The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 575 Liberals are Full of it on Tax Cuts

Episode Date: October 24, 2017

In this episode -   Here’s the real story behind the proposal to tax your 401 k plan. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/changing-401ks-could-have-improved-retirement-security-but-trump-and-republicans-didnt-sell-it-that-way/article/2638356   What really happened in Niger? http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/23/special-ops-mission-niger-routine-common-stop-politicizing/   Debunking the “free rider” myth liberals use when discussing unions. https://www.cato.org/blog/myth-public-sector-unions-free-rider-problem?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=7c88d0d309-Cato_at_Liberty_RSS&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_395878584c-7c88d0d309-143016961&goal=0_395878584c-7c88d0d309-143016961&mc_cid=7c88d0d309&mc_eid=3fd7404a34   Why is a Republican Senator going after Trump? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-24/corker-calls-on-trump-to-step-aside-from-tax-writing-effort-j95kfblv   The hard truth on corporate taxes and your wallet. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wages-of-corporate-taxes-1508799171       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? Yeah, man, glad to be here. Doing well. We had to do a double countdown for the show today. I missed them on the first time. We were like, all I heard was three, two. You there, Joe?

I was like, is there a one? I'm like, hello? There's a one there, right? Like, I didn't mean, you know, it's a 2.762, 2.654. So we're finally back, which is good. So it delayed us by about 24 seconds

by my count on Adobe Audition. All right. Welcome to the show, folks. Good to hear from you again. Thanks for all the emails yesterday. I got a terrific email about one of our

sponsors yesterday too. I really appreciate that. You know who you are. I'll get to that in a little while. So it's always good to bring on new sponsors. And if somebody

bought the product before they were a sponsor, emails you and tells you it's a really great product. Hey, yeah, yeah, excellent stuff. Folks, I've been on this tax thing for a long time. I'm not going to beat a dead horse on this again. But I just, I mean, I wake up every morning, obviously, really upset about liberalism.

Luckily, I work out in the mornings. That clears my brain. But it's just amazing the rhetoric about this Trump tax plan that's heating up right now. It's just incredible how liberals, they never tell you the truth. So I got a couple of stories today. I'll debunk more liberal myths because that's all they do. But the anger campaign by the liberals goes on. And now it's incredible.

I saw this thing in the New York Times, which is just a liberal outlet. I and now it's incredible i saw this thing about in the new york times which is just a liberal outlet i mean it's really no better than the daily coast anymore joe and they're asking again how are we going to pay for tax cuts now which i find amazing because i've said to you over and over and over again i don't understand the reasoning or the logic there you know i remember taking logic in college you know the modus tonins modus polans thing whatever the hell that was. I don't get the logic here. So, like, the government doesn't take your money, right? So a thief walking down the street refuses to rob you,

and now somehow the thief is now less better off because he didn't rob you to take your money. Now, unlike the thief, the government gets to do this using, you know, legally, they have a monopoly on force. They get to take your money. So what do you mean by how are we going to pay for this? I'm going to tell you why I'm bringing this up in a minute, which is really, I'm getting very bitter about this. Amazingly, no one had this argument

when Obama ran up actual debt. In other words, Joe, Obama and Bush did it too, no doubt. There were debts under, enormous debts under the Reagan no doubt there were debts under enormous debts under the reagan years there were debts under the clinton years i totally understand that i i'm not i have a problem with debt no matter who's i don't care if it's a republican or a democrat but what i find really disturbing and how many suckers fall for this is the new york times it was covered on fox news where he wrote this piece about how are we going to pay for these tax cuts? These are tax cuts. This is your money you're not giving over

to the government. You are giving over a significant portion, but additional monies you're not going to take, but did not make the same argument when President Obama literally, not figuratively, literally ran up historic deficits in debt every single year of his presidency. So the government actually spends money it did not take from you, runs up massive amounts of debt. The New York Times shows almost no concern about that at all. But yet when the government refuses to take more of said money, now the New York Times expresses concern that how are we going to, quote, pay for this?

It's absurd. Now, why am I bringing this up? Because Chuck chuck schumer who has just completely jumped the shark this guy is a fraud of absolutely epic proportions i mean i i've seen a lot of frauds up there harry reed probably takes the cake pelosi's a close second schumer's easily a top five guy yep schumer goes on the floor yesterday and And remember I discussed yesterday the IRA plan and how Trump had said it's not going to happen? Yeah. Well, here's

this back story. I did a little more homework on this plan for your 401k I should say, not IRA, but 401k. Yesterday there was this breaking news and we debunked it because trump kind of tossed it out but there was a plan in congress about your 401k to cut the tax deductible

amount you could put into your 401k to 2400 a year now here's the actual story of what happened and please please i'm going to put the story in the show notes. Please go to the website, Bongino.com, or subscribe to the email list. I will email you the article. Read the Washington Examiner piece about what actually went on behind the scenes here. I don't support this plan, but here's a story in a nutshell. And again, how the Democrats and the New York Times are totally and completely disingenuous on tax cuts, and they lie to you every single day. Only suckers believe in liberalism, okay? So Joe, the plan was this. The plan was not to eliminate the contributions you could make to your 401k to $2,400.

The plan was the tax deductible upfront contributions you could make to your 401k would have been $2,400. And anything after $2,400, up to a certain amount, would have had to be Roth IRA contributions. The difference being standard IRA, Joe, you put money in right now. Say you put $100 into your IRA. I keep saying IRA. Your 401k, I'm sorry. Your 401k plan. Well, IRAs have, I'm sorry. Your 401k plan. Well, IRAs have some similar rules, but your 401k plan.

So Joe puts $100 in. Joe gets to deduct that $100 from his taxable income now. So if Joe made $1,000, Joe only pays taxes on $900. Cool. Why? Because Joe had $1,000. He gets to deduct from his taxes $100. Therefore, Joe will only pay taxes on $900.

You obviously want to pay taxes on a lesser amount of money. That's what makes the 401k so appealing to middle class Americans. Now, if they were to limit that amount to, say, $50, that would cause Joe a big headache, right? But the actual plan, which I don't support, by the way, at all. I just want to tell you how disingenuous these fake fraud liberals are. The plan was not, Joe, to say, well, now, Joe, you can only donate $50 to your IRA 1K. Gosh, now I'm at an IRA 1K. I feel really good. Maybe because I'm too excited about the topic because I love economics too much. The plan was not to limit your 401k to that $50.

It was only to limit to the 401k the tax deductible in advance amount, meaning you were still going to be able to give $100, Joe, but the second 50 you would be taxed on in advance. You just wouldn't be taxed on when you take the money out later. Remember, the 401k as we know it now, or the IR 401k as I've recently ground it, the 401k as we know it now works in reverse.

You don't pay the taxes when you put the money in now, but you will pay taxes when you take the distribution out later on when you retire. Make sense? The Roth works in reverse, Joe. You pay the taxes before you put the money into the Roth IRA, Roth program. The Roth IRA is right. And then you don't get taxed on it when you take the distributions later.

So why am I bringing any of this up? Because limiting 401k tax deductibility to 2,400, but not limiting the amount you can put in, anything prior to what it was before, Joe, would have done what? Would have just lumped some tax payments now that would have been made in the future. You see what I'm saying, Joe?

You would have paid taxes in the future on your 401k when you took the money out. Now the only difference is you would have paid those taxes up front and it would have been tax-free later on. Now, that was a convenient detail that, to be candid, I even left out yesterday because I was so obsessed with that mortgage interest story. That's a detail I left out too that I will self-correct today. They were not limiting your IRA 401k, Roth IRA 401k plan. They were just saying you were going to pay the taxes up front and not later on. I don't agree with that plan.

I'm going to tell you why in a second. But here's why I'm bringing this up. Because listen to Chuck Schumer on the floor yesterday in the Senate talking about the plan and saying. I'm sorry. I had to back away from the mic a second because this just saw every day. Every day we have to listen to these idiots. These are smart people who just make stuff up every single day. He goes on the Senate floor, Schumer, and he says,

this is an attack on middle class income. This is an attack on the middle. They're attacking your retirement. You phony. You phony fake. Chuck Steamer is like roaches. He keeps coming back. It never stops.

This guy never stops BSing you. So let me get this straight. All you're concerned about, the New York times and Chuck Schumer's, how are we going to pay for a tax rate cut? Which by the way, tax revenues gone up after tax rate, because don't let that get in the way of your argument. How are we going to pay for letting you keep more of your money?

A statement that makes no logical sense at all. Some Republicans float an idea to switch the tax distributions from in the future on a 401k to the present with a Roth IRA. And you're saying the exact opposite, that now this is an attack on the middle class. What's an attack? What's an attack? Either you were concerned two minutes ago. You see where I'm going with this? You were concerned, Joe, about how to pay for letting you keep more of your money now a plan gets floated to take more of your money now and

less of your money later and then you turn it around and say this is an attack on the middle class what is it either you're concerned joe am i making sense here because folks it's absolutely critical you get this they want john Donald Trump and the GOP is proposing do their tax rate plan to let you keep more of your money. The Democrats say we don't like it because there's no way to pay for it. They then turn around

and argue against the plan where the government actually takes more of your money now and they argue that that's an attack on the middle class. What is it? Do you want more of our money now and they argue that that's an attack on the middle class. What is it? Do you want more of our money or not? See where you're going.

Are you sure? Yeah. Because this isn't folks, that's why I'm all over the place because I was so pissed off again when I read this this morning. I'm like, how dumb do you have to be to be an American liberal? Not a Democrat. Again, I'm not going after, there are a lot of good people out there. I mean it. I'm not trying to be like be an american liberal not a democrat again i i'm not really i'm not

going after there are a lot of good people out there i mean it i'm not trying to be like captain virtue signal or anything i just i know a lot of democrats a lot of them they're tired again of this crap too you know they're just people who think differently about stuff than us but to be a liberal requires you to be so dumb that even basic logic escapes you. I mean, seriously, you have to be a moron. Because you're arguing in one hand that a tax rate cut, which allows you to keep your money, is bad.

Then you're arguing on the other hand that a plan that takes more of your money now is also bad. So what is it? Do you want our money now or do you not want it? Ah. I hear you. I got you.

You're following me, right? You're picking up what I'm putting down here? Yeah. You had to repeat it a couple times. Folks, this makes no sense. Yeah, but I'm getting it. Yeah. The conversion from the 401k to the Roth only means the government gets your money now rather than later.

Democrats, very bad. Tax rate cut plan, which allows you to keep more of your money now. That's also bad. What the, what is it? Folks, this, again, I'm not, I'm not saying Republicans have all the answers. You know, I'm disappointed in the establishment swamp rats as well. the answers. You know I'm disappointed in the establishment swamp rats as well. But gosh, at least conservatives, our wing of the party, is consistent and actually makes sense. At least it's freaking logical. We want you to keep the maximum amount of money you can possible while

still funding the constitutional role of government. That is a clean, simple position. We don't believe in debt. We don't believe in spending what you don't have. That's it. There is no conflict. There is no moral conflict. There's no logical disconnect. There's no chasm in reason. This is just a common sense, basic argument. What is the liberal argument? Now, if you're a liberal who refutes what Chuck Schumer said and you say, oh, no, I think the conversion's good because we should get your tax money now rather than later, then fine. Okay, I disagree with you, but at least I respect your opinion. But I haven't heard anybody say that. Schumer speaks for these liberal dopes, and this is it.

They go out there and they parrot it. Bad. Republican. Bad. Take money now. Bad. Leave money for later. Goodpes, and this is it. They go out there and they parrot it. Bad. Republican. Bad. Take money now. Bad. Leave money for later. Good.

High tax rate's bad. Low tax rate's bad. Everything's bad. They don't know anything. You say, what did you just say? High tax rate's bad? Yes. Because that's what the conversion from the IRA to the Roth would do.

It would bump your tax rate up. They don't want that either. Folks, they don't want this. Gosh, I'm really fired up this morning. I came out of the gym like, because I read it, I'm like, oh my gosh, how dumb do you have to be? This is,

there is no consistency on the liberal left whatsoever because their entire argument is based around the fact that they know these tax cuts will work. Folks, please, again, to steal from Rush, don't doubt me on this. They are terrified that a good, strong corporate rate cut, we're the highest in the world right now, in the industrialized world, corporate tax rate. A solid rate cut on pass-throughs, in other other words small family-owned business that are not incorporated you know joe's joe's radios whatever joe makes them and joe takes a check in his social security number not a federal tax id number right they are terrified that this will juice the economy and these are not dumb people joe they live through through the Reagan years where Reagan won pretty handily over Carter, but won

in a landslide of prehistoric proportions in his re-elect over Walter Mondale. Why? Because the economy took off like a rocket ship under similar conditions. They are absolutely terrified that that's going to happen

again if this tax cut passes. That has led them to fight everything, even when the logic they're using makes no sense. Tax money now, bad. Tax money later, bad. High tax rates, bad. Low tax rates, bad. Nothing they're saying is making any sense. Now, here's why, by the way, I owe you that because I said as much.

This is why I disagree strongly. And I know I'm going to get emails from financial advisors. Totally cool. Send them my way. I know there's a lot of differences of opinion on this. I'm okay with it. If you have a difference of opinion, let me know. One, the government should not be, I don't, I do not, I'm not being intellectually dishonest.

I think the plan, which has been scrapped, by the way, by Trump, but just in case, you know, you're still wondering, well, why would we not do that? Let's pay the taxes up front. I mean, better now, right? Here's the argument to do that when it comes to your retirement. And when I say to do that, I mean to pay the taxes now rather than get it tax deductible now and then pay the taxes later. The argument, Joe, for many that I've heard from multiple people is, well, if you pay the taxes upfront, obviously it allows the sum to grow tax-free later on, and you get the tax liability out of the way. And later on in your life, you have the potential to be a lot wealthier, obviously age, job experience, education changes, and things like that. Right,

Joe? Okay. So the chances are in the future, you're probably going to pay a higher tax rate than you would have paid now so if you can get out of that higher tax rate later by paying the taxes now it's a good thing you copy yeah makes sense that's that's the argument for like a roth type plan which is what that plan was suggesting everybody do up to 2400 bucks now you may say well dan that sounds sensible why don't you why don't you like that number one because i don't you like that? Number one, because I don't like the government getting involved in just about anything other than the military and the courses. Some of the government's freaking business when I want

to pay the taxes. If I want to pay the taxes now, I want to pay the taxes later, and I'm paying the taxes, stay out of my way. Let me make my own choices. But I never agreed with that decision. Why? Folks, the government can change the rules, And the golden rule I always live by is never, ever, ever pay taxes now that you can legally pay later. I'm not suggesting tax evasion. That's a crime. Remember, tax avoidance is not a crime. Tax evasion is a crime. I'm not recommending you all pay your taxes, do your thing, don't get in trouble with the law.

Okay? Obviously. It's like public servants announcement for the day over. But as a golden rule in my study of finance, never ever pay taxes now that you can pay later. Because there's no guarantee later on they won't change the rules. You see where I'm going with this, Joe? So let's say everybody's converted to a Roth and pays the taxes up front.

Oh, don't worry. It'll all be tax-free later. And then later on, the government gets into another debt crisis. Now you find yourself on the hook again for the taxes later too. Oh, that'll never happen. Really?

The government changes the rules all the time. They've already inflated away the value of all the social security distributions you've put in over the years or inputs you all the time. They've already inflated away the value of all the social security distributions you've put in over the years or inputs you've put in. Folks, never pay taxes now. You can pay later. It just doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry. To me, it doesn't. You're dealing with, I hate to say this, but you're dealing with an unethical counterparty on this. The government does not have to, they have the power of force to change the rules at any time. You'll wind up paying taxes twice. It's another reason, although I love the fair tax, I'm terrified because they have a sunset clause for the income tax. Oh, if the income tax goes away, I'm not convinced we won't get an

income tax and a consumption tax at the same time. Never pay taxes now. You can pay later. Ever. I think it's crazy. So that's why I don't support that. All right. Today's show brought to you by our buddies at iTarget. I got a really terrific email. He didn't give me permission to use his name, so obviously I won't. I never do that. By the way, you don't have to email me that. People put in emails, please don't use this on the air. I never use anybody's name on the air unless you explicitly tell me it's okay. Don't worry about that. Yeah, iTarget Pro. Guy sent me an email, and he said, listen, I had this product before you started the advertising campaign with them yesterday.

And he said, this is a great product for marksmanship. I use it with my kids. I use it with my family. I teach them how to shoot. You don't have to go to the range. You don't have to worry about buying boxes of ammo. Folks, it's great to learn how to shoot, but in the Secret Service, we had the golden rule in the Secret Service, Joe, is you were accountable for every single round that

exited the barrel of that weapon when you pulled that trigger. Every single one. Anybody can pull a trigger. The question, the real question is can you pull a trigger and hit what you're shooting at, hit accurately. Now, iTarget, good, iTargetPro.com, that's the website. Good marksmanship is a diminishing skill.

Just like shooting a basketball, if you don't practice it, your shots are going to be off. That's just a fact, folks. Sight alignment, equal amount of light on each side, that front sight, that is absolutely critical. Ammo gets expensive. You got range fees. You need the time to go to the range.

What if I told you there's a product out there that will allow you to safely practice shooting your gun in your own house? Check it out. Go to itargetpro.com. This is crazy. This product is so amazing. When you get it, I promise you're going to love it. It uses a laser in place of the bullet and it works with a phone app that will detect exactly where your shots are landing. You can practice this in the safety of your own home. Competitive shooters, people who do this for a living, dry fire 10 times more than live fire. And the iTarget system will take dry fire practice to a new level.

Go to iTargetPro.com. That's iTargetPro.com. And use promo code DAN to save 10%. Folks, I cannot tell you enough. And if you are going to own a firearm, you have to learn how to be beyond proficient in that. Obviously, he has the capability to do serious physical injury or death to anyone. God forbid you're in that situation.

You have to hit what you're aiming for. Go to itargetpro.com. Check it out. You'll be happy with it. The email I got yesterday was terrific. Guy's been using it for years, he says, with his kids, his wife, everything. You don't have to go spend any time. You know, aside from being practical,

it sounds like a lot of fun, actually. No, it is a lot of fun. It's pretty cool. And you can keep track of all your scores and everything. It's terrific. So you can monitor your progress. I got to get, don't say anything.

I don't know if my dad listens to the show. Yes, folks, do not say anything. But my dad is not really, I love my father to death, but he's not really a great shot. I've been working on him. I'm going to, I think the iTarget guys will send me a freebie for him, so I'm going to give this to my dad because he needs it. He's a good man, but he's not a great shot. All right, moving on. I got a ton of great stuff.

I spent a little bit of time on that because it's really critical. Hey, there's a serious fight going on now too. They're going after Breitbart and Breitbart sponsors again. And folks, I don't work for Breitbart. I know people there, you know, Disclosure. I know Matt Boyle. I know Steve Bannon. I'm not name dropping at all. We're not like best friends. I just know them from running in conservative circles.

But just quickly, there's an article up at Drudge today about this Twitter group, these goons uh sleeping giants and not that i'm trying to give these guys any free pr for their stupidity but uh this is this is just a it's it's an example of the war that's going on behind the scenes to try to bankrupt anyone who has an alternate political ideology from your far left world what they're sleeping giants has been doing is they go after the sponsors of Breitbart's website and people like that. And by the way, just going back to yesterday's show a little bit, how the leftist position is assumed to be a majority position when it's just

a bunch of freakish hacks. I mean, really, liberalism is a religion worshipped by an increasingly small number of people. Why we give them so much oomph and power in our society is ridiculous. It's only because they own the media, Hollywood and academia. But they're going after Bob Mercer right now, who runs a hedge fund called Renaissance Technologies. And Bob Mercer is one of the funders of Breitbart. I think he has some kind of a financial interest in it. And they're trying to attack him too. And folks, this is why when I wake up in the morning and you say, well, why does this fight matter to you? Why do you get so passionate sometimes?

It's because of this. These people aren't kidding around. We're in a very real battle right now. We are at the point now, whether it's college campuses, a conservative website, whatever it may be, these are ruthless people on the other side who are trying to destroy the very livelihoods of people who have chosen to make a living out of fighting for this conservative cause, what I think to be a very noble endeavor. Believe me, very few people make any significant amount of money in the conservative arena. Some do, which is great, because people are willing to pay for content.

But the fact that the left is absolutely determined, some on the left, to put these people out of business is really disgusting. I'll put the story in the show notes. I strongly encourage you to check it out. It's really, really disappointing. Okay, one more story I'll, in the show notes, I strongly encourage you to check it out. It's really, really disappointing. Okay. One more story I'll put in the show notes from the Daily Signal.

It's about this Niger, the four heroes who were killed in Niger on a counterterror operation. Folks, for those of you who know me and listen to the show regularly, I am not a big believer on our international obligations when there's not a direct US interest. I've frequently said to you that I subscribe to Fox Connors rules of war, never go to war alone, never go for long and never go to war unless you absolutely have to. And I understand, I'm not naive, but there is an international war on terror. I actually believe that. They've declared war on us. And that's the thing about asymmetric war. You don't get a say in a joke. Someone says, I'm putting a hit out on Dan Bongino. You don't get

to say, well, I don't really like that. So I hope you change your mind. It doesn't work that way. They don't care. This is an asymmetric battle. They've declared war on the United States. I'm not naive to that. I'm not naive to the ramifications of the terrorists targeting our country, nor am I naive to, again, some international obligations there. So let me just be clear on that. I'm not defending us being in places all over the world. I think the international community needs to take on more of its own defense obligations and not pawn them off on the United States. But having said that, there's a great piece in the Daily Signal today, which will be in the show notes, about how really nothing is sacred anymore and how the left is trying to make

you believe that this operation in Niger, where these four Green Berets were killed, that this is somehow an unusual event. Now, folks, again, I only preface the opening by saying it's a fair argument for you and I to have about what our international, using quotes, your obligations are and where we should and shouldn't be. I understand that. But the liberals painting this out, this operation to be some kind of an anomalous, strange event where nobody knew and we left our people out there to die. And it's completely, totally disingenuous. These Green Beret operations happen all over the

world every day, not just Green Berets, other special forces units as well. These happen everywhere. And again, it's a fair argument to have. And that is a political argument, by the way, Joe, the umbrella argument about where our people should and shouldn't be. It is not, I think, a fair argument to have when our people are there to either one, obviously let them die. Or secondly, if they do die, to use them as a political pawn later on to attack your opponent. When, in fact, people knew they were there. Now, this is happening. There are senators out there, Lindsey Graham.

Oh, my gosh, we didn't know anything about this. There is absolute evidence that their Senate committees were briefed on it. Whether Lindsey Graham decided to attend their briefings or not, or these other folks that are saying we didn't know, that's on them. But the president is the commander in chief. and saying that these are somehow unusual events, these domestic operations we do where we try to reinforce local military operations, teach them some of our tactics and things like that. Insisting that this doesn't happen and is unusual

is just beyond stupid, okay? I mean, I've worked with a lot of Green Berets. As a matter of fact, I'm looking at my wall here. I can't really see it, I'm sorry, but I have a big, big, huge plaque on my wall when I was over in Indonesia with President Obama, and we had used some Green Berets there. I can't see the unit. Gosh, maybe for tomorrow's show, it's too far away, and I want to get up and walk away from the mic. But they were really unbelievable guys. We were overseas in a foreign country, especially a hot zone, which Indonesia at the time was.

We use our counter-assault team. Those are secret service agents. That's our SWAT team. They have black BDUs, and they have some of the heavier weapons. But, well, at times, Joe, we'll request reinforcement from special forces overseas, especially if it's a dangerous area, that can work tactically with our counter-assault team to lay down a base of fire so the Secret Service agents can get the president the hell out of there. God forbid there's an attack. So we used, I was the lead advance on that trip, and we used a really great team of guys. I'm pretty sure they were Green

Berets. I got to get their unit. But these guys were amazing. So again, don't disgrace the memories of these people if you're a liberal, these four heroes, by suggesting that this was some kind of a scam, Joe, like we just slipped four guys in an African country for no reason at all. You're just being a jerk, all right? So I'll put the Daily Signal piece in there. It's written by an expert in this field who has far more knowledge than I do, but it explains exactly how these operations happen, what they're called, and what phase zero means, how they get in there before international conflicts break out. That's what phase zero is. So check that out.

It's a really good piece. Okay, what else we got today? Hey, a little bit of a shout out, by the way, to Mark Wahlberg here. Thanks to Mark Wahlberg for rescuing, not completely, but a little bit, saving a little bit of my faith in Hollywood. You know, he's a devout Catholic from what I hear.

And there's an interesting piece up at the Daily Wire about, you know, Mark Wahlberg, right? Yeah, man, I love him. I really like him a lot. Yeah, and he was the one who criticized Hollywood for living in a bubble and lecturing Americans. And, you know, I give you a lot of bad stories about Hollywood, and they deserve it. They are one of the three musketeers of stupidity, Hollywood, the media, and academia. But this is a good one. And he came out, and he re-acknowledged his faith and said how he regretted doing certain movies.

And one of them, which he says he regrets pretty mightily, is Boogie Nights, which is, you know, he was a porn star in the movie, which was a pretty- Dirk Diggler? Dirk Diggler, yes, that's right. Yeah. That I've, I haven't seen the movie. I'll be honest with you. I've, I've, I didn't have the opportunity but he, he regrets, he apparently regrets that. And, uh, he is, uh, I'm happy that he's a Hollywood actor with some prominence who can come out and talk about his Christian faith. You know, it matters to me a lot, folks. I get a lot of emails from you about I'm not your preacher, but, you know, I'm a sinner, but I was saved myself. You know, a lot of things changed in my life when I realized that it wasn't about me. So I'm happy that someone in Hollywood had the

guts to stand up. So a little bit of shout shout out to Mark Wahlberg. All right. Yep. All right. Let's see what else we got here. All right, before we get to that, today's show also brought to you by buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition. Big fans of these guys. They've been with us from the beginning.

They make some of the best supplements on the market. I had to do a double load up on Foundation this morning. Foundation is their, I think one of their signature products out there. It was the original product I started reading for when they contacted me a while ago. And I said, you guys got to send me a sample of this stuff. I want to see if it works.

It's a creatine ATP blend. And I forgot to take it over the weekend. And the nice part about this is once you load it, give it about seven days or so, take it steadily. It's called Foundation again. It's like having two extra gas tanks in the gym. You're like a dynamo in there. And I encourage everybody to go out and do the mirror test if

you decide to try this product, right? Here's the mirror test. Before you take it, you get the bottle in your house. Before you even crack the bottle, go take like a snapshot of yourself in the mirror. Might have to be a picture. Take a mental snapshot. Take the product, do your regular gym workout. Look at yourself seven days later. I get more feedback on this stuff. People have tried this mirror test because I'm not kidding. You get an unbelievable volumization effect in your muscles. You just look great. You look more ripped. You look better. It's a great product. It's called Foundation. Your performance in the gym will go up. Give it a shot. Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. I practice what I preach here.

I take the stuff. I take it with me on the road. I have a couple bottles in my bag in case I actually forget it. Forgot this weekend. Took a double dose this morning. Had a really good workout, even though I'm only doing my left side. Go give it a shot. BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.

Try Foundation today. All right. Another article I saw up at Cato, a great website, C-A-T-O, that I strongly encourage you all to join up for. They have great pieces. They're a little academic. They can get wonky at times, but they're really, really good. There's a case breaking. It's going to be heard in the Supreme Court soon.

It's going to really break years of tradition with regards to public, you know, with unions, with union fees. And the case is, it centers around what's known as agency fees and the scam these things have become, folks. You know, let me preface this whole thing by saying, I don't have a problem with unions at all. I have a problem with force. I was a member of a benevolent association that kind of acted like a union when I was a member of the Patrolman's Benevolent Association up with the NYPD

in New York, they would argue on behalf of the police officers up in New York, and I thought they did a pretty decent job. I don't have an issue with unions. I have a problem with being forced to join unions. Now, this is a critical argument that the left is making, and they need unions. Why do they need unions, Joe? They need unions because unions generally in a campaign, in a political campaign, will use their money and their employees, like I discussed with the teachers union on yesterday's show, to back Democratic candidates. The money and the volunteers make a huge difference. So Democrats obviously want to see both public and private sector union membership grow. So one of the ways they've managed to enforce this through the years

was through a Supreme Court decision which allowed unions to take what's known as agency fees. Agency fees are a huge scam. They've always been a huge scam. Now, to be clear on what these are, if you are in a union, you cannot be forced with your union dues to pay for political advertising on behalf of the union. So Joe, if you're in a union, right, you can't be forced to finance, say, a political campaign against or for a political candidate, because that would be potentially against your First Amendment rights. But what you can be forced to pay for are what they call agency fees. And the myth here is that these agency fees are in fact non nonpolitical.

In other words, a fee you'll be paying to the union, it may not go towards, quote, politics, Joe. We'll go to the union, though, to argue on behalf of you for salary and benefits and things like that. So, you know, if you're a listener, you may be like, well, what's the problem? If it can't be used for politics and it's only being used to argue for benefits and salary and work conditions and things like that. Well, what's the big deal? Folks, the big deal here is there's a First Amendment argument there too. If your union, if you're forced to pay them and they are lobbying on behalf of work conditions, especially in the public sector, and that the work conditions involve the paying of higher salaries using taxpayer money do you understand how that is inherently a political argument so in other words joe let's say you're a limited government guy and you work for a public sector union or frankly even you work for a private sector union that's now advocating for a national minimum wage

and they're arguing for a minimum wage or or an index to minimum wage in the private sector. These are inherently political arguments, no matter what, that you are being forced to finance whether you agree or not. Now, the unions come back to this and what you'll hear from your liberal friends all the time is, oh, well, what do you expect? You expect the union to argue on behalf of employee rights and employee benefits, and then some people get to be free riders? In other words, Joe, they don't have to pay anything,

but they'll benefit from a work contract. I'm not disputing that. So you get the free rider argument that the left makes? Their position is this. Well, these people should be forced to pay because they're going to benefit if the union gets them a higher wage. Okay, folks, but that's the union's choice to do that.

The union doesn't have to bargain on behalf of every single person out there. The union got into this arena to unionize specifically to be the representative of of workers the fact that you chose to do it despite the fact that not everyone was going to support you was your call that was an act that was a an act of free will on your part we didn't you know people who didn't want the union in the first place and uh in there in the first place nothing changed for them they still don't want it it's the union that decided to go in.

Does that make sense, Joe? Yeah. Like saying it's a free rider problem is absurd. You're basically saying that, well, we're lobbying on behalf of people that don't want to pay for the union. Yeah, but you're the one who wanted to go in there and do that. That's the argument you're making, that your value added is you're going to go in there and argue on behalf of people despite the fact that they don't want you to argue on behalf of them. And now we're supposed to feel bad for you?

Folks, this is a nonsense argument. Keep in mind, the National Labor Relations Act, as it's pointed out in the Cato piece, by the way, there's nothing preventing the unions from engaging in members only deliberations on work conditions. In other words, they don't have to lobby on behalf of people who don't pay. They just want your money. Now, folks, remember this.

This is an interesting argument. I heard a long time ago and forgive me. I always forget where this came from. Gosh, if there was one line I use that I wish I could remember, it's this one, because it was such a brilliant point. I was reading one time in a piece and the guy said, you know, it's fascinating one because it was such a brilliant point i was reading one time uh in a

piece and the guy said you know it's fascinating how when when a position a political position benefits liberals harking harking back to the beginning of the show we're talking about how they'll take opposite positions on things the roth ira versus not paying for tax cuts same thing here it's fascinating what that when the you know when the trough winds that when the money trough winds up in the hands of our liberal friends, that they'll argue that the government never spends enough money. So think about it. Think about things the government, they say, doesn't spend enough money on. Education, they'll be like, well, we need to spend more money on education. Well, why? be like, well, we need to spend more money on education. Well, why? Because teachers unions, as I said yesterday, Joe, largely benefit progressive causes, as that Ocean City, Maryland story I discussed yesterday, where they actually said, we want to be a leader in progressive politics.

So to be clear, those union funds coming from higher salaries eventually wind up, many of them in Democratic coffers, advancing progressive policies. Liberals will then argue that we never spend enough money in education. We got to spend more. We got to spend more. Yet, when the money in the end, Joe, winds up in the coffers of non-Democratic entities, hospitals, administrative management of hospitals,

doctors, doctor's offices, people who aren't exclusively progressive, a lot of Republican doctors progressive a lot of republican doctors a lot of ceos of hospitals a lot of you know hospital ownership that aren't exclusively democratic it's fascinating that liberals will make the exact opposite argument we're spending too much on health care we're spending too much despite no economic evidence on either side of the equation that that their position makes any sense we've spent more money on education since the 1970s,

400% more, and your results on standardized testing have leveled off, have not gone down in some cases, and yet you argue for more money, and yet with hospitals, we've generally had some better outcomes, and then you're like, well, we're spending too much. It's because in the end, the money winds up in public sector union coffers

and private sector union coffers and winds up with Democrats. That's why they want more money. This agency fee thing is a total scam, folks. Don't fall for it. Hey, one last story here. There's a fight going on I've been talking about for the last couple of days.

Again, it's about this Democrat tax plan and it's getting really personal now. So Kevin Hassett, who's the chair of the Council of Economic Advisors for Trump, recently gave a speech to the Tax Policy Center where he just dismantled these guys. The Tax Policy Center is really turning into kind of a hack group. They analyzed the Trump GOP tax plan, folks, without any of the brackets. In other words, they had no idea who was going to pay what.

And they analyzed the plan and basically said the middle class was going to get screwed. I covered it on a show last week right right so has it goes to the tax policy center in a brilliant move and just destroys them i mean he gives a speech it's covered in a piece in wall street journal today which i'll put this show notes he just annihilates him now the dogs have been let out on the left because they have to defend this legacy that this of course this tax cut is not going to work because again as i said in the beginning they're afraid if this tax cut goes through, it's going to benefit the middle class. So they put Larry Summers out there, former Secretary of the Treasury. And really, the only thing I remember about Larry Summers is working with him as a secret service agent one time,

and he kept wiping his nose in the speech. It was just the weirdest thing ever. Summers called Hassett's speech ignorant, disingenuous, dishonest. He called it an atrocity, ignorant disingenuous dishonest he called it an atrocity which is fascinating because a couple of economists went back and saw a 1981 piece about larry summers about some of the same proposals in the trump tax cut plan where he said the increase in gross wages which results from the increased capital intensity arises from eliminating uh capital. In short, Trump's tax plan is going to work. Don't let Larry Summers' own words in 1981. Don't let them come back to haunt you, Larry. Let's just say the opposite thing now.

And why is all this happening? Because they need a, quote, credible liberal voice with some kind of economic bona fides to go out there and attack the Trump tax plan, just like Schumer attacked the Roth IRA conversion, because they're afraid, folks. They're terrified that this Trump tax plan is going to go through and it's going to juice the economy. It's scaring the hell out of them. I'm telling you, don't doubt me for a second on this. They are really starting to worry. All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in. I really appreciate it. Please go to Bongino.com subscribe to my email list I'll send you these stories every day conveniently right in your email box I'll see you all tomorrow