AMERICANS ARE FED IF UP WITH IT,
AND I THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THAT TO OUR ATTENTION.
JOINING ME NOW IS MIKE HUCKABEE,
FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR AND
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.
GOVERNOR, IS THIS POWER GRAB
LEGAL, FIRST OF ALL.
>> WELL, IT’S PROBABLY LEGAL,
BUT I THINK WE’VE GOT TO COME TO
THE PLACE WHERE WE RECOGNIZE
THAT WHEN THE DEMOCRATS SAY
WE’RE GOING TO GET ALL THIS NEW
MONEY, I HOPE AMERICANS STEP
BACK AND ASK THEMSELVES, WHERE
ARE THEY GOING TO GET IT?
I’LL TELL YOU, RIGHT FROM THE
POCKETS OF WORKING PEOPLE.
RICH PEOPLE WILL HAVE ENOUGH
ACCOUNTANTS AND ATTORNEYS TO
AVOID IT.
BUT THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO BE PAYING IT.
AND IT ALWAYS ENDS UP THAT WAY.
AND WHEN YOU SAY WE’RE GOING TO
GET THE CORPORATIONS, OH,
TERRIFIC.
BECAUSE CORPORATIONS ULTIMATELY
NEVER PAY TAXES.
THEY SIMPLY COLLECT THEM AND
THEY PASS THOSE AXES -- TAXES
THAT THEY HAVE OBEY ON TO THEIR
CUSTOMERS IN THE FORM OF HIGHER
PRICES AND REDUCED SHAREHOLDER
BENEFITS.
THIS IS TYPICAL PLAYBOOK FOR THE
DEMOCRATS.
IT’S ALWAYS FAILED AND IT WILL
AGAIN.
DAVID: WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE
NEW POWERS THAT THE TREASURY
SECRETARY WOULD HAVE TO PICK
WINNERS AND LOSERS, IF YOU WILL,
THOSE WHO WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO
A MORE THOROUGH AUDIT BY THE
IRS, I’M WONDERING IF THAT
FITS -- I MEAN, THE
PARLIAMENTARIAN APPARENTLY SAID
THIS WAS OKAY TO PUT INTO A
RECONCILIATION BILL, BUT IT
SEEMS LIKE NEW KIND OF
LEGISLATION THAT’S SUPPOSED TO
BE DECIDED NOT BY THE EXECUTIVE
ALONE, BUT BY CONGRESS.
>> WELL, IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING
THAT IS PUT INTO THE
LEGISLATION.
OPINION I THINK -- I THINK YOU
MAKE A GREAT POINT.
IT’S PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
IT’S GRANTING POWER TO A
BUREAUCRAT THAT REALLY SHOULD BE
LEGISLATED.
BUT IT’S NEVER STOPPED
WASHINGTON BEFORE, AND, IN FACT,
OVER THE PAST FEW DECADES ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT WE’VE SEEN
THAT’S BEEN MOST HURTFUL TO THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC IS THAT PEOPLE
HAVE IGNORED THE VERY DISTINCT
ROLES OF THREE BRANCHES OF
GOVERNMENT.
AND YOU HAVE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES
JUST GOING OUT THERE AND DOING
WHATEVER THEY DOGGONE WELL
PLEASE WITH EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
AND THE REASON THEY GET AWAY
WITH IT, NOBODY RISES UP FROM
CONGRESS TO STOP THEM.
NOBODY FILES THE LAWSUITS.
SO MAYBE WE’LL SEE SOME STATES’
ATTORNEYS GENERAL GET INVOLVED
AND SAY, HEY, YOU JUST CAN’T DO
THAT.
DAVID: WELL, AND WE’RE ALSO
GOING TO SEE A LOT OF VOTERS GET
INVOLVED IN NOVEMBER.
I SUSPECT THAT THE MORE THEY
LOOK AT IN THIS BECAUSE OF THESE
ASPECTS OF THE BILL THAT SO
REALLY TRACK WHAT WE SAW DURING
THE PANDEMIC WHEN THERE WERE
THESE EXTRAORDINARY POWER GRABS,
I WOULD SAY UNCONSTITUTIONAL
POWER GRABS FOR OUR SAKE, YOU
KNOW?
FOR THE SAKE OF PEOPLE’S HEALTH,
PERCENT SAKE OF THIS, FOR THE
SAKE OF THAT.
AND, OF COURSE, THEY WERE RULES
FOR THEE, NOT FOR ME.
THEY ALWAYS VIOLATED THOSE RULES
THAT THEY CAME UP WITH.
IN THE -- THIS IS ANOTHER
EXAMPLE OF THAT.
>> IT’S A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF IT.
AND I TRULY BELIEVE THAT, I WISH
THAT EVER MEMBER OF CONGRESS
BEFORE HE OR SHE WAS SWORN IN I
WOULD HAVE TO PASS A BASIC
CIVICS CLASS.
[LAUGHTER]
I’M CONVINCED MOST OF THESE
PEOPLE NEVER TOOK CIVICS IN THE
NINTH GRADE BECAUSE THEY ACT
LIKE THERE’S NOT REALLY THREE
SEPARATE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
THAT HAVE EQUALITY BUT ALSO HAVE
ACCOUNTABILITY TO EACH OTHER.
FOUNDERS HAD A BRILLIANT IDEA.
IT MIGHT WORK IF WE ACTUALLY
POLLED IT.
BUT RIGHT NOW WE’RE NOT SEEING A
WHOLE LOT OF FOLLOWING IT IN
WASHINGTON, AND IT’S TO THE
DETRIMENT OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
DAVID: WELL, AS THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE BEGIN TO SEE THESE AUDITS
ON MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS, ON
SMALL BUSINESSES WHO CAN’T
AFFORD TO HAVE A LONG,
CONTRACTED BATTLE WITH THE IRS
AND AS THEY SEE THAT THIS IS NOT
JUST FOR THOSE FEW BILLIONAIRES,
YOU DON’T HIRE 87,000 NEW IRS
AGENTS FOR A FEW BILLIONAIRES.
YOU HIRE THEM IN ORDER TO AUDIT
EVERYBODY AND IS ASSUME THAT A
LOT OF PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO
GIVE UP AND SEND IN A CHECK.
BUT ISN’T THIS AN OPENING FOR
REPUBLICANS TO SAY, LOOK, WE CAN
SUPERSIZE THE IRS, WE CAN
DOWNSIZE THE IRS BY COMING UP
WITH A SIMPLER TAX CODE, MAYBE
SOMETHING LIKE A PLATTE TAX
WHERE YOU DON’T NEED -- FLAT TAX
WHERE YOU DON’T NEED ALL THOSE
AUDITORS.
>> BOY, WOULDN’T THAT BE A GREAT
THING?
IF I’VE LONG ADVOCATED, FOR THE
PAST 20 THE YEARS, THE FAIR TAX.
I WISH I’D INVENTED IT, BUT I’M
CERTAINLY A PROPONENT.
IT’S A TAX ON CONSUMPTION A A
RATHER THAN PRODUCTION, AND ONE
OF THE FEATURES IS IT ELIMINATES
THE IRS BECAUSE YOU DON’T PAY
TAXES ON THAT WHICH YOU PRODUCE.
IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY
REVOLUTIONARY TO OUR ECONOMY,
AND IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I
WISH THE REPUBLICANS AND, QUITE
FRANKLY, DEMOCRATS TOO SHOULD
CHAMPION BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE
TAXPAYER BENEFITS WHEN THEY’RE
NOT PUNISHED FOR THEIR
PRODUCTIVITY WHETHER IT’S WORK,
SAVING, INVESTMENT, CAPITAL
GAINS.
AND THEY PAY AXES WHEN THEY
BUY -- TAXES WHEN THEY BUY
SOMETHING RATHER THAN WHEN THEY
CREATE SOMETHING.
CREATING SOMETHING IS HOW THE
ECONOMY GETS STRONGER, AND WE
PUNISH IT WHICH IS THE ESSENCE
OF OUR TAX CODE.
DAVID: YEAH.
>> IT’S HORRIBLE.
DAVID: THE BOTTOM LINE IS, MIKE,
IF YOU HAVE A SIMPLER TAX CODE,
YOU DON’T NEED TO SUPERSIZE THE
IRS.
[LAUGHTER]
YOU DON’T NEED TO, YOU REALLY
DON’T NEED THE IRS.
YOU JUST NEED, ESSENTIALLY, A
COLLECTION AGENCY, TO BE THAT
SIMPLE.
FINALLY, I’VE GOT TO ASK, THE
FIRST TIME YOU AND I TALKED, I
DON’T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER, IT
WAS, LIKE, 25 YEARS AGO.
THE SUBJECT WAS TERM LIMITS --
>> YES.
DAVID: AND THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER THE ENTITLEMENT OF THESE
PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS HAS
GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE WITH
WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF
TERM LIMITS.
IS WILL ANY POSSIBILITY THAT ANY
REPUBLICANS WOULD HAVE THE
GUMPTION, THE BACKBONE TO
SUGGEST THAT NOW?
>> NO.
IN A WORD, NO.
I WISH IT WAS TRUE.
YOU KNOW, I WAS FOR TERM LIMITS
WHEN YOU AND I FIRST MET BEFORE
I WAS EVER ELECTED TO ANYTHING,
AND THE LONGER THAT I HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED MANY POLITICS, THE MORE
I’M FOR TERM LIMITS.
A LOT OF PEOPLE GET INTO OFFICE
AND SUDDENLY SAY, OH, YOU KNOW
WHAT?
WE NEED THIS EXPERIENCE AND WIZ
DOLL.
WELL, QUITE FRANKLY, WHAT WE
NEED IS EVERY NOW AND THEN WE WE
NEED TO THE FLUSH THAT PORCELAIN
BOWL --
[LAUGHTER]
CLEAN IT OUT AND PUT SOME FRESH
WATER IN IT.
AND THAT’S WHAT TERM LIMITS
WOULD DO.
AND I’D LOVE TO SEE THEM.
WE HAVE HEM IN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH, I THINK WE NEED THEM IN
THE LEGISLATIVE.
LET ME GO ON A LIMB, I
PERSONALLY THINK WE OUGHT TO
HAVE THEM EVEN IN THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH.
DAVID: YES.
>> LET PEOPLE HAVE EXTENDED
TIME, BUT NOBODY OUGHT TO THINK
THAT THEY’RE GOING TO BE THERE
FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES AND
FOR SEVERAL OF OUR LIFETIMES AS
WE’RE TRYING TO PAY THEM OFF.