Rick Santorum says Paul Ryan's new tax plan "headed in the right direction" on radio

March 20, 2012

Writer

Rick Santorum has had a busy couple of weeks, but managed to find the time to call into the radio show to discuss some of the top stories in the news today. What does he think of Paul Ryan's new tax plan?

"I talked to Paul last week. As you know my tax plan is 10 and 28% This one is 10% and 25%. But it very much models the two rate idea I've been putting out there, and he does a lot of simplification in his tax plan. Not as dramatic as the tax plan that I go through," Santorum said.

"It's headed in the right direction," he added.

"His changes in the entitled programs were consistent with what they did last year which I embraced. He has a little twist on the Medicare which is the widen Ryan plan now. But it's a strong plan. It waits a little bit to do some entitlement reform. Which is I think is a mistake. I think we need to move forward quicker, and I think we need to get that $5.4 trillion over five years to be more like five trillion over five years so we've got to accelerate this to get to a balanced budget. He doesn't get to a balanced budget until after the budget window. We need to shrink government faster than that."

Ultimately, though, Santorum does not have a lot of confidence it will pass.

"But you know this was in a sense it's a budget document. He knows that the Senate will never approve this. He's put forward a great blueprint for people to campaign upon and shows clearly progress dramatic progress in the direction of shrinking the size of government, and liberating the economy through lower taxes and less regulations"

You can read the full rush transcript below:

GLENN: Rick Santorum is here, and I don't want to waste any time with him because there's serious issues happening in the country. And we're not going to talk about contraception or anything else. I'm going to talk about some of the serious issue that are happening in our world today. First of all J.P. Morgan Chase is closing down the Vatican's account. It seems to be economic terrorism leveled at the Vatican. Comment from Rick Santorum. Hi, Rick.

SANTORUM: Good morning.

GLENN: I know it's a big day for you. Can you comment at all on J.P. Morgan Chase and the President listing the Vatican as a possible money laundering organization.

SANTORUM: That's sort of shocking to hear. I don't know the details of it so I have to tell you I mean I flew in late.

GLENN: J.P. Morgan Chase has closed down the Vatican's account after last week the President put them on the watch list for a money laundering organization, and now J.P. Morgan Chase has closed down their account.

SANTORUM: You're going to give me a pass on that. I've got to dig into that. I know there are certain things that of course there are laws that provide certain triggers for this. I'm not familiar with this. We'll ‑‑ the idea that somehow the Vatican would launder money is absurd to its face. I guess it's not absurd with the Obama Administration.

GLENN: Bloomberg is now banning food donations to the homeless. He says that the DHS commissioner says that the ban on food donations is consistent with the mayor Bloomberg's emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. There's a new document that controls what can served at homeless facilities including serving size, as well as fat content, sodium consent plus fiber minimums, and condiment recommendations, and people who're dropping food off. Organizations that have dropped food off for 10 years now in New York are being banned. This is happening also in Philadelphia. It is happening in Houston, Texas where you're not allowed just to drop food to homeless shelter became it may not be the most healthy for homeless.

PAT: Well, can you imagine if starving people got too much saturated fat in their diet. I mean, that could really cause some issues.

GLENN: What is happening to us, Rick.

SANTORUM: It's the nanny state. Welcome to the nanny state, and it's also opens up the question as to these are ‑‑ these are folks who believe that they should control what people's intake, and of course these are folks as you know that believe in government programs, not private sector donations. Because if the government controls these things then they can of course have a closer relationship directly with the individual. The individual becomes more reliant on the government not on private sector donations or their neighbor. This is deeper than trying to control what food ‑‑ what calories intake, and how healthy your food is. This is also about the government knows best. And they need to get things directly from the government not from their neighbor. Because their neighbor isn't going to do what's right for them. The government is going to do what's right for them.

GLENN: It's not possible to slash the budget if you don't have ‑‑ if you don't have neighbors, local farms, other organizations.

SANTORUM: Glenn, what makes you think that they want to slash the budget.

GLENN: Oh no.

SANTORUM: They continually try to go out and grow the budget food stamp program. Try to grow the Medicaid program. They take pride in the fact that more and more people are covered by S chip and everything else. This is a source of accomplishment for them noting that should be reduced or changed.

GLENN: Paul Ryan has his budget out. It is slashing another $5.3 trillion. GOP tax plan is two tiers. It's 25% and 10% We are now at the end of the month we will now have the highest corporate tax rate on planet earth, and yet they're still talking about more. Are you for the Ryan tax plan. Where did you stand on this.

SANTORUM: Yeah, I talked to Paul last week. As you know my tax plan is 10 and 28% This one is 10% and 25%. But it very much models the two rate idea I've been putting out there, and he does a lot of simplification in his tax plan. Not as dramatic as the tax plan that I go through. It's headed in the right direction. His changes in the entitled programs were consistent with what they did last year which I embraced. He has a little twist on the Medicare which is the widen Ryan plan now. But it's a strong plan. It waits a little bit to do some entitlement reform. Which is I think is a mistake. I think we need to move forward quicker, and I think we need to get that $5.4 trillion over five years to be more like five trillion over five years so we've got to accelerate this to get to a balanced budget. He doesn't get to a balanced budget until after the budget window. We need to shrink government faster than that. But you know this was in a sense it's a budget document. He knows that the Senate will never approve this. He's put forward a great blueprint for people to campaign upon and shows clearly progress dramatic progress in the direction of shrinking the size of government, and liberating the economy through lower taxes and less regulations.

GLENN: You're in Illinois today because of the primary in Illinois. Play the audio of the police officer there. There's a real gang violence on the streets of Chicago. This is a police officer yesterday ‑‑ it was in Chicago talk about First Amendment rights that I want to hear a little bit of this, and I'll translate. Because it's a little hard to understand.

[Tape played]

PAT: He's telling news reporters to get across the street.

GLENN: News reporter.

PAT: I don't give an F about the news, and all telling them to go across the street.

VOICE: I'm going to kill you. I'm giving you a legal notice.

GLENN: That's all I'm going to say. So he then says your First Amendment rights can be terminated if you're making a scene or whatever. That's a quote.

CALLER: First Amendment aren't terminated when ‑‑ if they're causing a public disturbance or block agriculture street. I don't know what was going on. Certainly First Amendment like there's no absolute right. There is clearly is the right to exercise your First Amendment as long as you do so in a way that's not causing harm to anybody else the police have to recognize them and respect people's right to protest, and to get information. And this you know, again I don't know the details. I don't want to be critical of it. But there is a balancing act here, and we should balance in favor as I do in certainly in our campaign of letting the news media, and letting them cover what you want to cover.

STU: Senator, are you denying the making a scene clause in the constitution?

PAT: Which is of course right in the separation of church and state.

SANTORUM: Yeah that's in the fine print.

PAT: Senator, have you I know that you and Newt at least friendly before this started. I don't know how things are. Have you contacted him personally personally to get out. Get out.

SANTORUM: No. I have not.

PAT: Oh man.

SANTORUM: Look I didn't ask Newt to get in. I'm not going to ask him to get out. Obviously in Illinois it's a two person race. And Newt is picking up 12; 18% depending on the poll, and obviously we feel like a lot of those votes would be ‑‑ in fact last night the coordinator for Newt who put together his delegate announced that he and all of the delegates were going to vote for me. And we're encouraging Newt supporters throughout the state of Illinois to help us. And the same thing happened in Tennessee. So it's beginning to happen irrespective what Newt is doing. And hopefully that will be a little bump to us the day of the Illinois primary.

GLENN: Let me ask you one quick question before you go, and that is this is a question I would ask Mitt Romney if he would ever come to the show. But he doesn't return any of our phone calls. But it's important to me that the next President of the United States understands that we are dealing with radicals, revolutionaries, socialists, and communists anarchists. Tonight on GBTV we're showing video of all these literal communists gathering together to plot the overthrow of the United States and it's all part of Occupy Wall Street. Is there any doubt in your mind that there are forces that are ‑‑ that are almost cartoonish sounding. Communists, socialists, anarchists that are actively working to destroy our country inside.

SANTORUM: Well yes. I think that's been the case in this country for a long time. With the files being revealed from the old Soviet Union. We have verification of lots of people in this country who were working with the Soviets who were trying to overthrow, and cause chaos in this country, and it's because of the Soviet union failed doesn't mean all these people oh well, it failed, and therefore I must be wrong. No, I mean these people are committed. I think it's a relatively small group of people but that doesn't mean. ‑‑ they are very much engaged in the Occupy Wall Street movement. It's clear you see it with the protests in Washington D.C. with the anarchists coming out. I see them at my rallies. We had a couple of rallies yesterday, and you see some unsavory characters out there trying to disrupt things, and you know push their very radical agenda.

GLENN: Here's the Left Form 2012 Occupy the System. It's a conference where people gathered in New York City for the weekend. The speakers Pearl Granat. Jarvis Tyner of the communist party Gary Hicks Marxist library. Bill Wharton from the Socialist party. Peter Eichler Socialist Action. Larry Holmes Worker World Party. And Pearl Granat, vice president of SEIU. When SEIU, and Steven Lerner are actively engaged, is not SEIU a danger to our country.

SANTORUM: Well look. They're most labor unions are not as radical as SEIU. But SEIU is the one much the most radical left wing organizations. It's of course represents government workers, and these are folks that believe in huge and expansive government. It's good for their business and they'd like more ‑‑ the bigger the government is the more jobs they have, and more control folks like the person that runs the SEIU has in our country. So there's clearly a symbiosis between the radical left, and SEIU. You see the connection right before your eyes.

GLENN: I'm sorry. One more question.

SANTORUM: One more after one more.

GLENN: There was a big story that came out last night. It's being scrubbed from the Internet. It's about the President and I don't want to ask anything about the daughters. But the President allowed his two one young daughter 13‑year‑old to go down to Mexico which the State Department says is dangerous saying that the Americans shouldn't go. With 12, 13‑year‑old friends, 25 Secret Service agents. There's got to be adult supervision besides the Secret Service. Do you send your daughter as President of the United States to a place where the State Department your own State Department says don't go on spring break. It's a danger at 13?

SANTORUM: What I would say is that the President's actions should reflect what his administration is saying. If the administration is saying it's not safe to go down there just because you can send 25 Secret Service agents doesn't mean you should do it. You should set an example. I think this is what presidents do. You should set an example. And when the government is saying this is not safe, then you don't set the example by sending your kids down there. Again, I'm not at all being critical of what his daughter wanted to do. She obviously had friends going there. I think she wanted to go along. But I think you have a higher duty when you're President to set that example as to what ‑‑ you're not above the law. You're not someone who can say one thing to one group, and then do something else. I think that sets a very bad precedent.

GLENN: Rick, good luck today.

SANTORUM: Hey, thank you very much. I appreciate all of the folks in Illinois. Please get out there and help us out. We pulled out a big upset in Mississippi and Alabama when nobody thought we could win, and conservatives get out and vote.

GLENN: We cut him off. Rick, thanks a lot. All right.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.