lose. we lost a giant today, robert novak, dead at 78. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] captioned by the national captioning institute ---www.ncicap.org--- >> three, two, one, beck! glenn: welcome to the glenn beck program. glenn is off tonight. i'm judge andrew napolitano. tonight, what's going on with the healthcare plan? i will explain what you need to know, plus the government practices on-line intimidation, where is the media? and glenn's interview with nancy grace you won't see anywhere else f you believe this country is great but the government is leading us like sheep, stand up, you know the drill. no sneakers, no m&m's but plenty of beck. come on, follow me. everything the government runs is bankrupt. medicare is broke. medicaid is broke.

the post office is broke. amtrak is broke. social security is a bigger ponzi scheme and bigger fraud than anything bernie madoff ever dreamed of. it is broke. the government consumes wealth, private industry produces wealth. the government and private enterprise are the opposite. think about it, if private enterprise fails to produce what consumers want or fails to produce a profit for investors it goes out of business. the government doesn't understand the need to satisfy consumers or investors because it doesn't produce anything. it just keeps consuming our tax dollars, which we like sheep just keep turning over to the bureaucrats to spend. when a government wants to save money, it shuts down, like chicago's city hall did yesterday. when private enterprise wants to make more money, it works overtime. when the voters conclude that the public treasury has become a public trough, then they will send to d.c. only those who will get them as many freebies as they can, and are

constitutionally guaranteed values of private enterprise and private property will be gone forever. if you want more of something, make it profitable and untaxed and it will grow and fluorish f you want less of something, let the government regulate it and cap its costs, and it will require taxpayers' subsidies to stay alive. should president obama, who is not a doctor, be doctoring the healthcare industry? dr. scott gotleib is a doctor, a fellow at the american enterprise institute and former a.m.a. deputy commissioner and top medicare official in the last bush administration. dr. gotleib, good to see you again. welcome. >> thank you for having me. >> what does the president have wrong about this? do we expect a president to be talking about medicine? >> the achilles heel of this house bill right now is that it is congress starting to step into the regulation of the practice of medicine in a way it hasn't before.

traditionally the regulation of medical practice has been left to the state to localities to mediate and this is really congress starting to regulate medical practice issues. eric: in those states an locale tizz, the board of medical examiners are exempt. it is physicians guiding other physicians towards best practices. >> that's exactly right. even if you look at end-of-life provisions that have been talked about a lot, a lot of states have laws on the books that the doctor needs to discuss end-of-life issues with patients. a lot of hospitals have rules in place requiring doctors to do that. if you look at the house bill, it is extremely prescriptive in terms of what doctors should be telling patients. this is the president at a primetime press conference july 22nd. i want you to listen to ma what he said about tonsils. >> you come in and you got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats.

the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, you know what, i make a lot more money if i take this kid's tonsils out. >> does that make any sense to you, dr. gotleib? >> a doctor who examines the sore throat, is he the same person that might remove the tonsils? >> well, certainly an indelicate view of physicians and a dim view of the practice of medicine. >> you are being so diplomatic! indelicate, does he know what he is talking about? >> the more important point here is that it represents a lack of understanding of how financial incentives impact clinical decision making and it is leading the administration to the wrong policy. they really think that physicians will perform unnecessary surgeries, then they need to regulate. the legality is that it impacts more marginal decisions like should i get that mri or not, and if you want to resolve that kind of excessive use that you think there is too many mri's being

involved, the way isn't to regulate it but to regulate the cost of those decisions. their excessive view of how this works leads to the wrong solution. >> wouldn't the doctor be violating the rules of medical ethics and probably the law of the state if he performed an unindicated surgery as the president suggested may be commonplace, just to put more money in his pocket? >> look, major surgeries like tonsillectomies or even pacemakers, because he had a comment about pacemakers a couple of weeks prior, those things are grieded by clear clinical guidelines. there is evidence that there are more procedures performed in some regions of the country than others and people point to that and say that represents that some physicians are doing the wrong thing. thats's not necessarily true. i think that's where the administration have gone off. >> but the physician who performs the tonsillectomy is probably not the primary care physician who examines the

sore throat. >> that's exactlyite. there is a disconnect even in the diagnosis made by the primary care physician and then you would be referred to an e.n.t. and that doctor would do the procedure. >> what would happen to the incentive to become a doctor if we have a system like in canada where the fees are capped and those fees might be hit by, say, september or october in a january to december fiscal year? >> it's an interesting thing because the canadian system is falling apart right now. the doctors are begging for more openness, more free market. what is happening in canada is the government-run system is falling apart and they're developing a private market to take its place for people who are wealthy. here in the united states we have a private market that will be regulated away through a government system and remnants of the private system will remain for the privileged and wealthy. we might end up looking like canada with a large government system and a small private

market. when you talk to physicians in canada, they gained the system for themselves. >> what do you mean? >> they moved themselves and their family members at the top of the waiting list. that is an untold fact of canada. >> i was watching a program on another network where the anchor was explaining that many canadian towns have no physicians. the government doesn't send them there, wants them in the more populated areas so if you live in that town and want to see a physician, you have to put your name in a hat and the town clerk pulls the names out of the lottery. if your name is pulled, you get to see the physician. if it isn't, you don't. can you imagine that happening here? >> well, you look at the legislation, and a lot of workforce rules in the legislation in terms of trying to accessorize the education of more doctors versus others. my view of it is whatever the government is putting money behind, we're going to have an excess of that physician and a shortage of all the0thers. >> under the program as you understand it, you would need the government's approval

before you could perform the procedure if i were to get the surgery we talked about. >> in many cases they would have to ok the medical choices. >> thanks very much. >> you're welcome. >> over the weekend, the government is backing off the idea of a government-backed healthcare man. here is kathleen sebelius, health and human services secretary on sunday. >> we don't know what the senate finance committee is likely to come up with. they have been more focused on a co-op, not for profit, co-op, as a a competitor as opposed to a straight government-run program. i think what is important is choice and competition. i'm convinced at the end of the day that the plan will have both of those. >> today during a medicare speech, she affirmed the white house's support for the public option. >> here's the bottom line -- absolutely nothing has changed we continue to support the public options that will help

lower cost, give american consumers more choice, and keep private insurers honest. >> all right. what's she talking about? what is going on and what are the healthcare cooperatives here that she's talking about? here is michael cannon, director of health policy studies at the cato institute. michael, welcome here. as you understand it, is the public option on the table or off the table or does it depend on which day of the week did is and what audience she's talking to? >> well, it depends on what you mean by public option. when the president says public option, he says whatever you want public option to mean. when the democrats say it, they mean medicare for people under age 65. senate moderates mean something like a co-op and they won't tell you just what that is just yet. the president is being deliberately vague, and i think it's really catching up with him, because it's upsetting people in his own party. >> right. whatever they get, they can declare victory and go home. we all know that medicare

would be for people under 65. i think you're right. that's what the left in the congress and throughout the country sincerely want. that's what the president campaigned on, but when the president sort of seems to be stepping back a little bit, like he was personally himself, and like we saw secretary seb beale sebelius do and suggest medical co-ops, what is a medical co-op, michael, and how would it work? >> well, what a cooperative means is that the members govern the health plan, so the members are like stockholders. they elect the management team. they are the ones who are in control, but think about if the government charters this new co-op, how many members are there going to be on day one? there aren't going to be any, so who is going to be running this new program? well, the government is going to be running this new program. in effect, it could be exactly the same program as the house democrats want to see. it could, indeed, be medicare for people under 65. we are just calling it a co-op. we just renamed it because we think that will sell with some

moderates in the senate. >> the government wouldn't just change of it so it is more palatable. they wouldn't take medicare from everybody and call it a co-op and have decision making power. >> do you pay much attention to the government? >> this is unbelievable. so the government will take medicare for everyone under 65 and call it a co-op and declare victory. will it still have the same type of regulation that the 1,100-page bill that very few people have read, would it still have those type of regulations in there? >> well, that's the thing no. matter what kind of government-run healthcare plan that the congress and president obama create, it's not going to be governed by the same rules that govern private insurance. they're going to be able to pull people out of private insurance and into the private plan and eventually live in a private health insurance. i think the most striking thing that secretary sebelius said was that the president

wants choice in competition. even if he gets the regulations he wants to impose on private insurers, those are going to eliminate the low-cost health insurance options that are on the market now and the more comprehensive options that are on the market now, so most americans will have to give up the health plans that they have and like right now and we are all going to be marched into a narrow range of plans or maybe a one size fits all plan, and that's just in the private sector, before any competition from a new government program takes all this other stuff away. i think the choice in competition is the last thing that this administration wants. >> i got to tell you, i agree with you and it drives me crazy when they talk about competition. a, they don't like competition, because they believe the government knows best. b, if everybody is taxed for the federal program, what incentive will there be for employers to pay premiums to insurance companies to provide insurance for their employees when the employees are paying taxes anyway?

c, you can't compete with the government. the government owns the stadium. the government lines the field. the government is the other team, and the government the umpires, so the government will tilt the playing field to favor itself or to favor its pay trons. it's impossible successfully to compete with it. tell me if i'm wrong. the government will drive private insurers out of business, michael. >> like a kid's lemonade stand competing with alka al capone. that is the kind of competition you will see between lemonade stands and the government. >> police arrested a ten-year-old in new york state because she didn't have the permit the city issued. maybe that's where we're going. maybe these people in washington really want to regulate so many aspects of our lives. they don't understand competition, because the government doesn't make wealth or prosperity. it just consumes. won't the same thing happen under this program, whether you call it obama-care, federal option or a co-op?

>> absolutely. i think if the administration wanted a choice in competition, there would be a couple of easy steps. one would be let people purchase health insurance from a state other than their own f employers and individuals can purchase insurance across state lines, wow get a massive increase in competition, because there would be so many more health insurance options in every market and that will keep the insurers hon nest. why do they think that one new entrant in the marketplace will do that? >> why can't we have health insurance almost like we have any good that we buy. why in new jersey i have to buy the rolls-royce of health insurance policies, the only one the state will let anybody offer? why can't private enterprise compete for my business by offering me a policy that i want and my neighbor a a policy that she wants rather than one size fits all? >> well, because the special interests who want to force you to buy that stuff don't want you to be able to leave to avoid those regulations, but if you could buy health

insurance from pennsylvania, you would be able to buy a much more affordable policy. you would be able to save money on your premiums. you would have a policy that matches your needs and your family's needs, and so would other residents in new jersey, as well as pennsylvania and all the other states. we would be able to make a serious dent in the number of uninsured americans and it won't cost the government a dime. it wouldn't cost taxes to go up by one dime. >> thank you, michael cannon from kato. thank you very much. one group actively campaigning for healthcare overhaul, you know this, is the aarp. that group just announced -- ready for this -- about 60,000 members have left the group since july 1st, specifically over the aarp support for this healthcare reform. the aarp spokesman says it's not unusual for the 40 million-member lobby to lose members when it is advocating on a controversial issue. her is helene owessenberg, a current aarp member who

started the group "seniors opposed to the aarp's sellout of seniors." helene, welcome to the program. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> of course. first of all, what is the leadership of the aarp doing that is not in the best interests are of its millions an millions of members? >> thank you so much. aarp is selling out its members. its members don't believe that $300 to $600 billion in reductions in medicare are going to be done without reducing services to seniors, and so aarp is saying, oh, just shut up, just be quiet, just get out of the way of this healthcare reform. they're doing exactly what the administration wants, and i think the problem is when the president said that aarp was onboard, they are. they are onboard. they are partisan.

they are not representing their membership anymore, and the seniors across this country are in revolt. they are not going to accept the fact that aarp, whose constituency is seniors, is going to go on the side of the administration and not support seniors. why aren't they talking about tort reform? why aren't they talking about the cuts in medicare? why aren't they doing something about that? >> who controls or who runs aarp? i mean, they're not doing something in their own best interests, i mean, in the best interests of their membership, then is this an example of hard working people that are in the aarp but some other political group that has taken over control of them? >> i think that that's the case, and it's been the case over a period of time, but i think now this healthcare reform has really exposed the partisanship and arrogance of aarp with respect to its members. >> helene, is aarp silencing

the opposition? do they not want you, helene rosenberg, to show up at a town hall meeting and express there the opinions that you are expressing here on this show? >> absolutely. they are absolutely being partisan in every respect. on their site, they have people that are saying the worst things about other people on the side. the site is very partisan, and nastiness prevails on many of the sites that are related to political activity. they are saying things like, the comments people are making are filthy, and they are calling the people trolls and insurance shields. >> coming up we will talk about the white house and e-mails. did you get an e-mail from the white house? >> yes, i did. >> did you give them your e-mail address? >> never. never did i give them my e-mail address, and in fact, the only people that have my

address are rarp. i don't understand how they could do that. >> that's where it came from. helene rosenberg, thanks for joining us. >> if you get into the cash for clunkers program, you're going to get more than you bargained for. how the government is using this as a trojan horse into your life. next. glenn: this show is a circuit. this is like a carnival. how about iran, iraq? how about afghanistan? it doesn't work. >> you want to come with me? it would be fun.

diabetics on medicare. hello, i'm john fox---you may know that i'm a professional bass fisherman. but you may not know that i have diabetes. and it's never slowed me down thanks to the good folks at liberty medical. i've been a liberty medical patient for years and have relied on them for all my diabetic needs. and, if you call now you'll receive a free meter. it's easy to use with fast results. even the shipping is free and medicare may cover the cost of your other supplies. liberty medical keeps you on track by delivering diabetic supplies right to your door. they even take care of the paperwork, file your claims and send you a free meter.

call right now and they'll also send you a free diabetic cookbook. diabetes doesn't have to slow you down. join me and over a million people who trust liberty medical.

andrew: this white house is the most technically savvy administration in history. it wants to own your computer when you sign up for cash for

clunkers. it wants to monitor your browsing habits with computer cookies. it wants you to report your neighbor if you notice anything fishy. now it wants us to believe that the most recent internet-related story involving third-party healthcare e-mails is another mistake. the white house is pushing programs and bills down our throats and it knows exactly how to use the internet as a means to its end. but americans hike the viewer that provided glenn beck with the cash for clunkers own your computer story, and some journalists are confronting the government, demanding to know how the white house gains access to the e-mail addresses of millions of americans. here is my question -- where is the rest of the media on this store i? in los angeles, andrew brightbart, publish of brightbart.com and big hollywood.com, welcome. it is a pleasure having you here. >> thanks, judge. andrew: how do you think the white house gets a hold of

people's e-mail addresses that the people themselves are not e-mailing the white house? >> well, what people need to understand here is that they're being community organized, and the white house absolutely understands how the internetworks and understands that there are countsless blogs, media matters, the daily cost, which is collecting information and putting out disinformation. what the white house wants to do is to create a hierarchy of who its enemies are, and every week, or periodically, they meet with the net roots, and the net roots act as an action gang that can go out there and attack the enemies of the president and attack the enemies of the people who would attack his plan, so it is vital for this white house to find out who its enemies are, and then to sic its gang of net roots people on those people. andrew: i remember president

richard nixon forming an enemies list after he had resigned to for the presidency and the remember the congress of senator ford signing the privacy act shortly after richard nixon heft office which meant it was unlawful for the president or anyone to compile an enemies' list. do these folks that are doing this care about the law? does the president know what they're doing in the name of the most powerful entity on the manet, the white house -- on the planet, the white house? >> there is plausible deny ability here. you won't find rahm emanuel in an air-conditioning duct going into the r.n.c. and what you have here is these people compiling the information, feeding the information to the net roots people. the day it was found out that the town halls were being infested with people who wanted to raise their hands

and ask their representatives to read the bill, the seiu found itself down there confronting the people who would ask the questions of the representatives. this is what community organizing is. they have complete plausible deniability here, and it is actually a brilliant scheme. if it wasn't nefarious, why did they shut down the operation? why is that website now down? andrew: why are they saying they don't know where the e-mail addresses came from. is some some of my colleagues he at fox news ended up on that address. >> can i make one point? andrew: sure. >> a few weeks ago, the justice department refuses to indict and prosecute these two thugs, these two black panthers who outside of a polling place were standing there armed. that sends a direct message to the net roots people out there. don't worry, this administration has our back. those people that would community organize on behalf of the president and his

initiatives will be protected. andrew: it is key the story you just mentioned because there is a thread between the failure to prosecute those goons in philadelphia and what the white house is doing now, and the word is intimidation. i mean, the supreme court of the united states has ruled countless times freedom of speech requires breathing room, because sometimes what you say enlightens people. sometimes what you say offends people, so the if the government is not allowed to be in your face before you say it. question, you're a journalist. would the average person -- not you or me -- but the average person who is about to the criticize the president think twice if they feared their name would end up on an enemies' list? >> or even worse than that, if they were to show their face at a democratic gathering and ask a question of their elected representative or hand out a "don't tread on me flag" like kenneth gladdeny did, this person will have somebody

who supports the president violently accost the person and actually use the n word against the person, intimidating them into silence. the thing is that people are starting to realize that barack obama has two tricks. his administration has two tricks. he speaks well and he uses the teleprompter and on his behalf he has people that intimidate and community organize. that's it. he has no other tricks. andrew: with the exception of us, is anybody in the media talking about this? >> they're going to be forced to, and i would say that the media needs to start investigating the original community organizers, acorn, to see what these people are up to with these billions of dollars of stimulus that have been directed to them. andrew: got t thanks for joining us. >> you're welcome. andrew: stay in touch with the program by signing up for glenn's free e-mail newsletter at glennbeck.com. glenn's interview with nancy gays, next.

clear d go and check my credit score ♪ clear ♪ free credit report dot com! ♪ that's where i shoulda gone! coulda got my knowledge on! ♪ ♪ vo: free credit score and report with enrollment in triple advantage.

>> i'm patti ann bound. the doctor at the center of the michael jackson manslaughter investigation speaks publicly for the first time since the pop star's death. >> i have done all i could do. i told the truth, and i have faith that the truth will prevail. >> conrad murray posted that video on youtube today. he said he wanted to thank his patients and others for their support. a family spokesman confirmed earlier that michael jackson's body will be laid to rest on what would have been the singer's 51st birthday, august 29. hurricane bill keeps strengthening in the atlantic. the category 23 storm could be near bermud week. bret baier now previews his >> hi, patti ann. coming up, the administration tries to insist their message has not changed on a government-run public option for health insurance. and what exactly is a co-op? what are the pros and cons? we had bake it down in 28 minutes. now back to glenn. glenn: welcome to the glenn

beck program. we have nancy grace, author of "the 11th victim. " it is on sale everywhere, and my old comrade in arms. good to see you. >> it is wonderful to see you, glenn. glenn: nancy, you were always very kind to me. >> likewise. glenn: i preesh crate that. i really do. before we get to the book, i have to say somebody called me, a lady named katie abrams. she is a mom. her husband has a small business. they work together, et cetera, et cetera, but basically she is a stay-at-home mom. she went this week to meet with senator arlen specter at that town hall. she was one of the people selected to talk. she spoke. she was very eloquent. she was very calm, but she said "i'm afraid for my country. you guys aren't even listening." another network -- not mine, not yours -- had her on, and they eviscerated her. she called me this morning, after she had written me an e-mail at 4:46.

i -- in the morning -- and i talked to her about 9:30 and this is what she said. >> these people are calling my cell phone, calling my dad's office, e-mailing my dad's office. they're trying to shut up the normal people of this country. glenn: katie, do you have these e-mails? >> yeah, i have them. glenn: all right. what i want to ask you, nancy, is her thesis is when she got home, she is getting horrible e-mails, death threats, phone calls, just for standing up and speaking her piece. she said i'm just a normal person. i don't know how to do. this her fear was the american people are being set up. you're used to getting pushed

back. i'm used to getting pushed back now. they're not. what does the average dad, mom, that has never been involved in things like this, what is your advice to be able to handle that? >> well, if you take a look at our country, this is how we were founded. everybody is raising kane about the town hall meetings and how much trouble they're starting. this is how america started, by causing trouble. this is who we became who we are. we, the people. now, if you don't want to get burned, don't get in the frying pan. but, that only goes so far. how is she supposed to know that by simply voicing an opinion that many people have that she and her family would be attacked, number one? those attacks rise to threats and should be prosecuted under the law. beyond that, people aren't used to being attacked for

simply voicing their opinions. glenn: or a machine going after them. you are a former prosecutor. what is the line when people -- i mean, what should they be looking for? what should they be doing or avoiding? >> you mean as far as threating threats or as far as speaking out? glenn: either. >> the day you quit speaking out, p pretty soon nobody will be speaking out when you're the one under fire. as far as threatening phone calls, she's gotten messages, and e-mails. those -- if there is a threat in them to do physical harm, which i'm sure that there is, that rises to we call under the law, a terroristic threat against an individual and it can be prosecuted especially if it is a voice message or an e-mail. what is more disturbing to me is the tenor of the attacks on her. i do not think there is some vast conspiracy against those

speaking out, but i think there is just enough anger and resentment boiling that people feel that they're entitled to make these threats, and they are not. glenn: your book is "the 11th victim," and its semi autobiographical. >> loosely, yes. glenn: loosely. everybody knows your history, but tell the story of the book a little bit and tell them the difference. >> well, there are several intersecting stories but the main story deals with a female prosecutor who is prosecuting an inner city atlanta, felony crimes, as i was, and she originally started off studying psychology when her fiance was murdered shortly before her wedding she switched girls to go to law school to do a prosecutor, but i did the same thing but switched to literature in hopes of writing and teaching

one day. when she reaches thent of defene attorneys and crime scenes an autopsy tables am everything that goes with it, she quits. she walks out cold with a perfect record and starts over in manhattan, and everything is fine until her friends began being murdered one by one in the same unusual copy cat m.o. as her last serial murder prosecution. glenn: do you ever get to the point where you're tired of th >> yes. glenn: you are looking at some of the really sick people. i mean, right now, you're kind of also on michael jackson, who is -- i mean, that is just a twisted world. >> let me tell you something about jackson. i never, ever suggested he was not one of the greatest talents that ever lived. now, as far as his child molestation charges, i believe the boy victim, but i have the same problem when i prosecuted, for instance, dope murderers. a lot of people were happy a

dope dealer was dead. you have to tell them why they should convict. here, i don't care what jackson did then. all i hear about is who enabled a dope addict being dopeed to death. glenn: do you think the doctor is going to serve prison time? >> i think whoever is finally finger ld see a jailhouse. glenn: wasn't it wierd, though, that he, like, left? >> he took off. glenn: your patient is dead. >> yeah, he took off. glenn: doesn't that say something? >> and he told the family he would not answer their questions. even under the you law when you argue to a jury, flight can be arguably evidence of glenn: the name of the book is "the 11th victim" by nancy grace. >> thank you, glenn beck. >> always a pleasure. thank you. sfx: coin drop, can shaking

when you own a business, saving sounds good. so hear this: regions makes it simple to save money and time with lifegreen checking and savings for business, free convenient e-services and regions quick deposit, so you can deposit checks right from your desk. so switch to regions and start saving. plus, get a business financial review through a regions cashcor analysis. it's how business gets into the rhythm of saving. regions - it's time to expect more.

(announcer) what are you going to miss when you have an allergy attack? achoo! (announcer) benadryl is more effective than claritin at relieving your worst symptoms. and works when you need it most. benadryl. you can't pause life. andrew: welcome back. dealers across the country are reporting a slow response to the reimbursement request for, no surprise, cash for clunkers, leaving some dealers in a tight spot. it's supposed to be a huge

success, so why isn't the government quickly paying off the rebates? here is john cabiny, editor of realclearmarkets.com and senior economist with h.b. wayne wright economists. does this make economic sense that the government would, effectively, kick out of the marketplace something that somebody else could buy an use, and then sell again to yet another person who could buy and use it? >> no, it makes zero economic sense. it is the destruction of capital. it is the equivalent of government bureaucrats going around a city and breaking win he doughs. they would employ a lot of glass makers in the process but for the businesses that had to replace the glass, they would have less money to invest in their growth and less money to spend on other retailers. this just reschedulesrowth and in doing so it puts certain businesses like the auto dealers on the lifeline of the government, which is not something that leads to growth over the hong term. andrew: why do you suspect

the government, which ardently wants this program to succeed, so that when it is up for re-election again it can point to what it thinks successes, one of which it hopes is t theyn the cash? why aren't they actually reimbursing the dealers? somesome of the dealers are between a rock and hard place. they have taken in the vehicle, and crushed it, because the government requires that, and they want to use it for a downpayment for a new car for the p person who turned it in to be crushed but they don't have the cash from the fed yet. >> oh, yeah. many dealerships are experiencing enormous cash flow problems right now, because they're fronting for the government right now. i don't think that the obama administration is trying to fail at this, but it's very difficult when you are a government bureaucrat and you have got no profit and loss statements keeping you in business or keeping you in a job to actually do things efficiently. this program was passed in haste, and unsurprisingly, when you look at most services offered by the government,

they're doing a terrible job with it. andrew: is there a demand for these clunkers? am i right to conclude that people that can't afford new cars, students, people who want inexpensive second cars to take the kids to school, to get to work, might buy these things and the cars might have a life of their own, meaning they might yet again be bought an sold, and that, in turn, is moving capital through the stream of commerce as opposed to ending up in an automobile gave yard like the ones we're looking at on the screen? >> well, there most certainly is demand. think about it. a lot of businesses need cars. they use them as capital as a way of uning a business. now it's making low-cost cars and taken them off the market. secondly, let's look at luxury cars. let's take a cadillac, for example. many of them have four different owners. the first person who has got a hot of money buys the cadillac off the lot. the second, third and fourth are progressively less wealthy owners who want to own what they deem a nice car. what this program means is

that for the average person who can't afford a new car but wants a nice cadillac can never buy one. it's tragic. andrew: if a businessperson as opposed to a politician were setting up this incentive program, would they ever have dreamed that the item should have been destroyed and taken out of the stream of commerce as the politicians have required? >> they could never imagine. businesses try to create more value and less work. you create the same work to do the same thing in the past. i know you're a fan of frederick boste-ad. he always said you benefit from the same transaction twice. the government would have us believe that it creates economic growth by destroying something and making us rebuild it again. by that logic, let's raze all the buildings in dallas tomorrow and build them all again. that would cree raise a lot of g.d.p. growth but it would be nothing in the way of economic growth because we would be

wasting all these human and physical capital inserts on something that was already done. it is anti-invest many, anti-growth. andrew: when we come back, we will talk about the difference between prosperity and consumption and waste. more, next. glenn: do you lie awake at night and thing, man, i wish i had a juggler on hand to help me explain the role of government interference in our lives, or maybe just a big pile of monopoly money to make sense of foreign debt? lucky day for you! look no further! just record this show, or d.v.r. it 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 a little bit. there is nothing like a little glenn after hours. oops, did it again. remember, midnight snack and a side of me. they took away my m&m's and replaced them on grapes.

i am grossing america out like crazy. join us every day, 5:00 eastern.

andrew: we're back with john now, and i'm fascinated with what happened in chicago yesterday where city hall decided in order to save money, it would shut down for a day. now, that is very, very telling. as i understand it, it shows the stark comparison and difference between businesses, which make money, which create prosperity, which produce, versus the government which consumes money, which loses money just by doing what it's supposed to do. >> yes, governments only consume wealth. they make none of t i hike

your point. a private business if it wasn't making money would put in overtime. this case, the non-essential parts of the government shut down. the only positive that can come from this is hopely it will make chicagoans realize how their lives are changed when their government is not in operation. they find they go on and live very prosperous lives without these guys in operation. hope ny, this is leading to something better where government does a lot less. i'm not holding my beaght but trying to cast an optimistic height on. this andrew: let's go out on a limb, because i think you're willing to do it. might it be a good thing if some of these governments, which are notorious for waste, which never produced, actually went bankrupt? went out of business? >> it would be a wonderful thing. i'm reading a lot of commentary right now about how we can't let california or chicago or a lot of state governments fail. what could be better than investors being properly

burned by investing in politicians? this would force them to reorient investment away from cities and states and into the private economy t would be dreamy for economic growth and particularly good for an economy right now that lacks investment for investors to remove a lot of capital from a wasteful sector in thissrxñuc y. andrew: what would it take for people to understand that when the government consumes money, that's less money that businesses could have to use to produce more money with? >> well, i think we're going to see it right now. if there's one positive in all this spending that we have seen under bush and obama, i think americans are starting to realize that this is cutting directly in their wages. when governments confiscate or tax or borrow capital, that's less money in the private sector to fund the creation of microsoft and google and intel, and so hopefully we're seeing it right now. what i always argue is that the statism is a capitulation, always doomed to failure, and what we have to hope for is

that americans will see yet again that it is going to die. andrew: john connolly, thanks very much. n diabetics on medicare. hello, i'm john fox---you may know that i'm a professional bass fisherman. but you may not know that i have diabetes. and it's never slowed me down thanks to the good folks at liberty medical. i've been a liberty medical patient for years and have relied on them for all my diabetic needs. and, if you call now you'll receive a free meter.

it's easy to use with fast results. even the shipping is free and medicare may cover the cost of your other supplies. liberty medical keeps you on track by delivering diabetic supplies right to your door. they even take care of the paperwork, file your claims and send you a free meter. call right now and they'll also send you a free diabetic cookbook. diabetes doesn't have to slow you down. join me and over a million people who trust liberty medical. gathering dust, as pollen floats through the air. but with the strength of zyrtec ® , the fastest, 24-hour allergy relief,

i promise not to wait as long to go for our ride. with zyrtec ® i can love the air ™ .

andrew: robert novak dead today at the age of 78. the first time i met him was at a conference in chicago on limited government. i was there to discuss civil liberties, ten months after 9/11, and he was there to talk about no child left behind. bush administration for what he felt was going to be the soon federal takeover of education and i blasted it for the patriot act and other unconstitutional behavior. bob told me he was worried that both political parties in america wanted to use the government to increase power for themselves. he feared, as do i, both a republican version of big government, which we had then, and a democratic version of big government, which we have friends and chatted over the years, but not about the government.

we talked about god. bob was a proud jew who converted and became a proud catholic. like many converts to catholicism, he was a fear catholic. he had little patience and less as the years went by for the double-talk of hypocrisy and the phoniness of the politicians in washington. i told him that he was a testament to the new and he preferred the title that he loved and i teased him that in much catholic literature, tan is in hell and he said he hoped he would be in heaven. this morning, i expect he got. there you ever wonder how the government gets to write any laws it wants and doesn't read the constitution? tomorrow how big government has evaded and of avoided the