glenn beck is next. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] captioned by the national captioning institute ---www.ncicap.org--- >> three, two, one, beck! andrew: welcome to the glenn beck program. glenn is off tonight. tonight, is the c.i.a. lying? some democrats say yes, but are they just covering up for nancy pelosi? also, the endorsement of a supreme court nominee and how it affects next week's hearings, plus cap and trade and healthcare reform, are they a double whammy to small business? i will explain. if you believe this is a great country but the government is driving us down the wrong path, it's time to pull over. come on, follow me. leon panetta apparently told

the house committee in closed door testimony that the c.i.a. has misled congress for the past eight years about classified operations, and if this sounds somewhat familiar, there's a good reason. house speaker nancy pelosi accused the agency of not coming clean about their use of waterboarding of terror suspects back in 2002. so, who's telling the truth and who's not? in washington is michael scheuer, former c.i.a. senior official and author of "marching towards hell, america and islam." thank you for being with us. >> thank you. steve: i watched pelosi's news conference today and it felt that she was a little nervous f this blows up and becomes very, very big, we may learn more than she wants us to know. what do you think of that? >> i think so. i think there are two separate issues here. mrs. pelosi lied to the american people about not being briefed. that's one. whatever mr. panetta told them in conference, of course, was

supposed to be secret, and so they have broken their oaths of security by bringing this out in the public. it clearly is something mr. panetta can settle once and for all, and if mr. panetta says he didn't say that, then i suppose we see the democrats playing politics with american national security. steve: michael, talk about the timing of the 7 democrats that wrote this letter here right here, recommending to the c.i.a. director that he apologize or at least clear up the record. what is going on tomorrow? why would this letter be circulated today, for example? >> well, they're trying to protect mrs. pelosi. as i understand it, the republicans put into the intelligence bill an amendment or a section that would require the release of the briefing documents about waterboarding that were given to mrs. pelosi during the last eight years, and apparently, the democrats have blocked that from being done, so clearly there is something they don't want the american people to know.

steve: now, if i'm not mistaken, the meeting that they are referencing, the director, lee onpanetta did this voluntarily. he came to the hill and testified behind closed doors and said this is what we do and how we do it, voluntarily, and this letter implies there is some sort of misleading going on that he doesn't want to tell the public. >> well, it's all part of the amateurishness that we have with this government in terms of protecting americans. mr. obama and his crew are very good at getting off of horses and not having any other to get on to. they stop traditions. they stopped interrogations. they're going to close guantanomo. they haven't told us yet what they're going to replace those things with in order to protect the united states. it's an interesting situation. they're really running away from national defense. steve: how does this play out? let's say it gets bigger, and representative pete hoekstra was on the news channel saying

we will make it bigger and go into further depth into what really goes on, if that's what you want. nancy pelosi, maybe she doesn't want it. tell us how this plays out. what is the next step? >> well, i think tomorrow when they talk about the defense bill, it's clearly the american people have a right to know. mr. panetta, i think, is the key figure here. he can both tell the american people what was briefed to mrs. pelosi over the last year, and he also can clarify whatever he told to them in closed session, and as long as the democrats broke the security of that closed session, i don't see why mr. panetta can't come out and set the record straight. i think that's where it should go. steve: let's talk about that for a second. you have, i guess there is about 20 on each the house and senate in these intelligence committees. assuming these people were all briefed on everything going on at the c.i.a. between aides, between staffers, how many eyeballs will be on some of these very important things

going on around the world, and maybe we don't want our people out there with everyone watching? >> well, i think that's right. you always have a little bit of classification, although it's fading in the security world these days, but i think the point i would make is that there is no congressman or senator who cannot get a briefing if he wants one. the agency, i always thought, briefed too many congressmen who weren't on the committees but ultimately the congress controls the budget and so they're very forward leaning about briefing people. more often than not, when a senator or a congressman says they didn't know about something, it was either because they didn't want to know or because they sent a staffer to be briefed, and then they were one removed from actually the briefing, so there's a great deal of lying that goes on to the american people by the congress about what they know and when they knew it. steve: hang on there, mike, just for a minute. i want to go to congressman

mike rogers of michigan, a member of the house intelligence committee. he joins us from capitol hill. thanks for joining us, mike. >> thanks for having me. steve: tell us a little bit about this. do you think leon panetta lied in that closed-door meeting? >> well, i don't have any reason to believe that he lied, but i also didn't walk out of that meeting thinking that he said that he and the c.i.a. had misled congress. there is a lot of misconstruing going on right now, and i think it is a lot of political theater, and less based on the facts of the issues. we're not even quite clear yet that there was any requirement under what they have done to notify congress, which is a big difference than they have mislead, which is a crime, by the way, or lied to a committee to mislead, which is another crime, by the way. those very, very serious charges, and we take them very seriously, and i don't think they ought to fling them around like that. that's exactly what got the speaker in trouble, and, you know, the chairman just two

nights ago, slipped a letter under the door of the republicans after everyone had gone home saying i have determined that they misled us and lied to us, and we can't get any confirmation or corroboration, none of it, and it wasn't based on the committee hearing that i was in with leon panetta. it makes you scratch your head a little bit. i don't think you have to be inspector clouseau to understand this is more political than it looks like. steve: tomorrow we're going to start delving into that reauthorization of the 2010 authorization bill. is it now -- are they pushing for more information? do they want to know more of what is going on? >> well, this is what is so frustrating to a guy like me. i'm a former f.b.i. agent. i think my duties in oversight on the intelligence committee is serious. when they attack the c.i.a., by the way, who is supposed to stop the rest of the world from attacking us and making that their political position

moving forward on an authorization bill is very frustrating. we have al qaeda to worry about, and north korea's, another nuclear test, more missile tests. iran is getting ready to step up their program. we have a lot of really serious issues, and the speaker just started out by saying well, they always lie to us, to cover her position on interrogation techniques. it's sophomoric, almost, when you think about the seriousness and the weight of what we asked these men and women to do, risk their lives, to get information that if they're caught with it could get them killed to give it to us so we can make good decisions. that's the thing we should be focused on. steve: i have this letter, and it strikes me that, number one, it is a short letter. it is not the official seal, and it looks like they put it together, and frankly, after listening to nancy pelosi today in her press conference, it didn't sound like she was even aware this letter was going to go out. do you think she knew this was on its way? >> well, i find it odd that

they would do it on an unofficial letterhead. that way they don't have to notify everybody that they sent the letter. again, it just raises some questions that i have about what is your motive to do this? what are you trying to accomplish by attacking the c.i.a. in this kind of a way when we have so many serious issues? again, i think that whole thing was trying to protect the speaker who said, oh, no, congress misled me, misled congress numerous times, they do it all the time, which is a serious allegation. you have told the men and women of the c.i.a. that you're violating the law and you're committing a criminal act. that's pretty serious. steve: thank you, representative mike rogers from michigan, house intelligence committee. thanks a lot. let's bring back michael scheuer for reaction. you heard it, michael t sounds like politics to me. i think john boehner said today it is blatantly political. is that what it is? is this now becoming more transparent from the c.i.a.? >> i think it is blatantly political. i think they are like

clinton's organization. they are children in very powerful positions, but the congressman said the most important thing. what the democrats are doing is making sure that the men and women who work for the c.i.a. are not going to risk their careers, their financial futures, their family life because they'll be persecuted for doing what the president and the congress approved. right now even, the agency is advising private companies who work in the intelligence field to have their employees take out personal liability insurance, because of what the congress may do over time, so it does nothing but hurt america. if somebody lied to the congress, they deserve to be punished. that should be investigated and taken to the limit, but if there's nothing to this, i think you have to look at mrs. pelosi and her gang as kind of very negative people about defending america, and about making sure the intelligence service operates

appropriately. steve: michael, real quickly, when are we going to hear from leon panetta? >> i hope mr. panetta speaks up one way or another. he can squash this right away. he needs to have some courage and step up here. you can't just keep abusing the intelligence service and expect them to risk their lives, as the congressman said, to protect us. steve: thank you very much, michael. hearings for supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor start next week, yet there are two controversies swirling around the woman who may become the country's first hispanic justice. we have already told her how her feelings on race, including ore wise latina woman, quote, unquote statement, may play a role. now in an unprecedented move, ruth bader-ginsburg has come out in support of sotomayor in an article that has come out in this sunday's upcoming new york times magazine. fox news judicial analyst andrew napolitano joins us now. judge, what about it?

is it, in fact, unprecedented that a sitting supreme court justice would come out in favor of a nominee? >> truly unpress depthed in modern times that she would do. this the timing is unbelievable. it is coming out this sunday, in the sunday times magazine, the most widely read aspect of "the new york times", and monday is when the hearings begin so she obviously wants to get her thoughts on the record. it is not a subtle endorsement. it is a full throated unrestrained endorsement of the woman who will be probably sitting next to her on the court come the first monday in october. steve: judge, the times magazine comes out sung day and the court looks at this on monday. what about the timeing? >> she didn't need to do this. there is an unwritten rule among judges which 99% of american judges accept. you don't speak out on political issues. you don't attempt to influence the outcome of a public

controversy from other than what you do in your courtroom. if you do, you will find yourself commenting on other cases before other judges, and then you're not looked at as a wise person who is deciding the law, but as a politician in a black robe. that demeans the court. that's the even for that rule of restraint, which justice ginsburg has chosen, for reasons best known to her not to comply with. >> get inside her brain for a minute. i'm trying to figure out why. >> i think she may want to give comfort to some waiverring senators. i think she may want to give cover to her soon to be colleague, because the thing that she endorsed was not judge sonia sotomayor's decisions, which, though decidedly liberal, eric, and i have read almost all of them, are within the mainstream of american thought. she endorsed this "wise latina" stuff. she endosed the most controversial things that judge sotomayor said, which have not been said in her opinions.

they have been said in her seminars an opinions, so it is as if to say it's ok to say this stuff, because i'm on the supreme court and i approve of it. that gives cover to senators who may be gilling her on this starting monday. >> gives cover, demeans the court, anything else? this is the supreme court of the land, judge, and if anything you want to keep that supreme and want to keep the "wow" factor. >> judge sotomayor's decisions are wrn the mainstream of the american legal thinking. her statements to law school students are not. once she is on the supreme court of the united states, there is no appeal after that. if those statements to students find their way into her opinions you have a very different justice about to join the court. justice ginsburg is greasing the skids for that. >> tell me why a wise latina woman, in her opinion would make a better judgment?

>> i wish she a different judgment. everyone brings personal experiences, personal background to the court. believe it or not, judges are human beings, and sometimes justices determine by the experience of the judge, because there are gaps in the law. that's what judges do. they have to sometimes fill in the gaps, areas of human behavior unanticipated when the statutes were written make their way into the courtroom. it is good to have a variety of people on the court with a variety of background but it is not good to say one person's background is superior to another. that is the stumbling block. if there will be any, that judge sonia sotomayor will have to face start k monday. >> you want to make a prediction? >> 68-32 confirmed, probably before they go on their break august 1st. the president has the votes. >> it seems that's what this administration is about, you have the votes an put up some

smoke screen and change whatever you want to cut the vote. that's their at attitude. the obama administration is not talking about another stimulus plan, but an obama supporter, investor warren buffett is talking about it. could another bailout be coming? that's next.

eric: listen to what warren buffet had to say about a second stimulus. >> it is not a pan see ya. a stimulus is the right thing. you hope it doesn't get watered down in many ways. you know, our first stimulus bill seemed to me like taking a half of tablet of viagra and then having a bunch of candy mixed in. everything was putting in things for their own constituencies. it didn't have really quite the wallop. eric: warren, viagra and wallop. a new report says counties that supported obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the president's stimulus package than those who voted for john mccain. john riddles, author of "bailout nation" and john hannity, author of real clear

markets. is the stimulus working, what is the store i? >> we have barely seen it go out. 6%, 9%, somewhere in that range, and you slowly watching it roll out. the bulk won't hit until 2010. by the time we know if it works we will probably be out of the recession. eric: i remember geithner saying we better get this out there quick, because the economy needs it. what is taking so long? >> i think the bet was instead of throwing a hail mary, the bet was this would go on for a long time and we better not use all the money quickly, because even though we are hearing from the vice president that, gee, this surprised us, they means they were expecting a deep recession and prolonged recession, designed to cushion the blow for two years. it's hard to see anyone is surprise fire department that's the way you roll out the spending. >> joe biden over the weekend said we misread the economy. did they misread it? is it worse than it would be? >> they don't understand the

economy at all. the reality is that stimulus as a rule cannot work. the equivalent would be me going to barry and stealing $50 and going to spend it. i am $a 50 richer but he is $50 poorer. it is just a transfer of wealth. for those taxed in order to pay the stimulus bill, they have less incentive to work and those handed the money have less incentive to work. the stimulus bill caused the economy to slow down. as a rule, it should. eric: what in the world would make them think we should start talking about a second stimulus package when we haven't even spent 90% of stimulus one. why even talk about it now? >> the sad tragedy for our economy is that politicians always feel they always need to be seen to be doing something. as a result, they create problems that didn't exist before. calvin coolidge used to say if you see ten troubles coming down the road, nine will roll off into the ditch f washington would just get out of the way, the economy would

be fine. as long as it keeps intervening like this, what we have called a recession will be elongated. eric: barry, i often equate obama to the c.e.o. of the country a good c.e.o. will grow his business. what he is really doing is growing the size of government. isn't that what he is supposed to do? >> well, to some degree, when you have a recession and a credit-driven recession like we have where private activity has gone away and won't be back for a couple quarters, maybe a couple of years, there is nothing wong with the government on a temporary basis filling that soidz. >> it is not temporary. that is the problem. every congressperson that comes on any of these shows they say how they're going to spend it, and then i say when they repay tarp and banks pay back, what are you going to do with it? >> it should go back to the taxpayers. >> that's a big danger with any bailout. it is never a temporary thing.

suddenly you have a bigger -- everyone forgets, when federal income taxes were started, it was 1%. eric: john, talk to me about the american public, are they ready for stimulus two when they haven't seen the effects of stimulus one? i mean, we're talking about 14 1/2 million people still out of work, far exceeding what ak obama's wildest worst nightmare, so why would the american people even think about stimulus two? >> my hope is that the american people in general have an intuitive sense that you can't get something for nothing. this is what stimulus presumes. what all americans have to understand is that in order to stimulate one sector of the economy with the government spending money, you must, by definition, depress another aspect of it. there is no economic growth. in fact, it creates negative economic growth. the last thing we need with the economy gasping as it is for the government to spend even more money on something that will not work. eric: barry, at some point we

have to pay for this, our kids or our kids' kids are going to have to pay for this. how do we do this? >> one way is by massive inflation, by inflating our way out of. this we keep printing dollars. we keep running a bigger deficit. we keep spending money we don't have. you basically take the dollars in your wallet and make it worth that much less. that's a real problem. that's one way. the other way, the responsible way is you reduce spending across the board. that includes military. that includes entitlements and diskegs airy spending, but good luck finding 51 senators over the past 100 years that are willing to do that. eric: john, did we make a mistake by bailing out wall street and not bailing out small businesses main street? >> we most definitely made a mistake. you never should bail out any company of any size. capitalism is not capitalism unless there is failure, also. bailing out wall street ensures more cies cease in the future when banks are taught they can make mistakes and

that politicians will cushion their mistakes. it is a huge error. eric: what about it, barry? >> there is a great quote that says "the result of shielding men from their follies will fill the world with fools." that's what we do when you have bear stearns and citigroup, when they're insolvent, you let them go belly up, otherwise you encourage more recklessness. eric: thanks, guys for joining us. >> our pleasure. >> states trying to balance their budge budgets and it is not just california. the budget battle could come to your hometown next. glenn: do you ever lay awake at night and wish you had a juggler on hand to explain the role of government interference in our lives, or maybe a big pile of monopoly money to make sense of foreign debt? lucky day for you! look no further. roferred this show every day at 5:00 p.m. eastern, i mean, i'm there for you, baby, you

know what i'm saying? i think i made most of the audience just throw up in their mouth just a little bit. there nothing like a little glenn after hours. oh, i did it again. remember, midnight snack and a side of me. they took away my m&m's and replaced them with grapes. i am grossing america out like crazy. every day, record the show, 5:00 eastern. i never thought it could happen to me...

a heart attack at 53. i had felt fine. but turns out... my cholesterol and other risk factors...

increased my chance of a heart attack. i should've done something. now, i trust my heart to lipitor. when diet and exercise are not enough, adding lipitor may help. unlike some other cholesterol lowering medications, lipitor is fda approved to reduce the risk... of heart attack, stroke, and certain kinds of heart surgeries... in patients with several common risk factors... or heart disease. lipitor has been extensively studied... with over 16 years of research. lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems... and women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant. you need simple blood tests to check for liver problems. tell your doctor if you are taking other medications, or if you have any muscle pain or weakness. this may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. i was caught off-guard. but maybe you can learn from my story. have a heart to heart with your doctor... about your risk. and about lipitor.

>> i'm patti ann browne.

investigators have just ruled on what caused steve fossett's plane to crash nearly 2 years ago in california. the ntsb says his aircraft did not malfunction but hit a small downdraft that the plane couldn't handle. an amtrak train and car collides near a road crossing in detroit. all five people in the car are dead. the 150 people onboard the train are rbled to be ok. no word on whether crossing gates and a warning light at the crossing were working. the man who ran one of the biggest ponzi schemes of all time will do his time. bernard madoff's lawyer said he will not appeal his 150 year sentence. bret baier now previews what is on "special report" tonight. >> coming up, more accusations that the c.i.a. lied to congress, renewing calls for the house speaker to back up her original claim, and new developments tonight in the healthcare reform debate. now back to eric in for glenn.

eric: a sagging economy plus higher unemployment means lower tax revenues. give me the ball. here we go. lower state revenues for states across the country. state governments are scrambling to pay their own bills and balance their budgets but that is proving to be very hard. six states missed their july 1 deadline for a balanced budget. arizona's governor just signed their $10 billion budget yesterday, but it includes a $2 billion deficit that lawmakers must address. some states balanced their budgets earlier in the year, but according to research by stateline.org, they facing shortfalls. these 11 states spread out across the country are still in limbo but not all facing equal problems. check it out. kansas, ohio, oklahoma, 130 million dollars. california, a whopping $26 billion. california is trying to get out of the hole, but they don't want to cut programs and they can't raise taxes. now, it seems they can't even

agree on how much money they have received in bailouts. i tried to do the math but it didn't add up. last week, i spoke to governor schwarzneggar's spokesperson, aaron mclear to see if he could explain. listen up. >> look, you're going to get $50 billion from the federal government and you're still $26.3 billion short. what am i missing? >> well, the $50 billion, first of all, is over three years, and most of that has nothing to do with our state budget. a lot of that goes to local communities, to local schools, never goes through the state government system, and a lot of that is for new projects, new infrastructure or transportation projects that we never had on the books so a very small amount of that federal economic stimulus stuff is for our budgets. one really has nothing to do with the other. eric: fair enough that. was on this show last week, but last night, i spoke to california representative brad sherman and here is what he had to say. >> representative shermman, schwarzneggar'ss office came out and told us that you guys

are $26 billion short after a $50 billion handout or bailout from the federal government. are you going to tap the feds, the obama administration, and say hey, we need more money? >> well, the amount california received out of this stimulus bill was closer to $12 billion. i don't know where you get the $50 billion. eric: right from his mouth. he said $50 billion over the next two or three years. >> i think arnold may have it wrong. eric: back with me now is california congressman brad cherman. thank you for joining us, sir. i know you are in the midst of some voting but talk about that. the governor had it wrong. do you still think he has it wrong? >> well, i think you interpreted him wrong. $50 bill billion may be the figure for all state and local governments over a period of time. you asked me what the state was getting and that's $12 billion this year. i don't think there is any disagreement between me and the governor.

the disagreement is if you're going to lump the transportation agency of los angeles, the school district of los angeles in with state government and say that's california's state government, then that's a little different than we talk about governmental entities in california. it is the state budget that is $26 billion in arrears or rather out of balance. that has nothing to do with the city budget, county budget, the transportation agency budget, et cetera. you're not talking apples to apples an oranges to oranges. it is a $12 billion deficit at the state level and $12 billion infusion at the state level. eric: i thank you for joining us, and can you explain did? i want to talk apples and apples or oranges and oranges but, farchgly, i don't get it. is california getting $15 billion from the feds or not? >> all of the governmental entities of california, over a period of several years, are getting something close to $50

billion, but when you talk about a budget deficit of $26 billion, you're not talking about all the governmental entities of california. you're talking about one specific governmental entity in one specific year, and as to the amount that california state government is getting, that's the entity with the $26 billion deficit, and that's the entity that is getting $12 billion from the federal government. eric: all right. let me ask you, then, how are you going to make up a $26 billion budget deficit? >> only with incredible pain, which, unfortunately, i think, is going to be borne by those who are dependent upon the state for healthcare and those who are receiving an education at our public schools. eric: expand on that. >> this is a difficult time for california. eric: you're going to cut back on healthcare and teachers? let's talk apples and apples? >> i see that and also law enforcement and prisons.

we ought to try to balance things out. we will have good years and bad years. unfortunately, this bad year hit with a thump, and there is considerable disagreement. the governor isn't going -- he won't agree to a number of things that could ameliorate the problem, so i don't know where we go from here, but i know it is going to be painful. i just don't know how painful. eric: let's bring in fox news contributor michael goodwin. you heard the the congressman talk about california, but we're not producing enough tax revenue to pay for services here in new york city. where do we go? >> new york city's revenue has gone down $5 billion and new york state's has gone down 35% in the first quarter of this year. there is no end in sight. meanwhile, most of the states and cities, as the congressman said, are using the stimulus money to kind of tide them over in the short term, but they have no long-term

prospects, and here in new york, for example, the city and state combined have raised taxes by 12.5 billion dollars just this year alone. $12.5 billion in new taxes, so revenues are going down, taxes are going up. that's a formula for being a failed state. eric: if i'm not mistaken, new york state once in a while will come up with a program to entice business to come to new york, and they do that by lowering taxes or providing tax incentives. i think of the film industry as one. >> sure. eric: what are we going to do? are we driving business overseas or to new jersey or maybe even england? >> for sure. when you raise the personal income tax, and the people in charge of these businesses have a choice to make. do they want to pay more taxes? you raise the corporate tax, you shut down all kinds of exemptions and you don't have the money to fund any incentive programs. right away, you're giving people a reason to leave rather than a reason to stay. in new york city, for example, there are 5,000 families that pay a combined 30% of the personal income tax.

may your bloomberg says 1,700 of them decide to leave the state, that would be a catastrophe for the city. those are the kinds of things happening in new york and california. these high-tax big-spending states and they have run up against them and there is no future in the way they are going about t oip mike, if i'm not mistaken, you can get as high as a 39% income tax rate and 8% state tax and 4 1/2% city tax and 9% sales tax. you end up with about a quarter on the dollar. >> that's right. if you live in new york city and make the maximum, which kicks in low for city and state, the top rate, you will pay 12 1/2% income tax, plus, as you say, you have over 39% on the federal. it is an extraordinary time, yet sales tax keeps going up. revenues are going down. eric: mike goodwin, fox news contributor, and we want to thank representative brad

shermman from joining us from washington as well. >> small businesses are responsible for 70% of the jobs in this country. why aren't they getting any still plus money? we will talk to one small business owner who says the cap and trade bill, the energy bill, the cap and trade bill will run him out of business, next. what are you doing for lunch? how about beer-battered shrimp and chips... or one of our coastal soup and grilled shrimp salad combinations? eight dishes that fit into your lunch hour... starting at just $6.99. at red lobster.

getting your daily vegetables and fruit can be difficult.. nine out of ten adults don't get the recommended amount. that's why there's v8 v-fusion juice. it's one hundred percent juice with a full serving of vegetables, a full serving of fruit and antioxidants a, c and e. you get vegetable nutrition we all need but what you taste is the fruit. try new goji raspberry and passionfruit tangerine flavors. v8 v-fusion an easy, delicious way to get more vegetables. brand power. helping you buy better. car insurance company in the nation. but, it's not like we're kicking back, now, havin' a cuppa tea. gecko vo: takes lots of sweat to become that big. gecko vo: 'course, geckos don't literally sweat... it's just not our thing... gecko vo: ...but i do work hard, mind you. gecko vo: first rule of "hard work equals success." gecko vo: that's why geico is consistently rated excellent or better in terms of financial strength. gecko vo: second rule: "don't steal a coworker's egg salad, 'specially if it's marked "the gecko."

come on people.

eric: all the czars are getting hammered from all angles, higher taxes, higher energy costs and now they're being tapped for healthcare reform and a tax on pollution. why is government taxing the engine, the very engine of our economy which provides up to 70% of america's jobs during what some would say is the worst recession since the great one, the great depression, and why is the stimulus ignoring them? less than 1% of the $787 billion package is going to go to small business and the small business administration. small businesses, meanwhile, have also taken a huge hit in

terms of being able to access credit and the government isn't helping them out either. over $28 billion has been issued by the government in loans but less than 1% of loans have gone to small business. meanwhile, a recent poll shows their frustration. check this out. 94% believe success depends more on what they do for themselves than the government. that's a good thing. 86% don't think stimulus will directly benefit their business, and 75% say the government doesn't offer enough support. let's go beyond the numbers to the real people affected. here is david macarthur at macarthur's bake i in st. louis. it has been a family-owned business, operated, run, for 52 years. david, you're the very definition of small business. what is going on with your bake i? >> it is an interesting time to be in the world of business, especially small business. the cap and trade bill passed, as we all know, and it was a little bit upsetting to myself, personally, as well as

my brother, the owner of the business, and so we just decided we had to make a statement. eric: david, go ahead. how does the cap and trade bill affect you? >> well, what it does for us is it puts what we believe is a tax directly on what we produce. in the world of baking, it's one of those things that our energy usage goes into not so much heating and cooling, it goes into the manufacturing of product. you know, there are physics that say it takes a certain amount of energy to take a dough product to make it into a bread product, and nothing that anyone wants to do to make the world greener is going to change the amount of energy that goes into that. this tax directly applies to us as well as every other food manufacturer, and so what it is going to do, long term, essentially says you haven't cut back, so we're going to continue to tax you and tax you more, as a penalty. quite frankly, the only way i can use less energy to bake a loaf of bread is to quit

baking it. eric: how many employees do you have? >> 88, of which 55 have full healthcare and a 401k plan. we're not the average small business employer. we have been blessed to be able to have long-term employees and take care of those employees. those employees are family to us. eric: so you have to lay off people if cap and trade goes through and it will cost you more for energy and you will get taxed if you emit pollution from your bakery? >> well, i guess we're emitting carbon because we're burning gas, but here in the midwest, our energy is primarily generated by coal plants. 85% of our electricity is by coal-fired plants. in the midwest we will get hit with the highest taxes of the rest of the country, and so we look at last year, we had $152,000 gas and electric bill, so if i looked at a 10% increase, that's a $15,000 increase. we don't know where it is. this is our beef. our legislation has voted on a bill where they can't give you answers. they can't tell you what the

percentages are going to be. there is no caps in place, at least they can't tell you if there is caps in place. a 10% kick takes us up $15,000 a year. that's selling doughnuts. how much are you going to pay for a doughnut? every time we raise a price, we shoo customers away that. is not just the bakery business, it is everybody in the bakery business today. eric: did your representative vote for or against the cap and trade bill? why not give them a call? we'll find out. we've got the number. are you receiving a payout from a legal settlement or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements.

the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today. thif you wanna tell it. who to call, just say, "call dave taylor." calling dave taylor mobile. and if you wanna tell it what to play, just say, "play songs by jack johnson." playing songs by jack johnson. ♪ voice control. on the iphone 3gs, the most powerful iphone yet.

last month, this woman wasn't even able to get around inside of her own home. they chose mobility. and they chose the scooter store! if you or a loved one live with limited mobility call the scooter store! no other company will work harder to make you mobile or do more to guarantee your complete satisfaction. if we pre-qualify you for a new power chair or scooter and your claim isn't approved, the scooter store will give you your power chair or scooter free. that's our guarantee. they were so helpful and nice. they filed all the paperwork, and medicare and my insurance covered the cost. we can work directly with medicare or with your insurance company. we can even help with financing. if there's a way, we'll find it! so don't wait any longer, call the scooter store today.

eric: back to dave macarthur, vice president of operations from st. louis, missouri. you are mad as hell, so you took matters into your own hands, so what did you do, sir? >> saturday, two weeks ago,

about 3:00 in the afternoon, i went to our reader board. we have a nice reader board signs on our location out front, and i typed "russ carn hahn voted to close us and other small business." it was just in sheer aggravation, just fed up with it. >> have you heard from representative carnahan's office? >> no congressman moved so quickly. 10:00 a.m. that monday we received a call from 0 friend of our's that the congressman's office asked if we would meet in person to discuss the issues, would we agree to take it off of our sign, which we did. we figured that was the high road thing to do. we wanted to talk. we are against this bill. this is our issue. we're against this bill. eric: was he open to it? did he say if you talk me out of it, we'll come out and change our mind? >> no. what happened was a week later we met with his representative, the

congressman himself wasn't there, and we essentially discussed the issues that we had about is there a cap? what is it going to cost? how are these costs going to be defrayed over a year, two years, ten years, all these issues that nobody seemed to have answers for on a bill they voted on, so the agreement was they took it on a draft. they with going to get us that draft, and so send it to washington to give us real answers, which i could appreciate, but we have yet to receive the draft, so -- eric: i will tell you, david, we called representative carnagh. 's office to see if he read the bill and the 300-page amendment to the bill prior to voting on t his representative said that a statement was available to us, but when we read the statement, it did not address that, and then one of our people got hung up on twice, so i tell you, we tried to get some answers. real quickly, do you receive any stimulus money? you seeing any of the $787 billion package?

>> what is stimulus money? in our business, i haven't heard of anything. i mean, forget it. there's nothing come across to us. there is no mention to us of anything such. i have heard of nothing. you know, it's like saying what has the government done for us to stimulate our decrease in energy usage? they want to tax you, but they don't want to send you anything to help you out. eric: david, thank you very much for joining us on the glenn beck program. >> thank you very much. eric: how much did the website cost to put up talking about the stimulus package? your tax dollars, next.

taking its rightful place in a long line of amazing performance machines. this is the new e-coupe. this is mercedes-benz.

eric: just in case you're worried about where all that stimulus money is going, considering it is not going to small businesses, the general services administration says that $18 million are being spent to redesign the recovery.gov website. it is supposed to give taxpayers more information about where the $787 billion is being spent than the current version of the site. as you will remember, joe biden had a little trouble remembering that address. >> you know, i'm embarrassed. you know the website number? i should have it in front of me and i don't. i'm actually embarrassed. eric: the website number. the website number is recovery.gov and it cost a whopping $18 million. talk about stimulation. don't forget to set your tivos to watch this