GLENN: Hopefully we'll have Mike Lee on with us for a second. He has a tax proposal that he's working on. We'll talk to him about it.
STU: There's some ridiculous things going on, arguments against the tax bill. And there are arguments against it. Good ones, in that, it's not as good as it should be. It's not as bold as it should be. Mike Lee is trying to do some things to it, that may help depending on your perspective. But some of the arguments against it, are also unfair. National Review has four of them that they feature today. People are calling it a middle class tax hike. This is an interesting thing. Because what they're trying to do with this is play with the numbers.
Tax policy center analysis on the Senate bill reveals that three-quarters of all families would get a tax cut. Twelve percent will see a tax increase, and they're concentrated around the rich. Now, to me, that's annoying because no one should be getting any increase. But the idea it's a middle class tax cut, you're seeing that on Facebook. You're seeing that on mainstream media. The average middle income family would receive a tax cut of approximately $850 through 2025. Now, what they're doing is, they're looking at the year 2027, and they're seeing lots of tax increases in that year.
The Senate bill is structured to make these middle class tax cuts expire in 2025. They do this for a dumb budgeting gimmick. The idea is, in 2025, no one is going to say, well, we should raise taxes on the middle class. No one will want to take that position, so they'll all keep the tax cuts. That's risky. I don't like it. But even if you say that they don't extend them, what you would have is a 7,000-dollar tax cut in the earlier years, followed by a 100-dollar annual tax increase later.
GLENN: I'll take it.
STU: It's still a big cut over time, they're just focusing on --
GLENN: No one is going to do it at that time anyway.
Mike Lee is with us. Senator Mike Lee, how are you, sir?
MIKE: Doing great, Glenn. Good to be with you.
GLENN: Can you help us make sense and heads or tails of the tax plan and tell us what's going to happen. And I want to talk about, you and Rubio have gotten together. And you're asking exactly, what?
MIKE: We're asking to make the child tax credit more meaningful to everyone that works and everyone who pays taxes. What we want is a tax credit. People can take advantage of up to 13.3 percent of their earnings. This is a tax -- payroll tax is something that almost every American worker pays. And our tax system fails to take into account what we call the parent tax penalty. Our child tax credit proposal, would address that.
Now, Glenn, I've been accused justifiably in the past of being really poor on your show. Talking about this proposal subjects me to that accusation.
GLENN: No. We're going to let you go. It's just that you get turned on by numbers and clauses in the Constitution, that most people don't --
MIKE: Don't we all?
GLENN: No, we don't. But I appreciate that in a senator.
MIKE: Well, thank you. And I appreciate the chance to come over and talk about it. Because it's really important.
Look, America's working moms and dads contribute to our senior entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare twice, once as they pay their taxes and a second time to incur the cost of child rearing.
Because of the pay-as-you-go nature of Social Security and Medicare, working parents are contributing to Social Security and Medicare twice. By increasing the child tax credit and making it refundable, up to 15.3 percent of earnings, what we're doing is we're making sure we provide necessary tax relief to offset this penalty.
GLENN: Mike, is this going to pass?
MIKE: It will. And we'll make sure. Look, it will pass because it has to pass. And I'm not sure what form the tax bill is going to pass. But it's going to pass. I and my Republican colleagues in the Senate are going to make sure.
STU: Mike, they were talking about potentially as an offset to an increase child tax credit of having to increase the -- the proposed corporate tax. So it was 20 percent. They're talking about 21, 22 percent. Is that going to be necessary to do the changes you're talking about?
MIKE: This is one method of paying for it. We're not necessarily wedded to that method of paying for it. We're open to other suggestions. I'd love to leave the corporate rate at 20 percent rather than 22.
But as of right now, we got to keep in mind, that as President Trump himself explained to us at lunch the other day, 70 percent of tax relief in this bill is for corporations, leaving 30 percent of the bill for individuals.
This is one way of shifting more of that relief to individuals, especially to America's most important entrepreneurial class of investors, that is America's parents.
GLENN: Do you believe that America's corporations feel comfortable enough in investing that money in -- in capital expenditures or investment and employees, or are they just going to roll those tax savings into the market?
MIKE: I think they will invest in a lot of things that will create jobs. That's why I'm pleased of corporate tax relief. The corporate tax itself is kind of a devious thing because it disguises the cost of government. People think taxes on corporations don't cost workers any money. They do.
In fact, according to some economists, it may well be that half or so of corporate taxes end up coming out of workers wages. In any event, we know that taxing corporations would slow economic activity. And that affects everyone, including America's middle class taxpayers.
GLENN: Is McCain going to stick with you guys? I saw a story yesterday afternoon. Looks like McCain is at it again was the headline. Is McCain --
MIKE: Yeah. I saw that story too. It gives me nightmares, had nightmares ever since that fateful night in July when he left his thumb hanging in suspended animation, leaving us in -- turned the thumb down. Want to make sure that doesn't happen again.
Look, I think he'll vote with us at the end of the day. Even if he doesn't, we can lose him and still pass the thing without him.
STU: Mike, I'm glad you're talking about the payroll tax. I think it's something that conservatives don't get fired up enough about.
Here's a tax that is a regressive tax, meaning that people on the poor end of the scale pay more than people on the high end of the income scale, which is something I can't believe any progressive ever defends. But they seem to defend it. And not only it locks us into this -- this idea, and a lot of conservatives, I think, fall for it, which is, these long-term giant programs that are supposedly funded through this, when in reality, it kind of all goes into a big pot anyway. These big programs are owed to us because of this separate tax. We don't look at any other giant program the way we look at these entitlement programs. And I think it's a real problem. Is there any hope of attacking this payroll tax even more boldly?
MIKE: Well, I think you made the point well. And this leads to a point I've been meaning to use in messaging with this, which is the best way to understand the Rubio/Lee amendment is that it basically provides a tax cut with respect to payroll taxes. And for some of the reasons you identified. We have to focus on this more than we do. And just as importantly, a related point is that the people who would benefit most acutely from the Rubio/Lee proposal would be those workers who are perhaps most at risk of falling out of the work force and choosing instead to go on welfare. You know, parents with young children, who are right at the edge economically of whether or not they're going to decide, make sense to continue working and instead stop and take welfare benefits. We want to keep them in the workforce. We want to give them plenty of opportunity to stay in the workforce so they can benefit themselves and their families so that they can get promotions, and continue to make more and be contributing members of society. This would incentivize them to do that remove some of the incentives for them to just go on welfare and SNAP.
GLENN: Mike, I want to switch gears with you, and then I'll let you go. You know, Matt Lauer was just let go. Garrison Keillor was just let go. And it's -- it's a little disturbing to me that, A, we're letting people go without any kind of real due process. It seems like this could get out of hand quickly, if we're not really careful. I mean, I'm glad bad guys are going away, and I want this to be solved, but it concerns me that there's no due process here.
However, the only ones that don't seem really affected by it are those in politics. You know, on the Republican side, Roy Moore and Donald Trump. On the liberal side, it's John Conyer and Al Franken.
They're not going anywhere. Does that concern you, Mike?
MIKE: Yeah. In politics, some things operate differently, quite tragically. The meaning of the word "politics," break it down to its Greek roots, poly, which means many, and ticks, which are blood-sucking parasites. A lot of what happens here.
Look, as to your first point about due process, in the case of Matt Lauer, for instance, look, he was fired by a private, for-profit corporation. I assume he was an at-will employee, or if he wasn't an at-will employee, that he had some kind of provision in his contract, allowing his employer to take this action when they did this.
So speaking literally, in constitutional terms, that means there isn't a due process issue. Due process in the lowercase sense of the word, I assume that NBC, being well-represented by capable attorneys, made sure that they dotted their i's and crossed their t's and that they made sure the facts were adequately substantiated before taking this step. Firing someone who holds public office is a little bit different because normally, in most circumstances, to fire them, you have to wait until the next election.
But I suspect that there will be a whole lot of people getting fired by their voters as these things continue to come out.
GLENN: You believe there's more to come out, Mike? You've been there a while.
MIKE: Sadly, I come to suspect that there are. I've been saddened and surprised by some of the horrible things that have been happening. And it seems to arise in circumstances where men will do really bad things in circumstances where they think they can get away with it. There aren't enough reasons that they see not to do it. And it's tragic. It should not be that way.
GLENN: Which makes --
MIKE: But we've seen that -- news entertainment, media entertainment, and government and politics. And it's really sad.
GLENN: And it makes me a little nervous that if the people don't vote those people out, if they decide that it doesn't matter, we're going to end up with some of the worst people in the world, even worse than we have now in Washington, showing up, because you'll literally be able to get away with anything.
MIKE: Yeah. I think that's right. And that would be an absolutely unacceptable outcome. Fortunately, Glenn, I don't think that will happen for two independent reasons. First, I think a lot of people are going to take themselves out of contention. Perhaps most or all of those people who are in government right now, who are subject to these accusations are going to decide, it's time to hang it up. Secondly, I really don't think their voters are going to put up with it. This is unacceptable. They shouldn't elect people who will do awful things like this.
GLENN: Senator Mike Lee, thank you very much. Good luck.
In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Conservatives cheered, believing we’d taken back the reins of our country. But we missed the bigger battle. We failed to recognize the extent of the damage caused by eight years of Barack Obama and decades of progressive entrenchment. The real war isn’t won at the ballot box. It’s being waged against an insidious force embedded deep within our institutions: the administrative state, or the “deep state.”
This isn’t a new problem. America’s founders foresaw it, though they didn’t have a term for “deep state” back in the 1700s. James Madison, in Federalist 48, warned us that combining legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands is “the very definition of tyranny.” Yet today, that’s exactly where we stand. Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice hold more power than the officials we vote for. They control the levers of government with impunity, dictating policies and stifling change.
We’ve felt the consequences of this growing tyranny firsthand. During COVID-19, so-called experts ran our lives, crushing civil liberties under the guise of public safety. Our intelligence agencies and justice system turned into weapons of political warfare, targeting a sitting president and his supporters. Meanwhile, actual criminals were given a pass, turning American cities into lawless war zones.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816 that “the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.” Today, we see Jefferson’s prophecy fulfilled. The deep state exercises unchecked power over our freedoms, and information itself is controlled by the fourth branch of government: the legacy media.
Even when we win elections, the deep state doesn’t concede defeat. It switches to survival mode. Trump’s first term proved this. Despite a historic mandate to dismantle the bureaucracy, the deep state fought back with everything it had: leaks, investigations, court rulings, and obstruction at every turn. And now, with the possibility of Trump returning to office, the deep state is preparing to do it again.
U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) recently boasted about forming a “shadow cabinet” to govern alongside the deep state, regardless of who’s in the White House. Nickel called it “democracy’s insurance policy.” Let’s be clear: This isn’t insurance. It’s sabotage.
They’ll employ a “top down, bottom up, inside out” strategy to overwhelm and collapse any effort to reform the system. From the top, federal judges and shadow officials will block Trump’s every move. Governors in blue states like California and New York are gearing up to resist federal authority. During Trump’s first term, California filed over 100 lawsuits against his administration. Expect more of the same starting January 20.
From the bottom, progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will flood the streets with protesters, much as they did to oppose Trump’s first-term immigration reforms. They’ve refined their tactics since 2016 and are prepared to unleash a wave of civil unrest. These aren’t spontaneous movements; they’re coordinated assaults designed to destabilize the administration.
Finally, from the inside, the deep state will continue its mission of self-preservation. Agencies will drag their feet, leak sensitive information, and undermine policies from within. Their goal is to make everything a chaotic mess, so the heart of their power — the bureaucratic core — remains untouched and grows stronger.
We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move. Progressives never see themselves as losing. When they’re out of power, they simply shift tactics, pumping more blood into their bureaucratic heart. We may win elections, but the war against the deep state will only intensify. As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force; and force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege. The deep state has shown us its plan: to govern from the shadows, circumventing the will of the people. But now that the shadows have been exposed, we have a choice. Will we accept this silent tyranny, or will we demand accountability and reclaim our nation’s heart?
The battle is just beginning. We can’t afford to lose.
Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.
The drone issue is getting way out of hand.
Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.
It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:
- / Stringer | Getty Images
After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.
Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images
In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.
This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?
The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.
Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images
We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.
America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.
This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.
Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.
In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.
Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.
In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.
A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.
It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.
This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.
The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.
If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.
Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.
