RADIOApril 12, 2024

What the Latest CPI Report & Soaring Gold Prices Mean for YOUR WALLET

The price of gold just hit a new all-time high and that’s NOT a good sign. Plus, the CPI report for March has released and it revealed that inflation rose faster than expected yet again. But of course, the Biden administration is bragging about how gas inflation allegedly went DOWN. Financial expert Carol Roth joins to explain what the gold and CPI news means for your wallet, as well as why the White House’s data is “trash.” Plus, she reveals a new way that small business owners can vent their frustrations to Congress.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Carol Roth, I know we have a lot to talk about. So just quickly, I woke up this morning.

Looking at gold prices.

And it was kind of -- kind of impressed, on how they're skyrocketing. And I remember, a conversation with the gold guy.

Who said, don't ever, ever look at gold and say, gee. I hope it goes up because of my portfolio.

And we were talking about $3,000 an ounce. And he says, do you realize how crazy the world has to be, for gold to be at $3,000 an ounce?

It's over 2400 right now. We're headed there quickly.

CAROL: Yeah. You remember a discussion that I and I had with a group of people, I believe, in November of last year. When people were saying a similar thing. When is gold going to break out? And you and I were both communicate the idea that gold is really a hedge against all kind of insanity. Things like inflation. Things like the crumbling standing of the dollar. Things like war.

And so when you see that gold continues to rise. Even in the face of things like rising yields on bonds. I mean, normally, there's a lot of push back there. We saw that as bond yields had gone up.

People were moving away from gold. Because you weren't getting that same interest rate. You know, gold does not produce an interest rate. So there is a different reason why we are looking at gold. And some of the things that we're talking about are a bit more structural. Perhaps gold is playing a bigger role in things like settling international commodities. Trades. And trading between countries.

Particularly, the BRICS nations. But, again, all of the things that are the signals, none of them are good for us here in the United States.

You have the signal as, oh, well, it's just because trade. Well, that's not good for the US dollars reserve currency. And that's not good for, you know, inflation over the long term and our purchasing power.

And so all of these things have a mechanism. And when you see so much interest in gold over the past few months. When it has been very steady for -- for a while.

That breakout is giving you additional information. And like you said, this particular case, I think that information is coming from lots of different places. And not one of them is good.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. One of them is, we're hitting the point where our -- our debt, the interest on our debt is going to be 1.6 trillion dollars a year. That's more than Social Security.

It's the biggest. It will be the top line on our budget now, is just the interest. Because we have an adjustable mortgage in America.

And the fed, I think is out of bullets.

CAROL: Yeah. I've been making this argument now for a couple of years. That the fed's monetary policy isn't effective. Because they are -- they're trying to control, demand, and so many of the issues that we've had are on the supply side.

Additionally, we've been headed. And I think we are in today, this period of fiscal to me unanimous. And as we've talked about before, that just means, that fiscal policy plays a bigger role in what is determining economic outcomes and monetary policy.

On its face, that is sort of neutral physical dominance. In our particular situation, it's very bad. It's because of the debt. It's because of the deficits. And it's because of the fact, that we have it these massive interest payments. And continuing deficits, that need to be financed and are creating this vicious loop.

And as we know, there are -- there is not a lot of ways to finance the debt.

There certainly are not a lot of buyers. And we say that this week. There was a Treasury option, for ten-year Treasury notes, that did horribly. It was rated a D by (inaudible) CNBC, who was very, very smart.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

CAROL: D, by the way, I don't know if you know this. Is right next to F. So that is a very bad position, to be in.

GLENN: We've always been AAA, haven't we?

I mean, for ten years.

CAROL: So there's a debt rating. And that's done by the rating agencies. These are the bond options.

This is when the Treasury goes out to the market. And says, you know, how is it that, you know -- how did we do?

How many buyers were there? Who were -- who wanted to buy our debts?

And so this happens on a regular basis. And, you know, people who watch this. They give those auctions a grade. To say, how did we do?

Were there a lot of buyers? Not a lot of buyers.

So this particular time, there were not a lot of buyers. And the banks and the security dealers. Had to stock up a lot of that debt.

It's pushing us to this path of monetization. Again, that we've been talking about. That means, we're buying our own debt. And that is inflationary.

So even if we're not getting things like rate cuts, that potentially could stoke inflation. You're going to get this monetization of debt, which is inflationary. Which is why I've been arguing that inflation is sticky. And it doesn't matter if the fed goes high or low.

It's getting us on either side, until the government gets its act together. They are driving the show. It is that fiscal dominance.

GLENN: Tell me about the Consumer Price Index.

And the wholesale index. The numbers don't make sense.

For instance, fuel is not an inflation -- isn't in inflation right now? Look at the price of fuel. What do they mean?

CAROL: So you know who loves the data coming out of the government right now, Glenn?

GLENN: The government.

CAROL: Oscar the Grouch. You know why? Because the data is trash. It's absolutely trash data.

Not only have we seen adjustments on a regular basis.

The scope of which, we have not seen in a long time.

The numbers always get adjusted. But we have not seen these massive adjustments, that we have been seeing.

We also have a phenomenon, where people and entities, who are responding to the surveys. Where they collect the data, don't want to do that anymore.

Either they don't want to be board.

They don't trust the government with their data. Whatever it is.

They don't want to give up their competitive advantage.

They're having fewer people respond to these surveys. Which means that there is more of this projection and biases in the survey. So that's why we saw, you know, the CPI, which is the Consumer Price Index. That's where they go out and they survey households, that came in, higher than expected.

We all expected that it would be an uptick. Because as you said, we know the price of oil and other commodities would be going up. So this was not a surprise to any of us who live in the real world.

So that was somewhat reflected in that data. And certainly, the -- the market had reacted to that, and said, oh, well, if that's the case. The fed can't cut. Then we have another measure of inflation.

Because they measure it in different ways. This is the producer price index. PPI. Which is the wholesale measure of inflation. This is what they're supposed to tell you what's coming. Because the inputs that go into your goods and services give you a sense of what is coming down the pike.

And this was the one that was the head scratcher. Because it was not -- there's a huge disconnect between these two measures always. But even a bigger disconnect. The one as you said, everybody is going, what's going on here? Related to energy.

So floating around on social media yesterday, there was a chart about the season 58 adjustments. Again, the manipulation of the data that they do. And if you look at that, it showed you that gasoline for the month, was down 3.6 percent. I think it was.

But if you did it --

GLENN: Yeah. 3.6.

So if you didn't seasonally adjusted. It would have been up 6.3 percent.

That's a really big swing. That's like a 10 percent swing, between the two of them.

So, again, Oscar the Grouch data here, certainly we're going to get another measure in a couple of weeks here. One called the PCE. The personal consumptions expenditures index. This is the fed's, quote, unquote, favored measure.

I don't know. Maybe they like the people who do it better. It's a little bit more broad. That's what they tend to make their policy decisions on.

But the media and everybody is focused on the CPI. So it makes it very difficult for them. Or at least adds another layer of difficulty. Because they will do whatever it is, that they want to do.

When that is going up, for them to say, well, inflation is under control.

We can go ahead, and start to cut interest rates. Which is why I think everybody needs to be paying attention, to their other tools.

Which relate to the balance sheet and debt. And what they're going to do there. Because that's just a different way for them to be cooperatively.

GLENN: They're not going to do anything. They're not going to be doing anything. I mean, he's not addressing inflation. Biden is spending more.

He's now, again, forgiving more at the time. Trying to get people into houses.

I mean, he is -- we're just giving away the store at this point.

LEE: They have -- we have been saying this since day one. They've been working in the opposite direction. If you wanted to help the fed get inflation under control at the government, you should have been working with them.

You should not have been running up leftists. You've been doing. Putting into place, policies that help supply issues, instead of hurting supply issues.

Every single thing this administration has done, has been a barrier, not only to you keeping your wealth and your purchasing power. But what it is, the fed has been doing.

And that's the fight that the fed has been having.

And I just think, at some point, they're going need to be real explicit. And say, we can't do anything. Until our partners get on the same page.

But, you know, everything is political.

GLENN: It doesn't happen. That's not going to happen.

CAROL: Yeah, not going to happen.

GLENN: When we come back, she actually has been invited to be somebody who testifies in front of Congress.

Carol Roth, in front of Congress, testifying as an expert, by the end of the month. On small businesses. And she's going to be talking about the FinCEN thing that's going on with LLCs and small businesses.

Where you have to register all this information, or you're a criminal.

CAROL: Yeah.

GLENN: And it's going to devastate small businesses. Small LLCs. And it affects so many people. She will be testifying.

But here's the good news. She wants to use information, that maybe you have.

To back up her testimony.

And we'll talk about that in 60 seconds.

First, ever since 911. The Tunnel2Towers Foundation has been helping America's greatest heroes and their families. And you can join them on their mission to do good by supporting the families of America's greatest heroes.

The families of fallen first responders. The Gold Star families. With young children. Catastrophically injured service members. And homeless veterans. I cannot believe we live in a country that is doing what we're doing with illegals. And we have homeless veterans. They're providing mortgage-free homes to these people. Some of them, especially adapted to the needs of catastrophically injured veterans. And they're working tirelessly every day, to eliminate homelessness among veterans.

This is an organization, respected by and donated to, by many of their own people in and out of uniform. David Marshal. He served in the army during World War II. He fought in the Battle of the Bulge. He has never forgot the sacrifice of his comrades in arms, nor the efforts of the first responders on 9/11 or the days and the months that followed.

He is a loyal and proud foundation donor. More than 95 cents of every dollar you donate, goes to Tunnel2Towers to its programs. So they're not spending it on limousines and everything else.

Donate $11 a month to Tunnel2Towers at T2T.org. That's T2T.org. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
No. I think our banks are fine.

Everything is doing really well. Just a quick update. The AT&T Tower in St. Louis went for $3.55 million. That's a good, solid $2 a square foot. Sold for $3 million. It was sold for over 205 million, just about 15 years ago.

So no. There's nothing to see here. Nothing to see here. Carol, let's talk about small business.

CAROL: Yes.

GLENN: Take me through. In case people don't know what FinCEN is. Or what people are requiring them to do.

This is the criminal arm of the Treasury. And they're asking everybody who has an LLC or a small business to register.

CAROL: Yes. So this is called the CTA, BOI rule.

And basically, what it said, and this was passed by Congress.

Was vetoed by President Trump. And then they went back, and Congress overturned the veto, and gave this arm of the Treasury, which is charged with preventing financial crimes. Sort of free rein.

And they said, okay. We will create a database. And if you have any sort of entity, if you have an LLC, even a single member LLC, an S-Corp, a C-Corp, any sort of entity, and you're a business. You need to register with us. The financial crimes enforcement network. Because we want to prevent money laundering and cartels. And, of course, you know, I'm sure all of those people are going to self-report.

But they exempted.

GLENN: All the best cartels do.

CAROL: They all do. Well, we will do these things. We will make sure that FinCEN gets euro information.

They exempted all the big businesses. So this is unfairly targeting small businesses, so the updates. A few things that are what are happening. And we can certainly go more into this. I have been invited by the house. Small business committee, to be an expert, to testify and, you know, obviously testify against this. And how bad this is for small businesses.

And how unconstitutional at the end of the month.

What I am doing is I am bringing statements from small business owners. Because it's great to hear my statement. But if I can show up there, and say, I have hundred. Or 200 small businesses.

And here's what they have to say about this. And they're all outraged.

That holds a lot more weight.

So anyone who owns a small business. You support small business. Go to CarolRoth.com/CTA. That's CarolRoth.com, slash, Charlie Tango Alpha. And I made it really easy. I have given it a form letter, that if you want, you can borrow some of it. You can borrow all of it. You can borrow none of it, but I am going to show up at Congress with this staff from small business owners to say, you have heard what I have had to say.

Now, listen to what small business owners from across the nation, have to say, to try to get them to overturn this.

GLENN: Now, could I -- because today is not the day for me to write something. Because I'm in a very bad mood.

But I could -- could I just write to you and say, yeah. Here's what I would like to say to Congress.

I'm working my ass off, so I can keep my family afloat. And the families of all my employees, and you guys are just making my life more and more difficult, with more and more restrictions and -- and guidelines.

That nobody in Congress passed.

And are not good for the American people.

I've had it!

CAROL: Please do. Again, CarolRoth.com/CTA. Please do that. And I actually think being in a bad mood is a good time to write it, because that's when you will be honest. And that's when you will --

GLENN: I will write today then.

CAROL: Yeah. And so -- and speaking of helping, so one of the things that you did, that was very generous, Glenn. You offered to put forth a lawsuit. And I agreed. We cannot do that. Because we have been outspoken. But the good news is that there are two new lawsuits against this, that have also popped up. So we have a lot of really good momentum. And appreciative to you, for all of your help.

GLENN: Okay. Okay. So give me the address again. It's CarolRoth.com/CTA. Correct?

CAROL: Correct.

GLENN: Okay. CarolRoth.com/CTA. If you're a small business owner, go ahead.

Vent a little bit. You will take it to Congress. Thanks, Carol.

Steve Baker explains GUILTY PLEA in Jan. 6 case

Blaze Media correspondent Steve Baker and his attorney Bill Shipley join The Glenn Beck Program to explain why Baker pleaded guilty to 4 misdemeanor counts connected to his presence at the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot. Steve has argued the entire time that he was there as a journalist and did not act violently, and also that the government isn't going after the other 80 or so journalists who were there. He pled guilty, he explains, because he believes that the court wanted to make an example out of him: "The trial is nothing more than a shaming exercise if you're not going to be allowed to present your own case." Baker and Shipley also discuss the possibility of Donald Trump pardoning J6 defendants when he takes office.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Steve Baker and his attorney Bill Shipley joins us. Steve, I hate to do this to you. But we have about six, seven minutes.

So why did you plead guilty?

STEVE: Yeah. It was no more complicated than this. Last Wednesday was my pretrial hearing. And the government basically went into lockstep. Deny, deny, deny mode, that was in lockstep with the court itself.

The last minute hoax that they had, that they would either grant us a dismissal of my case, based on -- or they would at least grant a continuance, which would mean, that during that time, they would also give us the discovery that we had requested on to some 80 to 100 other journalist, media influencers.

Podcasters. Bloggers of all types of media, that passed through those restricted spaces and into the Capitol that day. Why they weren't charging them.

And when the judge laid down the law. And said, no. He was going to -- just basically show his inflexible flexibility.

And I thought, you know what, after that, then the trial is nothing more than a shaming exercise.

If you're not going to be allowed to present your own case.

So I think Bill can speak to that a little bit more clearly.

GLENN: Bill.

BILL: Well, Steve and I had a conversation.

And the head of that hearing.

And I said, Steve, based purely on the facts, I think we can defend this case. But at the end of the day, particularly during that pretrial conference hearing, it became clear, that the government was going to use four comments that Steven made over the course of the day, to in effect, show that Steve had in the government's word, joined the mob.

In other words, Steve was in some respects, taking the government's interpretation of his word.

He was applauding the conduct of the crowd that day. And the government said, that sets him apart from the other 80 journalists. Well, either you think about that. That basically says, any opinion journalist, whose opinion is on the wrong side of what the government deems to be the line of acceptability is, therefore, subject to prosecution.

GLENN: Correct.

BILL: As long as your opinions are on the right side of the line of acceptability, you're fine.

GLENN: So that's a First Amendment right.

BILL: Exactly. But we could not get the court to accept that. I think part of what we were up against was, these were only misdemeanor charges. The court was simply not going to give us the evidence that we were entitled to.

But the difficulty of that particularly kind of defenses. It's almost a concession, that you've actually committed the crime.

And what you're saying is why aren't other people similarly situated being charged with the same crime.

It's a double-edged sword.

And after the election, it was just a matter of, you know, Steve, we can get out of this in such a way, where we write the facts. We decide what we tell the judge, are the facts of the case. Unlike a plea agreement, when you have an agreement with the government, they write the facts. And you're stuck with them. Because the alternative is to go to trial.

GLENN: I will tell you, I pled -- I don't know if I pled guilty, I might have. Pled guilty in a case. Had to surrender and just acquiesce on a case years ago. Involving terrorists. To have.

And somebody -- I had them dead to rights.

Dead to rights. But the government is controlling all of the strings and all of the information. And if you can't get the information, from the government, that they have, and that you know exists. Because you have copies of it.

But the judge says, no. I need to seat official copy. And the government says, well, we're not going to give you the official copy.

You have no place to go. They win every time, if you -- you know, can't get them to cooperate in any way. And give you the information, that they only have.

That's what you're fighting. Right?

BILL: Yeah. And our alternative here would have been to go to the appellate court.

But we could only do that after the district court, the trial court after that case was over. We could go to the appellate court. But, again, we're talking about four misdemeanors.

How much effort are you willing to put in, to go to the appellate court. To try to get this information, that the trial judge has denied you.

GLENN: So what is your sentence going to be, Steve? Do you know?

STEVE: Well, they set my sentencing hearing for March the 6th. We don't know. But the judge himself acknowledged in the court date on Tuesday, that we likely would never see each other again.

How about that? He actually acknowledged that. He actually said it twice, in reference to the fact that there is probably going to be pardons going down.

And, therefore, I wouldn't be sentenced. But in that moment, I think the judge made a really critical and unforced error.

Because he decided to go and dress me down, as he would normally do during a sentencing hearing. And since he decided that we probably wouldn't be able to have that hearing in March, he was going to go ahead and take that opportunity to chastise me. What he did, Glenn, is incredible.

And we will have the transcript of this, and we will certainly release it through the Blaze.

That he dressed me down, not for my behavior. But he criticized my actual work as a journalist, because I had used the terms "weaponized DOJ" and I had been critical of the biased court.

GLENN: Wow! Wow!

What a violation of your First Amendment.

All right, Steve, thanks for explaining this. Bill, best of luck. Keep us up to speed. I think you are right. I think Donald Trump is going to come in, and I hope not for everybody.

I mean, there were some people that were really bad actors in this. But most people weren't. And that should be erased from their record entirely.

Thank you, Steve. Appreciate it. God bless. You bet.

Will Donald Trump embrace Bitcoin in 2025?

Bitcoin has seen a major rise after the re-election of Donald Trump. Just a year ago, a Bitcoin was worse under $40,000. Now, that has more than doubled, passing $80k and even $90k. But is this just the beginning. Donald Trump has promised to end the government's plans to release a FedCoin or Central Bank Digital Currency. Will he go as far as instructing the U.S. Treasury to invest in Bitcoin? Glenn and Stu discuss.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's see. Have we seen Bitcoin this morning? What is Bitcoin up to?

STU: Last I saw was 82,000. My apologies.

83,000.

GLENN: Wow!

STU: 83,000.

I mean, that is amazing.

By the way, you could have bought it for about three or 4,000, during the beginning of COVID.

So I remember Glenn, a time when this office was buzzing constantly with the -- what wound up being a, quote, unquote, bubble of 19,000.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And that was in 2017.

GLENN: Yeah. That's not going to come back. It will never get higher than that.

STU: You look at the entire chart of Bitcoin.

That bubble that was end -- that was the game-ender. This is it. It's going to zero.

Every freaking media institution had 100 articles about how it was over. And now -- and then it rose again. And you have the FTX situation happen. And, again, it was all over, and we had to read article after article after article. Now 83,000.

Every single person in history, that bought Bitcoin and has held on to it, is now in the green.

GLENN: By the way, January 23rd of this year, it was $38,505.

STU: Gosh, this year.

GLENN: This year. 38,505.

STU: Incredible.

GLENN: I mean, it has -- I mean -- and, you know what -- you know what this is? The government of the United States, under Donald Trump, him saying, I'm not going to be hostile to you.

I won't be hostile. I'm not -- I'm not going to try to put you out of business. In fact, the government is going to now get hostile, on the idea of a Fed coin. We're not going to let the Federal Reserve do a currency.

No! No more. No more.

There's no Fed coin that will happen. And he wants a Constitutional amendment, but he'll at least pass laws that say, they cannot do that.

That's what -- that's what's giving people confidence. It's not the free market. It's the fact that the free market is just -- there's hope, that it actually works now!

That people can buy what they want to buy. And not fear the government coming in and shutting it all down.

STU: Yeah. And Trump has talked about when the US government comes in contact with Bitcoin. It doesn't just pump it out to the market.

They have about 200,000.

GLENN: Why would they do that?

STU: Hold it. Have a Bitcoin reserve. Certainly, El Salvador has done this. To great effect.

GLENN: We should take -- we spend billions of dollars.

And we -- we just hand out, hey. I mean, found the 6 billion-dollar check, in my -- I left it 234 my suit. I set it out to try cleaning.

They just pinned it to my suit, so I didn't forget I had six billion dollars here. Why don't you take that for your little war. What?

Okay. We find that money. Why haven't we taken $10 billion, and just funneled it all into bitcoin and put it in the Treasury?

Why haven't we taken $50 billion, and then hold it?

STU: Right. We have $12 billion. Actually I should say, with the new prices, $16 billion of Bitcoin. Currently, in US possession from various investigations. Silk Road being one of the big ones. But various investigations. And we come into contact with it often.

Where there's an investigation, some drug dealer has some bitcoin. Comes into the US possession.

GLENN: We should buy it.

STU: Trump is just saying, hold it.

When -- don't -- the current policy of the US, is when the investigation is finally wrapped up, to just dump it into the market. There's no reason to do that. Why not hold it?

And, you know, this is the type of thing, one of the reasons why we're -- we talked about this so long ago, Glenn?

Was because, it undermines the ability for the US government to constantly print cash forever. Right?

It undermines that. And if you are -- if you were worried about that in the future. Having a policy where you can offset it a little bit.

Is a positive thing.

You want to keep that out of -- you don't want to constantly weaken yourself. This is a way to strengthen your foundations. And, of course, so far, people like Elizabeth Warren have been influencing that policy. Now, the Democrats did come around a little bit to this.

They really -- I guess, I don't know if they wanted crypto money. They actually --

GLENN: I think they wanted all the money.

STU: They wanted all the money, and there's a lot in crypto.

But can you imagine how annoyed Elizabeth Warren is today?

That makes me feel just so good. It makes me feel so good.

GLENN: Oh, you know what also makes me happy? Is the fact that they spent a billion dollars, and now they're 20 million in debt. Her campaign. How is that possible?

STU: How is it possible?

GLENN: How is it possible?

STU: My favorite part of this, Glenn. My favorite part of this is picturing the maxed out Kamala Harris donor.

Someone is like, you know what, democracy is on the line. Hitler is coming into office. I'm putting my full 3500 dollars behind Kamala Harris, taking that step.

You're a maxed-out donor. You will get campaign literature to the end of time, from every candidate from now on. But you are taking that stand! And you know what you accomplished?

You paid for 1/100th of the set that she used to film a sex podcast appearance. That was what your -- your big moment of becoming a maxed out donor paid for like one letter in the sign behind her, as she filmed a sex podcast.

GLENN: Why would she --

STU: Oh, I love it.

GLENN: Why did they build the set for this sex podcast? Why would they do that?

STU: Because she wanted to do it in a hotel, apparently.

Now, this is something that people do, as you know. Like sometimes they don't -- you want to go get a separate studio. You don't want to go across town with all your people.

GLENN: You don't ever spend that kind of money. Ever! Nobody does that.

STU: No.

GLENN: Even -- they gave Harpo a million dollars. Did you know that?

STU: Yes, a million dollars to Harpo.

The -- that's Oprah's production company, because she produced for some of these events, apparently.

GLENN: Yeah, for what?

You know, I've produced interviews with him. With Trump, we didn't get paid. In fact, I would feel dirty, if I had gotten paid for that happen.

STU: Especially if it was something important to you.

GLENN: Right. Yeah, yeah.

STU: If you were saying democracy from Hitler. You would say, actually, we're donating all of our time.

GLENN: If I'm endorsing a candidate, like Donald Trump.

I mean, this -- I didn't make a financial contribution.

The money that this damn election cost me, is eye-bleed.

It's eye-bleed.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: But that was my -- and it was my choice.

I was like, well. If I want it done, I will have to pay for it. Let's go. Let's do it.

None of these people did. Beyonce.

STU: Yeah. I know. I love it. I love it. They all made a million dollars for walked on the stage.

STU: I love it so much.

I can't even describe how much I love the fact that these celebrities built the campaign out of all this money. I love it. Keep doing it.

There was a clip going around, which was, I don't know. A seven or eight-minute synopsis edited down of MSNBC's election night.

Which is very fun to watch, because there's this incredible optimism. Incredible optimism at the beginning. By the way, Rachel Maddow is the anchor of their election coverage apparently. It's incredible!

Like, she is an obvious conspiracy theorist. At the at least, you could say, she's a hard-core liberal nutjob.

Like, that is -- and no journalist.

GLENN: Imagine me, if I would have anchored the election night for Fox.

STU: Right. They would go crazy. They put Bret Baier in that role.

So, anyway, they are doing this thing.

And at one point, Joy Reid goes on this rant, that it was a perfect, flawless campaign.

And her evidence for this. She has Beyonce. She has the Swifties and the Beehive.

Like that's it! She stops.

Like that's a perfect campaign. The Swifties and the Beehive.

What RFK Jr. should do with the FDA and HHS on Day 1

Donald Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Glenn breaks down what he should do on Day 1 to rein in the corruption at the FDA. But should we be concerned that he will add in too much regulation? Glenn, Stu, and Glenn’s head researcher, Jason Buttrill, debate. Also, is this really just about making our food healthier, or is it also a fight against cronyism?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Jason, I know you're here to talk about UFOs and other crazy stuff.

But I want to continue this conversation.

And you did the research for a show that we did, on the FDA.

JASON: Crazy.

GLENN: It's crazy. Crazy. And I think this is the kind of stuff that I want RFK to dismantle. I want him to dismantle the money going back and forth from the drug companies, the revolving door, and Bush. Why would I think of him?

Trump is -- is doing this with big tech too. You work -- work for the government.

You are not going to work for big tech for ten years. Good. Same thing should be true with pharmaceutical companies. And good food.

And here's why. Froot Loops comes from the FDA. They say, we want to make a new product called Froot Loops. And we want to make some of them yellow. So we need. What is it? Yellow number five?

JASON: Sounds like a concentration chemical. Really, whatever it is.

GLENN: So yellow number five.

STU: Delicious concentration camp chemical.

GLENN: Right. So the FDA says, okay. You have to prove that yellow number five is good, is okay to put in.

They don't take a percentage of how many people have we said yellow number five is okay for? So if it's in everybody's food, that changes all the calculations. But forget about that.

We're only talking about Froot Loops.

So they say, you have to show us the study.

Now, think of global warming.

The food company goes to their group of known and trusted scientists.

And say, we need a study that shows yellow number five is safe.

And they're like, oh, we're going to do that study.

We're going to -- it's going to be fair and balanced and totally on the up and up.

STU: You seem skeptical.

GLENN: A little bit. Just like I am with studies that are paid for by the people who are going to benefit from that study.

It's not neutral

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The FDA is then given that study, after it comes back. And says. Yellow number five is phi fine.

They're given that study. And they -- so the FDA says, so the study.

You've got the scientists to approve. Uh-huh. And it was a really tough fight. They really dug deep. So okay. Good. We'll approve it. Give us. How much money was it? Do you remember?

JASON: Oh, it's insane. And it's per batch.

GLENN: Yeah. So it's not just -- yeah. We've proven it. So okay this for Froot Loops.

It's every time that they have to -- they make a new batch of Froot Loops. And they're pouring yellow number five in.

They have to apply for a new license for that batch.

Okay?

Well, wait. It's either good or it's not.

Why?

Let me ask you something: Why do you keep coming to me, and giving me all this money. You know what I mean?

Maybe some day, I can do something for you. You know. Maybe. Maybe. Hey, I have a job opening.

Maybe you guys want to come over here, and police things with us.

That's the problem. And that's what I hope they get rid of.

STU: So are you looking for the FDA to do more or less in this process?

GLENN: I'm looking for somebody that is neutral.

STU: Right.

But I'm asking specifically, the FDA. Which I guess in this theory. In this -- like concept here. We're calling FDA neutral. I don't know we necessarily agree with.

In theory, they're the neutral party here.

Which I think has all sorts of problems. So my -- my -- I think what you're describing is a funding mechanism. Right?

FDA is massive. It costs a lot of money. And they're paying for the FDA to continue to go.

GLENN: Half of -- half of the money from the FDA. Okay?

Half of their budget, comes from food and pharmaceutical companies.

STU: Right. Let's say, you stop that.

You cut the FDA in half.

That's the direction we're looking for. Less input from the FDA.

GLENN: Yeah. I want less FDA to the FDA. And I want an end to the revolving door and an obvious corruption that is coming from money.

GLENN: So when you say that a funding issue, that translated as a crony issue. This is everything that the left used to hate. Everything.

It's everything -- like, I'm a Libertarian, more than anything else.

I guess I'm Libertarian lite. So when I first heard about this.

I got the person that did the bulk of this research. Was one of the biggest hippies on our team. You know who I'm talking about.

GLENN: You know who it is. Don't smoke --

JASON: That one. The other big hippie. But I said, food. I don't give a crap. If I want to poison my body, I want to poison my body.

But when it got me, was when I saw the cronyism angle.

And that's why I don't get Libertarian on this. This is everything you used to be, about big government.

They are getting rich off of an alliance with a lot of these companies.

GLENN: And it appears as though science takes a back, backseat.

They're sitting in the back of the bus.

GLENN: The experts.

And you can apply this to everything that we hate now about big government. Anything else. The push for blah, blah, blah, for the progressive agenda right now. Where they say, well, the experts are telling us this.

Well, the experts are employed by the people pushing their poison! And they are paid directly to --

GLENN: If you understand why we have a problem with clients -- climate science.

Just take what you know about climate science. That this is all being done by the people who want this to be real.

Because they want -- they want the money to keep coming in.

You're not -- you're not denying the -- the planet is getting, you know -- is going to kill us all, within five minutes.

You're not getting any money if the study comes out and says, no, that's not true.

You're not getting money. So the scientists sometimes will come back with the results that the people paying for it, want.

JASON: This would be like, if Elon Musk wants to sell his EVs. And he produces this huge report, saying that the world is spontaneously going to combust, in just two years.

Unless you add here to his research, that his scientists did, and trust us.

It's great!

GLENN: And, by the way. And, by the way, the lithium battery study that I just did.

Fires don't start with lithium batteries. It's not a problem.

JASON: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: So the issue is, you believe these food companies are proving things that theoretically are not helpful.

That are harmful. Then they're producing these studies. And they're giving them to the FDA. And the FDA is just approving them.

GLENN: And the FDA is not -- you know, the FDA. You know, I'm sketchy on this one. You might be able to help me out on this. The FDA made the food pyramid. The food pyramid that we've all grown up. Saying this is absolutely right.

They designed that through the food companies.

STU: Okay. So --

GLENN: It should be through science.

And through knowing what is --

STU: So who is doing these studies, if the food companies aren't paying for them. Who is paying for them?

JASON: The food companies are.

STU: I'm saying, that's your vision of the future.

GLENN: I think there could be a tax on the food companies or pharmaceutical companies.

STU: So they would still be paying for them.

GLENN: They're still paying them.

But they're not picked the scientists. Like, the scientists at general foods say.

STU: So you want a larger role for the FDA. They're deciding --

GLENN: They're the regulator. They are the regulator. It should be them, to prove it's safer.

STU: Aren't you answering your questions why Libertarians don't like it?

You're arguing for a larger role for the FDA. That's why they don't like it.

JASON: Larger responsibility.

STU: Yeah. I'm on the side of, the FDA has nothing to do with this. I would much rather have the FDA basically shut down, and not have any role in this whatsoever. Now, that is -- it's an old school American view.

GLENN: No. I would be for that.

STU: I don't like government control of this stuff, or input. I think that's why Libertarians don't like it.

What they're doing now, if I'm understanding this correctly. Is that companies are basically on their own, to come up with signs that prove this.

And the FDA basically goes along with it.

GLENN: For money.

And jobs.

STU: Again, and half of their budget.

Other alternative to fund the half of the budget. Is taxpayers.

That's the other alternative.

GLENN: No. Or taxing.

Taxing the food companies. And the pharmaceuticals.

Okay?

You want this service.

STU: Either way. We're paying for it eventually.

We're paying for it in our food. And we're paying for it in our taxes.

Again, I could understand the problems with this.

And this, of course, is true. Right? Companies constantly produce science that helps themselves. It happens in global warming and everything else.

I just think that my -- my -- I'm concerned, here's my concern. Here's my concern.

I don't want the -- I'm from a conservative movement.

That doesn't want the federal government to make me healthy.

GLENN: I agree with that.

STU: I'm of a vision of conservatism, that doesn't want the federal government to make me anything.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: This is a line in the sand for me. And I know a lot of people don't care about it.

But I'm of the conservative movement that yells at Michael Bloomberg for getting rid of large sodas. That's me. That's 100 percent me.

I have seen Jason too much in Taco Bell to know that he is -- I know he's on my side on that part of it.

GLENN: I don't want the government to tell me what I can eat. What I can't eat.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: But I would like -- I would like a -- some science to say, hey.

Stu, not good.

And not from Monsanto. And not necessarily from the government, that wants to control everything.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, there should be a way to get neutral science. But we don't have that now.

And honestly --

STU: There's been a lot of neutral science produced about food coloring. A lot of it. And you can choose whether to like those studies.

There has been some that have some indications of negative aspects. There have been many, many, that have been like, it doesn't seem like there's much here.

But that being said, the government comes in. And if the government approves a study, is that now gospel?

I don't think that's what we want. I think what --

GLENN: Science -- science is always changing.

STU: Yeah. I mean, it's not. Of course.

But our understanding of it --

GLENN: Yes. Thank you, our understanding.

STU: Science doesn't change.

GLENN: But, you know, I am concerned. Because, look, this is a guy, RFK, who has a very strong opinion on a lot of things.

And it's not my disagreement within this that, well, scientific consensus says X, Y, and Z, therefore he's bad. That's not what my belief is at all.

He has in his head, his own consensus. And he is going to try -- I believe, that he is going to apply his mental consensus over a lot of things that I don't necessarily want changed. I want to make the decisions for myself.

And as long as we live in a world. Where if what he winds up doing with this role, hey, you can spill raw milk all over the place. I'm not going to be concerned about it at all.

GLENN: Okay. So here's the thing.
I've learned this. Gosh, 50 years ago, 40 years ago.

It's never a problem, if you're selling a Volkswagen, and the client buys it.

And you've paid for a Volkswagen.

And it runs like a Rolls-Royce.

STU: No. It's great.

GLENN: If you buy a Rolls-Royce and it runs like a Volkswagen. There's hell to be paid. So what he's selling us, his Rolls-Royce that he is selling us right now, is we're going to cut regulation.

We're going to get out and make things your choice. And give you the transparency that you need to make good choices. But we're not going to force anybody to do anything.

Okay?

That's the Rolls-Royce, that he's promising. If he starts to run the Volkswagen way, which is more federal regulation, less choice, then there will be hell to be paid.

Because you're not -- that's not what you're selling us right now.

STU: Yeah. Look, I -- he's going to do some things I'm really going to like. I'm sure of it.

JASON: I think it's baby steps. Like, I would love to get rid of the FDA as well.

You know me. I would love to dismantle the bureaucracy. But let's take baby steps. Let's at least start with, let's not them collude with big food, Big Pharma, and all that.

Make a ton of money off of our expense. I'll just start there.

GLENN: I actually think -- I mean, he has said himself, the FDA should be shut down. And he said, 90 percent of it should be shut down immediately. I'm all for that. I don't need a baby step. I'm ready.

Okay. Let's do that. You know, let's just know what we're -- what we're trying to do here is to make the government accountable to the people, and giving the people their own rights back, that we stupidly gave to the federal government.