Ep. 566 The GOP is Breaking Another Critical Promise
In this episode - Why does the Las Vegas attack timeline keep changing? http://nypost.com/2017/10/10/mgm-says-police-timeline-of-vegas-massacre-may-not-be-accurate/?utm_campaign=iosapp&utm_source=mail_app We are winning the battle against the anti-American NFL protests. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/11/trump-says-about-time-after-nfls-goodell-calls-on-players-to-stand-for-anthem.html The GOP is blowing up the budget despite promising us otherwise. https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/under-gop-in-2017-government-spending-increased-130-billion Are the “rich” paying their “fair share”? https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gops-tax-the-rich-temptation-1507487704 https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-reform-and-deficits-1507676979 The Left are hypocrites on sexual assault and harassment. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/540846/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
I have an obligation to come on the air with data and material and research.
I can't just say, trade stinks.
Thanks for tuning in.
The Dan Bongino Show.
Let's jump right in because we have no time for nonsense.
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
When I was a young man, I don't remember it being sexy to want to allow a nanny state to control my life.
On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
All right, welcome to the Renegade Republic.
I'm with Dan Bongino.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Hey, just call me Dan's McMahon.
I'm here with you, babe.
Yeah, some guy tweeted the show yesterday.
Have you ever disagreed?
Yes, he does, as a matter of fact.
We happen to share the same political ideology.
It shouldn't be strange that we agree on a lot of things.
Hey, what time is the class tonight, by the way?
7, Paul, or 7?
7, okay.
Sorry, I had to ask my wife a question first.
I teach a class and I forget what time it is sometimes.
So just quickly, I want to clear something up.
So last night, I did an appearance on Tucker Carlson's show on Fox, and man, did that generate a lot of email.
And understandably so, you know, it's my, my job is to be absolutely precise, especially when you're a conservative.
You can't say anything, and you know, that could be even remotely taken the wrong way.
And it was about the Vegas shooting, and a couple things.
I wanted to talk about this today, not at length, because I really want to get to the tax thing that I've been pushing off all week, but it's important, and also make some quick points about Another just glaring liberal hypocrisy with regards to Harvey Weinstein.
But on the shooting, the timeline keeps changing now, moving all over the place.
Now, for those of you who missed the story yesterday, the original timeline that came out from law enforcement sources in the press conference was that shooting begins, security guard from the Mandalay goes up to the room, security guard is shot, I believe his last name is Campos, He's shot, notifies the police, and then the police respond, and then the gunman takes his own life.
That was the original timeline.
The timeline shifted yesterday.
Big time.
What do you call it?
The security guard, Campos, responds before the shooting begins.
The shooting begins then six minutes after, which a lot of people are saying, well that's a big difference.
If the shooting started, then the security guard went up there and then got shot, but now you're saying the security guard went up there, then the shooting outside began, This is a big, big difference.
So I was on last night talking about that.
And yes, folks, it's a, listen, it's a, it's, it's the information wasn't correct.
And you know, a lot of people said, well, because I said, listen, this is a really tough job and these guys are in a really bad spot.
And my guess here as to why this happened, I'm not defending anyone, by the way, those people who send me nasty emails, like, you know, you're covering for the cops.
I'm not covering for anyone.
They asking me for my law enforcement perspective on the show and I'm giving it.
Do you want an explanation as to why I think the timeline shifted or you just want to guess?
I mean, if you don't know, you don't know.
You're free to speculate yourself.
Yeah.
But I was given my opinion on it and I said, listen, in my experience here, I've seen this before, and I gave an example of a case I had worked where it was a credit card fraud case.
I can't give the details, obviously, about the case, but it was a big case.
And we had a timeline problem as well.
The timeline, the timestamp on the security camera Where the incident happened in one of the stores, it was a home improvement store, and the time stamp on the credit card receipt did not marry up.
Now, it didn't create a whole bunch of complications for us, but this is not unusual.
Now, I'm not... Folks, it was a mistake.
I can't be any clearer on this.
The only point I was trying to make is this is an explanation of why it may happen.
I don't know why that was controversial, but where I got myself in a little bit of...
Hot water is.
I was trying to talk about the delayed response because now, Joe, it appears that the timeline between when the shooting began on the crowd and when the cops responded has been extended.
Now, fair questions, folks, all of them.
Again, I'm just trying to give you some insight as to why.
If you're not interested, that's fine.
Move on.
You're also you're free to have your own opinions about it.
It's a free country.
I'm just giving you my opinion.
It's my show.
That's what I do.
And it wasn't my show last night, but they were asking me for my opinion on it.
And I had said that The way the shooting was happening in the hotel room with the rounds, 5-5-6-2-2-3 rounds, that these rounds would penetrate a bulletproof vest.
But I made, this was a critical mistake, and I should not have said this.
I said there's no vest that would have stopped that.
There are vests that absolutely will stop that round, folks.
I was thinking of it from a law enforcement, police officer, non-tactical unit response team guy.
When I was a cop, we would wear typically level two vests that are not going to stop that at all.
And I said, we'll go through that fast and easy, which it would.
But there are tactical units that have the capability through their body armor to stop that type around.
It's a tremendous blunt trauma.
But the point I was trying to make about the delayed response there was that the equipment on the initial responding officers, which were probably, Joe, patrol officers.
They were not tactical.
The initial response team, The equipment they likely had was not sufficient to stop that round.
And not even close.
And I made the point that bullets in a hallway, they have what we would call in law enforcement the fatal funnel effect.
How bullets when you're firing in a hallway, even on drywall Joe, will not necessarily penetrate the drywall and may in fact ricochet off the drywall and ride down the hallway.
Now, some lady, like, attacked me on Twitter, like, is he saying bullets won't penetrate drywall?
That's not... Folks, will you listen to what I'm telling you?
Because this is what drives me crazy about doing media stuff sometimes.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying the cops that likely responded probably didn't have the body armor.
My mistake, though, for saying no.
I own that one, right?
There are clearly vests.
We had the, actually, uh... Well, I don't even want to say.
I don't want to give up too much information.
But there are vests that do that.
But the law enforcement officers who responded, Joe, probably didn't have those, is what I'm saying.
I understand what you're saying.
Secondly, I'm saying when you're in a hallway, like a hotel hallway, they call that in law enforcement and tactics and in close quarters combat, a fatal funnel.
Because the rounds going down the hallway There's a strong likelihood if they hit the wall at a certain angle will actually travel down the wall.
So you're in a funnel of hot lead that's never going to stop and there's nowhere to go.
It's kind of like throwing a glass bottle out the car window and watching it hit the The pavement doesn't break.
It bounces for a while.
Dude, that's a fantastic example.
Like, you're like, what?
What is he saying?
Glass bottles don't break when they hit the concrete?
No, I promise you, you slam a glass bottle down, it's gonna break.
But you're absolutely right.
It depends on the angle the thing is moving in as you're moving in a horizontal direction in your car.
And the speed, yeah.
The best way I've had this explained to me, because this is important in understanding why this was such a dangerous situation these cops were walking into and what may have delayed the response.
The best way I've had this explained to me, the fatal funnel effect, even with drywall type walls, is a bullet doesn't act like a baseball.
In other words, if I were to throw a baseball against a wall, just drywall, it's probably going to go through the wall.
You too.
Or stick in the wall.
Right?
If you throw it hard enough.
Yeah.
That's not how a bullet reacts like a football because it's conical in shape.
So if it doesn't hit the wall directly, there's a good chance even with drywall at a specific angle it's going to reflect.
This lady had a meltdown on Twitter.
Did he just say that?
That bullets ricochet off drywall?
Yes, absolutely!
And I encourage you strongly if you, you know, and if you listen to my rough cuts maybe in the future we'll go into some personal tactics stuff.
That's why you never get into fatal funnel unless you absolutely have to.
And that, you know, the line with the fatal funnel we had is if you're, you know, if you're moving you better be shooting, right?
Because at that point you better be suppressing the fire coming at you because in that fatal funnel it's coming at you.
It's with the ferocity.
And there's very little you're going to be able to do.
So I just wanted to address that because I got a ton of emails and, you know, for everything from your covering for the cops, which is absurd, I'm just giving you my perspective on it, to, you know, that there is body armor, all right, granted, totally legit on that one, to, you know, bullets don't ricochet off drywall.
Folks, I promise you, they do.
Don't make that mistake.
All right.
All right.
A lot to talk about today.
So the NFL caved yesterday.
Roger Goodell put out a statement requesting that people stand for the national anthem.
I've been covering this a lot.
I don't want to beat it to death.
But folks, this brings up an important point.
That I want you to take to heart.
Whenever you get down, right, in politics, and I know it happens to me a lot too, I mean just the other day I was whining about how I got up and the liberals just, they wear you down folks, they do.
Because you're like, how can they think things that are so stupid and manage to not see the light when it's, you know, it's staring them in the face.
I just want you to take some solace in the fact that the liberals are winning the culture war.
They are.
They've always got a leg up because they've got the media, they've got Hollywood, and they've got academia.
They've got the three biggest megaphones out there.
But I just want you to understand that even though they're winning, that the overall war they've been winning over time, that these skirmishes that we're engaging in repeatedly with them are starting to take the toll, and I think the tide is starting to turn, Joe.
We had the incident in Kentucky which blackfired on them spectacularly when they jailed the court clerk for not signing gay marriage certificates.
That was a total loser for them.
They may try faux bravado and be like, oh that was good, we showed them, we put them in jail.
Folks, backfired spectacularly.
The Little Sisters of the Poor case where Obamacare was forcing basically Catholic nuns to In some way, de facto support the sale of birth control to their employees backfired spectacularly.
The Target boycott.
Target thought it was a good idea to allow men in the women's room in their stores to appease, you know, a specific special interest lobby and that backfired spectacularly.
Target stock price went down.
You can argue all you want about it was trending down.
Folks, it went down.
Even Target themselves acknowledged it was a disaster.
You saying otherwise makes you look like a fool.
Finally, this NFL thing, Joe, is another example.
I think this is the fourth example I'm telling you now.
This is just in the last few years of culture wars and skirmishes, I should say, to be more precise and clear.
Skirmishes started in the culture war, Joe, that have blown up in the left's face in spectacular fashion.
This NFL thing, I don't care what you're telling yourself.
And again, to our liberal listeners, I get it.
I get your nasty grams.
I get your tweets.
I get your emails.
I don't care what you're telling yourself right now.
All I care about are the facts.
The NFL backtracked on this thing for one reason and one reason only.
It was absolutely blowing up in their face, their ratings are down, and there's now actual talk of the NFL having to do make-goods.
Now, Joe knows what late goods are on radio.
You know, when you miss an ad, you have to go back and later on you have to replay it, sometimes even for free.
The NFL's ratings are hurting so badly now that the promised viewership for an ad, that someone who paid an ad to get in front of a certain number of eyeballs, that they may at some point have to run free ads to make up for the lack of viewership.
Folks, this is hitting them right in the pocket.
For all this bluster, and I engage in it as well because I'm just being honest, over time the culture wars have definitely tilted in their direction.
The skirmishes now are taking their toll on them.
This NFL thing was a loser for them.
A loser on steroids.
There is no way they come out of this without egg on their face.
They look like absolute fools.
They have done nothing to advance their message.
They have only preached to the choir.
They have made no substantive change at all, even on the issues they claim to care about.
Their message was muddled and lost.
They alienated their fans.
They alienated a lot of military families.
They alienated a lot of cops.
Not all.
I don't speak for everyone.
I'm just telling you the numbers are obvious.
Now, you do with it what you want, but you should pat yourself on the back today, and this boycott is definitely working, and I encourage you to continue it.
I am.
I'm done with the NFL.
I don't really care at this point what they do.
They alienated me for good.
You nail in front of the anthem, and then you double down on it over time, and then you insult the people who take a stand against it?
No.
No.
We were all open to a conversation about, You want to talk about race and racism?
Fine, I'll have that conversation.
Talk about disadvantaged minority populations in inner cities?
Let's have it.
That's not the conversation you wanted to have.
You wanted to put socks on like Colin Kaepernick did with cops depicted as pigs.
That was your tactic.
You were done.
You were done after that.
There was no conversation.
What do you have, a shirt with Che Guevara on or celebrating Fidel Castro?
No, no, Kaepernick that is.
We're done.
We're done.
Conversation's over.
You celebrating murderers now?
And we're supposed to have a conversation because you're a 20-year-old now-failed quarterback?
We're supposed to take your word for it about the quality politics that the Cuban regime... I mean, come on.
Give me a break.
You guys, you're done.
This thing totally ate you alive.
You lost.
So good for you, everyone out there who fought this good fight.
Hey, today's show brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Big fan of these guys.
They do a great job with their supplements.
The doc over there has been great.
They get on top.
They see the trends in the fitness industry and get out in front of them with the supplements.
One of the products that really gets great reviews, I'm based on the email traffic and the tweets I get,
and I always send these on to the owner of the company, by the way, is Dawn to Dusk.
It's an energy product that solves one of the big vexing problems in the energy industry today,
which are the ups and downs.
You know, you take these energy drinks, coffee, some of these energy pills, and a couple hours later,
you crash.
Folks, it's a big problem, especially if, like me, you live really active lives.
Matter of fact, you know, I saw my wife walk by the office.
I was asking her about a class I teach tonight that goes till late at night.
I mean, we start really early here with the kids, running around all day between volleyball and all the stuff we got to do with dropping them off at school.
You need that extended amount of energy.
This is an extended time release product.
It lasts about 10 hours.
I get unbelievable reviews on it.
If you're having trouble getting through the day, understandably, give it a shot.
It's called Dawn to Dusk.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Alright, I want to spend a little bit of time on this because it's important.
You know, the tax cut debate is out again, and of course it's fiery because it always is.
And what I find really fascinating about this tax cut debate here is that the facts are not out there, folks.
One of the constant themes of the feedback I get via email on the show from people is they really appreciate our focus on facts and data.
You know, not just angry talk.
I mean, anybody could scream and yell about tax cuts, but I want to see some data.
I want to see where this is going.
There are a couple of pieces I wanted to focus on, and Phil Graham wrote one the other day, folks, because I know a lot of you out there are debating with your liberal friends, and they're going to tell you how wonderful Sweden and these so-called democratic socialist states are.
Okay, number one, there is no such thing as democratic socialism.
There is either socialism or democracy.
There's no such thing as democratic socialism.
What they are calling democratic socialism is really a big government nanny state.
And understandably, if I'm going to demand of myself, as you should of me, absolute precision in conversation, you should demand that of your leftist friends too.
There cannot be any such thing as democratic socialism.
Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.
You can't possibly have a democracy without economic freedom.
If you vote people into office who control everything, The food production, the oil production, the energy production, the production of fluids to keep you alive.
You do not live in a democracy.
There is no such thing as democratic socialism.
What you're talking about in Sweden and Scandinavian countries are big government nanny states that have entitlement structures.
There's no such thing as democratic socialism.
It is a myth.
It is a myth propagated by socialists to get you to believe that socialism can be in any way democratic.
Socialism is very clearly the government's control of the means of production.
You cannot control the means of production and exist in a democracy at the same time.
It is a faux democracy.
Just another freaking lie.
Every time, Joe.
And wait till I get this other story, because with this Weinstein thing, it's really... I know.
I mean, the hypocrisy is just grotesque.
But Phil Graham has a piece, which he put in the Wall Street Journal, which I'll quote some numbers from, because this is important.
Because again, I'm hearing liberals and I'm seeing them on Twitter.
I'm hearing them in their conversation.
I monitor a few Twitter accounts to see what's going on out there.
And I'm hearing again about the wonders of these Scandinavian cultures, which emphasize Big, heavy tax burdens and big, heavy tax burdens specifically on the rich.
And the argument goes like this, that, well, you know, the United States doesn't tax the rich enough.
And if we did, we'd be able to live like the Scandinavians where everything, Joe, is free!
Amazing how stuff is free.
Of course, that is a myth.
Nothing is free.
Everyone pays the cost.
It doesn't matter.
There's no such thing.
It's a nonsensical, ridiculous term liberals have made up in economics.
There is no such thing in economics anywhere as free.
Okay.
So, Graham put some numbers out there to debunk your liberal friends talking about, again, how wonderful Scandinavia is and how imbalanced the United States is when it comes to taxing the rich.
By the way, these are numbers from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, widely accepted numbers, and they're from 2008, which is the last time they did a really comprehensive analysis on this.
So this study, Joe, looked at all forms of taxes.
I want to be clear on this.
Liberals, take the cotton out of your ears because they always have some counter argument that they'll make up at a thin air.
Covered all forms of taxes on income, including social insurance taxes and state and local taxes, Joe.
So this study looked at all forms of taxation.
It found out that the top 10% of earners in the U.S.
paid more than 45% of all taxes on income.
The top 10% paid 45% of all taxes on income.
The top 10% of earners.
Now, remember, the liberal argument is always alluded to the fact that the rich don't pay enough, which is garbage, which is nonsense.
Now, in the places they love, Sweden being one of them, in Sweden, Joe, the top 10% of earners paid less than 27%.
You got Jay Zabikus out there?
Get Jay Zabikus out there.
Yeah, get Jay Zabikus here.
So let's just be clear on this.
So liberals, their argument here is that in the United States, the rich people are getting a free pass, okay?
But when you factor in all forms of taxes, Joe, In the U.S., the top 10%, those evil rich people, pay 45%.
You got that?
45, okay?
Move the numbers around.
Okay, 45%.
Sweden, liberal utopia, they talk about all the time, fake democratic socialist country, which is not democratic, there's no such thing.
In Sweden, the top 10% pay 27, so is 27 less than 45?
27 so it's 27 less than 45.
Okay, let me...
(humming)
Uh, it's less.
Less than less.
Less!
It's less!
Oh, Jay Zabickas comes through.
Let me tell you something, Jay Zabickas is the best clutch hitter right now.
It's infallible.
It is infallible.
It is every single time it comes through.
So in Sweden, the rich actually pay less of a tax burden than they do in the United States, the top 10%.
Okay, it gets even better.
In France, another, you know, a liberal utopia.
And by the way, for those of you who sent me that critique of the EconTalk thing I discussed yesterday, where he talks about the author of a piece was interviewed in EconTalk, was talking about how income inequality is so horrendous in the United States and it's better in France.
And I disputed it at one of the previous shows.
In France, Joe, the top 10% pay less than 25%.
So again, get the abacus out.
It's 45%.
Greater than or less than 25 percent?
45 is greater than 25 percent.
45 is...
Yeah.
45 is greater than 25.
Jays Abacus in the clutch again!
Yep, right here.
This guy is, they used to have a statistic in Major League Baseball, I don't know if they still have it, the game-winning RBI.
This is the, Jays Abacus is the game-winning RBI every single time.
The run batted in that wins the game, I don't think they have that statistic anymore.
They might, they might not, but I always remember like, he led the league in game-winning RBI.
I was like, gosh, what a dumb statistic that is.
But the point of the, okay, now, By the way, let me just go on and read the rest of this quote.
Since Sweden and France both have large value-added taxes, a regressive levy, their top 10% of earners bear an even smaller share of the total tax burden.
So he writes, the next time Bernie Sanders demands that the rich pay their fair share, someone should ask him if he would be satisfied if the American rich paid the same share as their counterparts in Sweden and France.
What is he saying in the piece?
Folks, it's clear as day that if you're going to argue we should be more like Europe and the Scandinavian countries that, and these are just the facts liberals, don't let this get in the way of your stupid plans, that you would actually be arguing for a tax Cut for the rich!
Because as Jay's abacus pointed out and never fails, 45% is in fact greater than 27 and 25% which is the tax burden paid by the so-called rich in Sweden and France.
Now folks again do you ever you know you ask me sometimes why I get so angry at liberals?
This is one of the reasons why.
They will never argue with you based on facts and data and numbers.
They will only argue with you based on talking points.
Once you dismantle the talking point, they have nowhere else to go.
There's nowhere else for them to go.
Now, more from the grand piece because this is important.
They'll also say, well, if we grant a tax cut to top earners, then those top earners are not going to pay.
Remember, they're arguing we don't pay enough now, which is nonsense.
We just debunk that.
But they're also arguing that if we get a tax cut, well, that would cut their tax load and, in fact, put more of the tax burden on the middle class.
Which, by the way, completely discounts the effects of economic growth and is not commensurate with historical results.
But then you go, oh, what does that mean?
Let's debunk that nonsense too, that okay, if you give them a tax cut, the rich will pay less and the middle class will pay more.
From the Grampys, it is equally clear that by stimulating growth, the Reagan tax cuts produced more revenue and increased, increased, increased the share of taxes paid by the rich.
Amazing.
Goes on.
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10% of earners, which had been falling prior to the Reagan tax cuts, increased 20% during Reagan's presidency.
Now, folks, liberals, please for a second, please just clam up and listen.
I know it's tough for you because you always want to talk, but listen to this part.
The U.S.
government collected 19% more real revenues the day Reagan left office.
Real, meaning adjusted for inflation.
Real dollars, okay?
More real revenues the day Reagan left office than the day he came into office, even though inflation had been broken, bracket creep repealed, and tax rates reduced dramatically.
Don't let any of that get in the way of your dopey arguments, folks!
If you're on the liberal side.
I mean, what is complicated for you here?
The rich already pay more of the total tax burden when measured, I mean, when universally measured, federal, state, local, social insurance, than they do in these European countries you praise.
And yet you continue to say the opposite.
Now, just to dig in quickly to one quick point that he made in there about the value-added tax.
One of the things they have in Europe which destroys the middle class, On the tax front, that is, is a value-added tax, which is basically a tax at multiple levels of production.
It's the value you add to the product minus your costs in essence, right?
Why would this hit the middle class more than it would hit people who are high earners?
Because people who are high earners will have income based on capital and will tend to basically consume.
The consumption is not as big a portion.
Portion.
Of their income as it is when you're in the middle class.
I guess a quick example, I was kind of foggy on that.
If you're a middle class earner making $50,000 a year and you're spending $100 a week on gasoline to get to your job, that's a big expense for you.
It's a big expense for me and my family.
If you are wealthy and you're buying twice as much gasoline and driving around twice as much, you may spend more on gasoline.
$200, right?
But as a portion of your million dollar, say, salary and total income, maybe through capital gains and others, that's nothing.
It's peanuts.
The point that he's trying to make in the piece is that the value-added tax, which taxes consumption, you buying stuff, is always going to be a greater proportion of your income if you're middle class than it is if you're rich.
That's the point he's trying to make, that they have such high value-added taxes in Europe that the countries you praise are the very ones smoking people out and their money who live in the middle class.
But again, don't let any of that get in the way of your dopey arguments.
So my suggestion to argue with your liberal friends is, do you support a value-added tax?
So you support taxing the middle class and basically not the rich.
Because that's not what the value-added tax does.
It doesn't tax the rich.
But that's what Europe does.
Does this make sense?
I'm serious.
This is why this is so frustrating.
Because, you know, you talk to these people and they're so confident in their arguments that it's like, it's got to be true.
A liberal said it.
He went on Fox and said it.
And whereas I will happily, as I did today, Come on the air.
And I mean, I think it's part of doing commentary to be self-corrective, especially on our show.
We do this often.
Yeah.
I don't see any liberals doing this.
I really don't.
They go on the air and go, you know, the rich don't pay their fair share.
What is their fair share?
Well, we need to be more like Europe.
Actually, we pay less than Europe.
Racist!
Shut up!
That's all they have!
I mean, what would it take for you to just come out and say, okay, um, that's wrong.
My comments, I disagree.
That's not correct.
But I think we should be more like Europe because X. Okay, fine.
We can disagree, but we can't disagree on, if we're not talking about the same thing, there's no way for us to have a substantial dialogue.
And this is what's frustrating at the level.
All right.
Now, uh, gosh, I got a lot with this.
Next, moving on quickly, um, Daniel Horowitz has a great piece of conservative review today.
I encourage you to read.
Folks, you know, you asked me yesterday, got a lot of feedback.
Yesterday showed the Gonzo numbers, uh, where I recommended Trump leave the GOP and I made the, I made a case, I thought a good one, how the GOP right now, the establishment party, what we, you know, the RNC, that, those types, the label offers them nothing.
They're not doing anything.
The overwhelming majority of people in the Congress and the Senate under the Republican brand have abandoned Republican values and it offers them nothing.
Now, Daniel Horowitz is a piece today which I think proves my point at least in the fiscal arena.
Joe, the GOP budgets, for those of you who are under any illusion that we elected Republicans and are doing anything about spending, I'm telling you that's garbage.
This is why I hate this when people call in and talk radio and they go, oh my gosh, well, you know, you're defending Republicans, Bush spent a lot too.
Yep, you're right, it was wrong, good, point taken.
When I made the point that Barack Obama was a big deficit spender and accumulated a lot of debt, I am not in any way saying that Republicans didn't do the same.
Matter of fact, I'm going to tell you that now.
The Republican budgets, Joe, these are the numbers.
This is just downright frightening if you're electing GOP members of Congress.
The 2017 deficit.
Deficit.
Now, we're responsible now.
I get it.
Obama was terrible.
I'm with you, okay?
But we have to be intellectually honest as well.
The 2017 Deficit Show is now up to $668 billion, an $82 billion increase from 2016.
$668 billion dollars, an $82 billion dollar increase from 2016.
Hey!
Good job, GOP.
You know, I should have told you this before the show, because we haven't been using Steve's Dictionary.
But next time I got a pre... We should, we should, uh, we got to get, like, an economic dictionary, too, and go to, like, spending cuts.
Spending cuts would mean that spending was less than the year before, okay?
Now, I'm assuming Steve's Dictionary has individual words, not little, not combinations like spending cuts, but I assure you, any common sense definition of the word spending cuts means spending less money than you did the year before.
I am reasonably confident, we don't need Jay's abacus for this one, that $82 billion of an increase in spending and a $660 billion deficit is not in fact a spending cut by any reasonable measure.
But hey, don't worry, we elected Republicans, yeah, they're doing a bang-up job.
I get it.
Some people email me, well, what good does it do us beating up Republicans?
We'll just help elect Democrats.
Folks, that's not what I'm saying.
I've never told you to elect Democrats.
They're the worst.
Matter of fact, the analogy I always use is, you know, would you rather be killed by a chainsaw or by taking a pill?
I'd rather not be killed at all.
But if you're going to do it, I certainly don't want the chainsaw.
The Democrats are the chainsaw.
They're the most painful, immediate way to go.
All right?
Republicans are just prolonging it.
They believe in like a more managed decline and a less painful death.
I don't believe in death at all, okay?
Yeah, death's gonna happen, but I don't want the unnatural type, okay?
And they're causing an unnatural death and an immediate bankruptcy of our economy on the Dem side and a prolonged bankruptcy on the Republican side.
When are we gonna stand up to these people?
Now, outlays, Joe.
The total spending of the federal government, outlays, right, are up to now $3.982 trillion, to be precise on that.
$3.982 trillion, an absolutely absurd amount of money, and spending now rose 3% for the year.
Now here's the kicker.
Where did the spending go up?
This again goes to show you the absolute ineptitude and futility of the federal government in getting anything right ever and why I can't stand Democrats lecturing us on how government is going to solve our problems when they've solved no problems.
Matter of fact, they exacerbate problems.
Where the spending went up, Joe, is critical.
Uh, receipts were $3.3 billion.
We spent, uh, what did I just say?
$3.982 trillion.
I mean, excuse me, receipts were $3.3 trillion.
Uh, outlays $3.982 trillion.
$47 billion more of the increase in spending was...
The debacle with student loans.
What did I tell you when we did this show a year ago?
Obama nationalized the student loan industry because he thought, oh gosh, those banks, man, they're ripping you kids off.
You know who's getting ripped off now?
The taxpayers who provided roughly a billion dollars more per state, 47 billion, roughly, 47 billion additional dollars to pay for your neighbor's kid's college.
Now you're not only, get a load of this one, folks, because the government, man, the government, the government's gonna fix it.
The government's gonna fix nothing!
The government, I cannot stand this when I get into debates with these people.
The government has screwed up healthcare, the government has screwed up student loans, the government is screwing up public education, the government can get nothing right anymore.
They nationalized the student loan industry, it is now 47 billion dollars in the red, and you're paying not only for your kid's college, saving for your kid's college, you're now paying for your neighbor's kid's college through your tax dollars.
But let's keep it up, folks.
These dopey liberals will continue to make the argument that somehow government is going to fix anything.
What have they fixed?
What have they fixed?
This is what's hysterical about them fighting against the tax cuts, Joe.
No, no, we got to give the government more money.
What?
To do what?
To ruin the student loan industry?
To double your premiums under Obamacare?
What has the government done for you?
I'm serious.
Sit down and think.
Get out of your bubble for a second, liberals.
What has the government done?
That is a $47 billion expenditure to backstop people who didn't want to pay their student loans.
Tell me how you're not paying this.
That's a billion dollars per state, almost.
And by the way, it's projected to get worse.
Now, they're arguing about the tax cuts, liberals.
Oh, we can't have tax cuts.
There's another interesting piece in the journal today by Lawrence Lindsay, which is pretty good.
He's like, listen, unlike what I just laid out for you, Joe, facts and data-based evidence as to how government is screwed up, government is not cutting spending, including the Republicans, and who pays the federal income tax, I just gave you the facts.
Rewind the tape, listen again.
It's not difficult for all you liberals out there.
Democrats can't produce anything.
All they keep saying is, tax cuts!
The rich!
I don't even know what kind of voice that is, but it's me, but I'm really pissed off today kind of voice.
It's nutty!
Lindsay points out that the 1964 tax bill Was very similar to the one Trump is proposing now.
And one of the key elements of the Trump tax plan, GOP tax plan now, Joe, is full expensing.
In other words, the ability to deduct from your taxes in some way, shape, or form the cost of buying new equipment for your factories, rather than having an elongated depreciation schedule where you can only take small deductions on it over time.
Or just having a schedule over time and all.
Being able to expense that makes a big difference.
Why?
Because if Joe buys an equipment for, say Joe works for CR and needs new computers to process the show.
If Joe goes and buys that equipment and then hires people and then he can write off the cost of that equipment, the real cost in Joe's wallet of the equipment goes down.
Let's say he pays $3,000 for a computer.
But in his tax return, by deducting that cost, he winds up getting back $300.
I'm just throwing numbers out.
The effective cost to Joe, obviously getting the interest portion out and the time effective money, I'm not talking about that, but it was about $2,700.
Joe, $2,700 is less than $3,000, right?
Am I crazy?
No, you're right.
So it incentivizes people to go out and invest, which incentivizes people to grow their factories and grow their businesses and hire people.
The 1964 tax bill did a similar thing.
Although the 1964 bill didn't have immediate expensing like the Trump plan does for a lot of equipment, it had accelerated depreciation, which is a fancy wonky finance term for just being able to move up the depreciation charge closer to the time of purchase.
It's almost nearly the same thing.
And he talks about how, Joe, after that happened, again, these are actual numbers, liberals, tune it out, because I know you're not interested in this stuff.
I might be the only guy who tells liberals to tune out of his own show, because really, I know this is troubling to you.
He says in the piece, and he's right, labor's share of the economy, Joe, after the 64 tax plan, the tax cuts, and the accelerated depreciation, labor, meaning you, the people who work for a living, your share of the economy rose from 59 to 63%.
It went up, liberals.
For those of you having a tough time with what rose means.
We're not talking about the flower or the color.
We're talking about 59 to 63 percent.
The percentage of the economy that labor, the employees took, was greater, higher, larger than.
And real wage increases were about four to five percent.
Now again, don't let that get in the way of you arguing against tax cuts and continuing to make the case for a bigger government, despite any evidence that all the bigger government's done anything for you.
Don't let any of this hurt you.
And I'll put these all in the show notes today.
The articles, I strongly encourage you to read them.
They're always available at bongino.com.
And if you sign up for my email list at bongino.com, I will email the show notes to you.
A lot of people respond to them.
I try to get back to everyone.
I'm sorry I can't answer every email, but I'm trying.
The show's really been growing by leaps and bounds.
I'm doing my best, I promise you.
All right, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at My Patriot Supply.
You know, Joe, I read a piece today on Drudge about they found a super volcano in Yellowstone.
Uh-oh.
And I thought, oh, yeah, I know.
You know me, I'm always like, I'm not Captain Apocalypse, but I always worry about this kind of stuff.
And I thought, can you imagine if that thing went off And blanketed the atmosphere with dust and drowned out the sun for a few months and plant life died or something.
I get it.
I mean, is the likelihood of that happening small?
Yeah, of course.
But is the likelihood I want to take the chance with?
No.
That's why I have my Patriot Supply Food.
That's why I love these guys as a sponsor.
They're terrific.
Got some great email feedback yesterday from someone who emailed customer service.
He brought up a really good point about the box they ship the food in.
Some of it's labeled And he said, you know, what if you don't want the label because someone would come in your house and then steal your emergency food?
I thought, ah, that's a good question.
Well, you can always take the label off, but MyPatriotSupply provides great stuff, great products.
They will give you a one-month supply of emergency food that lasts 25 years.
That's 2-5, 25 years, not 2.5, 25 years.
All you need is water to prepare it, breakfast, lunch, and dinner, at a special price of $99.
I have multiple boxes of this stuff.
I have their fruit and veggie kit there, too.
Go pick it up.
Go to preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com, and for just $99, it's better to have this stuff and not need it, and then need it and not have it.
Put yourself at ease.
At least you have a supply for yourself for the month.
I have three others in my household, so I have a box for each of them, plus some extras too.
They were nice enough in the beginning to send me some samples, so I just have a few extra bags lying around as well.
Preparewithdan.com, go check them out.
Preparewithdan.com.
Okay, last story of the day.
This is just...
I haven't been talking about the Weinstein thing, uh, the Harvey Weinstein.
And for those of you who don't know the story, Harvey Weinstein is an executive at the Weinstein company.
I think it was Miramax at one point.
There were allegations of rape, sexual harassment.
I mean, it happened in Hollywood, which really shouldn't surprise anyone, Joe.
I mean, the place is a moral vacuum.
I stayed away from the story for the first couple of days because even though the stories are repulsive, I just want to be sure the information was accurate.
You know, I put a premium on this show on self-correction and precision and information because I really think it matters.
I mean, you shouldn't be surprised.
Some people don't.
Believe me, I know some of them.
They just say stuff and just keep on going if they mess it up.
I don't think that's right.
I think credibility is in self-correction, but I stayed away until the information Started to come out now.
Now it seems like there's, you know, these allegations are starting to build, right?
What I find really fascinating about this, though, is I want to contrast two stories.
So Betsy DeVos, who is our Secretary of Education in the Trump cabinet, she's generated a lot of controversy because she supports school choice.
Right.
Betsy DeVos basically put out a guidance letter, and the gist of the guidance letter is this.
Colleges under the Obama administration were encouraged, through another guidance letter, not a law, but a guidance letter, to, in essence, lower the standard of proof for sexual harassment, sexual assault allegations on college campuses.
Folks, these are extremely difficult things to talk about, okay?
I fully understand that.
But we live in a country with a rule of law, and I would rather, you know, let, as has been said many times, hundreds of guilty men walk free and convict one innocent man.
Having a standard of evidence on a college campus which was encouraged by the Obama administration, a preponderance of evidence, is not a beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's not even close.
And the way these proceedings were being set up with the encouragement of the Obama administration was, if you were accused of sexual assault, you had very few ways to defend yourself.
By the way, this is man or woman.
Now, it happened to be mostly men, but you had almost no way to defend yourself.
Well, Joe, What obviously happened after that?
Well, a bunch of people were accused of sexual assault.
Some of them, falsely, who were, you know, quote, convicted by these these courts, these college, you know, de facto courts using this extremely low standard of evidence.
And what did they do?
They turned around and sued the college because they're like, wait, no, no, no, this isn't this is how it works in the United States.
Now, to be clear, these weren't criminal proceedings.
These were These were like college-type courts.
Mm-hmm.
But Joe, it became almost like a system of, you know, I think of the Batman movie, um, this is the Dark Knight, where the scarecrow is like presiding over these courts.
They're guilty!
I mean, folks, you have to have some... If you're gonna convict someone and basically ruin their entire lives, you better be sure you've got the right person.
I don't think there's anything controversial about that.
Not that this shouldn't be taken very seriously.
Of course it should.
And these are hard topics to talk about, but they're the right topics to talk about.
But what I find fascinating about this is the absolute liberal hypocrisy here.
Liberals are defending, to be clear, and Joe, if this doesn't make sense, you have to, you're my ombudsman for the audience.
We don't want to upset that guy on Twitter again.
I hate poor guy.
You're right, Dan.
You're right.
Yeah, you're right.
You are absolutely correct.
I didn't even say anything yet.
You're right anyway, Dan.
This guy, the liberals are defending, not all, but the liberal interest groups are defending this lower standard of evidence on college campuses despite its obvious problems.
Some innocent people are going to be convicted in these courts and there are already colleges are already being sued.
Not just one case, by the way, there's multiple cases.
Liberals want this lower standard of evidence.
Why?
Hold that thought.
Fascinating that the standard of evidence in Hollywood, preponderance of evidence, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to convict this guy in any kind of criminal proceeding yet, but Joe, there are a lot of allegations out there against Weinstein.
Oh, big time.
But it took, what, five days for Hillary Clinton to come out and open her mouth about this?
About these allegations of sexual impropriety?
Five days?
So let me get this straight, liberals.
On college campuses, any whisper is good enough to convict someone.
Anytime.
And you will defend it to the death.
But when Hollywood's involved and your buddies, wait, we better take a step back here and walk through the evidence slowly but surely.
I agree!
But I'm consistent.
I want everybody to have that right, not just people who are connected in Hollywood.
Now why?
Let's answer the first why first.
Why would they defend that at lower standard of evidence on college campuses?
Oh, I get it.
Because it hires more people in the administrative function on college campuses who, by the way, are probably recommended by left-wing think tanks, who are then diversity officers and counselors.
Oh, so it's a job?
Oh, okay.
Now it makes sense.
Now you need administrators for these de facto courts.
All of a sudden it becomes a jobs program funded by what, Joe?
By taxpayer dollars because Obama nationalized the student loan industry.
Oh, Oh, that's where the show connects.
Everything all of a sudden makes sense.
You're right, Dan.
I am!
I mean, what do you want, Judge?
Judge, tell me I'm wrong, just for this guy.
I don't know, Dan.
Wait, what are you saying, Dan?
Okay, thank you.
We'll put that guy at ease.
Joe doesn't get it, okay?
Now he feels better.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Obama nationalizes the student loan program.
By default, it's nationalizing our higher education system.
Not directly, I don't want to be hyperbolic, but enough to really control the cash flow and the flow of funds into our universities.
Universities institute this program.
Stigmatizes, you know, basically creates a de facto court system using an extremely low standard of evidence, creates more jobs for liberals, by the way, but it doesn't matter, it leads to multiple lawsuits and other things, they'll defend it to the death.
Yet, here's the second why.
When one of their donors is a mega donor to Democrats and leads, by the way, creates a lot of Hollywood jobs in an industry that sends its money to Democrats, that guy's entitled to Beyond beyond beyond beyond a reasonable doubt he's in to infinity and beyond that's that toy story cat right to infinity and beyond a reasonable doubt because he's a hollywood guy he creates jobs for hollywood which donates to democrats
But no folks, there's no hypocrisy there at all.
Don't worry about it.
This is what I'm talking about with these people.
You wonder why I wake up in the morning and I want to always go into intellectual combat with liberals?
Because everything they're telling you is either a lie or a glaring hypocrisy.
They are lying about the debt.
They are lying about who pays federal income taxes.
They're lying about the percentage the rich people pay.
They're lying about Democrat socialism.
They're lying about the state of taxes in Europe.
They're lying about sexual assault on college campuses.
They're lying about their friends in Hollywood to cover up for them.
The lies never stop!
Somebody has to call these people out.
And that's always been the goal of this show from day one.
Thank you for all the feedback.
Again, please join my email list at Bongino.com.
I will send you these articles.
I really appreciate it.
And thanks for the feedback on Tucker's show.
I have no problem at all, uh, answering that kind of stuff.
You feel the need to email me and one guy emailed me.
He was almost apologetic, Joe.
He's like, Hey, I'm really, I'm a fan of the show and I don't mean to have to correct you.
No, brother, we're all good, man.
I'm human like everyone else, and if I say something and you think, I don't know about that, you're not doing me any favors by keeping it quiet.
Send it over.
Daniel at Bongino.com is my email.
I'm always happy to hear it.
Thanks for all your feedback on the show, folks.
I'll talk to you tomorrow.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
