The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 552 An Explosive Political Scandal is Rapidly Developing

Episode Date: September 21, 2017

In this episode - Is this the most explosive political scandal in recent history? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/20/samantha-power-sought-to-unmask-americans-on-almost-daily-basis-sources-say.html   The Left's growing curiosity about the Trump team is the height of hypocrisy. https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/bongino-wiretapping-reaction-exposes-stench-of-liberal-hypocrisy   Jim Clapper has a lot of explaining to do. https://www.mediaite.com/online/obamas-domestic-spy-scandal-james-clapper-claims-fisa-wiretap-of-paul-manafort-conducted-without-his-knowledge/   Liberals are lying about the Obamacare replacement bill.  https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-get-one-last-chance-on-obamacare-reform-1505948601   Is there a stock bubble and is it about to burst? http://www.marketwatch.com/story/investors-this-is-your-last-warning-about-the-us-stock-market-2017-09-20?link=sfmw_fb   No, there isn't a national "teacher shortage." https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/teacher-shortage-alarms-a-union-lie-from-the-start   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dan Bongino. I owe you. Who owes who? You owe me. I owe you. There's no money. The Dan Bongino Show. Anything run by liberals will be run into the ground, burned, stepped on, gasoline poured on it, and burned again. Get ready to hear the truth about America. They're arguing about things and debating how quickly they can deconstruct the greatest country in the history of mankind and all of the ideas and norms that have gotten us here. 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? Hey man I'm doing well. I think

I goofed the count up didn't I? That's all right. We're back on Facebook Live today, doing a little free preview on Facebook Live for our audience. And always please subscribe to my podcast on iTunes and SoundCloud. People ask me, hey, does it matter if I subscribe or listen? Well, yes, it does. It helps us a lot if you subscribe, but that's totally up to you. We really appreciate it. It makes a big difference on our rankings at iTunes and elsewhere, but that's up to

you. All right. A lot to talk about. Let's get right into this. So last night I was in for Levin covering this growing, explosive, unbelievable scandal. You know, I get it. A lot of liberals that listen to my show that send me hate mail and email. You're going to gaff this off because you'll defend St. Obama and genuflect in front of your sainted loved one, Barack Obama, no matter what he does. It doesn't matter if it was revealed tomorrow he robbed banks for a living, you would defend him as being Robin Hood.

But Joe, this unmasking scandal that's now exploding, thanks to the reporting of Fox News, is hard to believe. Now, I filled in for Levin last night. For those of you who are not aware what's going on, I'll give you a quick background on this. It's very simple. This is it. It's very simple to describe what happened with Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump.

Barack Obama spied on his political adversaries. There you go. His administration. That's it. I said last night, liberals love slogans. You want a new slogan? Obama spied, Susan Rice and Jim Clapper lied. There's your slogan.

All right. Clapper lied. There's your slogan. All right. There's no robust, vibrant, intellectual capabilities needed to understand what happened. Barack Obama spied on Donald Trump. Own it. Own it, libs.

Now, why is this now a story again? Because Fox News yesterday reported Catherine Herridge and Brett Baer, an article that I'll put up at the show notes available at Bongino.com, as you can see behind me, for those of you on Facebook Live. If you want to subscribe to my email list, I will email you these articles every day. I have a few doozies today.

But this one is fascinating, because it talks about Samantha Power. Now, what does she have to do with this? Well, Samantha Power was Barack Obama's ambassador to the United Nations. Follow me, folks. This is critical. A lot of you already know this. Some of you Power was Barack Obama's ambassador to the United Nations. Follow me, folks. This is critical. A lot of you already know this. Some of you may not have heard this story. She was Barack Obama's political ambassador to the United Nations. I throw political in there

because Samantha Power, Joe, Joe, you're the audience ombudsman. Let me just ask you a quick question, Joe. Being the United Nations ambassador, a political appointment, do you think she carried a gun and handcuffs? No. No, no, no. So she wasn't, you and I both correctly believe that she was a political appointee, not a law enforcement official, right? Absolutely.

Okay. There's probably a pretty strong likelihood as well, Joe, that she wasn't working for the CIA, correct? Yeah, probably, that she wasn't working for the CIA. Yeah, probably. Yeah, probably. OK, we can assume she's not a CIA, an operative of the Central Intelligence Agency as she's functioning as the ambassador to the United Nations. Right. Why do I make these simple points?

Because why did Samantha Power request the names, the unmasking requests for names 260 times during Barack Obama's last year of office. So we're talking about a political appointee, not a criminal investigator, not an intelligence official, Samantha Powell working for Barack Obama, requesting the names of people the United States government is spying on. And nobody sees anything wrong with this. This is not an investigator, folks. This is a United Nations ambassador literally spying

on requesting the information, the names of recorded conversations and communications of United States citizens. And the left sees no problem with this at all. Folks, it's getting sad, tragic.

I was going to say comical, but this isn't funny. Because if you don't laugh, sometimes you'll cry. But watching liberals defend this is a head scratcher. You know, we're looking at the, you know how people evolve and become better human beings? We're looking at devolving here. We're devolving into a police state where an outgoing presidential administration spied on the president-elect and his people, and liberals see nothing wrong with this at all. Now, I'm bringing this up today not to beat a dead horse, but because I got a call last night filling in for Levin from a caller. We don't do callers on this show,

but obviously we do on Levin's show. And a liberal called in, nice enough guy, but he made a point that was so outrageously stupid that I feel the need to bring it up today because this is the liberal mentality. This is why I love taking liberal callers when I'm in on that show, because they explain everything in two or or three seconds the guy said well eventually

they're going to get the goods on somebody in the trump administration oh oh okay let me get this straight joe so now we're investigating people not crimes right in other words we don't like our political adversary adversary so what are we doing now we're defending as liberals the idea that when we lose an election eventually if we just choose to investigate people, we'll find the crime. That's not the way it works, ladies and gentlemen. Do you know how dangerous that is? That is the very essence of a tyrannical regime. The idea that you can target your political enemies, but don't't worry eventually you'll quote the guy said this show i'm not making this up eventually you'll get the goods air quotes nice

you will get the goods on anyone when you target people and you don't target crimes folks i was a federal agent i was a cop i know how this works that's just a fact i was there i did it people walk into police stations and the secret service offices and fbi offices and they report crimes they don't report people now they may report people who've committed crimes but you do not walk into a police station and say i want to report joe armacost for what i don't know i'm sure he committed a crime. We just need to open an investigation. We'll get him eventually.

You know what? Joe, they're probably right. Just like if someone walked in there and said, I want to report Dan Bongino. You will get him for jaywalking or you'll get him for something. They're right. They will owe everyone listening to this show on Facebook Live, everyone listening to this show on podcast, iTunes, SoundCloud, iHeart, wherever you're listening, Bongino.com, Conservative Review, every one of you has committed a crime.

You have. If you allow the Obama administration to get away with this and the reporting of people and not crimes, we have completely broached that sacred pact between government and people in a liberty-loving constitutional republic. It's over, folks. It's over. Now we can walk into the Obama administration and say, hey, my gosh, we just lost an election.

We just lost an election to Trump. What do we do now? I got an idea. Let's open a criminal investigation. We'll find something. We'll get the goods, Joe, eventually. Now, the doubly, triply disturbing about this case, as if I needed to say any more,

a couple quick points, and I'm going to move on from this. The lying now about the case is getting outrageous. Larry O'Connor from WMAL hosts a show up in D.C. He's written a few pieces for Mediaite. And in those pieces, he documents out, one, Mark Levin's fight with this story for a long time. Mark's been fighting, you know, the media on this story forever. Mark Levin exposed this story six, seven months ago. But Larry O'Connor documents out this morning how Jim Clapper, the former DNI, Director of National Intelligence under Barack Obama, Jim Clapper, lied.

Folks, he straight up lied. In March, he was asked, asked in an interview, clear as day. Do you know if the Trump administration was surveilled or any of their team members were surveilled? You know what? Do I have to say? I'm going to read this because you may think I'm messing with you here. And that's fair enough. I may have. You don't want to have the exact quote right here. Here it is. Let me read this to you. Here's Chuck Todd on Meet the Press asking Jim Clapper in March about the surveillance of the Trump team, which we now know happened. There's no question they unmasked people, Susan, Samantha Power, 260 times. And we now know that Paul Manafort was wiretapped, Trump's campaign manager. Okay, here's Chuck Todd asking Jim Clapper this in March. Yeah, I was just going to say, if the FBI, for instance, had a FISA court order of some sort of surveillance, would that be information you would know or not know?

Jim Clapper, yes. So he would know about it. Chuck Todd, would you be told about this? Jim Clapper, I would know that. Chuck Todd, you'd know if there was a FISA court order? Jim Clapper, yes. Chuck Todd. You'd know if there was a FISA court order? Jim Clapper. Yes. Chuck Todd.

On something like this. Jim Clapper. Something like this. Oh, absolutely. Chuck Todd. And at this point, you can't confirm or deny whether that exists. Here's the money shot. Clapper.

I can deny it. Hmm. Hmm. Folks. I can deny it. Hmm. Hmm. Folks, either Jim Clapper is the second biggest liar in the history of intelligence gathering in politics. You may say, second? Who's the first? Well, obviously, Susan Rice, who's lied about everything.

Bo Bergdahl, Benghazi, Susan Rice lied about the unmasking. Susan Rice is the biggest liar in the history of presidential appointees. She is the gold medal award winner of lying. You want to talk about, though, where's the beef? She has the beef when it comes to lying. She takes every award possible. The Golden Raspberry Award. You know the raspberries were terrible movies?

She is the gold medal award winner. Jim Clapper's definitely the silver, though. Jim Clapper's been caught multiple times in front of Congress lying about metadata collection. Now he's on the record with Chuck Todd saying unequivocally that this did not happen. Quote, I can deny it. So as Larry O'Connor points out, which is really great in his media eyepiece,

which I'll put in the show notes, Jim Clapper have a mental problem? I mean, listen, we're not being funny here. Serious question. Does he have some kind of early onset dementia? Could be. Maybe he just doesn't remember what he did. Is Jim Clapper lying?

Probably more likely. Or is Jim Clapper hiding something here? Folks, there's something going on here. Now, O'Connor proposes one more interesting avenue I want to pursue here just quickly here. He says, is it possible that Jim Clapper's telling the truth? Now, let me just be honest. I think Larry doubts that, and I doubt that too.

I think Jim Clapper's just straight up lying because Jim Clapper has a history of lying in front of Congress, and he worked for the obama administration that has a a bevy of gold medal liars in the administration including you know obama himself you like your plan you could keep your plan all right but o'connor proposes an interesting scenario he says what if jim comey over at the f and some rogue FBI operation was in fact wiretapping Paul Manafort and the Trump administration and Jim Clapper just didn't know? Now, I doubt that, but it's an interesting proposal. I doubt that because even though I don't trust Jim Comey, the former FBI director, as far as I could throw him, I sincerely doubt he would have done that kind of a rogue operation without running that through the proper channels,

knowing there would have been a paperwork trail. But an interesting thing to an interesting idea to keep in the back of your head regardless. All right, moving on. But folks, this is the biggest scandal of our time. And if you think otherwise, that's not my problem. That's your problem. OK, if you're a liberal who doesn't care about the government, a sitting president spying on their political adversaries, I suggest you go find a place in Cuba or try to reinstate the Soviet Union and get a nice condo in there because that's what you're looking at. You are looking at a totalitarian regime that has evaporated any kind of restraint on government whatsoever. And you should be utterly, completely, absolutely ashamed of yourself. I have no interest in dealing with you at all.

Zero. Zip. Nada. Okay. Another story I found fascinating was the response to the Trump speech at the UN. I haven't covered it much. I've been trickling in little sprinkles of it. But there's been growing outrage in the liberal media and the kooks.

They're all nuts. Nobody even pays attention to them. But this one I found kind of hysterical because, again, it exposes the left for what they are. Trump gave the speech at the UN, and he mentioned the word sovereignty, national sovereignty, a number of times, upwards of 20 times. National sovereignty meaning, very simply, respect for borders, respect for our language. These are very simple ideas, folks. These are only controversial ideas to Looney Tunes leftists who really just hate Trump so much that common sense isn't so common amongst them. They're just overwhelmed with rage.

Therefore, their emotions have overwhelmed their ability to reason. Now, this was the most comical response I've seen to his speech about sovereignty was a media commentator who called it, Joe, an authoritarian dog whistle. What? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I know. I know. It's comical in Yeah, I know, I know. It's comical in nature, but it's sad also.

But I wanted to bring this up because it exposes the left in a problem that I've discussed on this show often, but it's critical for a deeper understanding of what motivates the left. Folks, the left hates the idea

of borders and national sovereignty because they're in love with the idea of globalism. Now, the why matters here. Why does the left love globalism? That matters. You don't understand that. Nothing else makes sense.

The left hates speeches like this where Trump talks about the United States and patriotism and borders and sovereignty. They hate all of that because they believe in the, quote, global community. Now, how does, again, the why matters. Why does globalism benefit liberals? Think this through for a second. I know you've heard this a thousand times, Joe, so I'm not expecting you to answer this one. Think about this.

If you're a liberal, you know, I'm not talking about all Democrats here. I'm talking about the far-left radical liberals. Far-left radical liberals who are intelligent, and many of them are. You may not like their ideas, but they believe in the overwhelming power of the state and the diminishing the power of the individual,

getting rid of the individual as the locus of control in someone's life. Your state will control everything. Now, they know their ideas suck. This is obvious. I'm telling you they know this. They're not stupid. They know people don't like higher taxes. They know people don't want the government to control their healthcare. They know people don't want to control where their kids go to school. They'd rather pick on their own. They know these ideas

are unpopular. Allowing these ideas, in their terms, to fester anywhere, crazy ideas, Joe, like liberty and freedom, allowing those ideas to fester anywhere will do what? Allowing those ideas to grow will create a laboratory of innovation of personal liberty that will undoubtedly succeed. Economic freedom and liberty school choice has worked almost every place it's been tried. Economic liberty has. School choice, we've had some isolated examples of failure,

but really it's been overwhelmingly successful. Getting to the point, they can't have that happen anywhere, Joe. So the minute you institute a global policy of high taxes, Joseph, there's nowhere to go. Right. By the way, those on Facebook Live asking who Joe is, Joe is the producer of the podcast. So if you want to listen to the podcast on iTunes, you can hear Joe's commentary as well.

We're working on a fix for that quick. You'll like it. I promise you. So don't worry. Have no fear. But they don't want you to be able to escape. You see my point, Joe? Sure.

Liberals are globalists because they don't want an avenue to escape from their unpopular policies because once you give that avenue to people, they'll take it. Wherever you go, it's the same crap. Wherever you go, exactly. It's the same garbage. That's why liberals hate Ireland's low corporate tax rate. Why? Because corporations don't want to pay higher taxes.

So what do they do? They open their headquarters in Ireland. Liberals don't want that. That is why they hate, absolutely abhor, can't stand, salivate over the idea of attacking national sovereignty. It's an authoritarian dog whistle. Really? And a global world order with like a global king who increases the power of the state over everybody's life so they can't escape? That's not an authoritarian dog whistle are you seriously psychotic are you out of your mind like this is how crazy liberals are but it's very strategic when they do this

now they're the the inverse of globalism the opposite and what strong conservatives believe in which you know i've described often in the show is the idea of subsidiarity that control that governing administration should be done at the most local level possible in other words i live in palm city florida that you should devolve as much power as possible from the federal government to the county commissioners here in palm in martin. Because why? For two reasons. For basically, the most important reason here is accountability. Accountability meaning you'll understand better what's happening at the local level because those policies will impact you more.

But secondly, your vote matters more. Your vote matters more in a local election than it does in a federal election. Sure. But you will understand how your money is spent better at a local level than how it's spent at the federal or even global level. You'll lose track of it, and they like that. So I just wanted to cover that quickly because you'll see it now. Authoritarian dog whistle.

The why matters, folks. You know, I love my audience. You guys and ladies matter more than anything to me. But I strongly, strongly encourage you to always ask why. Why they're doing... Don't just say, oh, you know, globalism's bad. I mean, I'm not lecturing anyone.

You're all very smart. Most of you already know this anyway. I have a really bright audience. But it's not good enough to say, well, you know, globalism's a terrible thing. Well, why? Why do liberals fight for that? Why do liberals want a global world order?

Why? The why matters. Because they don't want you to be able to escape. That's why. It's critical you understand that. All right. Today's show brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition. You know I'm a big fan of these guys.

I thank everybody for supporting our sponsors. It keeps the show free. This is a terrific company. They have the best energy product on the market. As you can tell, I'm kind of wired up today. I feel really good about today's show. The product is called Dawn to Dusk. Energy drinks stink.

Coffee is the worst. You take it an hour later, you're collapsing on your couch. You're so tired. This is a time-release energy product. Give you 10 hours of energy. Gives you a nice mood elevation too, which I love. It's absolutely terrific. The product is called Dawn to Dusk.

I'm asking you to please just give it a shot. Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Pick up a bottle of Dawn to Dust today. You will not be disappointed. CrossFitters, MMA guys, working moms and dads, people who need a good boost in energy throughout the day, you'll love this product.

All right. Hey, quick story on the stock market before I move on to a couple of other things I wanted to cover here. I'm a little worried about the stock market. And let me just be crystal clear here. This is not a stock picking show. It's not a financial show. I get a lot worried about the stock market. And let me just be crystal clear here. This is not a stock picking show. It's not a financial show.

I get a lot of emails on this afterwards from people who do this for a living. Great. Knock yourselves out, financial advisors. I am not trying to usurp your responsibilities. Take your job. Nothing like that. I am simply making a point I've made on the show over and over that I'm a little worried that the growth in the stock market is not commensurate with growth in the economy. Let me just give you some simple math on this.

If the stock market's going up eight to 10% a year, but the GDP of the United States, the gross domestic product, in other words, the value of what we produce every year is only growing at 2%, folks, there's a little bit of a disconnect there. Please do not sell or buy your stocks, according to my advice. I'm just giving you, this is more of a political discussion than a stock picking one. But do you see my point here, Joe, that how the stock market is going up and it's not corresponding to actual economic productivity. So that should say something to you. I mean, the best example on a microcosm would be if Joe owned, say, whatever, a coffee cup factory, and he was producing coffee cups. And Joe's output, his productivity, what he's producing, that's what productivity is.

That's what our gross domestic product is, a measure of what the nation produces. But when we get into big national numbers, people get confused. Make it about Joe's coffee cup Factory just for a minute here. If Joe's Coffee Cup Factory is growing its productive capacity at 2% a year, which is what our GDP has been growing at, and yet people are investing in Joe's Coffee Cup Factory at, I don't know, and it's exploding and people are buying in at 3% a year, I mean, and at 6% and 7% a year, you have a problem there.

Now, you may say, oh, well, they're investing in the future income of Joe's, you know, in other words, they think Joe's going to expand. Okay, that's great. But when that's happening year after year after year, and Joe is not producing what people think he's going to produce in the future because it's not growing, you have a problem. Is that making sense what I'm talking about, Joe? Yeah. Like your productive capacity each year is growing at 2%, but people are investing and pouring money into your company

and growing the value of your company at 8% and 10%. Eventually, you better start producing at 8% and 10%. Something stinks. Yeah. Something's not right here. Absolutely. So here's the con on the stock market. I'll give you the pro in a second not to worry everyone because i don't want anyone to be apocalyptic the con on the stock market the downside right now why i'm worried and i by the way the proof is in the pudding i invest this way i don't i'm not telling anybody what to do but the stock market's valued right now at 24 times earnings 24 times now what does that numberically, the value of the stock market's been valued over time on average at about 14 times earnings. So in other words, the value of the

company is 24 times its earnings right now, when historically the value of all the companies that represent the stock market's only been 14 times. Folks, do you really think the economy's growing at such a rate to justify that? Again, I'm not telling anybody what to do. I'm just saying be really careful. Be cautious. And it's not about Trump. It is about Obama. But it's not about Trump's doing, I think, what he can do and the only thing he can do.

Trump is doing the best he can to grow the economy, and he's pushing for tax cuts and deregulation. But just be cautious. Now, on the pro side with stocks, again, it's not a stock picking show, but Warren Buffett, who is kind of half a liberal these days, but Warren Buffett thinks in 100 years there's another, and I'll put this at the show notes, this MarketWatch article about the stock market being potentially overvalued. Warren Buffett, Joe, thinks the stock market, get a load of this, this is crazy. May not be, who knows?

But he thinks in 100 years, the stock market's at what, 22,000, 23,000 right now? He thinks the market is going to be at a million in 100 years, the stock market's at, what, 22,000, 23,000 right now? He thinks the market is going to be at a million in 100 years. And he says, listen, it was a few decades ago. It was at 81, and now it's at 22,000. It's not that out of the realm of possibility. In the 60s, it was that low. Now it's at 22,000. And now it could be at a million.

So he says listen he makes a good point he goes the the nation's richest billionaires they're not pulling out of the stock market so why would i like he says that doesn't make any sense at all all right uh moving on but just my bottom line is be cautious here i i i have my stocks and and I think a word of caution is necessary at this point. All right. The Obamacare debate is heating up again, Joe, with this Graham-Cassidy bill. And I did a show yesterday on Jimmy Kimmel. Now, Jimmy Kimmel has a late night show. And again, I will handle this delicately, and I do it by choice. And I know a lot of people went after me on Twitter because I tweeted out to Jimmy Kimmel

who had made a statement on his late night show with his rather big audience that he didn't approve of this new Obamacare replacement bill and that it doesn't meet his task and that it's going to take away insurance for people. And I had made the point that he's just making that up. Like, it's just, I'm sorry. Like, with all due respect to his child's health situation,

for those of you who don't know, Jimmy Kimmel's son was born with a really bad heart condition. But and then I really feel for him. I do. And he has all my sympathy here. But that doesn't entitle you to say things that are factually incorrect. And what's bothering me right now about this Obamacare replacement bill that's been gathering some steam, Graham Cassidy, which is not perfect, folks, I have a lot of problems with it, is

that liberals right now are doing the same thing they've always done, which is not perfect, folks. I have a lot of problems with it, is that liberals right now are doing the same thing they've always done, which is propagandizing and not telling you the truth about what's actually in the bill. Now, let me give you some numbers because we do facts and data on the show and facts and data should matter, although I have no illusions that they actually matter to the left. Okay? Okay.

Here's the first number that should bother you. Medicaid spending, folks, has exploded. It has exploded in the states. Medicaid, for those of you who aren't aware of what it is, is a federal government-directed program. It's a partnership with the states where the federal and state funding is used to support people to get government-controlled health care

who don't have the ability financially to do so. Medicaid spending has exploded, folks. It's going to bankrupt us. Now, you think I'm making this up? It has grown at 7.5% a year every year since 2000. Now, again, simple numbers here, Joe. If Medicaid spending is growing at 7.5% a year every year since 2000, but federal tax receipts are not growing at that rate,

sooner or later, you are spending more money, correct, Joe, by simple math than you were taking in. Now, there's nothing unusual. This is not crazy. This is not Al Gore math. What I told you is, for liberals who are having a tough time understanding this, what I told you is a matter of simple reason and arithmetic. If your tax receipts are not growing at the rate you're spending money,

eventually you are on an absolutely certain path to bankruptcy. Yeah. Medicaid's funding has exploded in the country. Now, liberals are going

absolutely wild because Graham-Cassidy, which is this Obamacare replacement bill sponsored by Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy, Republican senators

from South Carolina and Louisiana, respectively. Here's what it does, Joe. It puts a per person cap on this type of Medicaid spending. The liberals are going wild. Caps on spending. Oh, my gosh, we can't have that caps on spending. Why? Because liberals don't care about bankruptcy. I've said over and over on this show, far left radical liberals, not all Democrats, but far left radical liberals don't see bankruptcy as a problem. Why? Because once they see bankruptcy, national bankruptcy is a problem. They see the state as the only entity capable enough to pull us out of this bankruptcy and become the ultimate controller of all cash flows and all economic activity.

But the only way to do that is a national bankruptcy. So far left radicals don't see bankruptcy as a problem at all. It's a lot of cloward Piven stuff. And you may say, oh, that's all conspiracy nonsense. Really? Explain to me otherwise, then, how liberals can't do simple math, how they don't understand how $20 trillion in debt and growing Medicaid spending not supported by tax revenue to explain to me why you would support that

if you don't believe in national bankruptcy. I'm open. I'm open to hear you. But you don't have anything because conspiracy theorist is your only retort when you don't have a mathematical or facts-based argument to make. Now, Graham Cassidy, they're going wild, Joe, because this puts a cap on spending. Now, right now, why would it put a cap on spending?

Because the way the Obamacare formulations work now, and I can't get into all the details. You know, I could, but I'd bore you to death. The bottom line is this. The Obamacare instituted a series of payments to the states based on all kinds of formulas that have led to really unbelievable disparities. Get a load of this. This is crazy. This number is going to throw you for a loop. I'm not making this up. the states based on all kinds of formulas that have led to really unbelievable disparities. Get a load of this. This is crazy. This number is going to throw you for a loop.

I'm not making this up. This is all in the Wall Street Journal today in an article I will put in the show notes, by the way. It's a very well done piece by a researcher at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. Joe, what state do you think is richer, Massachusetts or Mississippi? I would pick Massachusetts. Yeah, and you would be correct. You're like on a roll today.

You were three for three yesterday, now four for four. Massachusetts is far richer than the state of Mississippi. Now, federal government money for Medicaid given to Mississippi, $400 per person. So, Joe, we're all clear Mississippi has a lot more lower income, folks, and the economic productivity right now is lower in Mississippi than it is in Massachusetts. It's not as rich, right? Right. $400 a year for Mississippi.

How much do you think per person Massachusetts gets? Take a stab at it. Take a guess. $800, $1,000? I was going to say $6,000. Okay, you'd be wrong. It's $10,000. Come on. $10,000. No, no, no, no, no. Read the article. thousand i was gonna say six okay you'd be wrong it'd be and i it's ten thousand ten thousand dollars no no no no no i'm this is read the article i'll put it in the show notes i know you get them

click on the article yourself massachusetts right now under obamacare far wealthier than mississippi gets ten thousand dollars per person in contrast to mississippi for mississippi's 400 graham cassidy again i'm not a huge supporter. I think this bill has a lot of shortfalls. I think Rand Paul's spot on with a lot of his criticisms. One of them being is that it doesn't diminish the government role in healthcare. We're still sending money,

federal taxpayer money to the states. I'd rather people control healthcare, not the federal government. But having said that, this can't be allowed to continue, Joe. And liberals are going wild because I always tie things together, don't I? Thank you. Liberals love federal control, just like they love globalism. They love federal control. And the idea, Joe, that Graham Cassidy

is going to turn over money to the states to do, Joseph, what they want, not what the federal government says, creates a big problem for liberals. Now, if you've been listening to the show and paying attention, why is that? Because you're going to have conservative states, Texas, places like Mississippi and Alabama, with conservative leadership that are going to say, okay, you know what we're going to do? We're going to take that money, and we're going to return it to the population

and allow the citizens to do what they want with their own healthcare money, and we're going to pull out of it. And you know what's going to happen? Choice wins, folks, because once you give people money to do with what they want, cost and quality always matters. The cost of the products they're going to buy matters because it's now their money, and the cost of the products they're going to buy matters because it's now their money and the quality of the product they're going to buy matters because

they're buying their own product. When the government buys it for you, none of that matters because it's not their money, it's taxpayer money and they're not even buying it for themselves, they're buying it for you. So neither cost nor quality matter. So just to be clear on this, they are terrified of this idea of turning over money to the states in contrast to Obamacare's way, where the federal government controlled the state money, because they're afraid the states are actually going to devise programs that are going to work. And if they work, what does it do, Joe? It destroys the idea that the federal government has the answer for all of these problems. It absolutely decimates it. They have nowhere to go. for all of these problems. It absolutely decimates it. They have nowhere to go. This is a big deal,

and you're going to see if they get close to passing this, and we should see some action in the coming weeks, if they get close to passing this, you are going to see liberals losing their everywhere because they can't have this. They cannot have laboratories

of innovation in states. They need globalism. They need federal control. They do not want subsidiarity at any cost. Okay. Someone sent me an article. Thanks to the viewers out there who send me stuff. I read a lot of the articles you send in. This one was really good. It was an article about automation, robotics, and this crazy idea that's been gaining steam among leftists and think tankers and Silicon Valley types. And it's a nutty Looney Tunes crazy idea. Let me just preface this by

saying that. That robotics and automation, Joe, are going to put everybody out of work and none of us are going to have anything to do ever. And we're all going to be bored to snot. We're all going to be sitting around roasting s'mores all day with nothing to do. Something we've discussed on the show before. Now, folks, I don't really think liberals believe that. You may say, well, why would they be lying to us? Well, because they always lie to us. That's what they do. But I think liberals are pushing this idea that automation is going to put us out of work, not because they believe it's going to, but as a vehicle to pass the universal basic income, which is a liberal dream. I mean,

they have wanted this for so long. A universal basic income is a is a liberal dream. I mean, they have wanted this for so long. A universal basic income is a government-provided salary. It's as simple as that. The government takes money to taxpayers. Everybody gets, say, $30,000 a year as an income. Now, why would liberals want that? Because liberals want to control the economy, and they like to control people because they like the power of an all-powerful state.

And what better way to control people, Joe, than to control their health care through single payer and to control their income by giving it to them. So let me just preface this conversation by saying I don't believe this is going to happen. And I don't believe liberals think robots are going to put people out of work in mass. I believe they're only doing it to get the government to institute a universal basic income because they like to control people. That's the liberal dream. But it's an interesting piece by a guy named, first name is Don.

I'll put it in the show notes. It's a really good piece. It was sent to me by a listener. And he described something I've discussed on the show before as well. The folks, this is nonsense. Automation and robotics and the growth of robotics and the growth of automation has been happening forever. And it doesn't decrease labor overall. It just decreases really hard labor. I tried to sum it up. I took a note before the show because I don't want to beat this thing to death, but I wanted to leave you with a quick tidbit of information to describe this.

I said, jobs in the field aren't going to decrease. Like think about agriculture. Robotics aren't going to decrease the jobs in the field. It's just going to decrease the tediousness of the work. And what I mean by that is, okay, 100 years ago, you were in the field, you know, tilling the soil yourself. Or with a beast of burden, you know, ripping up the soil. And you're out there sweating and wiping your brow. Now, you know, machinery does that. A John Deere or a Caterpillar equipment or you know machinery does that a john deere or a caterpillar

equipment or whatever it is does that for you but somebody's at that point has to manage the equipment has to manage the purchasing of the equipment someone has to manage uh you know the growth potential of the field someone has to have a mathematical formula for for water distribution on the field for for uh you know weed killers on the field, for fertilizer. All of this stuff created not no jobs, Joe, automation that is, just different jobs. Whereas you were out in the field sweating, potentially getting run over by your own dying out in the field from infection or malaria or disease or a heart attack. Now what happens?

Now you're inside. You're running a spreadsheet. You're doing these diagrams on water for the field. You're figuring out how to financially manage the options on your crop product. This is not what's happening. We are not going to lose our jobs. They are just going to be easier physically. Don't fall into this stupid leftist trap.

It's a liberal trap. Listen to me, please. This is a trap. The why always matters. This automation and robotics are going to make us all unemployed in 15, 20 years is a trap. It's a dopey trap set by liberals designed exclusively to introduce an avenue for the universal basic income. That's all it is, folks. Please don't fall into the trap.

That has not happened. Look at what happened in banks. Oh, my gosh, the automatic teller machine was going to put everybody out of work. No, that's not what it did at all. What did it do, Joe? It took people from behind the counter who were tellers, and it made them loan managers. It let them hire more security guards. It let them build out the bank,

so they hired more architects and construction people. It freed up capital to hire other people for less tedious jobs and more value-added positions. This is a sucker's play, 100%, if you believe in this. But it's a really good piece by this guy. He's a younger writer. I'll put it in the show notes, and check it out. I mean, it's short, it's sweet, but it's a really good piece by this guy's a younger writer i'll put it in the show notes and check it out i mean it's it's short it's sweet but this is a a trap don't fall into it it's only a vehicle to get the universal basic income which is an absolutely

horrendous idea all right one final story today which i really liked over a conservative review because it again we're really good here at debunking silly liberal myths but you know there's um but something happened in chicago right now um in chicago there's a big fight over teacher funding rahm emanuel has been writing op-eds back and forth and letters with the wall street journal talking about school funding in chicago and you know where i stand on school choice big supporter of school choice but one of the arguments being used by unions and this is not a knock on teachers don't take it the and this is not a knock on teachers. Don't take it the wrong way. It is a knock on unions because unions have themselves in mind first.

They rarely have the teachers or the students in mind at all. It's really about their growing bank account, the union bank account that is. But one of the talking points the left frequently throws out there about public education and teachers show, and I'm sure you've heard this before. There's a teacher shortage out there. Class sizes a, we can, class sizes are growing. Folks, it's, it's just made up. As a piece of conservative review today, I'll put up in the show notes, which is really terrific. Again, short and sweet, but we're here to debunk liberal talking points, which always come fast and furious, that there is a teacher shortage is one of those silly liberal talking points that

exists only in the mind of silly liberals deluding themselves into believing that this is actually happening. Here are the actual numbers, Joe. Between 1950 and 2015, the number of public school teachers has increased 2.5 times faster than that of actual student numbers increasing in these schools.

So it's a teacher shortage, yet since the 50s, that's a pretty enormous sample size, the number of teachers has grown at a rate 2.5 times faster than the number of students. Ladies and gentlemen, interestingly enough, the quality of the education has decreased during that same time period. So let me get this straight.

You're arguing that an increase in teachers is necessary based on what? We've had an increase in teachers, 2.5 times an increase at the rate of student growth, and yet the results have gone down. But now you think more teachers are going to solve the problem? Folks, it's a nonsense argument. But it's important you put this in your library of facts and data, because I assure you at some point in your life, you are going to get into a debate with a liberal kook who's going to bring this up, that there's a shortage of teachers and

there's a shortage of money when it's not true. Since I was born in 1974, Joe, do you know since the 1970s, in inflation-adjusted dollars, education spending at the federal, state, and local level has exploded at a rate of 400%, and results have gone down, if not flatlined. So don't tell me we're not spending enough on education. Don't tell me there's a teacher shortage. Let's argue what actually matters. But what are we doing wrong in the public education system?

And the answer is we're micromanaging these people to death and telling parents where their kids have to go to school. I find it awfully ironic that in Prince George's County, Maryland, as I've said repeatedly, you have the University of Maryland and what, a couple miles away, you have a public school. The University of Maryland is one of the best institutions of higher learning in the country. And yet the public school in the exact same county is terrible. Well, why is that? Folks, it's simple.

Look no further than this. You pick the college you go to. And when you pick the University of Maryland, the University of Maryland better provide a good product or you're going to go somewhere else. You can't do that in most of the nation's public schools where school choice isn't an option. It's simple as that.

The teachers union doesn't want you to know that. They want you to believe it's about teacher shortages of money. But it's not. It's totally made up. And yes, Common Core is a problem, as Amy said on Facebook Live. That's a problem as well. All right, folks. Thanks again for tuning in.

I really appreciate it. Thanks to everybody who picked up my book. It means a lot. We were a bestseller again today, so it's called Protecting the President. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. Go subscribe to our email list at Bongino.com, and I will see you all tomorrow. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.

Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud. And follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at D-Bongino.