Summary:
In this episode I address the big political wins for President Trump yesterday. I also address the decision from the Supreme Court about union dues and what it means to you. I also discuss the growing violence and aggression on the Left.
News Picks:
Elaine Chao gives it right back to aggressive leftist protestors.
This may be the best political ad I’ve ever seen.
Four big takeaways from last night’s huge electoral upset in a congressional race.
The Democrats suffered a big loss at the Supreme Court yesterday.
The media is largely fake news, and Americans are starting to realize it.
This piece sums up liberals' misguided views on tax cuts.
A big loss at the Supreme Court for organized labor.
Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America with your host, Dan Bongino.
All right, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Yeah, recovering from yesterday.
Did I not ask you how you were yesterday?
I got an email from a listener who said he went into an extinction burst.
Full shock of behavioral meltdowns, whatever, because I didn't ask you.
That's his email, maybe about an extinction burst.
I thought it was funny, incorporating the show into a comment about the show.
Uh, that I did not ask you that yesterday, which is deeply disturbing.
You may have to go back and edit something in.
Oh, yeah.
Or else we've broken the streak of almost 700 episodes of me asking.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's always, it's been a regular open.
Yeah.
Really?
Well, I'm very upset at myself.
All right.
Um, a lot of news to cover today.
You know, um, I've been saying that a lot lately because it's true, but today is really a stacked news day.
So let me get right to it.
Today's show brought to you by Buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Sorry for the delay there.
I'm just trying to figure out all the important stories of what to get to first.
Today's show brought to you by Buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition, one of our original sponsors.
Still, I think, the best young, hungry nutrition company out there.
The best products right on the edge of nutrition science.
Let me tell you today about A Field of Greens.
It's a great product.
Listen, we all know fruits and vegetables are the key to good health.
We all know that.
Does anybody not know that?
Yeah, you all know that.
Of course you know that.
Joe, you are not a nutrition scientist, correct?
No, I am not.
You've just been told that, because people over time, accumulating knowledge, say, wow, I eat these fruits and vegetables and I feel great!
Yeah!
Me too, including my, even though I'm an old beat-up guy, I would be lost without it.
So, a lot of us don't have the time to prepare all the fruits and vegetables we need to consume six to eight to ten servings a day.
Don't worry!
Brickhouse Nutrition has figured it out for you.
They took those fruits and vegetables, they ground them up, these fine fruits and vegetables, these life-enhancing fruits and vegetables with all these wonderful ingredients that God put in there to make them.
They ground them up into a powder.
They take the water out and they give you this powder called Field of Greens.
It comes in a little container.
You throw it in some water.
You throw it in some juice.
I sometimes put it in green tea and V8.
It tastes delicious.
It has all these life-enhancing fruits and vegetable chemicals in there.
This is not an extract!
This is actual fruits and vegetables.
Real food.
Real food.
Go check it out.
Feel the Greens.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Try this stuff.
Give it a couple weeks.
Take a log, you know, a little log and a book of how you feel.
Six, seven days later, remember later on, take a little entry in there, how you're feeling.
You'll see this stuff is fantastic.
It's so good.
Go check it out.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Check it out.
Field of Greens.
Really, really good stuff.
Okay.
So yesterday, proving my point, y'all.
Yes.
Again, that the snowflake class is loud, aggressive, confrontational.
And violent when it comes to protected confrontation.
There was an incident yesterday, Joe.
All right.
A disturbing one.
Again, I'm, you know, sometimes I can be sarcastic and, uh... Whoa, wait, hold on.
Whoa!
The Janus case.
It's on the air.
Breaking news.
Hold on.
Hmm.
Wow!
Wow!
Bombshell!
Sorry, I don't mean to be choppy with the show, folks, but I have Fox on in the background.
And the Janus Supreme Court case, meaning workers forced to pay union dues who don't subscribe to the political portions of union ideology, that's now been thrown out.
Do you understand how devastating this case is going to be to organize labor interests?
Bing!
Pow!
Boom!
This is going to be devastating.
Devastating.
To organized labor, which has largely moved further liberal over the years.
Devastating.
This just came down.
They ruled against it.
You know what?
I'll get to that.
Let me finish my point.
I'm sorry.
Although it's not a live show, it is for me and Joe.
Elaine Chao, who is Mitch McConnell's wife and is also a member of President Trump's cabinet.
She's leaving an event yesterday with her husband, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, obviously a Republican.
And these three or four activists, you saw this Joe, they decide that they're going to try to confront McConnell.
about the immigration policy of President Trump, the childhood separations at the border.
So they approach in a hostile but not overly confrontational manner.
And you'll see, I'll have this up at the show notes.
Please check this out.
The video will be up at the show notes in an article there.
And they start, you know, yelling a bit at her and she says, you know, why don't you leave my husband alone?
And she gets, to Elaine Chao's credit Joe, she gets right up in their grills and she's like, no, no, she doesn't back away for a minute.
Matter of fact, she runs right up in their faces.
So I say, you know what?
Good for Elaine Chao, right?
Yeah.
But what I want you to notice when you watch the video and I'll move on, I don't have a ton to add, but this just goes back to my theory about how liberals are only used to protected confrontation.
Watch what happens.
When Elaine Chao starts to walk away and actually gets back in the car, she has a Capitol Hill police detail with her because of Mitch McConnell, all of a sudden, how do you sleep at night?
The guy gets super hostile and aggressive.
How do you sleep at night?
Screaming like a blind rage maniac.
Just watch it.
But he waits until she gets in the car.
She's a 60 year old woman.
This is my point about the left if you missed the show last week.
They are only comfortable.
They are the phoniest tough guys you've ever seen in your life.
Now, granted, this is a good thing, Joe.
Yeah.
We don't want confrontation or violence.
I don't listen.
I'm sorry, but I'm never going to agree.
I get a lot of email from listeners and stuff and I understand.
That's not my thing.
My entire life has been spent learning how to use firearms, mixed martial arts, boxing, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, wrestling, all that stuff.
I love it.
I do it so I never, ever in my life have to get into a violent situation.
Ever!
Because it horrifies me that much.
So it's a good thing that these guys are generally snowflakes and cowards.
But it makes my point that they are only used to protected confrontation and the minute you get back up in their face like Elaine Chao did, you watch the guy, we don't mean to be disrespectful.
Then she gets in the car and like, how do you sleep at night?
How do you sleep?
Screaming like a maniac.
They're only used to protected confrontation.
Confrontation on college campuses, confrontation where the police separate them from people.
Once it becomes an unprotected confrontation situation, Where Elaine Chao basically gets back up in her face.
Watch the change in dialogue.
Ladies and gentlemen, understand this is the left and this is why I encourage all of you, you know, liberals out there, please stop and think about what you're doing.
Have you ever in your life been in an unprotected confrontation scenario where you have to deal with someone without an administrative staff or a college or a police officer protecting you from the other person?
And the answer is probably not.
Be careful what you ask for.
This is not what you want.
This is not what anybody wants.
You are not ready.
Watch the video.
Before you leave this point, I don't think you've ever told anyone or suggested you not protect yourself though.
No, no, never.
And that's why I do get, you're right Joe, it's a good point to bring up.
I get a lot of listener email about this and I think people, you know, think I'm asking you to be a sucker.
Right.
I'm not.
I told you, I spend my entire life here, adult life at least, I'm looking at my December 17th, 1994 is the first time I entered a jujitsu academy to learn how to grapple and learn how to roll.
That's right, it's right in front of me, in Wanto, Long Island.
But I do that so I can defend myself in a, God forbid, a violent confrontation.
Just the point I was making last week on the show, Joe, that I think...
You know, in one of our most listened to shows ever, is that people who've been involved in violence, and when I say violence, I mean the combat arts, or people who, even worse, have been in a war-type situation, our heroic veterans, military men and women who are active, they understand the horror of it.
And that's why most of them are so reluctant to get involved in an uncontrolled violence situation, because they understand the horror of it.
Liberals are not used to that.
They live snowflake protected lives, folks.
Can I just... I mean, I hate to do this, but this is really important to me, folks, and I hope you'll give me a second here.
I know I wanted to move on because there is a lot of news and I promise I will get to it.
You know, I can only think of, you know, the times I've been...
There was this one time, right?
My mother's husband, I don't even call him my stepfather because I can't stand the guy.
Those of you regular listeners obviously know I don't have a lot of kind things to say about this savage.
But one time I was like 17 years old and this guy, he's a big guy.
He's, I don't know, 6'4".
He's still big.
He's over 300 pounds.
He was a Golden Gloves boxer.
And one time in my house and my mother and I had had a fight over a graduation party.
I was being a jerk.
She threw my friends out and I went and lived somewhere else for a little while.
I think it was like two weeks or three weeks, but I came back to the house, my mom's house.
And I went up, we had, we had a, it was interesting.
You'd come into a little, Foyer and you go upstairs a small house.
I don't wanna make it sound like it was dramatic, but it was this little tiny little foyer area Maybe I don't know four by four max and you it would split it would go upstairs and downstairs It wasn't a split level.
It was just one was like a ground floor and one would go upstairs So I went up our rooms were upstairs He used to be a separate apartment.
So I go upstairs to get some stuff and my mother's husband comes back and I'm like, Oh man.
And I, you know, you couldn't miss the guy walking up the stairs.
They were creaky old steps and he was 300 pounds.
So the steps sounded like Bigfoot coming up the stairs.
And I'm like, oh, this isn't going to go well.
And he comes upstairs and he had this big, deep, like howling voice.
And he comes up the stairs so fast, which is unusual because he was so big that I didn't even have the time to turn around.
And the way he comes through the door, I almost like creep over my right shoulder and look over my right shoulder.
I don't see him, so I don't have the time to turn around.
So before I even have time to turn around, he grabs me by the neck, which is backwards, not forwards.
Like in a finger choke but backwards like he has the back of my neck like by the crown of my skull and he pushes my head down and just starts like punching me and I'm like holy crap like this is and you know again when you're involved in those types of scenarios and you're you're sitting there and in your head it's like is this gonna stop and you don't know because it's unprotected uncontrolled violence it's a horrifying feeling and and by the way When someone has a back position like that, you know, I don't mean to try to sound like scientific about this, Harb, but you know, when you start, I hadn't been fully involved and I didn't know how to defend myself that well.
When you can take someone's back, it's devastating.
Why?
Because you don't have eyes in the back of your head.
You can't see what's happening.
And secondly, your limbs don't move back there.
Your limbs move forward to manipulate what's in front of you where your eyes are, so you can't defend yourself at all.
And he's pounding on my head, and this guy has huge hands, and I'm like, is this guy going to crush my skull?
Am I going to get through this?
And it wound up going on for like 30 seconds, which is an eternity.
But I'm telling you, when you're involved in these uncontrolled violence scenarios, And you can't breathe, and you're panicked, and you get an adrenaline dump, and you know, it's weird.
Joe, I know you've been involved in some of these.
Yeah.
You know, what's crazy about it?
He was dropping these bombs on my head.
And the crazy thing, folks, is you don't even feel it.
You're scared and you're terrified, but you don't even feel it.
That's the pain.
Believe me, that's far worse than the physicality.
Now, believe me, I felt it the next day.
But you don't even feel it as it's happening.
The primal fear is not the actual pain of it.
The fear of it is the, am I going to make it through this?
That's the fear.
It's the mental part that's so horrifying.
And that's why I'm telling you, the conservative movement, the people I'm at, is a hardened bunch of people.
They've been through struggles in life.
I saw this poll yesterday.
Something like Democrats' misperceptions about Republicans and Republicans' misperceptions about Democrats show.
And Democrats think 44% of Republicans make $500,000 a year or more.
They think we're all rich.
You know what the real number is, Joe?
Two percent.
In other words, Republicans are the party of the middle class.
You know what I'm saying?
Yeah.
I mean, these are hardened people, military folks, law enforcement, people who've seen the school of hard knocks.
They've been through that.
They've grown up hard.
They respect their money and their freedom because they've been in situations, many of them, where we're so close to being taken away.
The left is not ready for this, folks.
The college campus and the guidance counselor and the snowflake ceremony and the microaggressions and the safe spaces and the color forms and the teddy bears are not preparing you for the real world.
They are not preparing you for the real horrors that are out there.
Conservatives accept the world as it is, all of its horrors included.
Liberals only accept the world as it should be.
They are not ready for unprotected confrontation.
I'm telling you, watch that video.
Watch how these kids only get aggressive with a 60-year-old woman the minute she gets in the car.
Because they... Why?
The Capitol Hill police person is now police.
I believe it's a woman there.
You'll see her in this.
When she gets involved, you'll see.
Then they become aggressive.
Why?
Because now they're back in their comfort zone, Joe.
What's the comfort zone?
They are now protected again.
Law enforcement is going to make sure nothing happens to them, which they will.
They are free to protest.
And she's in the car so they know nothing would happen to them.
I'm telling you, God forbid this thing breaks bad one day and they confront the wrong person.
And I do mean God forbid, because I wish this on no one.
I can't say this enough.
This is not going to end well.
You need to seriously rethink this.
All right.
Moving on.
A lot of news to cover, so I'm sorry for spending a lot of time on that, but... There's dust here.
Sorry, buddy.
The travel ban... Yeah, dust all over my... I just got a new computer, a new Mac.
It's great, so... Travel ban!
Travel ban.
Big win yesterday.
A couple points, a couple takeaways from this.
Supreme Court, Trump instituted, of course, a travel ban from Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, Iran, a couple of terror-ridden countries that had a tough time instituting any kind of mechanism to vet people coming to the United States.
It was a relatively simple travel ban.
It was based in strong immigration law that gives the president power to do so.
A couple points on this, though.
Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote one of the dissents from the piece, wrote that, well, the travel ban, Joe, you know, we should consider the President's statements in this beforehand, where he said he wanted to ban Muslims.
In other words, although the travel ban, as John Roberts, Chief Justice, pointed out, contains no language whatsoever about any religion, any!
Forget about being Muslim.
Sonia Sotomayor's point was this, and if I'm not explaining this, please, you know, stop me.
Sotomayor, said, well, it's the president's intent that should be factored into it.
And based on some of his campaign statements about wanting to ban Muslims, this travel ban, although it mentions nothing about religion, nothing about Islam at all, that we should take into account the president's intent.
Now, a lot of you listening who are maybe new to politics may say, well, that's fair enough.
And I get why you might say that.
Folks, that's nonsense.
Taking into account campaign statements?
I ask you this, and this is for your liberal friends who are going to bring that up, but the president said this.
Okay, so now we're taking into account what they said, not what the law actually says, right?
So that's your point.
Again, on this show, we try to do reason, right?
So reason, if we're trying to distill this down to a principle that liberals are trying to get across, right?
The liberal point is this, that it's not what the law says, because ladies and gentlemen, I cannot be clear on this.
Cannot be any clearer on this.
The president's travel ban does not mention religion at all.
If you're going to call it a Muslim ban, say to your friends, where does it actually ban Muslims?
It doesn't.
Matter of fact, North Korea and Venezuela are included in the Muslim ban.
Those are not majority Muslim countries at all.
Obviously.
It also only affects 8% of the Muslim world.
So if it's a Muslim ban, it's the worst Muslim ban ever.
It is not.
It does not mention religion at all.
So their operating principle is, well, the president said something about a Muslim ban.
Okay.
So the president's statement should matter.
Let me give you a counter-argument to slam them with, which they will have no response to at all.
When Barack Obama was running for re-election and using Obamacare and trying to get away from the taxes in Obamacare, because the individual mandate, ladies and gentlemen, was a tax.
In other words, Obamacare had an individual mandate.
Buy Obamacare or else.
The or else was you were going to pay a penalty.
Now Trump just got rid of that with the GOP Congress, thankfully.
But, this is important.
Obama gave an interview with George Stephanopoulos, and in that interview, George Stephanopoulos asks him, clear as day, is the individual mandate, or the penalty, if you don't buy health insurance, is that a tax?
Now, why would Obama argue against it being a tax?
Because taxes are generally unpopular, so Obama dances all around the question and denies over and over that the Obamacare individual mandate penalty is a tax.
This is a statement Obama made, not as a candidate!
Even worse, as the President of the United States!
He then, in court, his Solicitor General, in court, defending Obamacare in front of John Roberts, makes what case about the individual mandate?
Or else the law would be unconstitutional.
Because Congress can't levy penalties for not doing something.
In other words, not buying Obamacare.
It had to be a tax.
Obamacare's Solicitor General, Joe, goes to court and argues that Obamacare is a tax!
And liberals had no problem at all.
So let me get this straight.
We're arguing, supposedly arguing on principle, right Libs?
I want you to ask them this.
What a candidate says matters.
In other words, Donald Trump as a candidate said, we should ban Muslims.
So that should matter.
Interpreting a law that doesn't say any of that.
That should matter.
Then why doesn't that matter for Obamacare?
Barack Obama argued on a video interview You can still see anywhere on YouTube right now today to George Stephanopoulos that the Obamacare individual mandate was not a tax because it was politically unpalatable to say so.
And then sent his Solicitor General to court to argue the exact opposite.
That Obamacare is constitutional because the individual mandate penalty is a tax.
Again, how does that not completely override your point?
In one case, you're saying the president's statements don't matter.
The president said it was a tax, but he didn't really mean that.
He was the president!
But on the other hand, you're saying Donald Trump is a candidate.
No, no, those statements definitely matter.
This was a ban on Muslims, even though nowhere in the law does it actually say ban Muslims.
Nowhere!
It just speaks to the utter, complete, total hypocrisy of the left.
It's just disgusting.
It's horrible.
These guys never have any kind of a cogent response to anything, ever!
They just make it up as they go along!
Statements should matter, not the law.
Well, do they matter for Obama?
No, no, not for Obama, just for Trump.
Yeah, but Trump was just a candidate, Obama was the president.
Yeah, that doesn't matter either!
Gosh, you wonder why I wake up every morning so frustrated with these people?
Alright, moving on, because I've got a lot to cover.
So, Peter Stroke, Up on the hill, Peter Stroke, the lead FBI agent in the Clinton investigation.
He's the number two in the counterintelligence division.
He was the lead investigator of the Clinton investigation, was one of the lead investigators in the Trump crossfire hurricane investigation before he was removed for his horrible texts about Trump and others and for bias.
Peter Stroke is up on the hill.
Ladies and gentlemen, what's happening right now with the Department of Justice and the Spygate case is an absolute abomination.
This is one of the more disturbing things I've ever seen in my life.
Let me tell you what the DOJ is doing right now.
One, they are not giving Congress the information.
Did you see the letter they sent back to Devin Nunes?
They sent a letter back to Devin Nunes, who's demanding to know when this case started.
I'm going to get the stroke in a second.
That's why I'm setting it up this way.
Nunes wants to know when exactly were investigative steps initiated to further the Trump investigation.
Why?
Why is that important?
Because the case did not formally start until July of 2016.
If things were happening with the FBI, including the introduction of FBI informants and spies, into the Trump team before the start of the case, ladies and gentlemen, we have a real problem.
Because there are procedures, FBI and DOJ procedures, about when and why you can do certain things.
There is a reason we don't spy on Americans and send informants into Americans' political circles, especially in a presidential campaign, without requisite evidence to do so.
Because we don't want to live in a police state.
That's why there are steps.
This has to happen, this has to happen.
If step four happened before step one, and informants were introduced in the case before the requisite evidence to even open a case in July, we got a real problem because it points to what?
It points to a politically motivated case, not a law enforcement or counterintelligence case.
That is why Nunes wants the information and the FBI won't turn it over.
The DOJ, Department of Justice and the FBI, and this is a disgraceful thing that's happening right now, a total complete disgrace, is waiting out the midterms, Joe.
They're waiting out the midterms.
They are praying for a Democrat takeover of the House and the Senate.
So that they can avoid any kind of accountability and the chairmanships will change and they're hoping that none of this information will ever come out.
It's a horror show.
Yes, it is.
Yeah.
Yeah, I see you shaking your head.
I can't believe what's going on.
I know.
It's like the DOJ is not an independent entity, folks.
Either is the FBI.
Their decision-making should be independent, but they are not an independent entity.
They work, they are under Article 2 of the Constitution.
They fall under the Executive Office of the President.
This is ridiculous!
Get the information out.
But the reason the Stroke thing is important is because the big question and the big takeaway here, paragraph one, I keep saying it, is what is paragraph one for Peter Stroke?
When did this thing begin?
Peter Stroke, I have my fingers crossed today he comes clean because sooner or later they're going to have to take a bath on this.
Ladies and gentlemen, the information is going to come out and it's not going to be good for the DOJ or the FBI.
Stroke is up there today.
It's a closed-door hearing, so we're not going to hear what happens.
We're only going to hear about it through leaks, which you can count on, you know, Democrat members of Congress to do that.
When did this start?
This is the big question for stroke.
I keep saying, what is paragraph one?
When you're a federal agent, you have to write reports, memorandums.
On every case you open, no excuses.
In the Secret Service, it was for protective intelligence cases, check cases, check fraud, bank fraud, counterfeit, didn't matter.
You have to write a memorandum.
Paragraph 1 describes how the case started.
On such and such a date, I responded to a 7-Eleven.
They turned over whatever.
John Smith turned over a $100 counterfeit bill, given to him in the register.
I asked John Smith for the video.
The video showed a picture of this gentleman, 6'2", male, white guy with a Yankees hat on, whatever it may be.
I then went to computer files, started looking through computer files, found the license plate of a car that was caught on video leaving.
This is how these reports are written.
The reason Nunes wants the information from the DOJ that they won't give to him is because I'm telling you paragraph one, which the lead investigator, Peter Stroke, would intimately be familiar with.
He knows exactly how the case started.
Why?
He started it!
God forbid paragraph one, even if it's not written, is that the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, and John Brennan referred a case on an American citizen based on the information in the dossier over to the FBI.
God forbid that's what paragraph one says, even if not written down.
And that's a real paragraph one?
Oh, we got the case from the CIA.
Wait, the CIA?
The Central Intelligence Agency's not supposed to be spying on American citizens based on a political document, the dossier, which the Clintons paid for.
That's how you guys started this?
That's what they're hiding, folks.
That's why this stroke thing today is such a big deal.
This is not small potatoes.
This is an enormous story.
Let's hope he comes clean.
All right, I didn't intend to talk about this, but being that it just broke, just quickly on the Janus case of the Supreme Court.
This is a huge, huge win, folks.
Now, let me just say in advance, because I get a lot of negative emails after shows like this when I discuss organized labor.
I grew up in a union family.
Matter of fact, my family now is still full of union members, organized labor union members.
I don't care about unions.
I'm totally agnostic on it.
I am a free market capitalist.
If you feel that your interests are collectively served by joining an organized group of laborers, whatever it may be, Knock yourselves out.
I kid you not, this is not some kind of whacked out virtue signaling.
This is Dan Bongino from the heart.
God bless you for working for a living, busting your caboose, and building up America.
I mean it.
I have no problem with you joining a union to protect your safety, your wages, your benefits.
Knock yourselves out.
There's nothing more American than choosing by your own free will to assemble with a group of people you think collectively have your best interests in mind.
I mean that.
My beef with organized labor today is organized labor, many of the components of organized labor, not all, but many of them want to force people to join a union.
They say, well, you know, you're going to have to pay agency fees because we represent you anyway.
Well, then don't represent.
I'm not asking you to represent me.
I mean, you could say that about anything.
You could say that about anything.
I mean, you know, my neighbor power washes his pavers on his sidewalk.
What does that have to do with anything?
Well, technically, Joe, that benefits me, because if I sell my house, it makes the neighborhood look better.
People want a house with curb appeal.
And even though it's my neighbor's house, no one wants to live next to a sloppy neighbor.
So what if the neighbor comes and drops off a bill in my mailbox and says, hey, I want you to pay a quarter of my power washing bill?
Well, why?
Because, Dan, it benefits you.
You know, the neighborhood values go up.
No, wait, I didn't ask you to do that.
No, but I did it anyway.
Yeah, but I didn't ask you to do that.
That's on you.
The union's argument is nonsense.
Well, you know, we're gonna argue on your behalf.
Then don't do it!
I'm not asking you to do that!
Agency fees are the forced taking of money from people who work somewhere by their own free will to support causes in many cases they don't want.
Bingo!
That's the Janus case!
The Janus case is about agency fees.
The guy who sued the state of Illinois does not want to pay these fees.
And the union's case is nonsense.
No, you have to pay them.
You have to pay.
What, I don't want to?
No, but you have to.
Because we're going to represent you anyway.
Okay, I'll give you an out.
I don't want you representing me ever about anything.
No, no, but we're going to do it anyway.
Okay, that's your choice.
Power wash your pavers.
Knock yourself out.
I don't care if you do it or not.
This is a huge, huge loss.
Folks, I keep bringing this up because I know a lot of you have very busy lives.
I understand that.
And I don't want to bore you with... I never talk about stories on this show I don't think have national appeal.
Matter of fact, I got a...
Interesting call the other day from a friend of mine, and he wanted me to cover a local case down here in Martin County, Florida.
And I said, hey, I appreciate that, but that's not the show we do.
Like, our show is a national show, and if it doesn't relate to a national issue, I'm sorry, but as much as I like you, my audience matters.
I mean, people in San Bernardino don't care about what's happening.
They don't.
I mean, I do.
I live here.
But this is your show, not mine.
If it was a show for me, I would, hey, Dan Bongino, what's happening in Martin County, Florida?
But this case is an earthquake.
I'm telling you why.
Why, why.
Because union money, organized labor money, that has been forcefully taken from people who don't want to pay it under these agency fees that have now been tossed out by the Supreme Court, that union money has overwhelmingly gone to support a Democrat party that has gone increasingly far left, which is lobbied to do what?
To take more of your money, more of your health care, more of your education freedom away from your kids.
This is a political earthquake I can't emphasize to you enough the importance of this case right now.
The Democrats are going to go wild over this.
Watch.
Watch.
You heard it here first on this show.
Watch the protests.
You're going to see Wisconsin-like stuff now.
You're going to see efforts by Democrats to pass statewide legislation now, to overturn right-to-work.
Ladies and gentlemen, you heard it here first.
Mark my words.
Check the episode.
Check the date.
They're coffers for Democrat politicians that have been filled by money from unions that have lobbied to do things to you.
Take your money, take your health care.
That money is now going to dry up substantially because people now who don't have to pay these agency fees are not going to pay them.
And there's no force of law anymore to make them.
They lost.
This is a huge loss.
And remember, I brought this point up.
This is a point, I think it's from Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson.
I'm not really sure, but either way, it's a good point.
Remember the irony of the flows of money when it comes to Democrat arguments.
I like to point out hypocritical Democrat arguments.
Remember, the Democrats, when it comes to health care, They'll always say what?
Democrats will say, oh, Joe, we spend too much money.
We spend too much money collectively on health care.
Too much, too much.
They have no evidence of that.
They don't know that.
What do you mean we spend too much?
Who spends?
You?
Making collective assumptions about individual decisions is absurd.
Who spends too much?
I haven't been to a doctor in, gosh, I don't know, for a checkup in probably a year.
Maybe if not more.
When it comes to healthcare, Democrats, we spend too much money.
I'm going to make a point here, so follow me.
When it comes to education and infrastructure, right, what do Democrats say?
Oh, Joe, we're not spending enough.
We're not spending enough money.
Why?
Why?
Keep in mind, we spend, the United States collectively spends more money on infrastructure than almost any country in the world.
We also spend absurd amounts of money on education for flatline results since the 70s.
So the facts and data don't support either of those premises, right?
We spend too much on health care.
Oh, we don't spend enough on education.
That is not true in infrastructure.
But think about why the Democrats say this.
Folks, you've got to get savvy to their tactics.
These people, once you peel off the layers of the onion, you see a rotting, stink, Black, rotting, nasty onion inside.
Black and green fungus all over it.
But you have to know how to pick it apart.
The reason the Democrats argue about healthcare, education, infrastructure in the exact opposite direction, too much on one, not enough on the other, is precisely because of the Janus case.
Because in healthcare, When we spend money in health care, it winds up in the pockets of hospitals, administrators, support staff, even the janitor in the hospital gets paid by the hospital.
Everyone from the doctor to the janitor.
They are largely not unionized and many of them do not support Democrat causes.
They don't want that money going there.
It doesn't benefit them.
Education and infrastructure.
Oh, what's the common thread?
Oh, they are unionized.
The teachers unions and the construction unions and a lot of the labor unions, they are organized.
Where does that money go, Joe?
That money goes right in the pockets of Democrat legislators.
That's why they make the exact opposite argument.
It has nothing to do with the facts.
It has everything to do with the cash flow.
In one case, it winds up in the free market.
Doctors, hospitals, administrators, people like that who don't overwhelmingly support the Democrats.
In the other case, education infrastructure.
It winds up in the pockets of union interests, a lot of it, and it goes right back to fund Democrat campaigns.
Folks, I'm telling you right now, that's the only reason they make those arguments.
It is not based at all in facts and data on the ground.
That's why this Janus case is devastating.
I'm so glad it broke while I'm on the air.
I would have had to do a special on that one.
This is really important.
Big time.
Or as my mother-in-law says, big time, big time.
All right.
Yesterday.
Huge, huge win.
By the way, big congrats to my friend Brian Chisholm, Joe.
He won.
I think he'll be your delegate now.
Brian Chisholm, a friend of mine in Maryland.
Solid, yeah, solid conservative.
Won his primary yesterday.
It's his second time.
He lost last time by a hair, came back, won this time in a rout.
He is going to be a House of Delegates member in the state of Maryland as a conservative.
There are people out there doing the right thing, even in blue states, so congrats to my friend Brian Chisholm.
But huge takeaways from yesterday's elections.
They had elections in New York, primary elections in South Carolina.
A couple quick takeaways from last night.
First, folks, it's a family-friendly show, and sometimes I get complaints from people if a cuss word drops in.
And I totally understand, by the way.
I get it.
And it is a family-friendly show.
I do my best.
But sometimes I slip up.
Listen, and my apologies for that when it happens.
But I'm an emotional guy.
But last night was a big deal.
In Joe Biden words, you remember with Obamacare, this is what he said Obama did?
Yeah.
The BFD, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Last night is a big deal, okay?
Let me go through a couple of takeaways from last night you need to know about.
Don't mess with Trump.
Don't.
I'm just being candid, folks.
Politically speaking, it is a you're on a suicide mission getting on Trump's bad side.
I'm not saying you have to agree with it.
I'm not saying you have to like it.
I'm not telling you anything other than do not mess with Trump's Twitter account.
He is clearly building momentum.
His popularity is going up by the day, and it is clearly clear as day becoming Donald Trump's Republican Party.
Again, you don't have to like that.
That's fine.
I'm just telling you the facts on the ground are now pretty conclusive.
Two races last night, again, where we've seen this Trump effect.
Henry McMaster, the governor of South Carolina, was in a runoff.
Trump goes out, does a big rally.
McMaster smooth sailing right to a win last night.
Dan Donovan, another one.
Some polls were showing him down a little bit to a former congressman Mike Grim in the Republican primary in Staten Island.
Donovan gets a Trump tweet.
Donovan wins handily.
I'm just saying, folks, it's not perfect.
Trump candidates, obviously, some have lost, too.
Last night was a good night for him.
But Trump's political bank account.
I've used this term over and over on the show.
When you run for office, you'll understand what I mean.
I'm not talking about cash.
I'm talking about cachet.
Cash, cachet.
There's a funny joke in there my wife gets, but I'll have to keep that between us.
She knows exactly what I'm talking about.
She's probably right now going, dude, dude.
There's a difference between cash and cachet.
Political cachet means your political magnetism.
In other words, will people follow you?
Why does that matter?
Well, because if an endorsement from you means other people will follow and vote and potentially donate later, that can turn into political cash and votes.
It also means you'll get volunteers.
So let's say, and I use the example when I lost.
When I lost in Maryland, Joe remembers that well.
I lost by one point in a district that I had no business even being within 10 points.
The guy I ran against beat the guy before me who was a sitting congressman by 19 points.
So we almost won.
Now, a lot of people say, well, there's no silver medal in politics.
You're right.
There isn't.
And I get it.
You lose, you lose.
You snooze, you lose.
See you later.
That's not the point.
The point that I almost beat this guy.
My political bank account was huge.
And being that I'm never dishonest with people about this stuff, and I like a little self-deprecating stuff, my political bank account could not have been higher when I almost won that congressional seat.
Everybody was reaching out.
Can we get an endorsement?
Can we use your mailing list?
Sometimes you have to toot your own horn.
You do.
Because who else is going to do it for you?
But they want this.
They need your political magnetism to attract money, followers, and everything into their race themselves.
When I lost the race in Florida and we got trounced, My political cachet went down a lot.
Now, again, showing how these things are cyclical, Joe, the podcast is now the number two conservative podcast in the country.
Now it's back up even higher where we were before, just based on the following, you know, we have now.
And I like to say we are the biggest conservative podcast in the state of Florida, the second biggest in the country.
I like that.
I'm proud of that.
Yes, we are.
We're also the biggest conservative podcast in Maryland because we have a footprint there, too.
But it goes up.
Trump's political cachet is higher than it's ever been.
The McMaster and Donovan races last night proved that.
A couple other takeaways from last night.
The Democrats, Joe, are in total disarray right now.
There was an upset last night in New York 14 that is groundbreaking for the Democrats.
They are in a world of trouble.
Do you remember the Dave Brat Eric Cantor race?
Dave Brat in a monumental upset in the state of Virginia beats Eric Cantor, who was the second in line, who could have been the Speaker of the House.
Nobody saw that coming.
A woman, last name Ocasio, she winds up beating Joe Crowley, who was being talked about as Nancy Pelosi's heir apparent in New York Congressional District 14, which covers Queens and the Bronx, an area I'm very familiar with.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is an earthquake level upset.
Nobody saw this coming.
Nobody.
I don't even think there was polling on the race.
This young lady, 28 years old, who, by the way, is a far-left socialist.
You have to see her on my Twitter.
I have her campaign platform out there.
It's insane.
But she beat Crowley.
Now, a couple takeaways against my better judgment.
I'm going to put an article in the show notes from CNN.com by Chris Saliza, who generally tweets out crazy stuff.
But it's actually a pretty good piece and is worth reading.
He has four takeaways from this this Crowley upset lesson.
I'm just going to hit on three of them because I think the last one is a little I don't think it was that.
She was a woman that mattered.
I think it was her platform, but I think he kind of over-interprets it.
But number one, there is a civil war in the Democrat Party.
The takeaway.
Make no mistake.
I addressed it yesterday.
The Bernie Sanders far-left socialist wing is trying to pull the party farther to the left.
If that happens, Donald Trump will win in one of the biggest electoral landslides we've ever seen.
Second, Crowley got lazy, Joe.
Crowley got lazy.
He mistook his national platform.
He's a frequent guest on cable news.
He was in the talks to be the next speaker, potentially.
Crowley got lazy.
He didn't realize that when you're running for office, you are not running nationally for Congress.
You are running to get the votes of 700,000 people in your district.
That is it.
Period.
Full stop.
And Crowley forgot that, just like Eric Cantor did in Virginia.
The story about Cantor was amazing.
Cantor wasn't even at his campaign headquarters.
Cantor was in D.C.
and someone called him and said, dude, you're gonna lose.
Someone gave that call to Joe Crowley last night.
Finally, third takeaway, and this is important, the Democrats are stale, folks.
They're stale.
Their leadership is old.
Steny Hoyer, Clyburn, Pelosi, and not that the age, I mean, it's not an age discrimination thing, it's just these people have been around D.C.
forever.
It's not a matter of their chronological time on the planet.
It's a matter of, this is important, it's a matter of their chronological time in D.C.
The Donald Trump rebellion was clearly, Donald Trump's not a young man.
The rebellion is against, not the age of the people running, but the age of their time in D.C.
Their expiration date in D.C.
is way gone.
The Democrats, Crowley was there forever.
Their Democrat leadership is just stale.
Ladies and gentlemen, they have no bench.
Who's there?
Who's there?
Bernie Sanders?
The guy's never had a real job.
Ben Cardin in Maryland who won his primary last night.
The guy's been in office, what, 47 years?
Ben Nelson in Florida.
The guy's been in office since the Gremlin was a hot car.
Since the Pinto was, well, you know, the Pinto was big.
Remember the Ford Pinto?
Oh my gosh, my father had one of those.
What a crap box that thing was.
That was one of those cars you drove out of the dealer and it broke down a week later.
Folks, the Democrat leadership is stale.
They're in a world of trouble right now.
Don't believe for a second, oh yeah, you know, the Republicans, there's strife within the ranks, the anti-Trump, the never-Trump, the pro-Trump.
Yeah, you know, that's fine.
There's always strife in the Republican Party because we believe in principles.
The Democrats are typically used to thinking in that Borg mentality, the collective hive mind mentality, because that's what they are.
They're collectivists.
It's not happening.
It's falling apart.
The socialists are trying to take over the party.
You saw it last night.
All right.
Another article I'll have in the show notes today, I'm just going to hit on this quick, an Axios poll, which goes to show you about the Trump effect too, Joe, how Donald Trump is having a significant effect on the zeitgeist of the times here.
Axios poll, 70% of Americans, Americans, not Republicans.
This is important.
70% of Americans basically say that mainstream media news is fake.
Listen, you're never going to get a bigger advocate for the free press than me.
I mean it.
I support no government intervention into a free press at all unless it obviously is going to... I mean unless it's malicious.
I don't mean malicious.
I shouldn't say that.
That's not accurate.
Unless it is an actively, you know, a lie and misinterpreted... I'm not saying this right and it's bothering me because I want to be crystal clear on this.
You can't be a libertarian, you know, one of these libertarians.
It's only a libertarian when it's cozy.
Unless it's an active attempt to lie, mislead, and slander someone.
I support a free press.
They're free to be stupid.
They're free to propagandize.
They're free to do whatever they want.
For as much as I can't stand the media, I would prefer strongly government to stay away from the media, even though they're free to be stupid.
I want to be really precise on that.
The media, I disagree with them.
I think the poll is correct.
I think the media does propagandize people.
I think it does America a huge disservice.
But I think a bigger disservice would be the government policing the media.
That would be a total disaster.
And I want to be absolutely clear on that.
Having said that, I think it's very important that Republican voices speak out against what the mainstream media is doing to understand and get the American people wired into the idea that they are, in fact, many of them propagandizing people so they can learn to filter through the propaganda through the real facts.
The Trump effect is very real, folks.
70% of Americans say the mainstream media is fake.
Why is that important?
It's not important because it's a moral victory.
Oh, look, we got them, Joe.
70% agree with us.
That doesn't matter.
What matters is people are now going to start to do double and triple checks of everything they read in the mainstream media, understanding that on its face it may not be accurate.
That didn't happen in the past.
If Walter Cronkite and Tom Brokaw said it, the majority of people assumed it to be true.
That's not happening.
This is good for America.
Again, I cannot support in any stronger terms the government getting out of this, but It's important that Americans make these individual decisions to understand that just because the media says it and prints it on the front page does not mean it's true.
Journalists are not journalists anymore.
Most of them are propaganda people.
So Trump is winning on that front.
Alright, here, this is important.
This is the last story of the day.
Tax cuts.
Yeah, we're good.
We've had some... Joe's giving me the sign.
Joe's a good producer.
You know, behind the scenes, he has little signs and signals.
I'm getting used to this radio industry stuff.
Just so you know, folks, the show has exploded so much that we've had to readjust a lot of the way we pay for the show, because it's exploded so much that it's almost impossible for us to calculate what it's worth, because every week it's worth... It's got a life of its own, Dan!
It does.
Some of you are picking up what I'm putting down.
We can't even calculate what it's worth for people to get on it, because every day it's worth more.
Yesterday was our biggest show ever, Which is bigger than last week, which was our biggest show ever.
So that's what we were doing right there.
Alright, someone sent me an article.
From factandmyth.com.
And it's one of these pieces I'm hesitant to give clicks to because it'll rank it higher on search engines and people will start.
But I feel it's important that you read it to understand how to argue with the left.
So I'll see if I'll put it in the show notes or not, but it's a good piece.
And the gist of the piece, it's a good piece because it's good to argue against and it shows you where the left is on tax cuts.
Guy sent me this and said, Dan, my leftist friends are sending this piece around.
Can you debunk this?
It's at factandmyth.com and the core of the piece is that tax cuts do not generate additional revenue for the government.
Ladies and gentlemen, I haven't hit this topic in a while.
Many of you who have been listeners since day one know this is a very sensitive topic for me because it's based on pure idiocy on the left.
The numbers speak for themselves.
Here's some of the premises, some of the Some of the bullet points that the piece tries to make, and it's a liberal piece and it's largely nonsense.
I'm going to debunk them one by one.
It's relatively easy.
The first point is this, that increases in government revenue are largely attributable to the business cycle, regardless of the tax rates.
Garbage.
Okay.
Second point, the tax rates really don't matter.
They don't know what they're talking about there either.
The third is that, well, Bill Clinton tax revenue went up too, even though he raised the income tax rate.
Yes, but on each one of these points, they leave out the takeaway.
Here's number one on the business cycle.
So liberals' arguments are this.
Folks, they can't get past the fact that if you simply go to the tax tables and look at the tax tables over time, it's very simple for you to do government revenue over time.
And you marry it up with tax cuts, whether it's the Calvin Coolidge tax cuts, the John F. Kennedy tax cuts, the Ronald Reagan tax cuts, the George W. Bush tax cuts.
It doesn't matter.
When you go back to those tax cuts, you will notice an interesting phenomenon.
That right after the tax cut, there's a slight dip in revenue, but once the tax cuts are allowed to seep through the economy, what happens?
Tax revenue explodes.
Now, the example I give, because it's the most salient example of this, is the Ronald Reagan tax cuts, where by 1986, he had cut the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%.
By the time he left office, folks, tax revenue had gone from $500 billion to over $900 billion.
Again, liberals, that's just a fact.
If you have a hard time with that, then I don't know what to tell you.
You just can't do basic math and you don't understand $900 is bigger than $500.
That's your issue.
Go back to school and then come back and listen to the podcast later.
Because you have some kind of like disorder I can't fix for you, okay?
That's a fact.
So now, when you say, do tax cuts increase government revenue, my response is, I don't know.
You're like, wait, Dan, you're just, you're trying to refute the article.
No, no, I am.
I'm simply suggesting to you that tax cuts in the past have not led to a decrease in government revenue.
I don't know if it was causal.
I'm just telling you that Ronald Reagan cut taxes and the tax revenue went up.
There's nothing you can say to make that go away.
The same thing happened under George W. Bush.
In the 2003 tax cuts, the same thing happened with John F. Kennedy with his 90% to 70% tax cut.
The same thing happened under Calvin Coolidge.
It happened over and over.
Your argument that tax cuts result in a loss of government revenue is nonsense.
Now this fact and myth piece jumps through all these hoops to try to make that simple fact go away.
Do not get into these arguments.
Number one on the business cycle.
They say, well, this is, Joe, it doesn't matter.
It's not that the tax cuts matter.
It was the business cycle.
In other words, Business goes through a boom and bust cycle.
Well, that's an awfully convenient argument if you don't ask question two.
Well, why do businesses go through a boom and bust cycle?
Maybe they go through booms because they get tax cuts and can invest more of their own money?
I mean, it's one of the dumbest points I've ever heard.
So what you're saying is, yes, Reagan cut taxes.
George W. Bush cut taxes.
John F. Kennedy cut taxes.
Tax revenue went up afterwards.
That's indisputable.
It obviously went up because businesses and individuals were paying more taxes, right?
It's not money fairy money.
The money had to come from somewhere.
So people were paying more taxes at a lower rate.
Meaning what?
They had more money.
Do you understand percentages?
It's the only way this works, folks.
There is no money fairy.
Your argument about, oh no, it was the business cycle, is so dumb, it requires, you're like, you have to scratch your head being, people really say this stuff?
This article really is on the internet, and liberals are actually celebrating the stupidity of it.
So they cut taxes, business booms, people at a lower tax rate pay more money, and you're arguing, what, that the business cycle works for your case, not ours?
How is that?
That makes no sense.
The business cycle is not independent of the tax rates.
My gosh.
Second, they make the point that, oh, tax rates don't matter, Joe.
Tax rates don't matter.
They're irrelevant.
People are going to invest.
Matter of fact, at one point, the piece suggested even higher tax rates are better because business then has faith in the economy because the government's investing.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's the biggest pile of horse crap I've ever heard in my life.
Tax rates do matter, but what matters more, and this is where liberals will try to fool you.
Be very, very careful about this trick.
I've heard this over and over.
When you do this for a living, you've heard every argument in a book.
They'll say, well, Eisenhower tax rates were 90% and the economy boomed then.
The question you should immediately ask is that was the tax rate.
Okay.
But did anybody actually pay it?
Do you understand that the percentage of people that paid that 90% tax rate under Eisenhower was ridiculously low?
Ladies and gentlemen...
In one respect, liberals are right.
Tax rates don't matter.
What matters is the overall amount of money removed from the economy.
That's what matters.
If the tax rate on Joe is 90%, and Joe is the only one in the United States paying it, and everybody else is paying 15%, I've got news for you.
The average amount of money, because Joe's payments will be insignificant related to everyone else.
If Joe is the only one paying a 90% rate, Everybody else is paying 15%.
The average amount of money taken out of the economy, Joe, is gonna be... 15%!
So someone's gonna go, well, the economy's booming, but the tax rate was 90%.
Yeah, only Joe paid it!
Everybody else only had 15% of their money taken away by the government.
Tax rates overall matter.
Not individually.
If you have an individual tax rate of 100% and nobody pays it, yes, you're right, it doesn't matter because nobody's paying it.
When you look at the amount of money removed from the economy as a percentage of GDP, that's what matters.
What percentage of money was taken out of the economy?
Nobody paid the Eisenhower tax rates!
That's the point!
You say, well, the tax rates were 90%.
And when they were 90%, the economy was booming.
Nobody paid that rate!
The percentage of money taken out of the economy was right about where it always is, around 20%.
20% of the economy was taken as form of taxation.
Do you understand what I'm getting at, folks?
Liberals like to make this point, tax rates don't matter.
You should respond, oh, you're right, overall tax rates matter.
In other words, how much money is being sucked out of the economy?
If you tax someone at 100% and he's the only person paying it, you're right, it only matters for him.
It doesn't really matter for the economy.
It's going to be a blip on the radar.
Third point they make in the piece, which is, again, a misstatement of facts and a deliberate attempt to propagandize you.
And thanks to the listener who sent this in.
This is a great piece to just nail your friends on because they don't know what they're talking about.
They say, well, under the Clinton economy, when he hiked the income tax rate, which he did up to 39, I think 0.5% was the top rate, they say the economy boomed and government revenue went up.
Well, one of the things they conveniently leave out of the piece is Bill Clinton cut the capital gains tax.
Also, another thing conveniently left out of the piece, Joe, and this is a critical takeaway, government spending under Bill Clinton and the Newt Gingrich Congress was down significantly.
Government spending, again, the amount of money removed from the economy to spend on government, inefficient government, was lower than it was under George H.W.
Bush as a percentage of the economy and even lower than it was under Reagan.
Ladies and gentlemen, Unlike liberals, I give you the facts.
I'm not here to propagandize you.
The level of government spending under Bill Clinton as a percentage of GDP, which by the way is the only thing that matters because the value of money goes up and down based on inflation or deflation, right?
So the percentage is actually what matters, not the actual number.
Not the nominal, you know, amount.
The percentage of the economy under Bill Clinton fleeced from America to spend on government Was lower than it was under George H.W.
Bush.
It was about 19% in some years.
Under Obama, it spiked as high as 24%.
24% of the economy was taken out to finance government under Obama.
That is absurd.
That is a quarter of the economy removed at the federal level to spend on inefficient government.
The point I'm trying to make here is your argument that tax cuts doesn't lead to increased government revenue because the tax rates were higher under Bill Clinton is nonsense because, again, the portion of the economy removed.
Taken out.
The finance-inefficient government was lower.
Government spending, ladies and gentlemen, is taxation.
It's the same thing.
Where's government going to get the money from?
The money fairy?
I mean, what planet do you live on?
So what are you suggesting in the piece?
That government goes back to 20% of GDP, which is way above now, even under Trump.
So you're suggesting we cut government spending.
Okay, great.
You've got a winner.
Government spending is taxation.
Government spending was very low under Bill Clinton.
It was!
Now again, a lot of that was the Republican Congress, but that's a fact.
So unless the Democrats are arguing to you that we should cut government spending, which is a cut in taxes.
Government spending, folks, is taxation.
You get it, right?
Government's deficit spending is just taxation in the future.
But the money's always coming from you.
Always.
Period.
Full stop.
It's not coming from the money fairy.
Unless you're arguing for a dramatic cut in government spending, which happened under Bill Clinton, which is a cut in taxes, your point is null and void.
Oh, Bill Clinton raised taxes.
He didn't cut government spending.
It's the same thing.
He may have raised the nominal rate of taxation on rich folks to 39%, but they cut the government spending, which is the taxation on rich folks in the future.
That's not like, you know, economic wonkery or trickery.
That's just a fact.
Government spending is taxation.
There was a trade-off.
He taxed people now more at the higher income brackets, and then it was a trade-off by cut government spending in the future, which essentially is a decrease in taxes, which led to an increase in revenue, which makes our point not theirs.
You know, again, I'm hesitant to put the piece in there to give them clicks, but it's worth reading to see how the left constantly propagandizes people and lies to them.
It's really kind of upsetting when you think about it.
All right, I gotta bolt that.
Folks, check out my NRA TV show tonight.
Please.
We've had some great shows lately.
It's live.
It's free.
You just have to give an email address.
They're not going to charge you anything.
No credit card numbers, nothing like that.
Go to NRATV.com.
Airs at 5.30 p.m.
Eastern Time.
Please check that out.
And also check out the Chum store at Bongino.com.
We have a couple of items there, shirts and mugs and stuff like that.
We really appreciate if you pick up some stuff.
Helps us support the show.
So thanks a lot.
I will see you all tomorrow.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
