Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino, how is it that we found five hundred and thirty five of the least intelligent people in the entire cosmos, this world and other worlds who all managed to get elected to Congress in the Senate at the same time, work up at Capitol Hill and dictate what's going to happen in our House?

How exactly that happened? What are the chances of that? You know, I did an appearance this morning on Fox and Friends and I really just kind of went for it because I can't take it anymore when it comes to issues, right. Issues that matter, taxes. How much of our money is the government going to steal immigration? Like who are we letting into the country? How we always manage to avoid the common sense questions for these five hundred and thirty five dunce's up on Capitol Hill who can't get their heads out of their own collective cabooses.

I'm going to do a thorough debunking for you on this show of the tax debate because Biden wants to hike your taxes, maybe touch on immigration. And I want to get to The Washington Post fake news story. It's going to be a loaded show today. Please don't go anywhere. I promise you'll be better for it when you're done. Today Show sponsored by Express VPN. Why haven't you gotten VPN yet? Get a VPN. Protect your data from prying eyes.

Go to express VPN dotcom slash Mancino. Welcome to Dan Bongino show. Let's get right to it. This is going to be a loaded show with information on the other side of it. You'll be able to destroy your liberal friends. Dopey arguments about Biden versus Trump on the economy. All right. I promise you, you have my word on that Today show about you also by our friends that I target. Many state and local governments have used coronavirus to trample on the constitutional rights of millions, simultaneously defunding law enforcement while the mob and dangerous criminals roam free.

We don't like that. Obviously, that's why I Target was invented to give law abiding citizens an effective way to train in the safety and privacy of their own home with their firearm. You don't need any more inconvenient trips to the range. No more expensive practice ammunition. Just download I Target's proprietary app Super Easy. Load the laser round into your firearm and start training. It's that simple. The feedback I get in this product is amazing. I target pro comes in all the major calibers, including two to three for your ah you can be sharp with almost any firearm, obviously nine millimeter.

The other, the other calibers as well. Today you can save 10 percent plus get free shipping with the offer. Kodansha check out when you go to I target ProComp. It's the best way for you to practice and it pays for itself in a day. I get tons of amazing feedback about this product. Improve your proficiency, your firearm right quick. That's the letter I target ProComp. I target pro dotcom offer code. Dan All right. Producer Go.

Let's go. Righty then. After so excited and after five or six false starts on the show due to various technical mishaps, we're getting right into it today. So again, I did a Fox and Friends set this morning. And, you know, typically I give you a little behind the scenes, you know, when you're on Fox and Friends, you know, they send you the stories and you give us your POV. What are we know? So everybody has an idea where we're going with the segment, all that other stuff.

Right. Great. So they sent me this stuff this morning and they want to talk about immigration. And I went on just a, I don't know, three, four minute rant about how I can't believe I'm not kidding. Not a joke. I can't believe. How the country's just so rapidly falling apart in front of our eyes, I think it's salvageable. I don't want to be Debbie Downer for you today, but how it's falling apart so rapidly.

And yet we've elected five hundred and thirty five, again, of the most ignorant dunce's in the history of humankind to all try to save the place. They must be laughing at us up on Capitol Hill. Really? They must be laughing at us because everything they're telling you is fake, it's a lie on immigration, on taxes, everything. So where is this all coming from? Saw this article pop yesterday in The Washington Times how Joe Biden is planning on hiking your taxes.

And I thought to myself, is this is this even sane? Washington Times would be in our newsletter today, if you want to check it out. Bunji dot com slash newsletter. Wealthy Americans and corporations are about to learn Joe Biden's definition of the fair share of taxes. Here we go, Joe. Here we go again with the fair share debate yet again, totally devoid of reason or facts. I'll get to what The Washington Times said a minute about this tax hike.

But the fair share debate is so devoid of reason, because whenever you ask the left what the fair share is, they never really know.

So you have the top 20 percent of earners in this country, earners, people who earn money, pay 80 percent of the tax load, actually more than that of being generous, 80 percent of the tax load. And yet when you ask these dunce's on the left, you say, well, OK, you want the wealthy and the rich to pay their fair share. What exactly is the fair share? You get clips like the one I'm going to show you in a few minutes of Al Sharpton, who doesn't even know what the fair share is.

And when he says it, he embarrasses himself. And I found that. I found that clip. Does this make any sense? On one hand, they passed support Gulas bill. That is going to give you a fourteen hundred dollar check after you paid over five thousand dollars in taxes per family or are going to pay to finance the fourteen hundred dollar check. And then the same government is going to increase your taxes to take away the same fourteen hundred dollar check you got after paying over five thousand dollars in taxes to get the fourteen hundred dollars.

Am I is is there something I do you wonder why this morning I'm so animated and upset and why I was so upset on Fox and Friends? On what planet does that make sense? Now, liberals will twist themselves in knots to try and get that to make sense, but we're going to untwist them and provide actual facts and data. Let's go to The Washington Times piece first and we see what they're actually proposing.

Well, we know what Biden campaigned on, so we have an actual idea of what he's looking at. Quote, Washington Times Biden campaigned on increasing the corporate tax rate from twenty one to twenty eight percent and raising the top individual tax rate from thirty seven to thirty nine point six. Also, increasing capital gains taxes on people who earn more than one million dollars a year. Now, I know liberals are watching this and they're like, gosh, this makes the world a sense.

This makes as much sense as opening up the border to illegal immigrants in the middle of a pandemic. I mean, why not show it's both liberal logic? You know, that's their thing. Liberal logic, meaning no logic at all. So I ask you just a common sense question again. When is raising taxes worked to either one, grow the economy or two to even boost federal tax revenue? Assuredly. If you're a liberal watching this show right now, you're like, OK, Dan.

You know, at least if we boost the tax rate, we'll get more government tax revenue. Hold on to that. So that's argument number two. Argument number one is this. The liberals constantly argue that the rich, the rich and the wealthy, whatever. And again, the definition of who's wealthy always changes depending on when the liberals lick their fingers and seeing where the wind blows. Right.

Right, right. Right. When you ask liberals, you say, OK, well, what's the fair share of taxes the rich should pay? You get segments like this absolute classic with the legendary John Stossel who interviewed Al Sharpton, I believe this is back in 2006 on an ABC show and on the ABC show. The segment was called Myth, Myths, Lies and Outright Stupidity. So I set this up a second. Stossel knows the fair share argument.

Liberals should pay their fair share and he's smart about it. And he asks Al Sharpton what the fair share liberals should pay. Watch the answer, because this will be every liberal because they have no idea what the fair share is. Check this out.

The rich do not pay their share. That's a widespread belief. But to the politicians even know how much of the income tax burden the rich pay. Now, the top one percent in this country pays very much less than 10 percent, very much less than five percent. So what's fair? The top one percent should pay 10 percent of America's income taxes, 20 percent. They should pay somewhere around 15 percent. They don't pay five percent. Anybody could see that as unequal and unfair.

So they should pay 15 percent, he says. And the richest one percent now pay less than 10 percent. Then he said less than five percent. But that's so silly because and I bet most of you don't know this. The IRS says the richest one percent of taxpayers already pay 34 percent twice what Sharpton wanted them to pay. The reverend barely reacted when I told him they're already paying 34 percent.

No, I think that if you deal with the quality of their lives, he quickly changed the subject.

He never would admit how far off he was.

The greatest clip I told Guy this morning, Joe, I said to him, put that in the Evergreen library stuff we're going to use forever because I'm always trying to find that clip and I never can. This morning it took me I'm not kidding like a half an hour to dig that thing out of the interweb. It's hard to find. I know. I know. I probably should have sent it to you, but I. Joe, can you find this?

But it's we keep that forever because it is it's so beautifully sums up why I'm so offended at the stupidity coming out of Washington, D.C.. They talk in soundbites about things that are going to dramatically affect your life. No sarcasm here. Somber note of seriousness. They're talking about things, Joe Biden raising the corporate tax, you saw the Washington Times raise the income tax and the capital gains tax. They're talking about very serious things, which could have a dramatic impact on your business, your investments, your employees and your personal income.

You would think it would be grounded in some metric or number that they had some evidence to back up, I mean, it just makes sense, right? Think about it. If you're a business owner or even remotely involved in a business, you don't have to have an MBA to figure out that if you wanted to raise the price of your rib eye steaks in your steak house and you're a restaurant owner, that you'd probably look for some evidence that there's some price sensitivity or lack thereof and you can make some more money by raising the price.

And if you found out, Joe, that raising the price of the steaks cost you a significant number of business and you lost money, you would probably then cut the price back. You would base it on some research. Ladies and gentlemen, and especially to our liberal friends listening to the show who are probably not our friends, but whatever. Is anything I said, they're out of line, outrageous, is it silly you would do that in a business?

No, in any business. So ask yourself this. If Joe Biden is talking about a massive, economy wide, enormous tax hike after just giving people back their tax money in the form of a stimulus payment, now we want to take some of that money back. You would think it would be based on data, but the data you get when you give it to liberals, they do what Al Sharpton did. They ignore it. Stossel says to Al Sharpton, Well, what percent of the tax of the tax burden should the wealthiest one percent pay?

Sharpton says they don't pay 10 percent. They don't even pay five percent. I think they should pay 15 percent. In 2006, when this was recorded, the rich pay the richest one percent, paid thirty four percent, more than double what Sharpton was recommending. And what does he do? He does what Biden will do in any other liberal. When you ask them what the fair share is, they will ignore the question and pretend you didn't even talk.

Is it not a fair question, what's the fair share, where did you get that? Where did you come up with that number? Well, let's give you some actual data. And hopefully our liberal friends will watch and listen to the segment and be like, OK, well, I may not like Bongino show, but he's right. He produced actual data. Here's one of my favorite articles again, debunking dopey, silly myths about tax hikes and tax revenue.

This is an oldie but goodie from 2010 by a guy named Dwyre from The Washington Times. This will be in the newsletter, Save this article Bongino dot com slash newsletter. Go there. Save this article. What have you been told dijo a thousand times by your liberal buddies, if you have JOA, they said the Bush tax cuts, George W. Bush cut taxes and look what happened. It cost the government a fortune. We lost all this money.

We did. We did. I know Joe gets to cheat because he sees article a thousand times. We've used it in the show before. This goes to the Evergreen File, too, and you should keep it in your evergreen file. Well, let's look at this article by Dwyre Headline Dwyre Washington Times. Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue that can't be. That's not possible. You've been told by your Al Sharpton like liberal friends who don't know anything about the numbers, that Bush cut taxes and the government lost a whole boatload of money.

And you believe it is fact? I'm sorry. You believe that it's not true. I'm sorry you believe in things that are factually incorrect, but it is, in fact, accurate that George W. Bush cut the income tax rate and tax revenue went up. You don't believe me? Well, let's read from the Dwyre piece in The Washington Times, which you can read yourself. But the real jolt for tax cutting opponents was that the 2003 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts.

Gosh, that's strange. I hadn't heard that before. A liberal, they told me the opposite. I'm very sorry they did that. It goes on from 2004 to 2007, after the tax cuts, federal tax revenues increased by seven hundred and eighty five billion dollars. It was the largest four year increase in American history. That's that's that's what's really weird. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts and added bonus, the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in the previous 40 years.

This here's the kicker, this last line is the kicker, this is the coup de grant. This was news to The New York Times, Joe, who's astonished editorial board could only describe the tax revenue gains as, quote, a surprise windfall.

Come on, man. Come on, man. But wait, there's more Joe. Oh, wait. There's more. There's one more. So again. Focus, focus, because I get very excited talking about this topic. You were told by Joe Biden, the rich need to pay their fair share. You watched in the Al Sharpton video and I could play that video five or six times with other politicians. They'll never tell you what the fair share is.

When you ask them, they get the fairshare wrong. When you ask them what the rich should pay, like Al Sharpton, they actually pay twice what Al Sharpton thinks they should pay. And then when you cut taxes on people and earners, what happens? Revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts. Not only did it go up, it went up in the largest four year increase in US history. Now, you may say, Dad, come on, that was just unique to the Bush tax cuts every other time we cut taxes.

Those evil rich people really made out tax revenue, went down to the poor, got screwed over. It was raining cats. And I remember that scene in Ghostbusters. Cats and dogs remember that. Well, that's not true either. I have another great piece. It's from nineteen ninety six. But, man, is it worth your time, it's by the Heritage Foundation, it will be in my newsletter today and it will again debunk every silly liberal myth.

You've heard about tax cuts in the past as well, in case you're under the illusion it was just the Bush tax cuts that led to a gusher of new tax revenue. Here's this piece by Heritage. How to measure the revenue impact of changes in tax rates. August 9th, 1996. Let's go to other tax cuts. Joe, let's go back all the way to the 19 20. All right. And see what happened after those tax cuts, because assuredly, if liberals are correct, those tax cuts led to a dramatic decrease in government tax revenue.

Not exactly what happened. Heritage Foundation, the tax cuts of the 1920s, tax rates were dramatically during the 1920s, falling from seventy three percent to twenty four percent. My gosh, that's a big tax cut. What happened? The economy boomed, grew at an average annual rate of six percent between nineteen twenty one and nineteen twenty nine. Personal income tax revenues increased substantially rising from seven hundred nineteen million in nineteen twenty one to one point one six zero million in nineteen twenty eight.

This was a sixty one percent increase in tax revenue, which occurred at a time of no inflation. These results, not surprisingly, would not have been predicted by static analysis, let me add or liberal. Dan, that's 19 20, so you got the Bush tax cuts, tax revenue went up 19 20. Surely there are other examples of major, major tax cuts where revenue just collapsed. Well, we'll get to those in a minute. Let me get to my second break here and I'll show you other tax cuts as well.

Tax cuts to show you how taxes down down for our liberal friends down. Tax revenue up, taxes down tax revenue. Apparently, Capitol Hill, nobody's seen this up there. Or let me give you the more likely scenario. They have seen it and they're laughing at you because they think you're idiots and won't do your homework. Sadly, that's what's going on. Hey, let me get to my second sponsor. Our friends at Magic Spoon. This is an empty box from our house because my daughter keeps eating the magic spoon.

This is the delicious strawberry and putting the empty boxes back on the shelf. I'm not kidding. This is all we have, like four or five empty boxes like growing up cereals, one of the best parts of being a kid. I had to give it up because it was full of sugar and a lot of junk. I don't eat so healthy. Breakfast doesn't have to be boring no more. Throw that out. Magic Spoon is here and solves your problems.

They have amazing flavors you love without all the bad stuff. Zero grams of sugar, 13 to 14 grams of protein and only four grams of carbs in each serving. But a whole lot of deliciousness. Only one hundred and forty calories. A serving Tokito friendly, gluten free, grain free, soy free, low carb and GMO free. We've got great news to Magic. Spoon will be releasing two amazing new flavors this month for a limited time only.

We're talking about cookies and cream and maple waffle. Send it magic spoon immediately. I need that. If it isn't the most comforting, indulgent combination, then I don't know what is. This is the ultimate treat yourself combo so you can make sure to get some. Now there's a limited time. Make sure. Move now. Build your own box if you want the available flavors to build your own custom bundle our cocoa fruitage. My mouth is watering frosted peanut butter and cinnamon.

If you're listening from Canada, magic spoon now ships there as well. Here's how you get this delicious cereal. Go to Magic Spoon Dotcom Bongino. Don't wait. Grab the new limited edition cookies and cream maple waffle or a custom bundle of cereal and try it today. Be sure to use our promo code. Bongino Bonga check out to save five dollars off your order offers good anywhere in the US or Canada, but only when you use our code to check out Magic Spoons.

So confident in a product that's backed by one hundred percent happiness guarantee. If you don't like it for any reason, they give you your money back. No questions asked. Get your next delicious bowl of Gilfry Cereal with Magic Spoon Dan Bongino use Code Bongino to save five dollars off for Canadian shipping. Please note it's the same euro. It will auto switch the Canadian version of the site per user. Thank you Magic Spoon for sponsoring this episode and for feeding my family even though they leave empty boxes because they love it so much in the in the food closet, which I refuse to call a pantry.

All right. I hate that word. Getting back to the show, many of you old time listeners know that I can't the word pantry, I don't like it. I'm just glad I have something with that word. I can't I can't say so. Biden's talking about raising our taxes, not basing it on any data research, anything. He just wants to screw you over and take more of your money because that's what they do. So, again, you think they do the homework I'm doing now for you said the Bush tax cuts.

We raised more money after cutting taxes because the economy grew, which created more taxpayers. The tax cuts all the way back to the nineteen twenties. Let's pump it up a bit. Let's go to the JFK tax cuts, JFK, John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, by the way. I'm sorry, but there is some. Liberals listening may not know that he was, in fact, a Democrat who realized high tax rates really weren't cutting it for the economy.

So they cut taxes from 90 percent to about 70 percent at the top marginal rate. Well, what happened after that? Well, let's look at the Heritage Foundation piece. Lower taxes on saving and investment were approved in nineteen sixty two, followed by an across the board tax rate reduction in nineteen sixty four, what happened after that? Economic growth picked up, GDP increased at an average annual annual rate of five percent between nineteen sixty one to sixty eight.

The Kennedy tax cuts triggered the longest expansion in America's history and revenues listen, folks, listen up, especially the liberals have a tough time with this.

And tax revenues grew by sixty two percent over the seven year period.

As seen in Chart five, which you'll see in the piece if you choose to check it out, wealthy taxpayers wound up paying significantly more tax revenue after their tax rates were reduced, exactly as dynamic forecasting would have predicted. Folks, why does this keep happening? Why does the evidence point overwhelmingly not to zero tax rates? We need to fund their military post roads, our court system. You understand the constitutional roles of government, but why does the evidence keep pointing to the fact that extremely high tax rates, when they're cut, actually generate more tax revenue?

This is not hard for the same people, by the way. I'm not done with the examples. This is not hard for the same people. So you're you know, again, if you're on the other side of the political aisle and are not interested in facts, tune out now. Because when you cut confiscatory taxes, you encourage people to not engage in dead weight loss activities. Stand by, I will get to that in another great article. Remember this, keep this in the back of your head.

When taxes are extremely high, wealthy folks, business owners, they engage in activities to get out of paying the high taxes. That destroy the productive capacity of the economy and wind up, ironically, having the effect of a smaller pizza pie for everybody to eat. You raise taxes, you actually get less tax revenue. I know it's hard for people to believe. But it's true. You want another example, which is bringing it today? What about the nineteen seventy eight capital gains tax cut?

They cut capital gains taxes. Surely they lost money on that one? Well, in 1968, legislation was approved raising the capital gains tax from twenty five percent to forty nine percent.

Not surprisingly, capital gains, revenues were sluggish through the 70s and 1978. However, the capital gains tax rate was reduced to twenty eight percent. The very next year, revenues jumped forty five percent. Capital gains tax revenues continue to rise, climbing even more when the Reagan tax cuts lowered the rate even further down to 20 percent. Nineteen eighty one, folks. We're piling on the examples here, piling, piling the Bush tax cuts, the nineteen twenties tax cuts under Coolidge, the JFK tax cuts, the nineteen seventy eight capital gains tax cut.

You need another exit. You need another example here. Well, let's go to another piece where we're going to we're going to remove ourselves from the Heritage Foundation piece for a minute because, you know, leftists and all, they're probably like the Heritage Foundation. They're definitely lying. OK, whatever. You know, facts aren't your thing then. It's something I can do about that. Remember the Reagan tax cuts? Second term, Ronald Reagan cut the income tax, the highest income tax rates all the way down from 70 percent.

So follow me. JFK cuts the top rate tax rate from 90 to 70. Reagan, obviously, decades later, cuts it from 70 all the way to 28 percent. You must be saying yourself again, if you're a liberal, you probably are, because I can read your minds, you're probably watching the show saying, well, that's the first time I heard a lot of this. OK, good. Welcome to the party. Bruce Willis said in a die hard.

Welcome to the party, pal. You probably think is because you believed also the Bush tax cuts cost the government money falsely. You believe that you probably believe the Reagan tax cuts cost the government money to 70 to 28 percent. How much did we lose the government? Well, let's check out this article at the Balance Dotcom getting away from the heritage piece just for a second, where they have an actual table of government revenue by year. Says, Who really pays Uncle Sam's bills?

US federal tax, US federal government tax revenue by year. So I took a little clip of the Reagan years from this. This is by summer. Gee, Anderson, and let's see what happened after Reagan cut taxes dramatically from 70 to 20 percent. Again, if you're a liberal and you've heard that it cost the government a boatload of money, surely the data would back that up. So here's data taken from the US Treasury. So Reagan gets into office, Joe, in 1980 and the federal government takes in five hundred and seventeen billion dollars in tax revenue.

All right. Reagan cuts taxes throughout his second term. Reagan leaves office in 1988. And what happens actually in the 1989 government, tax revenue after Reagan cuts taxes more than in half the tax rate tax revenue is. Am I reading that right? Yeah, I can't see that. I'm just kidding. I'm to actually get my assets. That looks like it says nine hundred ninety one billion. Am I reading it right. Nineteen eighty nine here. I still.

I am. I'm not crazy. Right. Thank you Charles. I say it's a little bit better than mine so he gets into office. Reagan the government's generating five hundred seventeen billion in tax revenue. Reagan dramatically cuts taxes from 70 percent to 28 percent. And the tax income tax rate to the government excuse me, tax revenue to the government nearly doubles to nine hundred ninety one billion by the time he leaves. That just doesn't sound by the way, inflation adjusted tax revenues still went up dramatically.

I think it was about twenty three percent. Guys, ladies, I know, I know I'm a little sarcastic, and I know sometimes she was telling me sometimes people don't like that. I go after liberals so much on the comments, I get it. Fair enough. I do. But do you understand why I get so emotional about this? Because I believe in the real world and I became a converted independent, I was never a liberal, but I was an independent largely throughout my 20s.

Because I had heard things and I believe them. I believe things like, you know, we get we've got a high taxes to pay off the national debt because if we do well generate so much tax revenue and then we could spend more money. Well, what if I told you none of that's true and at the data backs none of that up. That we've cut taxes before and revenue went up. Let me show you the one. One downside.

To the Reagan tax cuts. We're going to go back to the heritage piece here in a second. Reagan did hike the capital gains tax rate in 1986, so your liberal friends, I'm giving you the counterarguments now, folks, this is going to become a hot topic in the next few weeks. I did not just randomly pull this topic out of my caboose this morning. Biden is going to push for a dramatic tax hike and you're going to hear all the dopey arguments.

We need to raise more revenue, really, because when we cut taxes in the past, we raise more revenue. When you bring up the Reagan tax cut, you'll see it on the air, I guarantee you. The liberals will say this. Yeah, but, folks. The reason revenue went up after Reagan cut taxes is because he raised a few taxes, too, including the capital gains tax rate. They're not wrong. They are right. Reagan did raise the capital gains tax rate.

But what actually happened? With those capital gains revenues after Reagan raised it, well, let's go to the heritage piece where we have actual numbers. The nineteen eighty six capital gains tax rate increase quote. It's part of Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986, policymakers increase the capital gains tax from 20 to 20 percent to noteworthy things happen. Capital gains, realizations and revenues soared before the tax rate increase took effect. And then collapsed by more than 50 percent when the higher tax rate took effect.

Telling you again what? That your liberal friends who will make the argument to you that, oh, no, no, no revenue went up in the Reagan years despite his tax cuts because he raised other taxes, actually, that capital gains tax hike lost lost money, that they lost money.

So you really just making that up? Capital gains tax revenues went down by 50 percent. Please, please fax, try it. One more piece I want to move on to The Washington Post, just stunning retrack. Well, not stunning because we know they're generally fake news, but a really shocking retraction. I want to just end on this note and we'll get to my third sponsor and then The Washington Post fake news story, another great article in my newsletter today, Bunshiro, that Kamalesh newsletter.

Please read all of these. They're all in there. The Dwyre article, the heritage piece. You'll have all the ammo you need to argue this in the future with your friends on the other side of the aisle. This one's great by David Henderson. This was from just twenty nineteen. The case against higher tax rates. Hoover Institution. This is a very long screenshot, I'm not going to read the whole thing because the article was so great, I honestly couldn't figure out, like, what part of it was great.

So I just kind of took a screenshot of the whole thing. He's like, this could be the longest text screenshot we've ever seen. He talks about this, how economists come up with these cumbersome terms to describe important concepts, he says, but the best way to think of taxes is like a dead weight loss, right? He said it beautifully describes one of the big harms from taxation, the dead weight loss from taxes is the loss imposed on some.

That is not a gain to anyone. So, for example, he says a typical estimate of dead weight loss from taxes is 30 percent of revenue raised. That means if the government takes a million in additional taxes, there's an additional three hundred thousand dollar cost imposed on players in the economy. He goes on. He says, well, where does this dead weight loss come from, this 30 percent? This is brilliant. It exists because people try to avoid taxes.

So, for example, an increase in the marginal tax rate might cause people to work less or it might cause them to buy a more expensive house so they can deduct the additional interest from their tax bill in the mortgage. So there are just those are just two of the ways people adjust their behavior, they might also evade taxes by understating income or overstating expenses and deductions. Why do they call the results a dead weight loss? Because in each case, the tax system this is it gives people an incentive to do something they would not have chosen to do at a lower tax rate.

The increased tax rates caused them to engage in behavior that would be otherwise inefficient for them. Bingo. The jury is in. Nice job, David Henderson. When you have extremely high tax rates, people do a lot of things they wouldn't ordinarily do, that ad absolutely nothing to the economy causing massive deadweight losses. Beautifully stated. Beautifully said. Read that piece, it's a good one, Bungeni dotcom slash newsletter to access the piece. All right, let me get to this Washington Post story next, but let me get to my third sponsor here.

Whatever attraction, you know, I know it's not a Project Veritas retraction.

We have a lot of folks there, but. Well, if I may, project Veritas, I know it's not a attraction directed at James O'Keefe and the excellent Project Veritas, but if I may, they have the retraction, alpaca retractors. The correct channel, alpaca, I can't sing the song as good as the creator Gary Eden, but if I may project Veritas, I'm going to ceremonially give the retraction correction alpaca to The Washington Post after this. Is that OK?

Can we do that? So, Joe, is that all right? Can we do a ceremonial. I don't think change the line at Project Veritas. All right. Let me talk to their sponsor, our friend at you agenda so dry, irritated red, blotchy skin all over your face and we'll go away. You struggling with stress breakouts and uneven skin tone all gone thanks to zoek deep correcting serum by Sharmini.

Here's Catherine from Fort Wayne, Indiana. I'm a doctor working on the front lines of the covid pandemic and the endless wearing a face masks Roon, my face and you. Several of the products without success until found Shamone. The promise is a real very quickly my face seems on the mend, these products have started healing the mask creases. Thank you. So TEAC uses the power of Liposomal technology to deliver the healing, rejuvenating powers of vitamin C to the deepest layers of the skin for results you can see.

And it's yours free today with your order of yourself for bags and puffiness. How do you get it?

Go to Zhenyu Cell Dotcom and enter promo code Dan 40. That's down for zero and check out for an extra special discount. That's when you sell dotcom chenu, sell dot com order today and get the classic Jenny, sell Joline treatment and luxurious Chenu sell Zvi A.. Rinkel moisturizer free with your order. Every Hoarder's upgraded to free priority shipping. Don't wait order now. Chenu sell dotcom G.E. and you s.L Dotcom. That's when you sell dot com use promo code danford zero for that great deal.

Check it out today. All right, moving on.

So folks, we covered this story yesterday and it's really blown up since. I you know, I just I can't get over how big of a retraction by The Washington Post this really is if you didn't watch yesterday's show in some, it's very simple to understand. A story went around, promoted by The Washington Post, CNN, NPR and others, that after the 20 20 election, President Trump had called an official in Georgia and said that official on the phone, quote, Find the fraud.

The story was reported on endlessly. President Trump is pressuring Georgia election officials to find fraud, the liberal media spin was there's no fraud. This is scandalous. President Trump could be instructing justice. He needs to go to jail. A minimum of twenty five to life, no question. Prosecuted immediately, advocates throw out habeas corpus and just put them right in prison. He does even need a trump. So obviously, if your whole case was bedrock on a phone call where President Trump allegedly told a official from Georgia, quote, find the fraud.

Joe, you would think if you were a sane, rational person, that if you built your case around, it would require President Trump to actually have said find the fraud. Yeah.

OK, I just I just had a you know, I'm just checking there that. Find the fraud, huge scandal. So did President Trump you think you would ask before the fact, not after the fact, that he actually safe on the front? Well, it turns out he didn't. That that's just made up because now we have the audio, as you saw yesterday. So it's a great piece in my newsletter today by Matt Margolis, also headlined that Bongino Report.com, by the way, if you want to check that out, PJ Media, Matt Margolis, he brings up a great point about this made up quote that President Trump never said made up, meaning it didn't happen.

Headline PJ Media, Matt Margolis. The Washington Post. Look at you quick on the draw that you get, he sighed and read that went right back. Very nice. I like that The Washington Post fake Trump quote, scandal is a lot worse than you think. Matt Margolis. Now, you would think, Joe, the big scandal would be that they made up a quote about President Trump, he never said. But no, it's it's actually worse than that, why?

Here we go. I didn't even think of this. Margolis says in the piece The Most Scandalous thing, Beckert Adams from The Washington Examiner, too, he said, he argues, is that several different newsrooms claim that they independently confirm the original school with a. Anonymous sources of their own. Here it goes. Here, here, here's the evidence in the PJ media piece, because you think, again, I'm making this up. So President Trump never said this at all.

We have the audio now. NBC News reported it, quote, confirmed they had confirmed The Washington Post characterization of the December twenty third call to a source familiar with the conversation. But it gets worse. USA Today claimed, quote, a Georgia official speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters, confirm the details of the call. He goes on ABC News. President Trump phoned an investigator in Georgia asking the officials to, quote, find the fraud and telling this person they will be a national hero for it, an individual familiar with the matter confirmed, confirmed to ABC News.

One more one more last one. I'm sorry we're piling on, but this is almost hilarious in its stupidity. PBS NewsHour and CNN likewise appeared to claim they independently confirmed the story through their own anonymous sources. Do you understand that was that five, six, seven? I don't know. What we would call mainstream media outlets that not mainstream liberal activists. Managed to confirm a story. It was fake. You know, I literally hate the word literally, but it's literally fake.

We have the audio. No one ever said find the fraud and you'll be a national hero. Someone just made that up. Someone made it up. Told the media the story that printed it despite doing no due diligence on it, and then other media outlets confirm two other anonymous sources, the same fake quote. Now, you think, OK, Dan, this story's bad, right? The Washington Post makes up a fake story about Donald Trump. It's then confirmed by other media outlets who confirm the fake story.

So you would think to yourself, well, the Washington Post has fact checkers, right? I mean, we get fact checked all the time on Bongino Dotcom and their nonsense fact checks that aren't actually accurate. You would think The Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler, that's his name, would chime in and say, Hey, guys. We really blew this one. There is no such quote, I am going to be a responsible citizen at The Washington Post, fact checked my own paper.

And you know what? Sometimes you wind up with egg in your face. Yeah. One of my favorite songs is The Gambler, right, by Kenny Rogers. You got to know when Holdem I love that song. Sometimes you got to know when to fold them, know when to walk away. This is when you got to know when to run. You should run from this. Don't you think Congress should say Washington Post, it's time to run.

We screwed this up. Yeah. No, no, no, no. That's not what happened. Of course. Shame on you, Armacost. That's not what happened. The great twitchy dotcom they got receipt's folks. I know you hate that word. Massud is my wife, but she's not here today, so it's OK. Do you mind the word receipt's? She doesn't mind. My wife prefers the term evidence. I'm saying receipt's if she sees the show, she's going to get at Twitchy has the receipts.

This article again will be in the newsletter today. It says, But Trump exclamation point, Washington Post own fact checker weighs in on Donald Trump's response to The Washington Post fabricated story. So did Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post fact checker correct the story? No, not at all. Here's his original tweet from January night. This is all in the 20 story where Kessler. Joe, this is hilarious. Is the fact checker at The Washington Post. This is him on January 9th, pumping the fake story on his Twitter account.

Glenn Kessler, quote, Find the fraud trump pressure to Georgia elections investigator in a separate call. Legal experts say could amount to obstruction problems. It didn't happen, so again, you got to know when you take Kestler would be running from this. Hey, guys, I screwed up. I make I have one literally one job. I'm a fact checker. I screwed that up. There's no such quote, fact check. I'm going to show my integrity.

No, no, no, no, no, no. This is not what happened. Here is Kestler from yesterday. Responding to President Trump's statement about how The Washington Post got the story wrong, Kessler says The Washington Post reporting on Trump's call to the Georgia secretary of state undisputed as the audiotape was obtained from the star, was the article cited in the impeachment article. Trump naturally pretends otherwise. Let me translate that for you. Instead of apologizing Kessler for promoting a fake.

Documented fake story, he takes a shot at President Trump because Trump said. If this gets confusing, you two ombudsmen guys have to stop me here. Trump put out a statement saying, hey, not only is this fake news story about me saying find the fraud fake, the Democrats actually use this fake news story to impeach me a second time. Kessler, instead of apologizing for using the fake quote, says, no, no, that's not true.

Basically, they didn't use that that quote in the impeachment thing. To the rescue, to the rescue, the great Henry Rogers at The Daily Caller. Who says, hey, Glenn, again, this is all on the twitchy piece, here's the actual impeachment brief. There's the fake quote folks right there. There it is right there. Find the fraud. It's right there. It's right there. I, I think that's a no brainer to rescue a terrestrially that's, you know, your eyes.

Eyes. So to sum up here. To sum up here and here on page two, they got a Pelosi video and a second you're not going to want to miss but pay the. Kessler pumps a fake quote by Trump in January, Never Corexit or is paper, he's a fact checker. He may have corrected it today. I'm going to have to look. I got to check it out. If he did, I'll put it on the show tomorrow or Kessler.

You're welcome to come on the show and respond. He pumps a fake quote that never happened, the Democrats used said fake quote to impeach the president. Then instead of Kestler correcting his paper and fact checking, he may have corrected himself by now. I'm not sure he doubles down and gets a fact check wrong again by suggesting the Democrats didn't use the fake quote in the impeachment, despite it being in the actual impeachment brief. Disguise, the fact checker has to fact check.

Do you understand why Americans I get this email all the time because everyone now knows that if you get fact checked by a liberal, it means what you probably said is true and they just don't like your opinion. I get emails all the time from Americans across the spectrum on this who tell me they go to Facebook and they block all the fact checking accounts because they can't take the stupid. This guy is the fact checker, he can't check himself, he can't check The Washington Post.

Has he even apologized for this yet? All right, let me get to my sponsor on the other side of this, I got a video of Nancy Pelosi. Joe, I thought we heard we're not we're not allowed to talk about stealing elections. That's verboten. You talk about. That's right. You'll be banished into the Phantom Zone. I heard that. Huh? This is weird. So why is Nancy Pelosi talking about stealing an election right now?

And yet I still see the clip on YouTube and elsewhere. It's strange, right? No, no, seriously. I'll play that video in a second. A final sponsor today, our friends at start now, free email services like Gmail and Yahoo! Aren't really free. You pay with your privacy, you're being sold, folks. That got bad news for you on those air quotes, free services. Those companies have access to every email you send and receive big tech and sell your data to the highest bidder.

It will target you with intrusive ads and put you at risk of phishing attacks. That's why I'm using now start mail to secure my email. Start with start mail, start today, makes me feel safe again, start mail, keeps my email private period, every emails encrypted, even the recipient doesn't. Even if the recipient doesn't use encryption, which means big tech can't read, scan, analyze or sell my personal information. Ever know my obsession with big tech watching us all the time?

That's why I'm using Star Mail, not even Big Brother can snoop around your email would start mail deleted Joe, you know what deleted means would start mail. It actually means deleted when you delete an email would start mail. It's gone forever. It's not in the Phantom Zone. It doesn't exist. Done and start mail uses their own servers, which means they can't be put out of business. Start mails back by some of the most stringent privacy laws in the world.

You get unlimited anonymous aliases. The feature protects your main email address from spam and phishing attacks. So when you give in your email to a company but want to protect your identity, start mail can generate a shareable alias email so people can sell your information and they can be deleted at any time. Listen, I'm done with big tech. You should be to the worst. Start securing your email privacy today. Don't wait to start mail. Sign up today and you'll get fifty percent off your first year.

Go to start mail dotcom Bongino. That's start mail with a t like start today would start mail start mail dotcom Bongino for 50 percent off your first year again start mail dotcom slash Bongino go today. You won't regret it. All right. Won't go down time you. So, you know, again, we were told by. The bow tie wearing snob crowd, the elites in the media and elsewhere, you're not allowed to talk about stolen elections. God forbid you do that.

We will banish you from the interweb everywhere. Well, then why is Nancy Pelosi talking right now this weekend? This just happens with Stephanopoulos as she was interviewing, I think it was on ABC with Stephanopoulos. And she's asked a question about why House Democrats are trying to steal the Iowa 2nd Congressional District seat back from the Republican who won. The Republican won, that race is over. It's so Jogi just so everybody's clear, and so the congresswoman now swore in raise their right hand and swore in copy into my right.

Already swore it. Pelosi is talking about stealing the race, it's already been certified, you doubt me. Listen to listen to our interview here, she cites. Now, I didn't know this was there was a caveat that you're not allowed to talk about stolen elections. Joe, I didn't know. We talk about what we want, of course. But apparently, according to Pelosi, Joe, there are two conditions you can you can steal an election africanus, No.

One, as long as the victor in the election. If they only win by six votes, then you can steal it. I didn't know that, so let's write that little asterisk. I need to know that in the future for other Joe, if you only win by 60 votes, check Democrats can steal it. I didn't read that election law, but this is she makes Duba. And her second point is, as long as the candidate that loses asks for you to steal it, then it's OK.

You got the two, Joe. You got the two rules. Yeah. Yeah. Make sure I know it makes perfect. I know you get it now. So let's listen to Nancy Pelosi described the two conditions where it's perfectly OK to not only talk about, but actually steal elections. Check this out. I want to ask you about the controversy brewing around Iowa's 2nd Congressional District. The GOP congressman, Marjorie Miller Weeks won a razor close election, six votes.

The votes were counted, recounted, certified by the state. But the House administration committee began a process this week that could lead to unseating the congresswoman that has Republicans accusing you of hypocrisy, including Jim Jordan. He put out this tweet. Speaker Pelosi says she's open, unseating Republican Congresswoman Miller. Meek's translation. You're only allowed to object to an election if you're a Democrat. Why investigate an election that was certified by the state?

Well, it was six votes. It was six votes. And our candidate, Reichart, the Democratic candidate, asked for this process to begin.

So is everyone taking notes at home? Apparently, you you're allowed to steal an election again, as Nancy Pelosi says, if it's only six votes. Now, the obvious question, Joe, is OK. Remember, the Republican congresswoman is already sworn in, right? The elections. I'll show you the evidence in a second that this was already reviewed, already certified by Democrats as well in actual Iowa. The race is over. So I'm curious, Joe, the logical question here is if Democrats are saying it's OK to steal an election from a Republican congresswoman because she only won by six votes, what's the next question?

Well, what about seven? Yeah, what's the actual number? Fair question. Right. Yeah. If Stephanopoulos was an actual journalist, that's the question I would ask, Nancy. What if it was 10 votes, 11? What's the number? What do you have to win by before Nancy Pelosi says, no, we can't steal it. Again, to our liberal listeners, is that not a fair question? What is what if you win by one vote?

What's the deal? Is this fair? Is this fair? OK, I'm getting ahead of Joe. Is that is that a fair question? It's a fair question. What's the number of a 15, 20 you've got to win. No, you've got to win by one hundred. And second, her condition to steal the election for the Democrats, the race is over, I can't say this enough is oh, don't worry, the Democrats lost is now asking for them to steal.

Oh. Oh, OK, Joe. There it is. There. I didn't know that. I didn't know that. As long as the candidate asks for you to steal it, it's OK. So, again, six votes is the cutoff and the candidate who loses has to ask for. That's just a little asterisk there. That's really good. That's good to know you. You're a little background on this case from our friends at the Wall Street Journal.

In case you think know, maybe Nancy Pelosi has a point. You know, clearly the Republicans stole it. So Pelosi is just stealing it back. That's not exactly what happened. Here's The Wall Street Journal from I think this is last week. Democrats move on Iowa's 2nd District, the House takes the first step towards overturning an election, I thought we weren't allowed to do this or even talk about it. The race was certified by Democrats to look at this from the Journal, and I quote Zoe Lofgren, who is a liberal Democrat in the House of Representatives, who's marshaling this effort to steal the election from the Republican congresswoman who won Miller Meeks.

Zoe Lofgren, the Democrat, said the American people deserve to know who actually won this election. As if the outcome hadn't already been certified by a five zero vote of Iowa State Election Board, Joe composed of three Republicans and two Democrats. The precursor to the Committee on House Administration had held that the results are, quote, presumed to be correct until they are impeached by proof of irregularity and fraud, which nobody found. Yeah. A unanimous three Republican to Democrat board in the Iowa State Election Board said the results are good.

The Republican won. But again, don't worry, if you only win by six votes, you're a Republican and the Democrat you beat asks, asks for the seat to be stolen, you should worry because then they can steal it from. Those are the new rules as long as we're writing these rules all down. Watch this story. This is going to be a big, big controversy. All right, we're going to have to hold the police over, we are going to get to the Florida Keys, been kind of making fun of me a little bit because I get these great stories and I hold them forever.

So he had a good idea. Joe, he said we should do like a land of misfit toys show where we take all the stories we really loved but never made it. And we just do one show where we bounce right through them all. The rent control story, this police story, I'm going to get to the police story. It promises me an update from sunny Florida. I talked about this yesterday. Folks were in a little bit of a mini crisis here in Florida.

Not kidding. The place is blowing up, you cannot I live down here, I have to move because we need to expand their studio and I don't have enough space. You can't find a house down here. You Floridians listening, well, you don't want to be ridiculous. You can find a house, but you are going to pay through the nose. I bought I bought our house in Palm City, our first studio. For about, what, five hundred thousand or some, the house now is fetching like seven hundred thousand dollars.

I've only been in Florida for six years. You can't find a house people are in the bidding wars are insane. I have a friend who moved to Boca. She bought her place, I think, five or six months ago. It's an expensive place to place the same exact model. Home is on the market down in her neighborhood for four hundred thousand more than she bought it just in the fall of last year. And to get into the neighborhood, real estate people aren't even taking new clients unless you're going to buy that day.

I'm not kidding. You have to. There's a lottery to get on into the neighborhood to bid on the house. It's turning into a little bit of a mini crisis down here. You can't find a house. I took a bubblies, B, every Bleys pizzas, like the Chipotle, a pizza. I take my daughter there, she loves it. They have a little dough. And you like it's like that. You play a pizza, give me to some meatballs and they put it in a thing as Gore ever thought of.

It's a great idea. I took my daughter to the blaze. What does that have to do with anything? Because, ladies, Jim was supposed to be in the middle of a pandemic, Florida's so hot, it's like the pandemic never happened. The place is packed. We could even get in the joint. You couldn't even get in the joint. I ran into my financial adviser, that great guy. He paid for my pizza. You couldn't even get in the joint.

Florida is smoking hot right now, smoking in fuego, you can't find a house. Businesses are booming. But it is turning into a little bit of a mini crisis because we're not used to this down here, I'm not a lifetime Floridian, but I've been down here six years. The snowbirds usually leave right around Easter because it gets hot in Florida, they go back, the snowbirds aren't even leaving anymore. The place the traffic down here is getting pretty, pretty heavy to.

Why why is all this happening? Well, look at this Wall Street Journal piece I pulled the other day, New York's Hot Export People by Mark Kingdon, Wall Street Journal. Why are people leaving New York? Because, again, tying it back to the beginning of the show, liberals tell you they want higher taxes and they want you to pay their fair share, although they don't know the economic results of higher taxes because they haven't done their homework and can never cite what the fair share is.

And the third part of the prong to time tie the whole show together is the fact that liberals say they want higher taxes, despite the fact that when the higher taxes hit them, they come down to Florida to escape the higher taxes they told you they wanted, but knew nothing about the me. Their Wall Street Journal pays Albany legislators in New York considering two tax bills that would damage New York's economy, a wealth tax and a stock transfer tax, the top federal at the top tax rate and the top federal tax on capital gains will increase to 40 percent.

The combined New York state and city rate may reach 15 percent. So if New York enacts this two percent wealth tax, a wealthy New Yorker could wind up paying wait for it. Seventy seven percent tax on their short term stock market profits. Oh, and by the way, that's that's a conservative estimate. If they actively trade their portfolio, the tax would be more than one hundred percent. Now we know what a fair tax looks like, the piece ends.

I'll end the show on this. I'm just asking you to the liberal viewers and listeners of the show to think through this logically. If what you're saying is so rational and reasonable. That higher taxes work, we need higher taxes now, and it will lead to a better life for all of us. Why, when you vote those policies in in New York, do you then escape the life you claim would be better in the place you voted in the policy you said would lead to a better life?

Why do you leave to come to a state that has an income tax rate, a state income tax rate of zero? I thought you said higher taxes were a really good thing. So why are you trying to escape them? Why are you filling up Bleys Pizza? Why are you clogging up our roads? Why are you buying up all the houses down here? Great. Come down. But why are you coming down and bringing the same economic stupidity you tried to escape and trying to bring it to the great state of Florida?

While you why are you doing it while simultaneously being totally uninformed about what tax cuts have done in the past, they've raised revenue, not lost them, and being totally uninformed about what the fairshare actually is.

Are you proud of not knowing anything? Are you proud of saying something and doing the other? We call that being a hypocrite. All right, folks, thanks for tuning in. Hey, I usually promote a rumble at the in the show, which I'm going to, of course, do today. Please follow our account, Rumball Dotcom slash Bongino to watch the show. But I just want to leave you with this. I've got some. More exciting news coming different from my business stuff, you know, I'm building out my parallel economy and I do have some exciting news about that, too.

But Joe Jonas. We got some big. Big nose now to big, big stuff coming. Make sure you follow the show. I'm hoping to be able to I'm limited what I can say until like next week and thanks to our buddy cat turd sent me a mug. I told him I wear a shirt. I will eventually buddy cat turd on Twitter. We do all love cat turd Samachar to a couple of his books, some little bumper magnets, too.

We all love our friend cat turd. Thank you very much. My new go to my blog. It's the best. Check them out on social media. All right, folks, I have to admit I am a shut off the audio of the show, Joe, before. Hello. Thanks for doing it.

You just heard Dan Bongino.