The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 559 Devastating News

Episode Date: October 2, 2017

In this episode -   The Las Vegas shooting will change policing at large events. ISIS is claiming responsibility for the attack. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/isis-claims-responsibility-for-las-vegas-shooting-calls-gunman-one-of-its-soldiers/article/2636251   Why are liberals lying about the Trump tax cuts despite being short on the details? https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-policy-center-propaganda-1506889612   The fans are not happy with the NFL. http://washex.am/2fAX62M   I address the sickening attempts to blame Trump for the disaster in Puerto Rico.  https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/10/the-medias-lame-attempt-to-blame-trump-for-mishandling-puerto-ricos-disaster/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29   http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/10/01/nyt-columnist-slams-trump-after-cholera-reported-in-puerto-rico-except-theres-just-one-problem/   And the response by other Puerto Rican Political leaders. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/neighboring-mayor-praises-trump-says-san-juan-mayor-playing-politics-awol-at-meetings/article/2636185?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20News%20From&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20News%20From%20-%2009/30/17&utm_medium=email   A troubling story about the dangers of government-run healthcare.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/30/canada-first-nations-orthodontics-teenager   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dan Bongino. I have an obligation to come on the air with data and material and research. I can't just say, trade stinks. Thanks for tuning in. The Dan Bongino Show. Let's jump right in because we have no time for nonsense. Get ready to hear the truth about America. When I was a young man, I don't remember it being sexy to want to allow a nanny state to control my life.

On a show that's not immune to the facts, with your host, Dan Bongino. Alright, welcome to the Renegade Republic, I'm Dan Bongino, producer Joe, how are you today? Man, I'm alright, it's just, I don't, it's freaking unbelievable. I mean, I wake up this morning like most of you, and I'm watching this report about what went down at this concert in Las Vegas, this country music concert, and you're just floored, flabbergasted. You can't put it all together. It's just insane. But you're going to hear a lot of press coverage about this today, so I put together some thoughts and some things, some takeaways that I think you might find, you know, in some hopefully in some way useful. So the first part of this that really struck me, obviously, have given my prior line of work in law enforcement and security planning is, folks, this is a new day for law enforcement because we haven't seen something like this since the 60s.

An elevated shooting like this and from an elevated platform with so many victims. We're looking at 50 plus dead and 100 injured. For those of you listening to this show and do not know what happened, I hate when I do that. There was a man who, motive is still unknown, booked a room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay, punched out the window, and with an automatic weapon, automatic meaning one depression of the trigger, multiple rounds, just so there's no confusion here. I know on TV, sometimes commentators,

I don't know what they're talking about. Get that backwards. But with an automatic weapon, mowed down a crowd of people down below at a country music concert, killing 50, injuring, looks like up to 200 people now now again takeaways to not waste your time and to not repeat the media coverage uh you're going to see

on a lot of the news networks the dangerous thing about this uh that i think is going to change everything is elevated platforms are inherently dangerous and here's why you never want to be down looking up at a shooter for one obvious reason, Joe. Your covering concealment options disappear. A shooter from a ground platform. So God forbid you were in a scenario where an active shooter pulls out a firearm and starts shooting at you. You can see cover and concealment because the bullet is going to run relatively parallel to the ground. You see what I'm saying, Joe?

So if you get behind a car, the bullet is going to be intercepted by the ground. You see what I'm saying, Joe? So if you get behind a car, the bullet is going to be intercepted by the car, the engine block or something else. If you manage to find, and I'll get into cover and concealment in a second, what the difference is. When a shooter is firing from an elevated platform, everything you've been told,

duck and cover, goes away. It doesn't matter because what are you going to duck behind the car? Now, it may give you some element of cover or concealment, but it's certainly not going to give you the element it would if the bullet were traveling parallel to the ground. If a bullet is traveling at a 45 degree angle to the ground because it's coming from an elevation, Joe, obviously, if you're behind a car, you can most likely at some point still be hit.

So also other things you've been told, again, duck and cover, get on the ground and stay low. Staying low, if it's coming from an elevated platform, ironically, in some cases, may actually hurt you, especially if you flatten out on the ground. Because if the bullet's coming from, imagine from a bird's eye view,

if you were dropping a bullet on someone, if you're on the ground flat, you create a bigger target than if you were just standing because you would have to hit the top of your head if you were standing. You see what I'm saying, Joe? Yeah. So the elevated platform and the sniper type attack from a distance here creates a lot of problems for law enforcement because everything people have been told and they've been teaching people about massive, you know, these active shooter, these massive casualty events really goes out the window.

Now, what's the difference between cover and concealment? Cover is something that provides some level of bullet resistance. So an engine block to a car, a fire hydrant, it's not great, but it'll give you some level of protection, right? Concealment will only conceal you. So if you're hiding behind a curtain, let's say, that would be concealment, but it's not cover. Now, cover can be concealment too.

I mean, if you're behind a bullet resistant window, that's cover, but it's not concealment. But if you're behind a cement wall, Joe, that's cover and concealment. But again, being behind a curtain is only concealment. I just wanted to put that out there because, again, it's a tactical terminology that I use, and I want to make sure you know what I'm talking about, so I'm not just throwing it out there. But those options go away from an elevated platform on this. Again, an automatic weapon is one depression of the trigger, multiple rounds. A semi-automatic weapon, and please, I'm not talking down to anyone.

90% of my audience gets this, but I promise you, folks, you would be stunned how many people don't understand the difference. A semi-auto is one depression of the trigger, one round. So one depression of the trigger, gun goes bang. Automatic, one depression of the trigger, the gun can go bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, and keep going until you stop or you run out of ammunition, okay? Now, why am I bringing that up? Because it's clear from the sounds of the shooting and the tapes we've seen and the videos from the phones, Joe, that this was obviously an automatic weapon. The rounds are coming at such a cycling rate, such a high rate that there's just no way he was pulling the trigger individually

as you would be required to do with a semi-automatic weapon. Also, if you're watching the news coverage and you hear all these just... And Joe, I mean, you want to talk about just... I mean, a horrifying video. This is really hard stuff to watch. Some of the video is just... Oh, my gosh. I mean, give me goosebumps just talking about it i get just god rest the souls of the people who died i hope the lord

gives the strength to the families and their survivors to people you know to get to get through this this is just an unspeakable tragedy but it's clear from the cycling rate from the videos that this was an automatic weapon. Now, to obtain an automatic weapon in most of the states in the United States, well, it's federal law, but states have different regulations. But the federal laws that govern it, it's a lot more difficult to get an automatic weapon than it is to get a semi-automatic rifle. So that says to me that I'm not sure, I'm speculating a bit, forgive me, but this may have been obtained illegally. It's very difficult

to get an automatic weapon if you have any kind of a criminal history, because the ATF, there has to be a transfer of a tax stamp, a cancellation of a stamp. You'll hear them referred to as class three dealers and things like that, but the ATF has to approve each transfer. It's not just a standard NICS check, the instant check system for guns. It's an extra level of scrutiny that goes through the transfer of an automatic weapon from a dealer to a person. So I'm kind of guessing, but I think he may have obtained the weapon illegally. We'll see what happens when these reports come out. But folks, again, it's a tough subject to talk about, but I think those are some takeaways. And I think you're going to see now, which one more quick thing, and then we'll move on.

I have some other stories to get to today as well. I think you're going to see in the future a rewriting of the crowd control and large event security planning for law enforcement. Now, when I was with the NYPD, when you have large events like this, the Times Square ball drop and things like that, Joe, the NYPD, I know, already uses a counter sniper program. But a lot of local police departments won't. They won't because of a number of reasons. It requires a significant amount of training. Most shooters will train out between 500 to 1,000 yards. This requires constant requalification and the constant reciting of weapons. When the Secret Service drops into a country with our counter snipers, I mean, I'm not going to go into how they do what they do

for obvious reasons just know they do it they have a shooter and a spotter and we're looking for things like this joe looking for opening open windows and there's a way to call out locations where they are but those weapons have to be sighted in on each trip um there's also constant training uh they have to adjust for all kinds of things, elevation, windage. You have to make sure the weapon is aligned appropriately. So it's a big, heavy program to engage in. It's not as simple as taking, say, a standard patrol officer, Joe, off the street, sticking them on the roof with a sniper rifle and saying, hey, look for a sniper.

That's not the way this goes. There's a way to grid this stuff out. There's a way to work with a spotter. There's a way they're going to call it. There's specific things they're looking for. This is a really, really intense program. And I think you're going to see now, as with a lot of these transformative, tragic events, a rewriting of the police security plan for these large events.

And I think you're going to see the employment of counter snipers and spotters at these events in the future. All right, folks, today's show brought to you by our friends at My Patriot Supply. They specialize in preparedness. I want to thank everyone who I think they've had a significant bump in business after these tragic hurricanes. I'm going to get into Puerto Rico in a couple minutes, too. We have so many things going on right now. But we had Irma, Hurricane Irma. We had Harvey. You had Maria. All these devastating hurricanes. Folks, I can't emphasize to you in strong enough terms how important preparedness is. We live in tough times and people have lived in a lot tougher times than us, but there's no question we have some significant challenges right now. We're heavily dependent on the food chain supply.

If that supply is disrupted significantly like it was in Puerto Rico, folks, you're out of luck. You got to prepare yourself. Please go buy an emergency supply of food. I am hoping and praying you never need it in your entire life. And I think my Patriot supply is too. But God forbid you do. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, especially for the very small cost of $99. They will give you a one-month supply of emergency food. They will ship it right to your house. It's just $99. It's available at preparewithdan.com.

That's preparewithdan.com. They're individual packets packed into a box. All it needs is water to prepare. It's good for 25 years. Folks, please pick it up. Prepare yourself today. Preparewithdan.com just 99 dollars okay um what should i get to let me go to puerto rico next because this is just a disgrace

uh what's happening in puerto rico is uh just beyond disturbing on a number of levels uh there are multiple attempts right now to politicize the event and to make this event Donald Trump's George W. Bush Katrina moment. Now, folks, none of this is based in any kind of fact. It's based on the political wishes of Democrats who want to damage President Trump. And I have to tell you, it is. I mean, what's the word, Joe? Makes you want to vomit, makes you want to wretch i mean you want to talk about sickening you have people in puerto rico right now i told you about the

email last week who are i mean really in a in an atrocious situation situation's getting better by the day but it is it where there's struggles for water there's struggles for medicine the food supply has been disrupted. Now, unlike the liberals, I'm going to get into some both downs, the downsides of the Trump response and the upsides. Here's the upsides first. And the reason I'm talking about all this is the San Juan mayor, a woman by the name of Carmen Cruz, has decided to politicize this event and has attacked Trump.

Now, the most disgusting part of the attack, Joe, I don't know if you covered this story this morning in your show. A bit, yeah. This was what's really horrifying. The San Juan mayor, who is a total political hack, decides to give a press conference bashing Trump, saying how they're dying and the Trump administration's response has been not satisfactory despite the fact, Josephph that she was doing it in front of boxes of aid literally aid sent over by us to help so you you know you would think if

you had half a brain which this this i mean i can't get over what this woman's doing it's so disturbing you would think what she would have done is if you're going to give a press conference criticizing the president for the lack of aid is not give the speech in front of boxes of aid folks i'm not making any of this up okay um i don't want to be in my show notes today thank you to everyone who joined my email list we got i think 300 new subscribers on friday night alone at bongino.com i will send these articles right to you she is giving a press conference about the lack of aid in front of boxes of aid now Now, the problem with this, liberals are piling on. We've seen the renegade Republican show's favorite idiot, Paul Krugman, who magically has a Ph.D. in economics.

I don't know how this guy is just devoid of any common sense. Paul Krugman, I'm going to send an article from The Blaze out in the show notes today. Paul Krugman was criticizing the president for an outbreak of cholera in Puerto Rico. What? Well, the problem, Joe, criticizing the president for an outbreak of cholera, and you would think you would have done some vetting and advances. There has to be actual cholera and cases of cholera, right? I mean, Joe, if we're going to talk about, let's say, Joe, you're up in Arnold, right?

Yeah. Arnold, Maryland. If we're going to talk about an outbreak of the Hanta virus in Arnold, Maryland, we would assume that at least one person had contracted the Hanta virus. Correct. Yeah. Now, is anything I said controversial here? But this is Paul Krugman, who's a liberal. He's not an economist, folks. He's a partisan hack who wants to go after Trump and destroy Trump. So reason goes out the window. Paul Krugman is almost immediately corrected by the cdc the centers for disease control which it says there's there is no out i don't know what you're talking about there's no outbreak of cholera in puerto rico now to be fair he corrected himself and he's like well

okay there's no cholera but what do you mean there's no cholera? But like that was your whole thing like that. This is the point, folks. There are people out there not interested in helping right now. They are interested in politicizing this event now. To show you how ridiculous a lot of these false accusations have been, that Trump isn't doing what he can. There is a mayor from an adjoining location right there next to San Juan, a guy that goes, what's his name, Perez Otero. I'm sorry. His name is Perez Otero. Folks, I've been at it all morning, rocking and rolling with this thing. I mean, I'm just like, I've been up for five and a half hours already.

I always love my show, but this has been a tough one to put together given the tragic events today. I always love my show, but this has been a tough one to put together, given the tragic events today. But a mayor from an adjoining location who knows the San Juan mayor criticizing Trump. This is a quote from him about her lack of participation in the recovery effort. So just to be clear, the San Juan mayor, Carmen Cruz, this woman's criticizing Trump. And yet she hasn't actually been attending the meetings. Here's the quote. I've seen other mayors participating but she's not that's a quote from an adjoining mayor who has as none of the critics

shares none of the criticisms about the trump administration that this mayor uh does also the yeah i mean it's just unbelievable that rosello the governor over there uh in puerto rico has not shared any of these criticisms about the Trump administration either. Folks, this is just unbelievable. They're trying to politicize this. Now, the why matters, folks. Why are they doing this? Now, one is obvious. They're Democrats, and sadly, not all, but many of them will politicize anything. Matter of fact, Joe, we have obviously a tragedy in Las Vegas this morning. It will only be, I'm sure, minutes before liberals start politicizing this event as well, before they even have the facts, because that's what liberals do. But Puerto Rico, you know, folks, I know some of you are going to doubt this.

Please don't. To footnote and steal from Rush Limbaugh, don't doubt me, right? That's his line. The Puerto Rican vote is a very crucial vote in Florida. Florida is a swing state. The presidency as we know it now cannot be won without Florida. It's very, very difficult for the Republicans that is.

Florida has an enormous number of electoral votes. It is the third largest state in the country. Florida is an absolute necessity. There is a heavy population of Puerto Rican voters in Florida, concentrated very specifically in Orlando, which is north of me. There are Democrats right now who understand, and I know you're doubting me, don't. Don't do it. There are Democrats now who, regardless of the response in Puerto Rico, Joe, the president,

this thing could have gone flawlessly there are Democrats right now who understand if they can drive a wedge a further wedge between Puerto Rican voters and the Trump administration that they could take Florida in the next presidential election in 2020 you may say well that's sick with a national tragedy going it is sick folks and it's happening yeah why else would democrats by the way this this mayor and these other folks go after trump when they're being completely refuted by people on the ground even geraldo rivera who has been a you know at times a critic of trump who works for fox news geraldo tweeted out to the san juan mayor who said people are dying he said where are people dying we'll help them like i don't know what you're talking about. He's on the ground in Puerto Rico.

Now, to be fair in this show, because that's what we do, the response has not been seamless. Obviously, people are struggling. Food's drying up. Water's drying up. There are long lines for ATMs, long lines for gas. Here are two areas we could have fixed this, and I think we need to improve upon. The Jones Act, which means American flagged vessels have to dock in Puerto Rico. It can't be foreign flagged vessels. Right, Joe? Okay. Yeah. This is basically, I'm sorry, folks, but it's a SOP to shipping carriers or US shipping carriers. And I know that sounds great. You may say, well, we should be favoring our US shipping carriers first. Folks, that's great. That's wonderful. Unfortunately, that's not the way the world works. We live in a global economy. And when you eliminate competition in shipping lanes, like any elimination of competition anywhere, what happens? Prices go up. competing for the price of a bagel they're undercutting each other's prices which works out well for you and you eliminate one store because it's got a foreign owner then the other

bagel store can raise its prices because it has no natural competitor the jones act wipes out foreign competition from from uh ports on um basically from ports and what's happening in puerto rico joe which you know newsflash is an island which most of you know which trump was quick to point out, needs shipping lanes. I mean, it's very the essence of the supply chain is built around its ports and shipping lanes. Now, Trump did waive the Jones Act for 10 days, meaning foreign flag vessels can go in there and start to start to supply stuff. This is not a good call, folks. I'm sorry. Again, I support the Trump administration when we see fit. But the Jones Act has to go away for the Puerto Rican recovery, and here's why.

There is no way one right now, 10 days, is going to make any kind of a difference. This has to be long term. Some of these ships are going to take 10 days to get over there, right? Yeah. Secondly, Joe, Puerto Rico is going to be a massive rebuilding effort. I mean, a rebuilding effort like we haven't seen in Puerto Rico. You're talking about cement, you're talking about wood, you're talking about construction supplies, employees. This is all going to have to be sent over there. They're all going to have to be shipped in and wiping out competition and shipping lanes is only going to increase the cost. So the Jones Act has to go away.

But secondly, another big flub on the response, and this goes on the locals and on some of the local FEMA officials on the ground as well, is Wall Street Journal has a piece today by Mary Anastasia O'Grady, who writes about a lot of issues in South America. Puerto Rico's not in South America, obviously, but she writes about that stuff a lot of issues in South America that the, Puerto Rico's not in South America, obviously, but she writes about that stuff a lot. The entire backup power system, Joe, was built around a generator system, as most are. The problem is there wasn't enough diesel to back it up, and they're having a tough time getting gas in there now.

So just on a quick preparedness note, she makes a good point. And I'd like to pass that on to you. Folks, you can't rely on the government. The local and state and federal officials on the ground, I mean, they really, that part of it, they screwed up. You can't have a diesel power generation system with no diesel power. I mean, this should be obvious. Now, again, I don't put this on Trump.

This is the kind of planning that should have gone back decades, Joe. You live in an island that's within a hurricane zone. So my note to you before I move on, because I got a couple of the stories I want to get to here. Folks, you have to be prepared. You can't rely on the government. I know many of you know this. Have a generator in your house. Obviously, have a supply of gas, whatever the fire code, however much gas you can store. I would keep that much, right? Fire code, you're not allowed to keep stored more than, say, I don't know, I think in Florida, 10 gallons or something because of the fumes and pilot lights and stuff like that. But whatever you can keep, keep it. Be prepared. Water, food, this matters. You can't rely on the government. I think Puerto Rico is a really sorry example is how government, when it can, will fail you.

But blaming this on Trump, Joe, again, is just ridiculous. These people should be ashamed. This guy's doing the best he can right now with very limited resources to get in there and a whole bunch of logistical nightmares. So please, let's put the politics aside for a moment. All right, today's show also brought to you by our friends at BrickHouse Nutrition. Gosh,

I'm going to need these guys today. They make an energy product called Dawn to Dusk. And these are the days I look back and I'm thankful that they've given me about 50 bottles of it. Dawn to Dusk is a time-released energy pill. The problem with the energy market before these guys got in at BrickHouse Nutrition, my buddies over there, is you have one of these energy drinks or coffee, and you and I know the feeling, an hour or two later, you're just incapacitated. You can barely move. You've got nothing left in the gas tank. Well, these guys said there's got to be a better way to do this. Now, I've spoken to the doctor they work with who has a heavy hand in designing these products. They said, why don't we time release it? That way you don't get this massive spike and then this massive low. So what you get with Dawn to Dusk, which is available at

brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan, is you get a nice elevated bump in your mood and energy level for about 10 hours. I get rave reviews about this product from everyone from CrossFitters to MMA people to working moms to people on assembly lines to pilots. By the way, I call him Cliff all the time. It's Clint. Clint's the pilot. Clint, I got your email. I'm sorry. Clint, but quick side note, my grandfather's name was Cliff and my brother's middle name is Cliff. That's why that happened. It's Clint. I'm sorry, Clint. I say that all the time. But they love this stuff. It's really, really good stuff. Give it a shot. Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.

Send me your reviews, too. My email's Daniel at Bongino.com. I really appreciate them. And I pass them on to the owners of the company. They love it, too. Okay. Oh, gosh. This one's really upsetting me.

So I was in for Levin on Friday night. And Joe, the Democrats are losing it. They are absolutely losing it over this tax cut plan. And they are, you know, we did this show last week. We put together on Friday. For those of you who binge listen, you'll be able to, hold on one second. Skip to someone just, I'm getting all these calls. Because, you know, whenever I do Fox, I get all these calls from talk radio people.

And it's like digging into my phone here. You know, I'm in the middle of my show. This is what I do Fox, I get all these calls from talk radio people, and it's like digging into my phone here. In the middle of my show, this is what I do. This is my moneymaker. Let me do my own show. Gosh. So liberals are losing their minds, and they're trotting out the same sorry talking points about what's going to happen with this tax cut. It's going to be a tax cut for the rich. The government's going to lose money.

We have to pay for it, and I always find that amazing. What do we have to pay for? Now, just to show you how, remember Jason Furman? I bring him up all the time. He writes op-eds for the Wall Street Journal. He was an economic advisor to Obama. He has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal again.

And you can always count on Jason Furman to write in the Wall Street Journal. I guess they want both perspectives, whatever. But to propagandize you into believing things that aren't true, he's going to try toize you into believing things that aren't true, he's going to try to manipulate you because this is what he does. So here's a quote from the piece about the tax cuts, right? He says, defenders of large unpaid for tax cuts argue that we cannot bring down our deficit

without higher growth. Growth has been too low for too long and raising it should be a top priority. But no serious analyst has ever claimed that tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for themselves. Folks, you know, I'm really getting tired of this. Now, the reason I bring up Levin on Friday is because I don't take callers on this show, although I'm thinking about starting,

especially if liberals want to call in, because it's just comical. You didn't hear Friday's show, did you, Joe? No, I didn't. Well, Friday night, I'm in for Levin, and I bring up this tax cuts thing, and I put out the data I put out on the podcast we did. And here's a simple question for all of you listening to my show that I'd like you to pose to your liberal friends.

Tell me an income tax cut, whether it's Reagan's, George W. Bush's, Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, tell me an income tax cut that has, quote, cost the government money. Number one, a tax cut can't cost the government money. As I've repeatedly said, if a person walking down the street is attempting to rob you and then changes their mind, you didn't cost the thief money, okay? It's your money. I don't owe the thief anything you live in the united states as free people you know this is crazy joe but sometimes we freak i mean we legitimately forget this we think we work for the government the government works for us

let me be crystal clear on this we are under no obligation no obligation morally i'm not talking about legally we are under no obligation to pay other people for the fruits of our labor now as a constitutional republic we all have all agreed to a tax structure to finance certain collective necessities such as a military and a court system yeah we've agreed on that through our constitution but you are under no moral obligation to finance the united states government i. But you are under no moral obligation to finance the United States government. I would argue you are under a great moral and ethical obligation to help your fellow man. If you happen to be a Christian, Jew, or any other faith that most of them do, obviously involve the world not being just about you.

But that's not a government obligation. Because the government doesn't help people in my experience. a government obligation because the government doesn't help people in my experience now the fact that firman talks about the tax cuts this way is deeply disturbing because the question again i pose to people is tell me an income tax cut that has cost the government money and show me the data folks they cannot do it please go back to the show notes from last week's show and we discussed this and link on to that tax foundation, whatever it was, article. And you'll see clear as day that after those tax cuts, government tax revenue went up. Now, that leads to question two, because liberals can't answer question one, because there isn't a tax cut that led to an immediate decrease in tax revenue to the government or one extended over time.

They can't. That's just a fact. The second question, Joe, what causes deficits? So, because this is the problem I'm having. A guy called in, a liberal, at the Levin Show, and he goes,

you don't know what you're talking about. You know, you're saying that these income tax cuts didn't cause a decrease in government revenue, but the Reagan years, there were heavy deficits. Now, he hadn't listened to the show earlier, or the show I did that day, where I already clearly point out that the Reagan years,

we ran up 1.8 trillion in deficits. There's no denying that. But Joe, the question is not, did we run up a deficit or not? The question is what caused the deficit, right? That's what we want to get to. The government deficit during the Ronald Reagan years was not caused by tax cuts.

The taxes were cut and revenue to the government went up. What also went up correspondingly was government spending. So let me get this straight. If you're making the argument like Jason Furman is that the Reagan years, the tax cuts didn't work because deficits increased. You should be saying that the tax cuts somehow led to decreased revenue. But that's not what happened. Revenue went up. The deficits went up because government spending went up as revenue went up. Folks, what's bizarre about this conversation, and I mean this genuinely, is nothing I'm telling you is particularly complicated. you is particularly complicated. Not only is it not complicated, it's not even complicated for you to figure out. Just go look at the tax tables. It's very simple. I have them in the show notes. Tax cut, revenue went up. Well, why did the debt go up? Oh, because we spent more money.

So the problem is clearly government spending. Now, the crux of Furman's piece is exactly this. It's a manipulation. Here's what he does again. He's saying, we can't do this right now. We can't do tax cuts. You won't be able to, quote, pay for it, which, again, there's no moral obligation for you to pay the government anything. Okay? But we need to pay for it. And he points to a couple things, but let me show you the trick.

Here's the trick they use. There's another op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, by the way, about the Tax Policy Center. This is a separate piece altogether. The Wall Street Journal piece, you know what, let me dial it back. The Furman premise is, again, what I just told you, that deficits go up when taxes are cut. I'm telling you that's not true. Taxes are cut, revenue goes up, deficits go up because the government spends more money. The second premise I want to make, I don't like it when I disconnect ideas and the show then sounds a little disjointed,

so my apologies. The second op-ed piece is a utter deconstruction by the Wall Street Journal of the Tax Policy Center. The Tax Policy Center is one of these left-leaning outlets that Democrats go to every time for talking points to try to get the American people to politically move against tax cuts. Now, what did the Tax Policy Center point out almost immediately after this tax cut proposal came out? They said, well, Joe, it's going to cost the government 2.4 trillion.

I'm trying to do Joe's talk show. You know when you do the puking thing? Oh, yeah, Danny. It's going to cost the government 2.4 trillion dollars over 10 years. I don't know how... Can you do that for me? It's going to cost the government $2.4 trillion over 10 years. I don't know how. Can you do that for me? It's going to cost the government trillions of dollars.

There you go. You got to puke that out a little bit. That's what they call it, puking on the radio, right? Folks, $2.4 trillion over 10 years. Oh, $2.4 trillion. Whoa, that's a Wolfman Jack moment right there. Now, you read something like that, you know, the rank and file American

citizen working for a living, they're like, one, I don't, personally, I don't, I read this stuff, I laugh it off because it's nine out of ten times that the economic analysis is childlike. But you read a number like that and you think it's real. You're like, well, the Tax Policy Center, that sounds legitimate. This has to be

real. But folks, here's the problem. How do they know that? I mean, no, seriously, how do they know that? And the reason I ask how they know that is the journal points out, and if any of you read the tax bill, like I did,

it's not a billion, I'm sorry, the proposal, nobody's released the income brackets yet. So how the hell do you know who's paying what? So here's the point, Joe. They want to eliminate the, we have seven brackets. They want to cut it down to three. Right. They want to, what is it, 10, 25, and 35%.

Okay. Well, how have you judged how much money, Joe, quote, is going to be lost and is going to cost the government? How do you know how much money it's going to cost the government if you don't know who's paying what rate? They have no idea. You understand, folks? They're just guessing. This is a total scam.

It's a joke. Now, I'll put the piece in the show notes today. Read it. Because they talk about another scam these people do, and they rely almost exclusively on static analysis. Now, I've addressed this before, but it's a critical thing for you to understand because it's a scam Democrats pull every time. The Democrats assume that if you make $100,000 and you're at a 35% tax rate and you go down to 25, the Democrats assume they're going to lose

$10,000. What do I mean by that? If you're at $100,000, Joe, that's your salary. A simplistic static analysis, you're at a 35% tax rate. 35% of your income is $35,000. Right. The Democrats assume that if you cut Joe's tax rate to $25,000, that he will then pay 25% – excuse me, cut his tax rate to 25% from 35% – that he will pay $25,000 rather than $35,000, the government will have lost $10,000.

Now, some of you listening are like, well, that makes sense. No, folks, it doesn't. Because that's not what happens. I already told you, tax revenue in a number of these cases, matter of fact, in all cases, significant cases of tax cuts by the government has gone up. Because what happened? The government has gone up because what happened? Joe may be paying a lower rate, 25%, but Joe's salary because of economic growth

by keeping money in the economy to grow and not being sucked up by government, which has no capacity to grow money, folks, at all. It has no incentive. It's other people spending other people's money on other people. The government doesn't care about cost or quality because it's not their money and it's not their product.

Milton Friedman was a genius on this. Government doesn't multiply money. The private sector does. Free markets multiply money. When you's paying it on $150,000 salary, which is a significantly bigger tax bill for him than he was paying before at the 35%. Folks, you get what I'm saying? I mean, imagine, let's do even simpler. Let's make this really super simple, right? Say Joe Saro doubles, and that's a lot. But just to exaggerate the example for a moment so you understand what we're doing here. If Joe's paying 25% on $100,000, that's $25,000 in income. Yo, the government would have lost money. He should have paid $35,000. Say his company doubles in size and he makes $200,000 a year. Joe's now paying $50,000.

There's a big difference this is what the democrats so they want a static analysis rather than what we would call dynamic scoring and when they do use dynamic scoring in certain committees what they'll do is they'll attribute the growth to something everything other than the tax cut anything else other than the tax which is just you can't win so in other words we had a bo a boon in tax receipts after Bill Clinton cut the capital gains tax rate. Yeah, folks, Bill Clinton, he hiked the income tax rate, which was a bad move, but he did cut the capital gains tax rate. What happened? Capital gains tax revenue, folks, went up because people invested the money they had in companies and stocks. Companies moved up in size. They paid

their workers more. The point I'm trying to make here is that the Democrats will never admit that was due to the tax cut. They'll be like, well, it was due to the growth of the internet at the time or something. Well, what was that due to? Due to money in the economy. What was it? What was it due to? What was it due to? It was due to the, what was it due to? To, T-O. It was due to growth in the economy because money multiplies in the free market.

It's divided in government. This is not complicated stuff. Come on, guy. Haven't used that one in a while. Those of you old time listeners, come on. This isn't complicated to figure out. So just a quick takeaway from this, from the journal piece. This tax policy center analysis, when your liberal friends bring it up,

how it's going to cost the government money, ask them first what evidence they have of that. Where did the income tax cut cost the government money? Tell me one. Just name it. Oh, Reagan. Not true. Income tax revenue doubled.

Well, we had deficits. Yes, because the government spent more. And secondly, the tax policy and center analysis, if they quote this number, oh, but government's going to lose $2.4 trillion. How do you know that? How do you know that? They haven't saved the income levels yet that are going to apply to the taxers. You have no

idea. They're just making this up. They're just making it up, folks. It's really disgraceful. All right. Hey, little hat tip to the Trump administration here for their appointment of judges, by the way. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but the Trump administration has been knocking it, and regardless of your take on Trump, he has been knocking it out of

the park on federal judge appointments. They just nominated Don Willett and James Ho for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Stuart Duncan as well. Folks, these are really high-quality appointments. Folks, these are really high quality appointments. Again, regardless of your feelings about Trump, I have listeners who are very pro-Trump.

I have some who are maybe Trump and I have some who are never Trump. We just give the facts on the show, but I'm telling you as an independent observer of this, his appointments have been phenomenal. You can knock them on what you choose, but going after him about judicial appointments, these are really high-quality conservative judges,

Don Willett specifically, with a long history of being on the right side of the law. So really good nominations coming out. I think it's because he's working with the Federalist Society over there. Hey, one last story sent in by a listener, which is, you know my frustration consistently, Joe, with third-party payer systems, single-payer health care, and government-run health care. Here's a story out of Canada. This is, again, it's just a warning sign for those of you out there considering single-payer health care. There's a story about the Canadian government, Joe.

They spent $110,000 to avoid giving a kid $6,000 in braces. What? Yeah, the kid had some kind of a jaw problem with his teeth. So he was from the First Nation, and he said, listen, we need braces. And a couple of the orthodontists said, if we don't fix this, he's going to have some significant jaw problems later. The Canadians spent $110,000 in legal fees to avoid paying for $6,000 in braces. Folks, I can't explain this to you in more gruesome terms.

The government, their interest is not in helping you. The government, when they're spending other people's money on other people, has no incentive whatsoever to get you healthcare. They have every incentive in the world to avoid giving you healthcare

because there'll be very little political penalty for them and there will be no personal penalty at all. So when you read, I'll put the story in the show notes, check it out. Again, another example of a third party payer, again, the government, right? You have the party who's the consumer, you have the party who's the doctor, and then

you have a third party payer, the government. There is no incentive whatsoever to produce high quality healthcare in a system like that. None. And a case like this just magnifies, but I don't want to over-dramatize single subject cases, but this is one you really need to read because no free market company would ever do this, nor would any individual pay $110,000 to avoid a $6,000 bill. It would only happen when it's covered. All right, folks. Thanks again for all the reviews on iTunes.

We're closing in on 550 reviews. I really appreciate it. And please subscribe to the show on iTunes or iHeartRadio or SoundCloud. It really helps us find out who our audience is and where you guys are from and stuff. So we really appreciate it. We don't get any of your personal info, obviously, from it, but it gives us a good idea of where we're growing and the kind of content you all like. So subscribe to the show at bongino.com. Subscribe to my email list there as well. I really appreciate you tuning in and God bless the victims of this real tragedy in Las Vegas. See you all tomorrow.