There's no better way to react to a new gas tax than this

January 06, 2015

Writer

How do YOU feel about the possibility of a new gas tax? Yeah, Glenn doesn't think it's a good idea either. Nevertheless, Sen. Corker (R-TN) has gone out and said that amidst the falling gas prices - finally a breather at the pump - it's time for a new federal gas tax. An extra twelve cents a gallon will fix all of our infrastructure problems. YAY!

Or not.

Glenn decided to take Sen. Corker to task, and it was by far the highlight of Tuesday's TV show.

WATCH:

Below is a transcript of the full segment:

Do you remember January 2009, gas prices were at $1.84? Everybody was freaking out about George W. Bush because it was $2.50. Oh my gosh, it’s $2.50. This guy is in bed with the evil oil corporations, right? What happens? The president gets in. Before he gets into office, it’s $1.84. As soon as he gets into office, it shoots up to $3.00 a gallon. Nobody says anything about it. It stays there for five years. Nobody says anything.

Now, prices dip. We get a breather at the pump. So, what do the clowns in Washington do? What are they doing? They want to push for a federal gas tax. I’ve got to tell you, I’m going to lose my mind. You watch him, Senator Bob Corker, he’s a Republican, by the way. Here’s what he said.

VIDEO

Sen. Corker: The user fee has not been raised since 1993. Other things typically are a percentage. This is per gallon, and so it’s way behind. It’s $100 billion shortfall that we have in our infrastructure program over the next ten years. So we could put this in place.

F: How much of an increase, Senator?

Sen. Corker: Six cents each year for two years, raising it to 12, which would solve the problem for a long, long time.

Oh, he’s going to solve the problem for a long, long time. All he needs is another $0.12 a gallon. Oh gee, Bob, Bob is $100 billion short. Oh, that’s bullocks. That’s what that is. But maybe, just maybe, you at home, you could help. Would you consider helping my little friend Bobby from Congress? He’s got himself into a little bit of a pickle today, he does.

You see, he took billions of your dollars, and he peed them all away. Now, he’s asking for even more from you. It’s crackers, I know. Could you spare some loose change? Oh, anything will do, a little bit of chocolate perhaps or maybe a little extra chocolate tax. Come to think of it, I don’t know why we even ask, because no matter what we do, they’ll go ahead and tax us up the wazoo.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I’ll be here all week. Anybody done? I’m done playing the game. Tiffany, can you get on the GlennBeck.com? By the way, I want to thank the staff for brand-new GlennBeck.com. It’s really great, lots of new things coming to it soon, but the skeleton is now on GlennBeck.com. Go to GlennBeck.com and see if you can pull up the T-shirt, because I’m selling it starting tomorrow.

I’m selling it, and you know what, I’m going to take all that money, and I don’t know, maybe we’ll all go on vacation someplace. I don’t know. Let’s spend it on something that the progressive Republicans and the progressives of the Democrats will really get pissed off about. Maybe I’ll give all of that money to a Ted Cruz campaign. I’m not sure yet, but I’ve had enough of their panhandling for more, shaking that cup at us. It is time to solve the problem by defunding the GOP. Defund them. Defund them.

Oh, we’ll never ask for another dime. Really? Are we that stupid? There it is, party’s over. Go home. You’re drunk on power. Party’s over. Defund them. You can buy the T-shirt. All the cool kids are wearing them.

So, hey, I know, why don’t we be complete morons and celebrate the low gas prices? Let’s do that. Well, we have to celebrate them for a little while. I don’t know about you. I celebrate filling up the car. It takes me 100 bucks. Now, it is just down to $60. That’s fantastic. I don’t know how you cannot feel good at least for the short term. You know, you feel like okay, well hey, at least I’ve got something going on here, okay?

No, no, the price is going to change. Why? Two reasons: one, because they’re going to add $0.12 a gallon in tax. Congratulations, there’s your new Congress. But let me tell you another reason why you should be a little concerned. Let me take you to a little stroll down oil town. Oil town, where everybody works for the oil companies. This is what those evil progressives have talked about all these times.

Now, everybody’s mortgaged to the hilt. Oh, these people, I’ll tell you right now, you’ve got these people living in this house, it takes $117 per barrel just to keep the doors open to the house, keep the lights on. It’s crazy, right? Ninety-eight dollars…this neighbor is $122, 106, $131 per barrel. They have to have $131 a barrel. Otherwise, their house is in trouble. One hundred eighty-four, can you imagine how panicked this family is in this house?

Because, let me remind you, it’s at $50 a barrel, so with $50 a barrel, if you need it to be 184 just to meet your monthly bills, you’re screwed as a family. Here, let me just see if I can—this house is on fire really bad. In fact, this one’s on fire. This one’s on fire. This one’s on fire. This one’s on fire. This one’s on fire. Here’s one for $106. This one is the only one currently not on fire. Isn’t that great?

Now, you would say hey, oil town fatcats, what you need to do is be more like this household. So maybe the people in this household should tell all of these people you have to live within your means and cut the expenses, right? Because I’m sure all the neighbors want to hear from this one. This one, by the way, has several cars. They’ve got a nice basketball hoop in the background, all kinds of electronics. These people are mortgaged out of their minds, but $40 a barrel, they can make ends meet.

These guys, they’re in trouble. Well, let me just show you a bit who these people are. This is Venezuela. This one is Russia. You see, they’re not really towns. This one is Nigeria. This one is 106. Who is that one, Tiffany? Oh, this one is Saudi Arabia. That’s good. None of these guys, they’re not unstable. They’re not going to cause any problems if their house is in panic. Oh, this one is Iran. They are totally stable. Don’t worry about it.

Oh, the house on fire at 184, yeah [Libya]. Nothing could go wrong there. Or here [Iraq], why worry about them? Oh, and the guys who can lecture everybody, that’s you and me, the good old USA. USA! USA! Let’s tell the rest of the world that they should live within their means. We are the last country that can admonish anyone about lowering their expenses.

In the last six years, America’s national debt has increased by 70% to more than $18 trillion. Do you remember when the President said that was immoral, it was un-American? It’s now $18 trillion, and we’re talking about John frickin’ Boehner. They’re not going to lower the expenses. They’re not going to, and these countries, these countries, they’re on fire right now, and so they’re going to weather the storm the best they can hoping to make it safely through to the other side.

Saudi Arabia is being accused of purposely not increasing production in order to inflict economic pain on Russia and Iran. Well, it’s having devastating effects. Russia is in the throes of economic crisis with soaring interest rates that go along with unsustainable energy prices. It’s a game of national survival of the fittest. It’s true Darwinian battle to the end—who can hold out the longest?

I don’t know. I don’t know. I will tell you this, the world is heading for a massive global correction, and we are not even ready as people. We’re not ready. We’re falling apart as people. Every country on earth is going to experience some economic pain, some much, much greater than others. The question remains what happens when the dominoes start to fall and when these countries start to go belly up? Well, I can show you Detroit—chaos, crime, corruption, desperation, ugly stuff.

Inflation rates are skyrocketing now in places like Russia and Venezuela, and they are set to start rising here in 2015. That’s the official word. You know they’ve already been rising. Except for gas prices, everything else has been rising. Everything else has been going up at the grocery stores. Remember when the president told you well, the only reason why milk and cheese and everything else at the grocery store is going up is because gas prices are so high? Really? Your food prices going down, America? No. Why?

Hey…hey, our breadbasket…California, how are you doing? Oh, is the EPA maybe choking you to death with the water? Don’t worry, Congress and John Boehner are going to be there to save the day. This is why I say I don’t want to talk about politics anymore, because it’s too late. It’s too late. We have to affect the culture. We have to affect ourselves. I still have to show you what’s going on. We’re talking in depth about the economic, the role the dollar will play in what is to come.

As Europe is struggling to hold it together, 2015 could be the year that it all starts to unravel. I hope not. I don’t know, but mark my words, I said this when I was at FOX, when the global economy falls apart, who is going to take the blame? You want to know? Listen to Putin. He’s already assigning it.

VIDEO

Vladimir Putin: Now, we are witnessing the falling down of prices, of oil prices, and there are many discussions on that topic, why is that happening, whether there is a conspiracy between the Saudi Arabia and the U.S. in order to punish Iran and influence the economy of Russia, Venezuela, etc.

Oh, oil my arms. Oil my arms. They’re going to blame us. America takes the blame. Putin is using this opportunity to stoke anti-western sentiment, and it is getting spooky. I want you to remember one thing from tonight’s show, because you’re going to meet somebody here in a few minutes who I think is very, very well-spoken, lots of credibility, probably, I don’t know, probably would hate my guts if she lived here in America. I don’t know. I don’t care, but I’m telling you right now, the one thing you have to get from today’s show is it’s real. What we’ve been talking about is real, and it’s on our doorstep.

People are going to look to save their own skin. This is why the special next week is so important, three days just on Russia. Meanwhile, the White House is publicly welcoming the lower gas prices, but behind closed doors they’re watching the tanking stock market. Don’t appear to agree that, you know, lower oil prices are a good thing. The stock market, what?

VIDEO

Josh Earnest: There are some who have observed that this is a little bit of a chicken and the egg thing, that some of the fall in energy prices is a direct response to a weakening of the economy and a fall in the stock market. We’re always monitoring the impact that any sort of—

Okay, the statement yesterday was the president is monitoring this constantly at the White House. Has he been monitoring other things, like the cost of your health care? Now, you think this is going to affect Wall Street? Gee, let’s think about that. Here’s what we could do, we could have a little more control of our own situation, and we could go ahead with projects like the Keystone Pipeline, but the president and longtime advisers, the Republicans, supposedly going to solve this now…right.

David Axelrod came out and said I’m not so sure. This is a tweet. This is a quote: “At a time of low oil prices and growing U.S. energy, is Keystone really the most pressing issue? Or is it just red meat for the GOP base?” Not everything is political. Some things are strategic as a nation. Yes, any sane responsible country would ensure our energy is cheap, plentiful as humanly possible.

We would also make sure that we were self-contained as humanly possible, still reaching out to the rest of the world, still being decent people, but also being able to weather storms. For the love of Pete, can somebody be proactive about securing resources? Russia is. Russia is getting pummeled by dropping oil prices, but wait until I show you next week what they’re doing to counter that. But they’re also buying gold.

They bought 130 tons of gold in 2014. China bought 2,100 tons of gold. Why? Because they know paper money is going to be worthless at some point. Responsible nations cut spending. Responsible nations shore up access to fuel and energy. Responsible nations have a monetary system that’s not on the verge of collapse, or if it is on the verge of collapse, they’re doing something for the future to make sure they have something in the end.

We’re the only one on that street that’s burning our house down to the ground. We’re watching little numbers roll by the screen in the stock market. Does our vault even have any gold? Clowns running the show in DC, they’re playing circus while the world is burning. Well, the good news is those little clown cars, they’re very economical, so…

And anti-Semitism is on the rise. I am telling you, we are entering the 1930s. I’m going to show you some things here in the next break that should open your eyes. It’s real. It’s no longer Glenn Beck says this is going to happen. It is happening, so it’s time for you to…I mean, I know that Bob Beckel kiss was great and everything, but history is repeating itself.

Troubled times are coming. We have anti-Semitism. You have armed Black Panthers now here in Dallas monitoring the cops in honor of cop-killer Huey P. Newton. Geez, I mean, you want to talk about biblical times, we had a…I think it was about a four on the Richter scale, I’m guessing, right before we went on the air. This whole building shook, and all of us were like what the…? We’re having earthquakes like crazy here in Dallas. Whew!

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

There's no better way to react to a new gas tax than this

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

Where did all the water go?

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

The cost of secrecy

Transparency is an imperative

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

Or is it about self-preservation?

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Is climate change responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Are the L.A. fires a product of years of mismanagement?

Do you think controlled burns are an effective way to prevent wildfires?