Dan Bongino (0:02)

Dan Bongino. I owe you. Who owes who? You owe me. I owe you. There's no money. The Dan Bongino Show. Anything run by liberals will be run into the ground, burned, stepped on gasoline, poured on it, and burned again. Get ready to hear the truth about America. They're arguing about things and debating how quickly they can deconstruct the greatest country in the history of mankind and all of the ideas and norms that have gotten us here On a show that's not, not immune to the facts. With your host, Dan Bongino. All right, welcome to the Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino. Producer Joe, how are you today, man? I'm hanging in there, Dan. Hanging in there. Hey, we're in the hurricane zone down here, so please say a prayer for all of us. Gosh, I hope it doesn't go into the Gulf Coast. I hope it just goes, you know, Houston doesn't need any more tragedy right now and no one in the Gulf Coast, Louisiana either. I hope this thing just Hurricane Irma just hooks out into the Atlantic and disappears because we're. There's gas lines already down here in Florida where I am in Palm City, folks. My wife just got back from the gas station, so I'm gonna go fill up as well after the show and start getting, finalizing my preparation plan. So prayers would be appreciated. All right, let me dig right in. So, daca folks, listen, the DACA thing that's coming out today, deferred action on Childhood arrivals. A simple question for liberals. Are we a country of laws or not? I get it. You want to make this about immigration, but do you understand the conservatives, this is not about immigration. Immigration is an issue we can solve. Immigration, it's not a difficult one to solve either. What are our needs? Where can we find those needs around the world? Do people coming here from other places around the world fit our economic growth models? You know, you could certainly have a component of it for, you know, for whatever international tragedies, wherever you wish to implement into the law. But immigration is a separate issue from daca. DACA is a constitutional issue and a rule of law issue. President Barack Obama, when he was the president, United States clearly said that DACA, which Trump is is set to at 11 o'clock today. I got FOX News on right now through his attorney general. They're going to discontinue daca. The deferred action on Childhood arrivals was an unconstitutional legal program using Barack Obama's own words, himself, his executive action, Barack Obama, which gave amnesty to people who were brought here when they were kids, who are not kids anymore. Folks, this is for. We're talking about people in their 20s who are now adults who were brought here illegally. They were given an exemption from the law. There's no disputing that. That's just a fact. Okay, now I just want to read to you quick before I move on, because I'm not for this program. You want to fix the legal immigration process. Fix it. But we are a country of laws. Laws have to matter. I mean, just one quick thing on this. We don't get the pick and choose laws. Right. Like, I get it. You don't like daca. I understand that. Or you do like daca, whatever it may be, if you happen to be a family of illegal immigrants, I get it. It benefits you to stay. I have no doubt about this. Greatest country on earth. I'm glad you want to be here. I'm not glad how you did it, but I'm glad people want to come here. But I don't like a lot of laws. I don't get to ignore them. I think jaywalking is really dumb. I think Obamacare is even worse. I hate speed limits. Arma Cost hates speed limits. I mean, so do I, by the way. I, I totally get it, but the idea of a constitutional republic is that we elect representatives in a democratic process and those representatives vote on a bunch of laws which the executive, the President, United States enforces. We don't get to throw that out the wind. Here's Barack Obama's own words on this. He said on giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, even if you were brought here when you were kids, he said, with respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, which is what he did, by the way. That's just not the case because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. Congress passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress. They are very clear in terms of how we enforce our immigration system that for me to simply do executive order, ignore those congressional mandates, would not conform with my appropriate role as president. But that's what he did. So again, that is the most liberal president we've had in office since. Since what, fdr, Since Jimmy Carter, Ever, ever saying that he can't do it. And he did it anyway. Folks, this is a rule of law issue. If we, I mean, if I don't understand, like liberals argument about Obamacare, even though it stinks and is bankrupting and a number of Americans is that you have to follow the law, even though the law stinks and is actually hurting you, because that law is the law. It was passed, and that's what we do here. But when it comes to immigration, they make the exact argument. When it comes to immigrants, they say, well, we know you don't like the law, and you may be impacted by it, but because you don't like it, we're going to choose to ignore this one, and we're going to support that in illegal, uh, unconstitutional executive action by Barack Obama. It doesn't make sense, folks. I'm sorry. It makes no sense at all. All right, I got a lot of stories to get through, so I'm gonna move on. Um, I got an email yesterday, and I've been intentionally avoiding this topic because it's a tough one to talk about. And, you know, forgive me, but given the sensitivities of what happened at Hurricane Harvey and what's gonna happen with us down here, hopefully not. But, you know, it looks like Hurricane Irma down here in Florida. Someone sent me an email about price gouging. He said, you know, Dan, you know, you always trust the economic stuff. I'd love to hear your take on. On price gouging. In other words, the idea that people can sell a bottle of water for $99 or something in Hurricane Harvey, It's a big deal. It's an emotional topic, rightfully so. People see it as a moral and ethical issue as well as a legal one. Now, the Texas government is. Has a bunch of policies and on the books against price gouging. You could be put in jail for doing it. And I've gotten a couple emails on this where people have said to me, well, you know, there's an economic side to this and a moral and ethical one. I'm not going to spend too much time on it. But here's my opinion. I don't think the government has a role in price gouging. I don't. I'm not going to be a hypocrite on this. I believe in limited government, and I believe if, you know, if a guy wants to be. Or a woman wants to be a jerk and they want to charge you $99 for, you know, a case of water, then don't buy it. I mean, you know, we have to be prepared. Anyway, now I get it. But I just want to say to you, from a moral or ethical pursuit, legally, I have nothing more to say on the legal side other than I don't think laws are going to help that. Okay, now, on the moral and ethical side, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Now, a price is unquestionably a signal, Joe. When you're selling a case of water for $100, that signals something. You know what that signals? Scarcity. That means there's not a lot of water around. Someone saw that signal had got a price of water cheaply. Maybe they, you know, bought a couple cases in an in Oklahoma and drove down to Texas or whatever it may be to make a few. Make a few beans. But the moral and ethical component to that's a troubling one. I mean, I don't think it's a great idea, folks, to charge people $99 who are struggling. There are people right now not only not trying to make revenue off of a national tragedy through gouging prices of products, they got a hand, they got a hold of. There are people donating their own money, in other words, Joe, making less revenue to help people out in Hurricane Harvey, including my wife and I, who've made a couple of donations. Now, you got people like, you know, J.J. watt of the Houston Texans was the defensive end, you know, raising 18, 20 million dollars. You have people giving money. So from a moral and ethical perspective, I think it's pathetic. I'll be honest. I think you're kind of a jerk. Yeah, of course, the economics of it makes sense. Yeah, it's scarce. We're bringing in water. People wouldn't have bought it otherwise. All right, well, great, fine. So the economics of a work, that doesn't mean the morals or ethics of it work. You get my point, Joe? You know, just because you can make a bean off it doesn't mean you should. Sometimes there's, you know, maybe you should just take a step back at some point and say, you know what? Maybe it's just time to do the right thing instead of the economically feasible one. So I appreciate the question. There's no question about the economics of it. It does signal scarcity. And there's a debate about, well, if we don't allow people to price gouge and the water wouldn't show up, I don't know, I think that's selling human beings short. I think what you're saying there is kind of strange. Listen, there's no one more passionate about economics than me, but somehow insisting that if I can't make $98, I'd say the, you know, say the thing the bottle of water cost me, you know, whatever 10 bucks I charge $99. So saying that, oh, I'm not going to show up unless I can make 89, 90 bucks on a case of water is ridiculous. People are already giving some of their own money to do that. So I don't buy any of that. I think, yeah. Someone just said to me on Facebook live, you have the, you know, you have the right to be stupid. And, you know, it's a dumb thing to do, but I don't think there's legal remedies for this. I think, again, getting the government involved in all of this is always going to mess things up. They just don't have the incentive to do things right. All right. There was a piece I saw this morning on Truth Revolt, which really, really got under my skin by Daniel Greenfield. It's a really good piece, and it's about the growing use of these blacklists for conservative groups. Hey, folks, this is a big deal, a topic Joe and I have addressed repeatedly on the show. And the problem I'm having with this, besides the obvious, let's describe what it is first. It's the, the use, the growing use of organizations like that, that hack group grab your wallet that wants to boycott Trump and any business affiliated with Trump Southern Poverty Law center, which is labeling people hate groups if they have political disagreements with them. Another hack group, by the way, Greenfield addresses another group in their color of Change. This group, color of Change, is now doing the same thing. They're going after people that don't agree with their political agenda and they're putting them on these blacklists and they're reaching out to corporate sponsors and people they may do business with and say, put these people on a blacklist, folks. This is really troubling because as I expressed in a prior episode, this is going to create a schism in two completely alternate economies. And I don't think the left understands that this cannot possibly work out for them in the end because they don't have the customers. They don't have the customers. The majority of people in America are conservative, libertarian, Republican or moderate Democrats. They don't support the radical agenda of the left. So if your business model for boycotting is we're going to start groups that are going to boycott businesses that do business with companies that are largely conservative Republican or moderate Democrat, you have nowhere to go. Because what's going to happen, Joe, is you're going to alienate the consumer base of the United States is spending the money in the first place. So the point Greenfield makes, which is a good one, and I can't emphasize to you in strongly enough and strong enough terms. Here is anybody who does business with these boycotting terms should be boycotted themselves, folks. It's the only way to fight back. Or boycotts dumb? Absolutely. Are boycotts economically ridiculous, absurd and counterproductive at times? Absolutely. But if you are a company that pulls advertising or stops doing business because of a Southern Poverty Law center hate label, disingenuous label of a hate group on someone, then that company should be boycotted by us too. There is no, there's no other way. And what you're going to see, folks, is you're going to see a schism and you're going to see an alternate economy develop. I mean, it's what happened with Fox News. I used this story before when a Fox News executive came down to speak at the Secret Service training center at the graduation and brought up the point that Fox News came about because people understood that, you know, they weren't a large swath of America wasn't being served by mainstream media. Far left news. The same thing's going to happen in the future. Google stops, starts boycotting whatever companies that, that support traditional biblical values because the Southern Poverty Law center has them on a hate group list. They're going to, eventually they're going to find another path. There's going to be another path and it's, what's going to happen is what's going to happen with, what's happening now with the mainstream media is they're going to be alienated and they're going to be bankrupted. Like the New York Times, the Washington Post and all these other people are, they're making a little bit of money now, but they're having a really hard time sustaining a liberal only business model. There's a reason Fox News is still number one and these other places are struggling. I mean MSNBC has made a slight comeback, but CNN's still hurting and we're talking long term profitability. There's just no way. You cannot alienate 50% of America by putting everybody on a blacklist who doesn' agree with you. It's ridiculous. All right, got a couple other doozies to get to here, so stick with me here. Today's show brought to you by buddies at my Patriot Supply. Folks, this is the if there was ever a time to be prepared and consider preparedness, food supply, water supply, a generator, this is the time. We've seen what happens. This is really critical that you be prepared. I strongly encourage you to go to preparewithdan.com preparewithdan.com and our friends at my Patriot Supply will sell you one month supply of emergency food. It stays good for 25 years, folks. It's better to have it, not not need it, then need it, not have it. We have these crazy North Koreans threatening electromagnetic pulse attack. Now go pick up your one month supply of emergency food today at preparewithdan.com it's only $99. It's breakfast, lunch and dinner. They'll send it right to your house. It's easy to store. Better to have it, not need it, then need it, not have it. You only need water to prepare it. It's available for 99 now at preparewithdan.com Please go there today. All right. I saw an article at Salon which I put in yesterday's show notes@bongino.com if you want to check it out, which is, I mean, this is just mind blowing. The author is Anna Schiavone and it's a fascinating piece about the left's use of, growing use of identity politics and how it's basically destroying the Democrat party. Now, Salon is a far left liberal website. I was stunned reading this piece. It came in from, from a listener because, Joe, this is all the left has. And when far left websites start to acknowledge that they're growing use of identity politics, which, in case you don't know what the term means, most of you do. But it's the, it's the use of the, it's the, it's the labels that's the racist misogynist. Anytime you disagree with the left, they call you a, you know, racist misogynist, a xenophobe, a homophobe, a transphobe, phobophob, and it's the ist, whatever. They just make this stuff up. But the strategy and how they came to identity politics was it largely had to do with the growth in critical theory. Now from a big umbrella view here, critical theory was the idea that the, you know, the, the white patriarchal power structure is. The white male power structure in the United States is the problem. This has to be fought at all costs. Which led to an explosive growth in identity politics or the idea that if you are anyone outside of the white patriarchal power structure, you're being victimized by someone and therefore we can exploit that victimization for political gain. That makes sense, kind of sums it up. We're going to put you in a group before the Democrat Party. You're going to be a black voter, Hispanic voter, you're going to be a union voter. And we're going to use that as A weapon. And we're going to get those groups to believe that Republicans and conservatives hate them and therefore they'll vote for us by default. This policy has been a total loser, and liberals are starting to wake up. And he makes four or five really solid points, by the way. Again, this is a liberal saying this about why there is no future in calling conservatives racists, in calling conservatives homophobes and transphobes and xenophobes at every opportunity. And I'll go through some of them quickly because they're really good points. He says, listen, what this in effect does is it puts some cultures on a pedestal, and instead of. It doesn't address politics and policies or inequality through the legislative process, it just addresses it through victimization. In other words, it says, well, you know, forget about. Here's a quick way to sum this up, Joe. If you're in a specific victim class they want to use, like you happen to be a Hispanic voter who's an immigrant, your needs are prioritized over, say, a white struggling family in, you know, a mountainous region of Pennsylvania that's having a tough time getting by, too, in other words. The point, Joe, is poverty is poverty. No one's saying racism doesn't exist. But when you're living in poverty, I assure you, skin color alone is not going to get you your next meal. So he says the problem is it privileges some cultures over others while it eliminates. And it's basically blames that for the. For inequality without addressing real problems that could affect people who don't fit in that victim class. Which is a really good point. Point number two. He brings up, Joe, that economics is subjugated, that the only thing identity politics focuses on, because it has to, is winning over people's hearts and minds by selling them that they're in a victim class. But it doesn't focus on any substantial policy initiatives going forward because you can't sell policy initiatives. If your only answer to every question is that white men did this to you, then there is no, that's the cause of all your problems. There can't be a policy fight there. The policy fight has to be an inequality fight. And the inequality is due clearly to racism, homophobia, transphobia. And it's a hearts and minds battle. You get what I'm saying, Joe? Because you're blaming it on what's in people's heads, not what they're doing. They're all racist. That's why. That's why you're in the condition you're in. There's no cure for that. There's no legislative cure for racism. That's the problem. There's no. There's no end game to identity politics. It can't end in any kind of a substantial strategic win for you. Here's a good one that I hadn't considered. Frankly, it kind of comes out of sprouts out of the second one I just addressed. Identity politics requires you to be a mind reader. I mean, think about it, Joe. If everybody's a racist and a transphobe and a homophobe and a xenophobe, then how do you know that? Exactly. I mean, seriously, like I think about it, it requires you to be a mind reader, which absolutely breeds discontent. Because mind reading and suggesting somehow, tacitly or openly, that every conservative or Republican is a racist or doesn't like immigrants or doesn't like people who are gay, requires you to get in their head, which you can't do. Wait, Joe, is that a mystery to anyone? There are no mind readers out there, right? I mean, listen, I don't know about those who believe in psychics. That's to me. I'm sorry. I don't mean offend them. It's all crap. I. Believe me, that's not. That's not. Don't waste your time on that garbage. It's all junk. I remember being a federal agent, seeing some of them in the scams they were involved in. It was ridiculous, all right? There's no such thing. So when you insist that you can be, in fact, a mind reader, and you know that all Republicans are racist, you are breeding what, Joe? You're breeding a counter reaction. The counter reaction is, wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm. I'm not a racist. Now you're mad. Yeah. And that counter reaction is you want to fight back. The hands go up, boom, boom, boom. You're ready to fight. You're ready to go for the cross. You're ready to shoot a double. We did a little Americana from the Mount last night, my jiu jitsu class, which was nice of Harlan to come in. The instructor, I appreciate that, came in on Labor Day. You want to fight back. Because you're saying the same thing, Joe. You're saying, wait, this guy can't read my mind. This woman, she. He doesn't hear. She doesn't know what's in my head. It naturally breeds content contempt to the other side. And finally, separation, or insisting on separation into groups. In other words, you're black. Republicans hate you. You're Hispanic, Republicans hate you. You're trans, Republicans hate You, you're a homosexual. Republicans hate you. You're an immigrant. Republicans hate you. You separating people into those groups and insisting the other side hates them while insisting on reading their minds in the process breeds separation. Joe, on the quote, and I hate to use these air quotes here, but other side, you create another side by separating people into sides. So eventually what you get is you get a side of people who are claiming to have their minds read, who are really pissed off about being called ISTA is and phobophobes and homophobes and transphobes, and you put them in the other side and you actually create a counter reaction by creating your own separation into groups. Is camp possibly work? There's no future in this. There's a good quote. He ends this up with, I want to move on. I got some really juicy stuff today. There's another blame game going on for the Houston Hurricane Harvey, which is just, you know, these people don't want to do research or data. But he says acknowledgement and credit based on identity alone, there is no end to it. It becomes a substitute for reward in the capitalist sphere, which is disconnected to identity. In other words, when you're obsessed with identity as the cause and solution to all your problems, there is no relationship to the real world there. Again, there's no fix in the free market for that. If every single failure is going to be blamed on some racist or xenophobic, there's no reason for you, Joe, to pursue any kind of free market capitalist endeavor because you're always going to lose. Why? Because you're a victim of the white patriarchal power structure. There's no winning. You're always going to lose. The system's rigs, it's systemic. You have no chance. It's all over. Despite all of the evidence, by the way, of people out there who have succeeded despite great odds. White, black, Hispanic or other gay, straight, doesn't matter. You don't want that evidence. When you separate and isolate yourself into a class of people, Black American, Hispanic American, you believe the other side has victimized you. You're believing the propaganda of liberals out there then, Joe, really, when you think about it, there's absolutely no reason to pursue any kind of a solution because you're always going to lose. There's no. I mean, there's no fix. You get what I'm saying? There's just no fix on this. All right. I thought it was a good piece. It's in yesterday's show notes@bongino.com It is in Salon. I Hate giving them the clicks. I get it. It is a website that writes some really kooky stuff. But hey, listen, I give them credit for publishing it. It's a pretty damning piece on where they're going with this. All right, another interesting story sent in from a reader which is, you know, right up, right up my alley here from the American Thinker. It's a piece about the. I'm going to tie this into another piece of the Daily Signal, too. I like to kind of tie stories together. It's a piece about the growing use of local, local taxes that are not being factored into economic models. Models like the Census Bureau put to weigh the tax burden. It's simply stated, Joe, it's this. There are studies that study the effect of, say, tax, the tax rate in the state, a tax rate on people leaving the state. Tax rate and economic activity aren't factoring in all the taxes. Some of the taxes that are left out are the big ones. Property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes. And I don't know about you, but if you're in Florida, Florida is. We don't have an income tax down here, thank God. But we have property taxes, we have sales taxes and we have gas taxes. And they can add up. So this piece in the Thinker is a really, really good piece. It talks about when you look at the tax burden per person. In other words, Joe, forget about the distinctions, federal, state, local, just the amount of money you're paying in taxes per person. Unsurprisingly, here are the states right now in the top five. Joe, there's a common denominator here, and you're going to tell me what it is. We're done by these states, okay? It's not going to be hard to figure out. You don't need Jay's abacus. But check this out. The tax burden per person in these states are the highest in order, the highest. New Jersey, dominated by a particular brand of politics. Number two, Connecticut. Number three, Vermont. Number four, New York, Number five, Illinois. Now, Joe, what are those five states have in common with their politics? It's coming into focus. It's coming by Democrats. Oh, there you go. Bingo. Run by Democrats. Now, I know some of our liberal listeners will say, well, some of them have, some of them have Republican governors. They do. Illinois does. New Jersey does. Vermont right now. So, yeah, I get that. But the states are dominated clearly by blue politics at the state, local and even the federal level. There's no question about that. You can have a Republican governor, but if you can't do anything because of a Democrat supermajority like you have in Illinois. It doesn't. Yeah, Merrill, exactly. Maryland. It's a good point. Larry Hogan, who's a Republican governor in Maryland, but is is being destroyed by a state House, the House of Delegates and the state Senate, which is run overwhelmingly by Democrats. The tax burden there is tremendous. Now the piece is really good because it talks about the tax burden and how this most of the tax burden at the state level is being is being delegated to things like paying off pensions and economic growth is suffering. Now, I bring this piece up only because I saw another piece this morning at the Daily Signal, which is a really good one, talking about how even despite the Republican Party's massive failures lately on Obamacare, this DACA thing where they can't seem to get their act together, they're still dominating Joe. They are at a 95 year high GOP state dominance today. Have a trifecta, as the Daily Signal piece calls. And I'll put all these pieces at the show notes available bongino.com that's bongino.com you want to join my email list? I will email you. These articles are all really good. I pick a few doozies every day. They have a trifecta in 26 states. Now, Republicans, you know what the trifecta is? It's when they have a Republican governor, Republican state Senate and Republican House of Representatives or House of Delegates. So they have a trifecta, the GOP now in 26 states and they had a number in here I couldn't believe. I'm underlining it twice. So don't forget this one. Right. A thousand people a day are leaving overwhelmingly blue states dominated by Democrat politics for red states. Now, folks, again, in some limited circles, we would call this a clue that something's going on. The fact that I'm bringing this up in light of the tax argument now because Trump and the Republican Congress and Senate are going to push, from what I'm hearing, a pretty solid initiative on taxes. I got another story on this in a minute, but this is my whole point. Like liberals talk about higher taxes, but they don't live that way. People are evacuating these states in droves. Where the tax burden is the highest, ladies and gentlemen, is where people are leaving. So I'm just going to leave you with this to our liberal listeners because this is pretty simple. If you believe in what you're saying and you believe paying higher taxes is a public good that's going to lead to a better life for you and your children. If you really sincerely believe that, and I'm not messing around with you, this is a serious question. Why are you evacuating your states? No, I mean I'm, I'm really serious. I'm not messing with you. If you're a liberal listening to this show for the first time, it's a deadly serious question. Why are you not only evacuating your state where you think the taxes, where the taxes are highest, even though you think taxes are a great thing, why are you then moving to states where the taxes are noticeably lower? Florida, Texas, Nevada. Why? What's happening there? Where is the disconnect? The disconnect is this. You're just hypocrites. You don't really mean that. You don't really believe taxes are a good thing. If you did, a thousand people a day, Joe, would be leaving from red states into blue states, not vice versa. It's not happening. People are evacuating your states and droves a thousand people a day. There is an. And the point of the Daily Signal piece is this, that the reason the GOP is at a 95 year peak in power right now, the reason they're at this peak in power is precisely because people are leaving these crap run states with these high taxes, these crap Democrat majorities and are leaving for states where government gets out of their way. And as the population in these states increases, Joe, so does the voting power of people in these states. As the voting power of people in these states increase, so does their number of House of Representatives in the Congress. And also they're starting to. What's happening is the power in these blue states is ebbing because they're losing population. This is why the House of Representatives right now in the United States government is dominated by Republicans. Because outside of a few population centers in California, New York and Illinois, you have nothing. The whole country has left you behind. You are being absolutely left behind. You, you win 90 to 10 in New York City because all the liberals live there and in Los Angeles and everywhere else, you're losing 60, 40, because as liberals, Joe, liberals still to start to evacuate liberal states along with conservatives, they're moving the red states and they're being outvoted everywhere there. You can't win. There is no future in this. There is no future in this tax and spend ideology. None. Zero. Now, I did see one piece in the Journal that I was a little disturbed by because it's written by an op ed writer and a and a thought leader that I really appreciate. John Cochran, who does Some good work. But he's suggesting that with this tax bait that we should tax debate, we should consider a vat. And he brings up some really good points. Just quickly on this topic because I got another story I really want to get to because it just goes to show you how liberals make stuff up. Again, a Washington Post piece we got at the Bunk, but he makes a suggestion that we should start to consider a VAT evaluated tax. Ladies and gentlemen, please, please, I'm begging you. This is an atrocious idea. Evaluated tax. Now on the. Because I give you the pros and cons, you're all grown adults, you can figure out on your own what you want to support. Not support. I'm not here to lecture you. I'm just here to give you information you do with what you want. He brings up some very good points about the tax go down which I absolutely agree on. Those points are this, Joe, when you have an income tax, a tax on work, the money you earn, very simple. You have to have a corporate tax and you have to have a capital gains tax as well. Now why is that a corporate tax? Obviously being a tax on corporate revenue, a capital gains tax being a tax basically on investments on capital. Right. Which are a form of capital. Why do you need the other two if you have an income tax? Well, it's very simple, Joe. I mean, if you have an income tax and you don't have a corporate tax, what are people going to do? They're going to incorporate. In other words, Dan Bongino is going to become Dan Bongino Inc. Which I'm not right now. I'm a paid salaried employee of Conservative Review. But if there was, say, let's say they did this. So Cochran's point is a valid one. If we have an income tax, we have to have the other two. If we didn't and there was an income tax, I would say to Conservative Review, hey guys, tell you what, I'm going to become an independent business, Dan Bongino Inc. And you need to pay Dan Bongino Inc. Rather than paying Dan Bongino the Social Security number. Makes sense, Joe. Rather than paying me the individual, you'll pay a Tax identification number for a corporation, which is. Joe, Just me, but it's me Incorporated. Does that make sense? Yeah. So Dan Bongino Inc. And I'd be a Tax identification Number rather than a Social Security number. What would happen then if the tax rate for corporate taxes was zero? I don't pay taxes at all. So when you have an income tax you need a corporate tax. You also need a capital gains tax. This gets a little more complicated. When I say need, I mean the government needs it to raise revenue. I personally don't care if all these taxes go away. I'm just giving you the economics of it from a cash flow perspective to the government. You also need a capital gains tax. Because if there was an income tax with no capital gains tax tax, most people in a corporate environment, Joe, would just take their salary then as stock options or carried interest, which would be taxed under a capital gains tax, which would be zero. Which would mean what, Joe? They pay no taxes. So the point of the. That point is. He's not wrong there. When he says if you have an income tax, you need a corporate tax, you need a capital gains tax. He's not wrong. The problem is, the solution I think is a terrible one. He suggests maybe it's time to consider a value added tax, which is basically, folks, a national sales tax levied at every level of production, every company that adds value to the value chain. So when you produce a computer, the company that produces the glass, that the chips, at every level of production, they will pay a tax based on how much value they added for the computer. The problem with the value added tax and why this is a atrocious idea, a really bad idea I don't think you should ever support, and I'll give you the idea you should support a bit, I'm not going to leave you hanging here, but that I think is a much better idea. The reason a value added tax is a bad idea is because it's hidden, folks. The tax at every level of production is hidden into the final product. So although you can comprehend what the VAT's going to be, if you see it on a sales receipt, you're really going to have a tough time breaking down. What it's basically a hidden tax. And the old joke about value added taxes is, you know, uh, Republicans love them because Republicans would love it because it's efficient and Democrats love it because it raises boatloads of money. It raises boatloads of money because you don't really understand how much you're paying in the end. It's built in at every level and it's hidden at the sub levels of production. So in other words, if you just see a sales receipt at the end for a computer and you think you paid a 30, $40 tax, Joe, that tax built in at other levels of production really could have been something closer to 140. So Democrats love it because you Just don't know how much tax you're paying. You know, when you. What's the difference between that and income tax? When you get your pay stub, you can see it and you're like, oh man, this really stinks. Which reminds me, I gotta pay you. Send them my quarterlies today. Taxes, when you're writing that check, it really stinks. When the tax is hidden, you can raise more money. They love it. This is a really bad idea. The VAT's going to go up. It's a really bad idea for a national sales tax. I like the idea of a flat tax or a fair tax. A flat tax would be an across the board rate. That's across the board, Joe. You do a 15% income, 15% capital gains, 15% corporate. Good to go. Pretty simple. I think a fair tax is an even better idea. The problem is we just don't have the votes right now to get it through fair taxes. Basically, again, a, A not a national sales tax in a different respect. At the end point of consumption, with a, with a prebate based on the poverty level. It also gets rid of the income tax. But both better ideas than the value added tax. Because remember the value added tax, the difference between that and a fair tax is the value added tax goes into every single level of production and goes up and up and up over time, as we've seen. And I'm pretty convinced if you get a vat, a value added tax, you're also going to get a value added tax plus an income tax. All right, this last story is another. This one get really gets to me because it just goes to show you again how liberals cannot stop. They just can't stop with the narratives when they lose the narrative. I mean, this is a national tragedy. Hurricane Harvey and potentially Irma coming my way. And liberals are not obsessed with helping. Not all of them, but especially the media ones. They're obsessed, Joe, with the narrative. In other words, they have to tell a story which strategically benefits them. Now, yesterday I covered that how they were blaming it on Houston zoning laws, which is crap. But today they're moving it now that the zoning and climate change and all these other false liberal narratives, you know, climate change caused Harvey zoning laws cause Harvey, they're moving on to new narratives they think could benefit them. All right, before I get to that, today's show, also brought to you by our buddies at Brick House Nutrition, they have a great product out there. Dawn at the dusk, I said to my wife, thank God I got this stuff right now, because, you know, with the coffee. It's hard to. One of the things about hurricanes, you lose power. We did. I remember up in Maryland it was really rough and you can't make coffee and I get caffeine headaches like you wouldn't believe. My head's going to explode. So I got thrown to dust. They sent me a couple bottles of it. It's great stuff. It's a 10 hour long energy product. It won't give you the highs and lows of other energy products. I hate that you have one of these energy drinks or a cup of coffee and a few hours later you need another one because you hit a high and then you hit a low and you can't get up. This stuff is, it lasts for 10 hours. It's time released. It's really terrific. My wife loves it. She does it before her yoga. She takes the. It's a pill. It's really terrific. It works great. I've get, I get tons of positive email about this product. Go check it out. Brickhouse nutrition.com dan that's brickhouse nutrition.com dan pick up a product at dawn to dusk. Crossfitters, cops, military guys, working moms and dads. Give it a shot. Give you a nice mood elevation throughout the day to get you through those long days. Brickhouse nutrition.com dan go check it out today. All right, so I saw this doozy at Cato, this piece and it exposes the Washington Post, which is now moving on to another narrative. So first it was climate change. Second it was zoning. Now Joe, this is the title of the piece, by the way. They're blaming now Hurricane Harvey's damage on Houston's quote, wild west growth. And now it's. They're blaming the building codes. It's the building codes that did it. Climate change did it. Ah, climate change. Zoning did it. Ah, zoning did it. Now building codes. This is the new one. I'm telling you, it never ends. Instead of like, you know what, we can worry about this stuff later, let's worry about fixing it now. Nope, nope. Liberals need this narrative at all times. So building codes, meaning this, Meaning if the liberals love control, control is their thing. They want control of the economy. That's why they tried to advance the climate change narrative. Control of the economy through carbon taxes. Basically being able to tax a business for using energy, which Joe, every single business does. So when the climate change narrative failed, they went right over to zoning because zoning allows them to control who can build what and where they love. Liberals love, love zoning. Sadly, some Republicans too do. Do as well. And I don't get that now they're going to building codes, because building codes are another way of instituting de facto control of the private economy. What people can build and how they can build it is going to be up to the government. Now, I'm going to give you the evidence on this because, and I want to be clear, I'm not totally knocking the Washington Post piece. I'm upset that they. They seem to jump to a conclusion without the evidence. The Cato piece, which is done, which is more responsible, and it'll be in the show notes today, basically addresses this and says, hey, did Houston is the building codes basically have anything to do with the damage in Harvey afterwards? So it puts out two studies. Here's. I found this really interesting. Here's the. Here's the. Here's the pro and here's the con. Okay? A University of Georgia economists looked at this. Hey, the building codes work, right? And he basically says, no, he said, what happens with building codes is there's a race to the bottom here. In other words, Joe, companies that, say, build homes according to a building code mandated by the locality or the state, like we have. And the reason I'm bringing this up is we have really strict building codes in Florida for hurricanes. But he says what happens is you get a race to the bottom, that builders who build according to the code will wind up not worrying about the sturdiness of the structure they're building, but just meeting the code requirements, even if the code requirements don't lead to a sturdy building. You get what I'm saying, Joe? In other words, like insert A to B, and if it's not done this way, we're gonna find you. Even if it's done in a shoddy fashion, they're gonna do it because that's what the building code says. So he says, no, it doesn't really lead to stronger structures. And you can check out the study yourself. It's in the Cato piece. Uh, but I thought that was interesting, and I think it. It. It shows how government doesn't always have the answers. And one quick thing on this. I think there's something to this. Again, I'm here to give you the evidence, not jump to conclusions like the Washington Post, who are allegedly journalists, by the way. I live near Stewart. Stewart's off the water down here in Florida. I live in Palm City, but it's near Stewart, and my wife and I are always fascinated. We go down to a farmer's market once in a while. And Joe, right off the Water in Florida. I mean, like ground zero for hurricane impacts. There are structures there, downtown Stewart, that have been there for 80 years. Yeah, I'm not, Listen, I'm not saying that maybe it was just an isolated incident. Maybe just that one house was built really well. Maybe that carpenter had some kind of inner knowledge of the angles of the woodwork, whatever it may be. But I remember seeing that thinking, gosh, they must have known something. The government doesn't always have the answers. Also, one more thing. When we were moving down here, we were looking at some homes and, and people here. People the. Down here. Most of the homes are CBS concrete block construction here. Some of the older homes are still built out of wood. And I remember a real estate guy telling me that, look, these wood homes are great in a hurricane because they sway more than the concrete block ones. So I think there's some pros and cons. Here's the con side though, that these things do work because I don't, I don't like government involvement. I think you want to build a home that's hurricane resistant. Find a builder who builds hurricane resistant homes. But Florida, we have a really strict code down here. And the. What is it? National center for Atmospheric Research, University of Pennsylvania and Austin College did a study on a 2001 Florida code. After Hurricane Andrew in 1992, they instituted a strict building code. My house was built according to that code. We have concrete block everywhere. I mean, my house is like a fortress, right? And they found wind damages were far less in buildings built according to the code. And its savings from the reduced damages were greater than the costs of an. Of. Of building according to the new code. So in other words, Joe, if building a house according to the new 2001 code cost you $10,000 more that over time that would. You were going to save for far more and far less wind damage, according to the code. So there's a bit of conflicting data. My beef with, this is, my beef with the media. This is, I mean, like, why is he talking about building codes? One, I love economics and I love wonky stories like this, but this is more of a story about the media. How the media, Washington Post, in this case specifically, immediately jumps to a narrative because they have a liberal political agenda. The liberal agenda is they love the government telling people what they can build and where they can build it because they always crave control, but they won't give you the data like other more responsible outfits like Cato are. So you can make an educated decision for your own. You like building codes or not. Here's the evidence that says it doesn't work. Here's some evidence that says it might. In some cases you can make a decision on your own. It just upsets me when all these people, you know, in the liberal media want to sell you on a narrative. All right folks, thanks again for all the great reviews. We're up to almost like 450 something reviews on iTunes. If you have the time, please review us on itunes. A podcast. I really appreciate it and go subscribe to my email list@bongino.com and my new book is available on Amazon, Protecting the President. So I appreciate it if you pick it up. Thanks to everyone who did and sent me your reviews on it already. Thanks a lot. I'll see you all tomorrow. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. Get more of Dan online anytime@conspectivereview.com youm can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud and follow Dan on Twitter 24.7@dbongino.