All Episodes
Previous Next
May 31, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
32:05
Newt Gingrich - May 30th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
All right, thanks, Scott Shannon, and welcome to our two Sean Hannity Show, toll free.
It is 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, the debt ceiling battle uh is now full on.
Uh there is a full revolt from the House Freedom Caucus.
Uh Dan Bishop, who will join us in a moment from North Carolina Congressman is the first to call for a motion to vacate as it relates to Kevin McCarthy.
Uh Speaker Newt Gingrich, I can give you the list of people, Steve Moore, uh economist, author of Trump EMICs.
Uh the New York uh Post Editorial Board, Conservative, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Washington Examiner, uh, I believe it's the Washington Times, uh, signing on to Kevin McCarthy's uh bill.
Uh others uh on the Freedom Caucus sign saying why did we negotiate so much away?
Anyway, uh we've not gotten the actual verbiage of in terms of the bill as written.
It's gonna be 99 pages, so we're told uh a lot of the devil, I'm sure ends up being in the in the details of all of this.
Uh but anyway, here to weigh in on on both sides of this.
We have Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, and Congressman Dan Bishop uh from the great state of North Carolina.
Uh welcome you both to the program.
Thanks, Sean.
All right, Mr. Speaker, let's start with where this these negotiations started.
It started with uh Joe Biden that said no, he wouldn't negotiate.
Uh Joe Biden that met once and then disappeared for 97 days.
And you know, we're up on this quote, deadline, which I think economists rightly argue is not a real deadline, but they're saying June what, fifth is the drop dead deadline.
Uh the deal is announced.
We have the talking points from both sides, but not the actual language from both sides.
The Republicans will have 72 hours to read this bill before they vote on it.
Uh, but you generally support this as historic and a dramatic victory.
Why do you say that?
Well, remember where we started.
You have a Senate, which is still nominally Democrat, you have a president who's Democrat, you have a very narrow Republican majority in the House.
By the time this process was completed, uh Kevin McCarthy had the lead.
The Senate Republicans were backing the House Republicans.
Uh President Biden had been forced into negotiations, something he said he would never do.
Uh the real question in my mind, and I cover this a lot in my new book, Marks to the Majority, which is about how we took 16 years to get to a majority, and for four years we outmaneuvered Bill Clinton.
This is exactly in that model.
This is a good first step.
If this was the final step, I'd be really disappointed.
But this step, if this passes, we have strengthened the House Republicans.
We have strengthened conservatism.
We've set the stage for an appropriations fight this fall.
Remember, this bill sets a ceiling for appropriations.
It doesn't set a basement.
And so we can come back with all the evidence that the investigating committees are producing.
We can cut a lot of things, but we're not cutting this deal.
And by the end of this year, we can have significantly changed the direction of government.
That's how it happened in the 1990s.
We ultimately got to four years in a row of balanced budget, but we didn't do it the first day.
We did it one step at a time.
This is step one.
And I think for it to be defeated would be a disaster, would lead to a clean debt ceiling with no reforms, and we shift the balance of power to the Democrats decisively.
And you are the last speaker to have balanced the budget in our nation's history, uh, just as a point to to throw out there.
Uh Dan Bishop, thanks for joining us.
Let's get your take on it.
And and you're going as far as to say that you're open now to triggering uh the motion to vacate, which any one Republican can do in the House in terms of uh no confidence vote on Speaker McCarthy.
I think the negotiations have been handled handled disastrously.
And with all respect, I certainly respect Speaker Gingrich, he's got a column on Fox News.com that lists twelve supposed benefits to us.
But as you said at the very outset, Sean, you haven't seen the text of the bill.
So one of the things Speaker Gingrich says uh is that just as an as an example, it flashes funding for Biden's new IRS agents and eliminates the total fiscal year 2023 staffing funding request for new agents.
Remember the Democrats gave $80 billion to the IRS in a 10-year advance appropriation that they could have.
This bill at best cuts 20 of the 80 billion, right?
No, sir.
It cuts 1.4 billion of the 80 billion.
Is this in the actual language?
Because uh based on the points of both sides.
But all right, go ahead.
Hang on, Sean.
Let me just give it, hear me out for a second.
So 1.4 billion, by the way, Kevin said to us on the call the other day, he said publicly that it was 1.9 billion.
That's wrong.
It's 1.4 billion.
And it doesn't do anything to eliminate the fiscal year 2023 staffing funding request.
It just takes it out of that pot.
The IRS can spend that whenever it wants to.
And no further uh progress is made toward the $80 billion that is going to be, you know, eating out the substance of the American people.
They talk about regulatory paygoes is another thing.
The Biden administration couldn't get the Reigns Act that would control the growth of regulation, costly regulation.
But the butt, but there's going to be something they say is almost as good.
Regulatory paygo, the administration is going to have to do what the Trump administration did and say, if you're going to have a new regulation that costs money, that imposes an expensive burden, you've got to take one away.
Well, look at the language.
It says the Biden administration can unilaterally waive that.
And if there's any question about it, it's got provision in there and says, and the Biden administration's determination cannot be challenged in any court.
This is what the bill is chock full of cosmetic things like that.
Even the point that the speaker just said, former speaker said that it will cut spending year over year.
No, it's not clear that it will.
It may cut maximum 20 billion dollars, more probably 12 billion.
That is nothing.
That it locks in the post-COVID massive growth in the bureaucracy.
It doesn't, it doesn't put us on a path that you can argue to getting anything better.
Everything that is a get for Republicans in this bill, every single thing, if we have enough time on your on your program, I'll debate them all.
I'll show you all of it.
Every one of them is a fake.
And at the same time, here's the feature of the bill that dominates.
It takes the debt ceiling out to January of 2025.
That in an unlimited way you can achieve it.
Instead of instead of the original House bill that would have brought us right back to this position next year, which I thought politically would have been smart.
So we could debate it before the country.
Instead, what does Biden want to do?
Take it out of the presidential campaign.
You're kneecapping the presidential candidate by taking the issue out.
And the amount that can be incurred in that period of time.
People are estimating four trillion dollars more.
Some say it's going to be more than that.
Five, six, nobody on Capitol Hill can tell you.
And they don't name it.
Why do they not name it like we did in our bill, Sean?
Let me get Speaker Gingrich to respond to all this.
Well, that's a lot of different assertions that are, you know, you get into he said she said.
The fact is that this does cut domestic discretionary spending.
This does rescind uh all the COVID money that has not yet been spent, which is about $28 billion, which by the way, is a larger rescission, that is a cut in existing authorization than all previous rescinds combined, which totaled $26 billion.
This does, I think, uh, in a very important way, uh, increase the ability for both infrastructure and energy with a pretty dramatic change in the um, which is something that the environmentalists were deeply opposed to.
Uh I think you can argue about the way in which they're trying to do something.
It has a work requirement uh for food stamps and for uh other uh welfare programs, which is frankly is exactly the same that we had uh in uh 1996.
So it raises the age that people can uh get money without working.
Uh it's uh permanently uh rebalances the roles, it lowers the amount of state can waiver from 12 percent to eight percent.
So again, it's it's a step of I'm I'm not arguing that this is perfect.
I'm arguing that defeating this, in fact, that weakens us and strengthens the Democrats, and that the national media will gleefully report that the House Republicans are incapable of governing.
And I don't see what you gain for that, because the outcome in the end would be a worse bill, less change, because you you know it would pass.
People are not going to accept uh the the United States government going into uh an inability to pay its debt, and therefore you suddenly have all sorts of folks decide, okay.
I have no choice.
Uh since we tried and failed, we have to pass something.
This is significantly better than what would pass, and significantly better than what Biden proposed.
Uh and again uh you know, the fact is if you continue down the road on spending, the one percent growth cap, uh, which again remember is a ceiling, it's not a basement.
You can go below that in the future, but you can't go above it.
Uh the Congressional Budget Office said it's it's it's two trillion dollars in savings.
Oh my gosh.
Yeah.
Dan Bishop, you're saying, oh my gosh, what?
I'm sorry.
Speaker Gingrich.
There are there are actual enforceable caps, like the caps in the 2011 BCA that were, by the way, blown every year by agreement.
They're enforceable caps for two years at one percent.
The other four years are mere aspirational targets.
They have no force.
And you're right.
So the C they turned that into the CBO.
CBO comes out and says it's going to save two point one trillion.
Are you kidding me?
When they're not even caps that you have in the in the 2011 bill that the Congress agreed to blow everything.
And Dan, let me ask for clarification.
Can any Congress, current Congress uh actually uh require future Congresses on spending?
No.
But but leave aside whether you it's been attempted before, but at least when you attempted it before, you put them in law and they had to be dis you know discarded by the future Congress by action.
Those can't those four years of of targets don't even have any force whatsoever.
Let me speak to a couple of the other things that Speaker Gendric just said.
Gingrich, he said we called back tens of billions in unspent COVID dollars.
The number is six billion that has actually been taken back.
They took another twenty-two billion of it, and they put it in a fund over at the at Commerce Department to be able to be spent later on something else over and above the one percent caps that he was just talking about.
He he talked about work requirements and said his columns is it will help lift millions out of poverty by enacting work requirements for food stamps and welfare benefits.
Well, they didn't allow us to put it on Medicaid, so we're talking about food stamps, SNAP, and temporary assistance to needy families, TANIS.
And on those two, there already are work requirements from age 18 to 49.
It extends it up to age 55.
But it and it does that gradually, one year at a time, and it all goes away subsequently in the sunset, but it adds three new categories of exemptions.
It's not even clear, as Democrats have said it's not even clear that we'll have more, you know, that that SNAP won't that the work requirements will be more comprehensive rather than less.
Mr. Speaker.
They handle they send leadership talking points to the speaker and he put them in a column, but they're not true.
Mr. Speaker.
I think that'll be a very interesting debate.
Let me just say flatly, when we passed welfare reform in 1996, we didn't include Medicaid either.
So in that sense, uh the fact is Bill Clinton vetoed it twice.
Uh Biden would have vetoed it now.
On the other hand, this is a significant step in the right direction.
It does reduce states' ability to waive uh from twelve to eight percent.
Uh it does extend the age uh from uh to fifty-four.
And I and I agree a lot, this is not perfection.
But but I don't think uh I'm I'm gonna double check on the COVID quadback, because I'm not sure that that's an accurate interpretation um of of what's happening there.
I think I think it's legitimate to raise all those questions and then to try to find out whether or not, in fact, uh we think that that is, you know, I mean, who is telling factually the truth at this point.
Um I I have to say I understand the passion, uh, but I'm I'm not at all I'm not totally convinced.
Uh by the way, I'm gonna give you an example.
The bill's actual language has been online Sunday since Sunday night at 715.
So anybody in the country who wants to can go and read the bill.
That's just an example of the confusion that's out there, and it's just simply not accurate to say that the bill was has not been available.
Congressman.
I would think you'd have read it by now, Mr. Speaker, since you're making a representation about it.
You would find everything that I've said to be accurate.
And it and that's not all.
No, I'm gonna have my staff check every single thing you said, and and I'll be glad to get back to Sean and Check.
I mean, I'm I'm again, I think Let me let me ask a more general question because I'm just I'm looking at the clock here in this segment, and we'll we'll carry this into the next segment.
Um didn't I felt Kevin McCarthy went into these negotiations with the upper hand?
I mean, they passed the bill, they did their job, they raised the debt ceiling, and it was fiscally responsible, and it scored out at what 4.8 uh trillion dollars saved in in over uh in a 10-year period, Mr. Speaker.
Did he give up too much?
Well, I I don't know.
I mean, look, I I went through this a lot with Bill Clinton, and we we negotiated a lot of different things over four years.
Uh I listened pretty carefully as they work their way through it.
I I thought that there were certain red lines that the McCarthy had that were real.
I mean, the the work requirement changes may not sound like a whole lot to Congressman Bishop, but I'll tell you, for the left wing Democrats, it's a religious matter, and they're they're in a state of shock that they were put in there at all, and it sets the stage to come back.
Remember what I said?
This is the ceiling, it's not the basement.
The Republicans, if they can get the votes, can come back this fall.
Let me let me uh I don't like to interrupt anybody on this, it's too important.
Uh Speaker Gingrich, Congressman Bishop, stay there.
We'll uh talk to both of you on the other side, 800, 941 Sean.
We'll do this for the full hour uh just to get you both sides of this.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, uh there is a massive inner mural battle.
By the way, it's happening on the Democratic side too.
This is not just the Republicans, um, as it relates to the deal that uh Speaker McCarthy at least made with Biden.
Uh they now have the bill out.
There's a 72-hour period where people get to read the bill in terms of the people that are supporting Speaker McCarthy.
There's a lot of people that I talked to today and and yesterday, and they're all saying, No, I'm not sure yet.
I want to read the bill.
I want to get into the 99 pages.
Okay, which by the way is the right decision.
But if you're looking at those people supporting it, it would be like Newt Gingrich, Stephen Moore, uh, who wrote Trumponomics was going to join us in a second.
Uh the New York Post editorial board, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, uh, the Washington, I'm trying to remember, was it the examiner or the Time?
No, Washington Times.
Uh, you know, called it a win for McCarthy.
Uh and anyway, so we uh continue.
Dan Bishop is with us, uh, who said that he's uh likely going to put forward a motion to vacate.
You might remember during the battle over speaker, that was a big deal.
Any one Republican member uh could have that motion, and that would be a vote then that would take place in terms of whether they would remove Kevin McCarthy.
Uh there's a lot of anger from the Freedom Caucus, more conservatives in the House that are angry about it.
Uh others like Steve Moore are saying uh okay, the you know, he's telling us about the things that he's like that he likes about it.
Um Steve Moore joins us now along with Congressman Dan Bishop.
By the way, Congressman Bishop, are you gonna move forward with the motion to vacate, or are you not decided?
So all I said about that, uh Sean, is it is clear to me this is such a disaster that it's gonna have to be done.
I I'm not anxious to do that.
I don't do something like that out of anger.
The other members that I'll work with, but the point is is this, and and you talked about it.
They said we couldn't get 218 votes for a bill.
We did, and I have, and it's not in Speaker Gingrich thinks that you know I'm at sort of a false uh straw man argument that uh we must all be upset because we didn't get our bill and and Kevin went for a more incremental approach.
That's not it at all.
It is that Kevin conceded every single possible thing and then has come out with a bunch of fictional kind of cosmetic nothings and tried to suggest that they're they're benefits, and I can take each one apart as I was in the last segment.
So the point is, and we said this to Kevin as the negotiations began sort of getting in a weird spot.
We sent him a letter, and the main thing that's for uh substance of that was to say, Kevin, do not forfeit Republican unity.
They said we couldn't do it, but we've been unified in an amazing way.
It is the dynamic force in Washington.
He disregarded that and they brought back this disaster that he knew would split the conference all to hell.
And that's But what I'm having a hard time understanding is why wasn't he in touch with the caucus the whole time before any concessions were made?
100%.
If he was going to surrender this comprehensively, why not get at least representatives of the factions that we've been working throughout the whole eight five four months of this Congress since we had the speakers contest back to Washington and say, here's the situation, it's really gone badly.
What do we do?
Instead, they just bring this back and drop it in our laps and then lie about it.
Let me get Steve Moore in here.
Steve, you've actually you actually said um, I believe with Cudlow that you think McCarthy actually outmaneuvered the White House and negotiated a deal with valuable concessions that conservatives demanded, strict spending caps for 2024, green light on new energy permitting, uh no new student loan bailouts, but the old ones remain.
Uh energy permitting, no uh what else?
Requirements for welfare, a rescission of some fifty billion unspent COVID money, et cetera, and limits on Biden's job killing regulations.
Uh what's overall you give this uh a net plus in a big way, why?
Well, not in a big way.
Sean, goodbye with you.
And by the way, Congressman Bishop is somebody I greatly respect.
And look, uh you're not going to find many people out here show uh, Sean, who are more anti-big government than I am.
I mean, if I had my way, we would cut this government in half.
It is it is atrocious, it's killing our country, it's sapping of us of our economic energy.
Uh, but let I think the mo the most important thing for your listeners to understand, as this whole fight demonstrates is if you want smaller government, as you do you do, Sean, I do, uh, Congressman Bishop does, and most of your listeners, you gotta get a new president, right?
This president is atrocious, and he's run a six trillion dollar hole into our budget, and it it is a financial catastrophe.
Do I think that uh the speaker did about as good a job as possible given the hand that he was dealt?
Remember, Republicans only have one half of one third power of the government right now.
And so I would have liked to have had him hold out for a better deal.
I agree with you, Congressman Bishop, that I I hate the idea that we're gonna instead of hiring 87,000 agents, they're gonna hire 82,000 agents.
I don't declare that as a victory.
But uh we'll see, you know, I do think that the cap for next year is an important one, and I think there were some victories here, and I think we have to pull together.
And by the way, if the conservatives vote against this, I have no problem with that.
I think it, you know, but Sean, it was it was Nancy Pelosi and Chucky Schumer and and uh and President Biden who blew this six trillion dollar uh you know hole in our budget, they should have to walk the plank and vote for the death ceiling increase.
Well, I don't disagree with that at all.
Dan, what's your reaction to that?
So Steve's a reasonable guy.
Uh a number of the things that you read out of, I think a column he wrote that I haven't had a chance to see.
Once Steve sees the language in the bill that I was referring to before, he also will see that a lot of the things he understood to be the case aren't and and and that's why why don't you tell him specifically and let them respond to each one?
Well, again, I don't have the language before me, so I can't quote it quite as readily as I did with Speaker Gingrich, but there was something he made reference to what I referred to earlier as administrative regulatory pay-go, which is the administration is the provision in there to sort of sort of uh limit uh destructive regulations.
Well, Steve may not know that the bill allows the Biden administration to completely waive the impact of that If uh if if they believe it's necessary for uh if program effectiveness, in other words, some fuzzy language doesn't mean anything, they can do it unilaterally at their and the the provision, the language says that decision cannot be challenged and is not subject to judicial review.
Nobody can do anything about it.
It's it is you know, and it's been a good thing.
Well, Congressman Bishop, let me ask you this.
Well, what was the communication like during the negotiations with the speaker?
Very, very limited.
Uh you know, I had some calls from Garrett Graves as one of his negotiators, great guy, Patrick McHenry a few times.
It was in the last hours it was when we heard the possibility of a four trillion dollar debt increase.
And and and then even later, I think that we did we understand that they're gonna take it out of the presidential election by putting the next issue, you know, by extending it out without any specific num numerical limit to January of 2025.
I mean, do you even know that is it was bad enough that it takes it out of the presidential race uh uh race, but it also puts a lame Duck Biden administration in position and a lame duck Congress.
You know what happens in those situations, Sean, where they're gonna that's when the spending blowouts occur.
They put that right on the opposite side of that to be the worst possible strategic moment.
Everything about this is I think uh stretching this out.
I I would rather have come back th next year, this time next year, and don't d gone through this all over again in an election year, because it would have defined where the two parties are, at least given an opportunity to define it.
Steve make it as clear as I can.
Here's the we would have been better off with a clean debt ceiling limit that was within a year than this disaster.
Oh Steve, you know, I mean the Congressman is right that there are all sorts of loopholes in here, and you know, the more you read about the the fine print in this budget the the w the worse you like it.
Um I think that uh it is interesting to me though that a month ago I would have thought that there was no way we could get any concessions from Biden.
Remember, he was the one who said it has to be you know a debt bill without any conditions on it, and I think McCarthy didn't.
But Steve, let me let me interrupt uh just for clarification, and I'm trying to interrupt you.
But for clarification, the Republicans in the House did their job.
They passed a bill.
They raised the debt ceiling.
It saved four point eight trillion scored out by the CBO.
Um it it had all of the wins in there for the Republicans.
Why did they feel the need to negotiate at all against themselves?
And let you know, we had 43, 44 senators when you had Senator Kennedy that were willing to go along with what the House ultimately came up with.
So they were supposedly holding strong.
Well, you make it you guys both make a very strong point, and I think that the the deal may have been premature.
I think that McCarthy may have panicked a little bit.
And part of the reason was you got all of the people in the media and all the people in the Biden administration with this uh kind of made-up story that if we didn't pass this thing by June 5th, that we were gonna have a default on the debt, which I mean uh that's total BS.
Everybody knows it that knows anything about the economy.
I I have said it many times on your show that it was total BS, but this was but a lot of people on Wall Street believed it, and I think uh, you know, McCarthy may have panicked a little bit.
I think the best outcome, frankly, from here, because they're gonna have a I believe the vote will be tomorrow, that uh I think conservatives that say it should say, hell no, this is not good enough.
We're not gonna support this, and force you know, you get some moderate Republicans and then force the Democrats who are the ones who are saying, oh my God, you know, it's gonna be Armageddon if we don't pass the debt ceiling, force them to vote for this.
And I'm not hearing that from McCarthy, but I did talk to Steve Scalise, and I told him exactly that.
I'm said, I said, you know, Mr. Majority Leader, you've got to get the Democrats to walk the plank.
They're the ones who ran up the debt.
But didn't but didn't they have the leverage when when they had the House bill and they raised the debt ceiling and Biden had done nothing and Schumer couldn't even get a bill to the floor?
Well, I think again, Sean, I think you make a good point.
I think that the one the other mistake that I think McCarthy made strategically is he should have said we've got our bill.
The Senate is now responsible for passing a bill, and we're not negotiating until the Chucky Schumer passes something out of the Senate.
But you know what?
He couldn't get anything out of the Senate.
So how can you blame that on the Republicans?
You can't, and I mean that's the point.
Uh uh, and I think you but you're both kind of more in agreement than I think I thought you would be.
Uh, What does this mean for Kevin McCarthy now, Steve?
People like Dan Bishop think this is now headed to a motion to vacate.
And I think the Democrats will love that.
The media will love that.
And you know, on the other side of it, you have, you know, the new Green Deal climate alarmists religious cultists.
You know, they're unhappy with this deal too.
Yeah, so that I, you know, I strongly disagree with the V the Show.
I has McCarthy played this, you know, perfectly no, but I think he's done I mean given remember Sean, they only have 22 out of 200, you know, what is it, a three or four steep majority?
So, you know, I'm a fan of what he's done here, but I do think he's made some mistakes.
I think the biggest sounds like a communication error, Dan, because it sounds like you guys weren't being kept in the loop the whole way as negotiations went forward.
You know, my recommendation, not that nobody ever listens to me, Congressman, just so you know.
My recommendation would have been to keep the caucus in the loop before any concessions are made and say I got to go back to my caucus and ask them.
And if you're going to concede everything then that would doubly be so and that's really what has happened.
Totally correct.
Everything you said Sean is right, but again, I'm not even clinging to the idea that yeah we had the package that passed with 218 that they said we could never do we had passed one we shouldn't be negotiating against ourselves.
All of that is correct.
But given that we did start negotiating against ourselves where we've gotten to and I I I look forward to some opportunity to go point for point with Sir Steve about his enthusiasm for the bill because there's nothing left to be enthusiastic about at the end.
And and the and the you know it so let me ask you is this bill going to pass?
Is he going to get any Republicans voting for this?
I frankly I think Sean is so bad and other Republicans not Freedom Caucus not rule not the people who uh contested the speaker the speakers election in January are coming out Nancy Mace, Corey Mills, Wesley Hunt, Kat Kamick, also uh uh who I'm leaving somebody else Mike Walsh of all uh who are saying this is catastrophically bad we're not voting for so here's what I would say actually Sean is the first step to salvaging this disaster and that is that more than half of the Republican conference needs to vote against
it needs to pass overwhelming it's going to pass with Democrat votes but it needs to pass that needs to be the major voting flank and and then there are what would what would you both I don't have a lot of time.
Steve I'll go to you first then I'll get back to you Dan.
What do you recommend McCarthy do from this point?
I think he's got to go to Biden right away and say look I've got a revolt on the right against this because of so many of the tricks and loopholes in this president you want to avoid a quote default and we know that's BS charge you've got to get you know the Democrats you've got to get a hundred to a hundred and fifty Democrats in the House to vote for this bill.
I don't think I don't know if he could pull that off either.
Well okay well then it's on him here's what I'd say Sean is amazing White House and say look this isn't going to do it.
We're going to need to go back and do a short term very short term 30 day 45 day uh deal and go back to the table and get this fixed that's what he see that's not a bad idea.
Dan Bishop thanks you've been with us for the hour.
Steve Moore appreciated speaker Gingrich on earlier thank you all right 800 nine four one Sean Greg Jarrett at the top of the hour.
Now we've been warning if you have problems with the IRS it's not a matter of if it's when they will come after you and uh with all these additional agents they want to hire it's going to be worse than ever.
Look if you're in trouble with the IRS don't wait till they levy your bank account or garnish your paycheck get the expert help you need.
Don't do this on your own call my friends at Rush Tax Resolution.
Now rush tax is A plus rated by the Better Business Bureau the only tax relief firm that I trust that I recommend I know a lot of you my listeners have taken my advice you've called Rush tax and guess what?
Their tax nightmares they're done they're over uh they're the professionals they know how to do this it's what they do every day.
They have been coming to the rescue of both individuals and businesses with tax problems.
They've been doing it for years.
Call now it's toll free uh 800 299 eighty seventy seven here's the best part you're gonna get a free consultation from rush taxresolution dot com.
They'll give you that up front and for free.
Now, if they can help, they'll tell you right up front.
Now, they won't take your case unless they know they can help you.
800-299-8077.
800-299-8077 on the web.
It's rush taxresolution.com.
All right, when we come back, Greg Jarrett, Trial of the Century.
He'll have a live signing, by the way.
We'll put a link on Hannity.com at uh 10 Eastern tonight.
I'm going to join him for a few minutes.
That should be fun.
Uh, but it'll talk about the trial of the century and the other news of the day as we continue.
I hope you found that debate worthwhile.
More tonight on Hannity.
▲
Export Selection