The Dan Bongino Show - Ep 466 Terrorists are Taking Advantage of Stupid Politicians

Episode Date: May 24, 2017

In this episode I discuss why we will never defeat the terrorists with the political class we are now stuck with. They care more about spying on Americans and false charges of "Islamophobia" then they do about security. http://circa.com/politics/barack-obamas-team-secretly-disclosed-years-of-illegal-nsa-searches-spying-on-americans     I also address the Trump budget proposal and the California single-payer healthcare proposal.  http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.html Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dan Bongino. Aiming to stop free speech so the speaker can no longer speak is exclusively a far left phenomena. The Dan Bongino Show. I'm talking to moderates in the Democratic Party who are actually interested in what's going on, not blind lemmings walking off a cliff into an abyss of stupidity. Get ready to hear the truth about America. The rich did it. Yeah, the rich did it.

They lent money to people who bought homes, and the people never paid the money back. Oh, wow, that sounds like a great business plan. On a show that's not immune to the facts, with your host, Dan Bongino. All right, welcome to The Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino. Producer Joe, how are you today? Always glad to be here, Mr. Bongino. All right, welcome to the Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino. Producer Joe, how are you today? Always glad to be here, Mr. Bongino. Folks, thank you very much from both Joe and I. One, for all the superb emails. I'm sorry I couldn't get back to everyone. I emailed

a few people back, but yesterday was the biggest day we have ever had in over two years of doing the podcast. Astronomical numbers on downloads and listens overnight so thank you very much i mean we just blew it out of the water matter of fact ironically joey texted me at about uh two o'clock saying you know have you seen the numbers and it closes out because of our monitoring system at about eight o'clock at night eastern time 8 p.m for various reasons but um i was stunned i mean we had we had blown past the number by about 7 p.m. that we the highest that we'd ever had. So thank you very much. Thank you. All right. A lot to talk about today. As I said on yesterday's show, you can always expect arrests the day after.

And I've been very concerned about this because why weren't these arrests for the Manchester bombing at the Ariana Grande concert made the day before? bombing at the Ariana Grande concert made the day before. That was the whole point of yesterday's show, that if we cannot become arsonists and start fires rather than the firemen we are now putting out the terrorist fires afterwards, nothing's going to change. Folks, you cannot move the perimeter out far enough to stop these people. What are you going to do? Secure the whole country with metal detectors? I want to go into this a little bit more today. And I also want to talk about the Trump budget yesterday, because it's just insane. Some of the nonsense I'm hearing out there, rhetoric wise. All right. Today's show brought to you by our friends at Birch Gold Group. Love these guys. You know, with the stock market hitting new highs every day, that's great. You know, we love that. Make no mistake. But we have to be

very careful, folks. A lot of us getting older and age out there. You know, we want a little bit of stability in our retirement, stability and diversification in our asset portfolio. Check these guys out at Birch Gold Group. But the Federal Reserve's policy is promoting inflation, a lot of loose monetary policy, a lot of loose money sitting around there now. I've always been worried about inflation. If you're growing 3% in your stock market fund or 4%, but inflation turns up at 5% and 6%, I got news for you. You're losing money. The company I trust with precious metal purchases is Birch Gold Group. I have a piece of silver in front of me right now from these guys. These guys are the real deal. They

are A-plus rated by the Better Business Bureau. These guys have countless five-star reviews. Google them. I'm telling you, I'm not making up. Go check it out. I don't take on sponsors without doing our homework first. I really like these guys. The fact that I've always been worried about inflation. These guys were a natural for us. They got a longstanding track record of success. Go visit them at birchgold.com. That's B-I-R-C-H gold.com slash Dan. Birchgold.com slash Dan.

And request your free 16-page kit today. And reveal how gold and silver can help protect your savings. And how you can legally protect your savings and how you can legally move your IRA or 401k out of some risky stocks and bonds and into precious metals IRAs, precious metal IRAs. Go check it out. It's a 16-page guide, no commitments necessary. Go to birchgold.com slash Dan and learn how investing in gold and silver can protect your savings. Okay. So yesterday, as we said on the show, and I gave a hat tip to Jay Sekulow, who brought this up on Hannity's program

the night before, it's always immediately after these attacks, Joe, you see, well, arrests have been made. It's on right now. I have Fox on in the background of my studio here. And he's saying arrests, there are multiple arrests in this case. Now, granted, folks, to be fair,

I'm not taking a shot at, you know, MI5, the Manchester constable, you know, the British, the British police or anything else. I'm not doing that. And yes, after the fact, evidence presents itself after a terrorist attack, even in a suicide bombing. You have shrabnel. The shrabnel can usually trace back, be traced back to a specific supplier. You have DNA, sadly, because the suicide bomber kills himself along with everyone else, so you have DNA. From there, maybe you can find some identification. You start dissecting the network.

You start dissecting email traffic, financial transactions, and you are going to find other people. So when I say arrests are made afterwards, again, I don't want to make it out like, well, they just knew this was going to happen and they let it go. That's not, not an OT what I'm saying. Okay, Joe. But what I am saying is when you hear things and I'm quoting multiple news sources here, folks, you know, I don't get ahead of myself. You know, I don't do hyperbolic talk on the show. I don't engage in conspiracy theory stuff like the Trump Russia

story or some of the other stuff going on out there. But here's a quote from the media sources about the suicide bomber. He was on the radar. Joe, how many times are we going to hear about this? You know, in my third book I just finished, there's a chapter on this about the known wolf phenomenon. Known wolf, not lone wolf. How we knew about these people, they were on the radar, and yet they still managed to pull off attacks. It happens over and over and over again from

Nidal Hassan and Ford Hood to the bomber at the Ariana Grande concert. It happens over and over again, and they perpetrate their crimes. And then afterwards, we look back and say, what went wrong? Well, not to repeat yesterday's show, because I don't want to do that, but I strongly suggest you listen to it. Like I said, I really appreciate the traffic on it. But I was thinking overnight, how do I narrow this down for my audience to make these simple, digestible tidbits of knowledge they can take out of the show so they don't have to waste a lot of their time? tidbits of knowledge they can take out of the show so they don't have to waste a lot of their time. So if the point of yesterday's show, Joe, was you can't move security perimeters out

far enough to deter terrorists, it's not possible, folks. It is impossible. Just look at what happened at the Sochi Olympics in Russia. The Olympics was locked down, so they bombed the train station. Again, I'm not, it's not laughter at it.

I'm not, it's not funny. It's frustration. I don't know how to respond to people who will, like I had, there were some really, really bright security people on TV right now doing cable news hits and I appreciate everything they've done. And they're right. You know, it's a couple of points.

People had a couple of points. There are ways to make your target a lot harder. Keep blueprints of your facility. Keep cameras out there. There are ways on the outer perimeter. I mean, one of the ways I would suggest people do this if you own a sports stadium is so you have magnetometers, Joe. That's your hard perimeter, right? Your magnetometers are the point where if someone's supposed to come in with a weapon because he's a terrorist, a bomb or an explosive, your magnetometers and your bag checkpoints, we're going to check the bags, are the point where that person has to stop.

Well, what are they going to do, Joe? They're just going to detonate right outside the magnetometer checkpoint. So you have two choices. You can expand your perimeter outward and outward and outward. But, folks, at some point, you're still going to have a collection of people at a magnetometer checkpoint that sadly can be killed. So the point I was trying to make yesterday is moving the delineation point between the secure area after the magnetometers, you get what I'm saying? And the unsecure area before the magnetometers. The farther you move it out, the farther the terrorists move out.

It's a game we cannot win. So in yesterday's show, I made the point that that's not possible. Well, one way, if you're determined to stick to that government-wide failed approach to doing things, because it's never going to work. One of the things you can do is you can at least there are EOD teams, explosives ordinance disposal teams that use canines. And these canines are very, very good, obviously for the, you know, but their abilities to, you know, sniff out, they have a, they're,

what is it? The ethmo turbinates for all you dog people out there. They are very sophisticated sniffers out there. These dogs is you have to hire a bunch of dogs and there are ways to do, I didn't want to get into, and I'm not going to get into, some of the ways the Secret Service does it. But the secure area does not always start at the checkpoint. There are ways to use dogs to mill about the crowd. And they will find that bomber, frankly, before he detonates.

But again, Joe, just to show you how you can't beat them. You can only help mitigate the threat a little bit. What's going to happen when the dog sits? how that can't, you can't beat them. You can only help mitigate the threat a little bit. What's going to happen when the dog sits? Well, I'm using Secret Service language. When explosive dogs are trained, they're trained to sit, literally sit down when they smell an explosive.

So in the Secret Service, it was like, if you saw the dog sit, you were like, uh-oh, what's up? You know what I'm saying? I guess if I was a bad guy i detonate exactly that's the point i'm that's why i'm trying to tell you folks that this game of one-upmanship can't possibly be won the way to do it is breaking these networks up and become arsonists now here are the things you need to know so yesterday's show was access control is not security because

you have a secure area and an unsecure area no matter which way you cut it where do the dogs that the dogs walk all over the country the dogs eventually can only go out so far too so you just wait for the see where the dogs are and you detonate when the dog sits on you it you can't win the game that was a point of yesterday's show today's show is listen you have to be arsonists and the way to be law enforcement and intelligence arsonists and break these plots up in advance is the two S's here. The two S's are surveillance and sources. Folks, we've gotten away from this. We've gotten away from this for two reasons. The surveillance infrastructure in the United States has become polluted when this metadata argument.

The NSA and insiders have become so obsessed with the easy way out, which is accumulating metadata information on every single American and being able to tap into that, that we've forgotten the old way of doing things. That's actually surveilling the bad guys. Now, I'm not saying they're not surveilling the bad guys, Joe. I always get emails from insiders on this. You don't know what you're talking. Trust me, I do know what I'm talking about. I know exactly what I'm talking about because I've actually done criminal investigative work for other large cases that had significant nexuses to terrorism. So don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I've actually done this kind of stuff.

It's called investigative work, old gumshoe detective work. Now, the way to do this, the two S's here, the way to stop these tactics in advance, let's focus on surveillance first. We're doing it all wrong right now. And there's a link I have in the show notes today. I strongly encourage you to read. It's been on Drudge. It's been headlining all morning from Circa.com. program that they've let the rules lapse and they've inadvertently or inadvertently been spying on innocent Americans and their traffic, whether it's phone or email records. Now, folks, that shouldn't surprise anybody. I warned you about this. I warned you over and over. As Lord Acton said, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you give the NSA access to all of the metadata, email traffic and cell phone data, the citizens of the United States, and you say, well, well, we're not going to use it unless we have a FISA court warrant. Of course, there's going to be an end around. And what this story exposed today is that they were using search criteria to target innocent Americans who, in some cases, had never spoken to a foreign target.

who in some cases had never spoken to a foreign target. Oh, shocker. We've only been talking about this on the show here, Joe, for two years now, warning you how dangerous that is. So what does that do? It does two things. When surveillance focuses on everybody rather than exclusively the bad guys, what does it do? It dilutes the trust of the American people

in the entire surveillance infrastructure, which defeats the whole purpose. You can't have a government that doesn't have the trust of the people at all. And secondly, it wastes a lot of assets targeting innocent people who have nothing to do with anything at all, i.e. the Trump administration when Susan Rice decided and the Obama administration decided to target them and fabricate the fake Trump-Russia story because they lost the political race, these big frauds. Now, OK, those are the problems.

Problem one, accumulating surveillance information on everybody when we don't need it. And by the way, violating their constitutional rights. Problem two, the political problem here with politicians using it for political reasons like the Obama administration did. How do we fix it? Folks, I'm going to tell you something right now that's really disturbing. And I strongly encourage you to take this in and digest what I'm about to tell you. The surveillance capabilities of the federal government, whether it's the FBI, Secret Service, or any other federal entity out there, are extremely limited. This isn't classified information. It's not even for official use only.

It's pretty easily publicly available if you look at it. Now, I bring this up not to highlight it on the show unnecessarily. I bring it up because you, the people control the government through your house of representatives, members, and your local federal and state representatives. And it's up to you to bring this up with them to change it, because I can't change it on my own. It's a big platform, but it's not a big enough platform to change the entire, uh, uh, you know, uh, architecture of the federal government overnight. We can't surveil these people. We don't have enough bodies. And when I say surveil, I'm not talking about the old school, excuse me, the metadata way. I'm talking about the old school Barney Miller type stakeouts. We're actually watching people who are

suspect. Folks, I'm telling you, this is behind the known wolf phenomenon where we know what's going on, but the people pull off the attack anyway because nobody was watching them. Now, are we going to be able to watch every single terror suspect in the United States? No, folks, but we could get pretty darn close. And you should be asking why the FBI and their special surveillance group and these other federal entities out there don't have the surveillance capabilities to do that if we need it. We are wasting a ton of money on all kinds of duplicative, nonsensical federal programs. And yet we're not watching people. And I'm not talking about violating their constitutional rights at all, folks. I'm talking about when these people I'm talking about, listen, if you're in a public place and you're a terror suspect, the FBI has every right, just like you and I would, Joe,

to follow that person around. Now, we can't follow them in their house without a search warrant. We can't follow them into someone else's house without a search warrant. But if we think something's up, we better damn well clear that person on that. And someone better sign off on that, that this person isn't a threat before more people die. We have to dramatically increase our surveillance capabilities in the United States. Dramatically increase our surveillance capabilities in the United States. And I'm telling you, I'm going to give exact numbers, but we don't have even a thousandth of the ability we need to surveil these people. So they're going out and they're pulling off attacks anyway.

Secondly, so number one solution, surveillance, bump up our surveillance assets dramatically. We're wasting money and everything else. Secondly, sources. We're not doing it, folks. We're not developing sources. Well, again, to be fair, we're developing sources. We're not doing it, folks. We're not developing sources. Well, again, to be fair, we're developing sources. We're not developing them to the degree we need to disrupt the tax. And why is that? Well, we're not doing surveillance, number one, because of bad

monetary decisions and leadership. Keep in mind, one of these things goes off in the United States. We're going to spend billions of dollars on security upgrades. We could have spent a half of that just on surveillance, pre-op surveillance beforehand, Joe. And also because of the fear of Islamophobia. As I said yesterday, of course, not all Muslims are involved. You know, saying this is just ridiculous, but we have stupid liberals who want to impugn the character of Republicans worried about their kids. And they say, oh, you guys are Islamophobic. No, you're just morons. You're just truthophobes. You're just afraid of the truth, you idiots. So I have no real time for you in a

serious argument, but I feel the need to put that caveat out there because one, it should be obvious, but to stupid liberals, sadly, no, nothing's obvious anymore. But the Islamophobia label has politicians running scared. And yeah, and hence the title to this show. I mean, terrorism, the title of the show, there's terrorism, terrorists are taking advantage of stupid politicians and they are. Like, well, we can't surveil people in mosques. That's like Islamophobia.

Well, that's just dumb, okay? If there's nothing going on in the mosque, there's absolutely no reason to surveil people. I would say the same thing if it was a church or a synagogue or a temple. If you're in there calling for the death of Americans, you damn well better get an FBI or NYPD or police asset in there surveilling what's going on. That's why it's not happening. And that's just complete, total cowardice and really just pure, unadulterated stupidity. It's going to get people killed. We need to surveil these people. And when nothing's going on, we back off. That's just the way it is. Okay. Number two sources. We're not developing

sources again, because we're, and they just tied into surveillance, the two S's here, because we're not penetrating people into these communities because there have been lawsuits and lawfare by interest groups who do not have the American interest in mind. They are only concerned about accusing people of Islamophobia. There have been interest groups out there that have said, well, you can't put people in a Muslim community, try and develop sources. God forbid that happens.

Why not? We've done that in every other ethnic community in the United States. We've had problems before as well. I'm Italian. I'm Italian. I mean, it's Bongino. I thought that's, I'm half Italian. Actually, my father's all Italian. My mother is Irish, German, and English.

But Joe. Yeah. I have never once in my life dealt with the Italian mob. And there are mobsters that are Italian. There are Russian mobsters as well. Sure. Mobsters everywhere. I mean, there's Yakuza.

There's Japanese mobsters. You don't say like, oh, we're not going to stick someone in that community because we're going to be profiling Italians. You're not profiling Italians. You know what you're profiling? Criminality, you dopes. It's no different in the Islamic community. If you sense there's a problem in one specific portion of an Islamic community in one neighborhood that they're calling for action against Americans or something like that, why do they get a free pass? No one says this about Russians. No one says this about the Japanese Yakuza. No one says this about anything else. Oh, you're profiling based on

religion. No, we're profiling based on death and destruction, you dopes. Nobody cares about the religion. Nobody. There's nothing to do with the religion, you idiots. And that's why we're not developing sources that are giving up these people in advance. Folks, shaking trees is tough. Requires you to make some really tough decisions. The real world of developing sources in federal law enforcement is not a simple one. You have to go out. You have to shell out a lot of money, folks.

You have to shell out a lot of time. You have to meet with people in cryptic locations. Sometimes you got to get them phones. Phones that are, you know, you got to engage in ways to communicate with them that are behind the scenes. You have to get them on recording devices. You have to convince them to do things they don't want to do. Developing sources is really hard work. But when we're not developing sources in the community because people threatening to sue because it's targeting communities when it's not, it's targeting a criminal act and an act of war in the United States, terrorism.

Then it's over. I explained that well enough, Joe. I think so. Yeah, I followed that all the way through pretty clearly. Thank you. We cannot we can't afford folks any more of this. They were on the radar nonsense. If they were on the radar, the first question you should be asking is why didn't we have a source and why weren't we surveilling?

That's it. End of story. Okay. Today's show is also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition. You know I'm a big fan of these guys, Adam and Miles. They developed one of the most amazing products I've taken in a long time. I really enjoy it. I had to use it this weekend.

It's called Dawn to Dusk. A lot of us have this problem with energy. We're getting a little older. We got really busy days. Four or five o'clock comes around and we're like, gosh, I need a nap. I need a full-blown two-hour sleeper right there. Put me in one of those eggs they have at the airport. You can take a nap in, right? You won't need it with Dawn to Dusk. It's a 10-hour energy product and it will not give you the highs and lows that energy drinks and coffee gives you. This stuff is fantastic. The feedback

I get on it is absolutely phenomenal. It's from Brickhouse Nutrition. It's called Dawn to Dust. Go check it out at brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan. That's brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan. Pick up Dawn to Dust today. It's great for people in the military, for cops, for working parents, for people who don't want to stop at Starbucks for 15 cups of coffee a day and just need a nice energy boost, a nice mood elevation. Give it a try. You will not be disappointed. Send me your reviews too. Daniel at Bongino.com. I love reading them. Dawn to dusk. Go check it out. All right. So the budget came out yesterday, Joe. Here we go. Yeah. There's two stories I wanted to hit on here, the budget and this California single payer proposal and the Sacramento Bee. Yeah, this was, this is a, again, it just goes to show you my big frustration with liberals is they don't live in the real

world. They live in a world they create, a fantasy world, the world of intentions, not a world of results. And when the results don't meet their standards, they just ignore the results and move the goalposts. I mean, liberals do this all the time. And one of the obligations we have as conservatives is to be ideologically bound to truth no matter what. And liberals aren't. They're bound to talking points. And it's just absurd. So a couple of things on the budget yesterday. So Trump proposed a budget. It is a $4.1 trillion budget. Now, for those liberals who are already screaming, oh, my God, it's going to kill the poor Joe. We've cut to the bone. I want you to keep in perspective something. Inflation adjusted

numbers, okay? Meaning in today's dollars. So don't, you know, because I know liberals, they're always, you know, whatever you say to a liberal, they always have a dumb talking point return that's 99% of the time is wrong. So today we're spending $4.1 trillion. Joe, do you remember the dark ages of the Bill Clinton years, the last year of Bill Clinton? Remember the dark ages, remember the dark ages of the bill clinton years the last year bill clinton remember the dark ages no telephones no computers we were all living in uh in uh in huts and burning uh drawings things like cave drawings for communication that was the that was the drudge report at the time it's good joe you're correct cave drawings like that uh what do you think the budget was inflation adjusted so today it's 4.1 trillion what do you think the budget was in the Clinton

years? Oh, I can't even guess. 2.2 trillion. That's inflation adjusted. So during the dark ages of the Clinton years, obviously you could kind of sniff my sarcasm here. The budget was half of what we're spending now. So for all of you liberal buffoons out there talking about how, oh my gosh, we've cut the budget to the bone. Trump is throwing old ladies off the cliff. He's killing babies, puppies, everything. He's throwing them right in a meat grinder. You're just an idiot.

OK, you're the same people that tout the benefits of the Clinton years. But the Clinton years, we were spending half as much money. So my question to you is, if Bill Clinton was so phenomenal and the economy was so great in the Bill Clinton years, then can we return to the two point two trillion dollars of spending? Oh, no, no, no, no. I didn't mean it was that phenomenal and the economy was so great in the Bill Clinton years, then can we return to the $2.2 trillion of spending? Oh, no, no, no, no. I didn't mean it was that phenomenal. I was just kidding about it. Again, it just goes to show you as conservatives, we're bound to facts and reality. And liberals, frankly, aren't, folks. They're bound to rhetoric and cheap talking points that make no sense. So a couple of highlights in this budget, and there's a really good piece in the Wall Street Journal today, and they're talking about some warnings from some old Democrats and the warnings.

Here we go. Yeah, the warnings from Democrats who were not around. No, this is different. Yeah, I know what you're thinking. The warnings from the Democrats say we're all going to die from this budget, but he's talking about some warnings from old Democrats who were a little more reasonable when they said that, listen, you know, Edmund Muskie was one of them. And Bob Kerry was another one. They were Democrat senators. And they said, listen, folks, you know, we can't continue to support unbridled spending on entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, because if we do, eventually, it's going to crowd out every other ounce of spending. It's a mathematical certainty.

We have to prioritize and fix these programs soon. Well, of course, Joe, nobody listened. So here are some numbers which should really scare you a little bit, and I'll leave you with a little bit of an optimistic note. Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt, Joe, of the $4.1 trillion budget proposal are $1.9 trillion. So you're almost halfway done. Your money's...

Keep in mind, the $4.1 trillion, that's not our tax revenue. That's the proposed spending. I just want to be clear on that. We don't have $4.1 trillion. What we'll have, I don't know, maybe $3.5 trillion. But of the $4.1 trillion we're going to spend, where we still have to borrow money to spend that, half of that is Social Security, Medicare, and interest at $1.9 trillion. Defense, which is, by the way, a total vacuum sucking up all our money, the Social Security, Medicaid part, not defense. We need that. Defense is $600 billion. So everything else between Social Security, Medicare, and interest and defense, everything else is $1.6 trillion.

So when I say everything else, I mean FBI, I mean HHS, the Obamacare subsidies, SNAP, welfare type programs, unemployment insurance, all of this stuff is another $1.6 trillion, the whole budget. The point they were trying to make in the old days when Democrats actually had sound mind here is if we don't do something about entitlements, folks, it's not possible. We will eventually crowd out the entire spending, the FBI, Secret Service, DEA, SNAP program, the food stamp program. It's all going to be crowded out. It's only $1.6 trillion of the $4.1 trillion we're spending. Folks, something has to be done in the future. And it is just completely disingenuous to insist to Americans that if we don't do something about Social Security and Medicare, that we're going to be OK.

It again, I understand for people 55 and older, it was a different deal. And, you know, maybe we should avoid any, you know, any changes to them. But for people 55 and younger to just lie to them and tell them that these programs are going to be there for them, it's just totally disingenuous. Now, a couple quick things on this. is just totally disingenuous. Now, a couple quick things on this. Liberals are howling, Jason Furman specifically, one of Obama's old economic advisors. Furman's losing his mind today in the Wall Street Journal. And he's talking about how the Trump budget assumes 3% growth, and he's having a meltdown. He's like, oh my gosh, it assumes 3% growth. This is ridiculous. This is totally inaccurate. This is crazy.

Folks, the historical average of GDP growth post-World War II is 3% growth. Now, the why matters. The why matters. Why would Jason Furman, an old Obama hack economic advisor, why would he put an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, timed appropriately for today, Joe, put an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal timed appropriately for today, Joe, why would he put that in the Wall Street Journal today and assail Trump's 3% growth target? Well, what do you think Obama's growth, average growth rate? You think they were 3%? There's like one and three quarter or something like that. Yeah, you're absolutely right. Yeah. Obama's average growth is about 1.92%. You're absolutely right. Yeah. Obama's grow average growth is about one point nine two percent. So Furman now this guy is supposedly an economist. This is a political article he wrote. Make no mistake. He claims he's trying to portray it as an economic one. But I'm telling you, it's not. It's a political hit piece designed to absolve Obama of any blame and put out the marker in the

past that, oh, no, no, it wasn't Obama's fault, the economic growth, the 1.9%, that Trump shooting for 3%, he doesn't understand the headwinds he's up against and the economy. This is this whole idea of secular stagnation, which I've warned you about repeatedly. The idea that the economy is in everything that can be invented, has been invented, and we have to start to accept this 1.92% growth rather than the historical rates of growth, 3%. It's not true, folks. Don't buy it. It's a total myth. Now, even worse about the piece, what drives me crazy is he takes a shot at Reagan in the opening of the piece and he says, well, Reagan projected high growth rates too.

Well, does Furman not understand that 1984, 1985, and 1986, the Reagan growth rates were six, five and four percent. Did he miss that? I don't understand. This guy's supposed to be an economist. And then he says, and by the way, Reagan projected three percent or excuse me, high growth as well and failed to meet those growth rates. Not true at all. He's just making that up of why I don't know, maybe because he just doesn't like Republicans. But he also says, and this drives me crazy, and that contributed to the debt in the Reagan years. Folks, again, that's just stupid. And he talks about how the tax cuts contributed to the debt. We all know that's not true. We all know it's made up. If you listen to the show, tax cuts led to enormous growth rates, 6%, 5%,

and 4% after they were fully implemented. And the tax revenue to the government doubled by the time Reagan got out of office. They're just making it up. You can't trust these guys. They are not genuine people. They just make stuff up. Now, one optimistic note, which I discussed in one of last week's shows, because the debt situation is dire. We owe a lot of money. We owe $20 trillion. We're going to be in another massive deficit next year as well, no matter what Trump spends, because really, we'd have to cut just about every ounce of discretionary spending to get back to balance. If our GDP growth can grow faster than government, so if we can hit three and even 4% growth, Joe, and I'm not suggesting we should grow government. I just want to be clear, folks. I'm just trying to give you

the pure math. So just don't email me any nasty grams on this. I'm not suggesting we should do this. I'm just telling you the math of it. Even if government were to grow at 2% a year, but we grow GDP at 3% to 4%, and we can hold those growth rates consistent over time, the budget will balance itself over time, even if we do nothing else. I mean, it's just a matter of simple math, Joe. If we owe a certain amount of money, but we're growing our income every year and our spending is growing at a lesser rate, that means we're going to have more and more and more money left over every year. Remember the magic of compound interest, it's the most powerful force in the universe. So the budget situation is dire and I don't want to undersell that to anybody

listening. We owe a ton of money. Big government is sucking the energy out of the room. Three and four percent is going to be difficult, but it's reachable with tax cuts and regulatory reform. But if we can hit those three and four percent and we can keep the growth of government to two and three percent, eventually over time, the budget will eventually balance over time. So that's a slightly optimistic note, given the Democrats are panicking right now. Like, oh my God, we're cutting people off food stamps. Folks, we have 44 people, 44 million people on food stamps. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. You can't tell me in the richest country in the world, the 330 million people that over a 10th of the population can't possibly feed themselves. I'm sorry. I just, I, tenth of the population can't possibly feed themselves. I'm sorry. I just, I, listen, I'm a Christian at heart. I'm, you know, saved by Jesus Christ. I absolutely passionately believe that. But I don't believe for a second that Jesus Christ wanted people who could feed themselves to be fed by others. And by others, by the way, who may have a problem feeding themselves, themselves. You know, remember, there are people out there working their butts off out there right now who are working to pay tax dollars to feed other people who are perfectly capable of feeding themselves and don't want to. I'm not suggesting everybody on food stamps doesn't need them.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying in a country of 330 million people, you can't explain to me using logic and reason that 44 million people are completely incapable of feeding themselves. I'm sorry. It's like that amount of what are we, the Congo? Yeah, it of what are we the congo yeah it's not it doesn't make sense no it doesn't make sense it's not it's illogical joe but again trying to explain that to liberals is just ridiculous because they're going crazy right now because trump implemented a work requirement for food stamps if you're able-bodied and able to do it the lips are like oh my god you gotta work what do you mean you have to work i mean it you know teach a to fish. Did they miss that? I don't get it. All right. Final story today. This one is

just, again, feeds into the narrative of just pure unadulterated liberal stupidity here. So, you know, they've always been pushing for single payer healthcare all across the country, liberals. They want a national program of single payer healthcare like they have in many countries around the world. Now, as I've explained to you the economics of this before, there are only two ways to allocate scarce resources in a society, folks. Whether it's gold, silver, a doctor's time, it doesn't matter. There's scarce resources. Everything's scarce.

There's not an unlimited amount of anything. There's not even an unlimited amount of air, okay? Everything is limited in some respects. The way we do it in a free market society is we price those products and people who need those products work for them. When those products are in high demand and prices go up, more producers come in because they can make a profit, which then in turn lowers the price. It's only worked throughout human history with everything from flat screen TVs to LASIK eye surgery, Joe. It's no mystery that people in the United States have more stuff than people anywhere in the world because we price stuff that incentivizes people to produce stuff so that they can get it to people

who can afford the price of the stuff. Call capitalism. Liberals should open a book sometime. Liberals don't like that. So if the first way to allocate resources is prices, they prefer rationing. Now, that's what single-payer healthcare is, government-run healthcare. It's not priced. The government is paying for the healthcare. So when the government pays for the healthcare using third-party payer themselves, taking your tax money and paying for it, there is not enough money to go around because the resources are limited. Folks, the doctor's time is limited. If a doctor works eight hours a day, Joe, he doesn't work 37 hours a day because the government

declares single payers in effect, government run healthcare. The day doesn't increase to 26 hours. Copy? Does that make sense? You had a tough time with that one? I got you. So you had two choices. You could price the doctor's time, but now the government took over single payer healthcare. So you still have eight hours You could price the doctor's time, but now the government took over single payer healthcare. So you still have eight hours and you still have a massive request on the doctor's time, but now the prices aren't working.

So more doctors aren't jumping in to take advantage of what would have been high prices and a high demand season. Now what has to happen? You still have high prices because the prices aren't, the fact that people need to see the doctor doesn't change. Now the government has to do something else, so they ration. So what they do is they pick their favorites or they say, well, you have to be close to dying before you see a doctor.

Here are the rules. So what do you get? Costs go up because you have a third-party payer, the government. This is critical you understand this. Third-party payer systems always lead to increased costs because they disconnect the patient from the doctor. The patient doesn't care about the cost because they're not paying. They've already paid in their tax dollars. That's why nobody knows what a hip replacement costs anymore. They're not paying. Now, why does the government, why does the doctor not care about the cost either? They try to get

as much as they can because they know you're not paying. They don't have to be price competitive. So costs always go up in a third-party payer system. So now when you have single payer costs go up because there's no price control, Joe, you're not paying. You already paid through your tax dollars. And you have access control problems because the government starts to ration because they have to ration because there's massive demands on a doctor's time. And there's not many more doctors coming into the system because they're not incentivized by high prices, which is what drove people to produce more flat screen TVs. But doctors aren't producing more doctor's time because there's no price, Joe. Does that make sense? There's no price

signal. The price signal disappeared. The government took it over. You're rationing. So California proposed this, and this is just sad. This is sad. I was going to say it's almost tragically hysterical how dopey liberals can be. California wants to do a single-payer system in California. The cost of this thing, wait for it, folks. Get ready for this. Let me put it in perspective first. The California budget, the entire budget is $180 billion.

The cost of California's single-payer is $400 billion. Twice the cost of the entire budget. That's the cost for California's single payer because of the third-party payer effect, and now the rationing that's going to have to happen because of it. And according to the Sacramento Bee, and I put this piece in the show notes today,

this is a short line from the piece, but really it just sums up liberal stupidity. The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to creating a universal system. Oh, oh, it is. Oh, it is, guys. So the Democrats all of a sudden figured out that when they factored it, it sounded great. Everybody's going to get health care for free. What's the problem with free health care?

I'll quote again. The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle for creating a universal system. Good luck, California. Go ahead. Vote for that single payer system so the rest of the country can see just how bad it is. You know, I don't really mean it because I want to see people get hurt and it would lead to death and destruction and rationing. But I'm telling you right now, if you pick this, you will become a cautionary tale for the entire rest of the 49 states in the United States or 50 because Obama thought there were 51. You will become singularly responsible as the cautionary tale everybody uses

to not do single payer, I promise you. All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in. I really appreciate the listenership last night. I'll talk to you all soon. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud and follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.