on the show, even though I got a lot of emails on it.
Shapiro did a more than adequate, matter of fact, a very good job of defeating this guy's Stupidity, and I'm like, well, why do I need to repeat it?
I mean, it's just so dumb.
But when he mentioned the recirculation of money, I did kind of quietly laugh.
It was hysterical.
All right, hey, have you picked up your emergency supply of food yet?
I appreciate everyone who has, who gives me their reviews about it as well, because My Patriot Supply is the sponsor we choose to go with in this market.
They produce great, high-quality emergency food.
It lasts for 25 years.
Folks, you know, it's better to have this stuff and not need it than to need it and not have it.
You know, preparedness should be a key component of your total life happiness plan.
I mean, it's really tough to be happy if in the event of an emergency you have no money, you have no firearms, you have nothing.
You have no water supply, you have no food supply.
Folks, you have to prepare.
I know we live in the richest country on earth, but it's silly not to prepare and then have the assets to do so.
And all of the assets MyPatriotSupply will ask for to give you one month's supply of emergency food is 99 bucks.
That's it.
It's a small price to pay to ensure your emergency food supply, especially with all these threats from North Korea, all this stuff going on.
You got a heat wave out west.
People's air conditioners are breaking down.
Buy a month's supply of emergency food.
It'll last you 25 years.
Breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
You only need water to prepare it.
Go get a good supply of water as well.
Go to preparewithdan.com today.
That's preparewithdan.com today.
$99 you can pick up your emergency supply of food today.
I'd really appreciate if you support our sponsors.
I know they thank you.
I thank you.
They keep the show free and I really appreciate your time on this putting up with our ads because it keeps the show free for you.
It's not a cheap show to produce.
So preparewithdan.com, pick up your one month supply of emergency food today.
All right, two more stories.
I have to motor through these because these are really, really good stories.
So Tom Cotton, a United States Senator, introduced yesterday an immigration bill, which is something I've been talking about for a long time.
I actually ran on this.
When I was running for office.
He calls it the RAISE Act, and it's a proposal to limit legal immigration from 1 million to 500,000 a year.
But here's the most important point.
I'm not going to hammer this to death, but I want to put it out there because I think there's some, this is a really, really good idea.
He's proposing also, Joe, a kind of points-based system based on skills we need.
Why this is a controversial idea to the left is quite staggering to me.
Right now, just to kind of Lay out the A and B, like what we have now versus B, what Cotton's proposing.
Right now what we have is a chain migration based system, ladies and gentlemen.
And what that does is it awards a preference, kind of preference points we'll say, to people who have family members in the United States.
Regardless of the actual economic value they can give to the United States.
Now, I get it how a lot of liberals say, well, are we judging people purely by what they can produce?
No, but I think it's kind of the only way to keep a country economically progressing into the future is by bringing people into the country that actually add to the economic value of it.
You know, we could certainly be sympathetic, you know, we could certainly entertain asylum requests, but Basing our economic policy strictly around family ties, Joe, which is what we have now in chain migration, gives a geometrically growing number of people a claim on U.S.
citizenship.
I mean, think about it.
If 10 people move in who have 10 relatives, and each one of them gets to bring in 10 relatives, that is the very essence of geometric, not arithmetic, growth.
Exponential growth is a better way to say it.
There's no way to control that.
And how do you know these people can produce the economic benefits necessary to keep our country economically stable enough to continue to take immigrants in in the future?
So Cotton's proposing a very reasonable idea, Joe, that we award Preference status, because I know points makes liberals, uh, liberals get scared about that.
Preference status to people who have advanced skills necessary to not only, I don't want to say fill jobs because that scares people too.
They say fill jobs so they can take jobs from Americans.
But folks, it's not that they're just taking jobs from Americans.
That's a simplistic way of looking at it overall.
There are, there are a lot of cases where that's happening.
Don't get me wrong.
Don't email me and say, so you are taking jobs.
I know that I get it.
I totally get it.
I understand that.
But there are skills we can use to create new jobs that Americans can fill as well.
You gotta remember, one of the founders of Google is not from the United States.
So if we're going to have an immigration plan, folks, one based on chain migration, And one based on, certainly not open-ended, but closed-ended immigration, where we're actually taking in people in the country that have skills we can use to grow the job base in the country?
This is a win-win for everyone.
I don't understand how, even if you're the most hardcore restrictionist, you could oppose this plan.
We're never going to have a zero immigration policy in the country.
Folks, it's just not realistic.
I'm not here to argue about things that aren't ever going to happen, ever.
But to get a plan that stops chain migration, as we know it now, and reorients our plan to a more reduced level of national immigration, which I'm okay with, for integration purposes and assimilation purposes.
And then a plan that uses economic measures for where we can use certain skills.
That's a ground ball.
And I think Cotton's plan should be looked at and should be looked at very seriously.
And again, I'll put an article in the show notes about that today.
If you want the show notes emailed to you, we got a ton of new subscribers last week, Joe, which is very good.
All right.
Go to bongino.com and then sign up for my email list there and we will email the show notes to you every day with some news picks and a link to the podcast as well.
So go check it out, bongino.com.
Alright, final story today, because I got an email on it, a very good one.
And by the way, for those of you who email me stories, I'm trying to think, like Peter, Ornella, I get a ton of emails every day.
Mark, this guy John, I get a ton of emails about stories.
Hey Dan, check this out, keep them coming!
You're not bothering me at all.
Someone, I think it was Arnella, said, I hope I'm not bothering, you're not bothering me one bit with the emails.
Send the stories over.
Some of them I use, some of them I don't.
But I got an interesting email yesterday from a, showing it, proving again, I read them all, about a Cato piece.
And the Cato piece was about the tax cuts in Kansas, which if you're a listener to this show for the last year and a half or so, Joe and I have been sounding the alarm about this.
If you're a CRTV viewer as well, I interviewed the governor of Kansas on this on CRTV.
We have been sounding the alarm about Kansas for a long time, but not for the reasons you think.
Joe, do you remember the show about a year and a half ago where we said, watch what's happening in Kansas because the liberals are going to continue to use the Kansas tax cuts As a bludgeon against the right to say, look, tax cuts don't work, ignoring all other evidence other than what happened in Kansas.
Again, I'm right because the liberals are bringing up Kansas again.
And I got an email yesterday from a listener who sent me a Cato piece and he said, Dan, what gives?
You said Cato's a really good asset, which it is, C-A-T-O, their email list is terrific.
Daniel Mitchell at Cato, I have a ton of respect for, wrote a piece saying, listen to Kansas tax cuts.
I don't want to mischaracterize his words, but there's some ups and downs to it.
It's the best way to say it.
I will put the Cato piece by Mitchell, courtesy of one of our listeners.
in the show notes today, and I strongly encourage you to read it because it's a good piece.
I disagree with some of his assertions, Mitchell, but he said, what gives?
You said Cato's, you know, a good asset, but then you said the Kansas tax cuts are being used as a weapon against us by the liberals disingenuously, so who's right?
Now, just quickly on this, what happened?
Kansas cut a boatload of taxes.
The governor of Kansas, Sam Brownback.
Now, there were budget shortfalls in Kansas.
I'm not here to argue that.
But what I'm here to argue is that liberals are disingenuously conflating a number of different variables and they're mischaracterizing the argument.
Joe, we have repeatedly on the show tried to explain the difference between correlation and causation.
Yeah.
As it relates to tax cuts to the point where some listeners are like, you should just put it up on your website so people can read it.
You should just write a blog piece.
I'm going to just quickly explain this again.
I am not suggesting to you that tax rate cuts, in other words, cutting your income tax rate, cutting the corporate tax rate, I am not suggesting to you that I can prove that that causes increases in tax revenue.
I'm not suggesting that.
I never suggested that.
What I'm suggesting to you is those two factors are highly correlated.
I'm also suggesting to you they may Income tax rate cuts and corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts may cause increased revenue and I'm also suggesting you the evidence is strong that it does and that's where I disagree with Mitchell.
The evidence for income tax cuts Being at a minimum, Joe, correlated with increased tax revenue is extremely strong.
Now unlike Cenk who says Google it and then you Google it and he makes a fool of himself because there is no recirculation of money economic theory I know of out there using those terms, right?
Weird call from Annapolis.
I can prove to you correlationally if you Google it That income tax rate cuts have led to increased revenue.
You already know the Reagan years, the Reagan years income tax revenue doubled after the income tax rate cuts happened under John F. Kennedy, happened under Calvin Coolidge, happened under George W. Bush, even happened under the capital gains tax cut of Bill Clinton.
We've repeated that over and over, I'm not going to beat a dead horse on that.
What I'm simply suggesting to you is that it is correlated.
Correlated, meaning there could be another variable involved, and we don't know about that.
We don't know what it is.
I always use the example of colds in the winter.
People get more colds in the winter.
It's not because of the cold weather.
It's because in the cold, people tend to secrete more mucus in their nose, which causes them to rub their nose, which when they shake their hands with someone who has a cold virus, and they then go to wipe away the mucus from their nose, they introduce the virus into their nasal passage, which causes an infection, and they in turn get a cold.
Cold weather does not cause you to get sick, but the third-party variable, Joe, the mucus secretions and the wiping of the nose does!
But!
Tax rate cuts work the same way.
When you cut tax rates, it puts more money back in people's pockets.
A very common sense theory would be that that money causes people to use it.
Either, as I said before, going back to the Sank silly arguments, they're not going to burn it.
That's just dumb.
So they're either going to put it in a bank or they're going to spend it.
Either way, it goes back into the economy and, quote, recirculates, to use his silly recirculation of money theory.
That recirculation of money, which is not forced by government, but happens through tax rate cuts, ironically, the exact opposite of what Senk is arguing, that's what causes economic growth, as that those assets seek their best and higher purpose.
Make sense, Joe?
Good companies, people start to invest in good companies, good companies grow, they pay people more, people pay more taxes.
So, number one, just to kind of sum this up, I'm not suggesting that all tax rates cuts are causal.
I'm just suggesting to you that the correlational data is strong, that tax rates cuts can lead to and may lead to higher tax revenue.
In Kansas, what happened?
Kansas, they had some major league budget shortfalls.
Now, it wasn't all apocalyptic though.
One of the reasons they had a budget shortfall is nobody cut spending on a per capita basis.
Matter of fact, here's a quote from the piece, state spending increased every year except for 2013 where there was a 3% drop.
And state spending per capita, inflation adjusted, stayed flat and high.
So, Joe, if you're going to cut a tax rate on the economy, and there's a difference between short and long-term effects, there's probably going to be a short-term shortfall why the economy adjusts.
The money has to filter its way into the economy, it has to be invested, and businesses have to grow.
Even in the Reagan years, after the tax rate cuts, the spike wasn't right away in tax revenue.
By the time Reagan left office, tax revenue had almost doubled, but it didn't double right away, folks.
This is common sense, I thought.
You cut taxes, taxes filter their way through the economy, businesses grow, businesses in turn hire more people and pay more taxes, but that takes time.
Kansas had some short-term shortfalls, but this should be unsurprising to no one because they didn't cut state spending.
So I don't understand how that's a defense of liberal Keynesian economics.
Kansas cuts taxes, they had decent economic growth, they didn't cut spending, and they had a shortfall.
Okay, fine.
That's common sense.
That's not a defense of liberal economic theory at all.
That's quite silly, if you ask me.
One more thing on this, too.
Just a quote from the piece, so you have an idea about why Kansas is having economic struggles completely unrelated to the tax cuts.
Again, this is why correlation is important.
Correlation means two variables are related, but how they're related is not necessarily causal.
So again, but the cold's in the winter.
It's not the cold that causes the winter, it's through a third factor.
When you cut taxes, there is not even a third factor, Joe.
There's a 20th, 40th, and 50th factor.
There are so many things that can happen.
In other words, what if you cut taxes in a state, Joe, but you do nothing about state spending, you do nothing about regulations, and then there's economic gridlock, and then we have an economic recession countrywide?
You're going to blame the decreased tax revenue on the tax cuts?
That's just silly.
That's, again, blaming the cold, your virus, your cold virus, on the cold weather.
You just don't know what you're talking about.
So here's a quote from the piece by Mitchell.
He says, Mr. Brownback was unlucky in his timing, giving the hits to the agricultural and energy industries that count for much of the state's economy.
Listen, folks, oil price is tight.
It's pretty simple.
But unemployment is still low at 3.7%.
The state has had considerable small business formation every year since the tax cuts were enacted.
The tax competition across the Kansas-Missouri border around Kansas City is one reason Missouri cut its top individual tax rate in 2014.
So, you know, folks, I don't understand.
They cut taxes.
There's been solid small business formation.
Unemployment's 3.7%.
They still have a relatively high tax rate, by the way, so it's still not the best state in the country to do business.
But unemployment's down.
It's caused a good amount of tax competition on the Kansas City-Missouri border.
But state spending stayed high, and they ran some budget deficits.
How is this in any way A defense of liberal economic theory.
I'm just bringing it up because this is going, the Kansas model, I guarantee you as you get more involved in politics and debates with your liberal friends who actually know what they're talking about, they're going to bring up Kansas and your retort should be immediately, well they cut spending?
Well no, they didn't cut spending.
Okay, so why are you surprised they had a budget shortfall?
We had deficits in the Reagan years, too.
It wasn't because tax revenue fell short.
It was because they kept spending year after year after year, and these tax cuts take time to filter through the economy.
I would say to people in Kansas, call me back in 10 years.
Then we can talk about what happened.
All right, folks, I appreciate you tuning in today.
Thanks for tolerating Sank and the Young Turks.
I love Joe.
We'll try to pull some audio for you tomorrow.
Maybe we'll get that piece about the recirculation of money so you can smile about it.
It's kind of funny.
It's a new theory, Joe, recirculation of money.
I'm sure it'll be a new Democrat talking point soon.
