my announcement is that the today is officially larry king day. >> well... >> so congratulations to ta years of great, great entertainment, great interviews and a great, great friendship. thank you very much. >> thank you governor. i appreciate it. say hello to the wife. keep this in mind. i'll be back. >> i will! >> and larry is the best. thank you for being with us tonight. the welcome back to the "glenn beck program." glenn is off. he'll be back tomorrow. i'm judge andrew napolitano. tonight, tax cuts and earmarks, how does that work? wikileaks founder julian assange is out of jail on bail. and will the government soon be able to regulate the internet? let's go. ♪

♪ hello, america. tonight tax cut package heads to vote in the house, or does it? wednesday, the senate passed $858 billion package. president obama now telling democrats in the house to pass this bill with no changes. now it's being held up by procedural complaints filed by the democrats in the house. the federal government is facing a shutdown if congress doesn't pass a spending bill soon. current bill contains $8 billion in earmarksn't didn't we get rid of those? with me republican congressman from texas ron paul. congressman paul, pleasure. welcome here. where do things stand now with the tax package in the house? is the government going to shut down? are the democrats even going to allow the tax bill which keeps the tax rates, the income tax rates where they are to come to the floor for a vote? >> well, we're in recess now.

so, the vote is not pending. it may come later tonight. it may come tomorrow. i predict that the government will not shut down. and that the vote will finally come out and they'll iron out the differences. but the fight is between some of the democrats. they want objections and debate. i suspect when tomorrow is over they'll pass the tax package but we have to wait and see. it's been a couple of hours now. we're just sitting here waiting for the democrats to sort things out. >> some of your colleagues on the republican side, congressman paul, tell me that the number of republican s in opposition in the house to tax package is growing and their theory is that the tax cuts are not accompanied by enough spending cuts. the estate tax is raise and the unemployment insurance that the federal government should have nothing to do is extended by 13 months so they

are going to vote against it. some of them, a few of whom you know well told me it could be 60 or 70 republicans voting against the deal. what are you hearing? >> i haven't heard numbers like that, because i am going to vote for the package, because i don't look at it as if i'm raising the inheritance tax at all. i'm voting to keep it from going to 50%. because if you do nothing, if nothing is passed, inheritance tax is 50. there is spending in there you but if you weigh spending versus tax cuts, it's overwhelmingly in favor of tax cuts. it's true that spending is a big problem. there are problems in the bill. but the problems aren't as big as said. a lot of people against the bill say that the tax credits are a problem. i don't do that. i give tax cuts to everybody. give more so everybody gets them and don't to a micro managing through the tax code. of course, this is the

reflection of how inept the government is and the congress. and the tax code. need to get rid of the tax code, income tax. we need a rule in the house that says only clean bills we vote on. we're not there today. >> would it be good fiscally and philosophically if the government did shut down for a few weeks and american people could see life would go on without the federal government for a little while. >> i don't think it would hurt one bit. if an individual can't pay the rent on time he might say i'll be there next week. adjust. the government should adjust, and wait. but they are afraid the world would come to an end. but it's indication we're in big trouble. we are in big trouble. but continuing to wait for the bond bubble to burst, it

doesn't make sense to me. >> yesterday we all had on our desks at fox, showing you with my hands, piece of legislation that senator reid and mrs. pelosi proposed. it's about a foot thick. 2,000 pages in length. no human being could read this in less than three or four days. it's filled with billions and billions in earmarks and wasted money. is this the price we have to pay to keep tax rates where we are? that the democrats and republicans, too i don't know, have to give the christmas tree ornaments to the constituents to take back what the right had and what they've given to the left. >> it's rather typical and nothing changed. i've been arcing this for 30 -- arguing this for 30 years. it would be hard to find any appropriation bills i've voted for. i've anticipated that the

overspending and dependency on the fed to print the money and order to cover the debt would bring us to the crisis. crisis is building. we haven't changed our tune. we haven't changed the tune on spending or taxes yet. we have haven't changed it on the federal reserve. so we're just trying to make problems that much worse. the market is saying we can't continue this forever. i suspect in the not too distant future market will indicate they don't trust the market as they used to. >> a certain junior senator to be from kentucky is on freedom watch on the fox business network and he will tell me were he in congress this week he'd vote against the tax compromise. i'm not trying to divide you from your son. he would vote against the tax compromise.

in fairness he can do things in the senate you can't do. he could pull a jimmy stewart and stop senate doing everything it wants if it's spending too much money. am i right? >> yeah. you can block things for a day or two or three but people have to change. they have to decide they don't want welfare or warfare and the congress will respond. what you say demonstrates how messed up the system is, the process is horrible. you have system where the honest conservatives say you shouldn't vote for it because it will raise the debt. others like myself says you'll raise taxes $800 billion. there is no absolute right answer for this. i just happen to think raising taxes now is worse at this time. i think they bloated concerns about the deficit. more than $60 billion.

they are counting tax credit as spending. it's not spending. >> you used an interesting phrase. "the markets are stronger than the government." so what did you mean by that? >> the best example was in the 1970s and '60s watching what gold and the dollar was doing. we can want printing money the world -- we kept printing money. but it broke down and gold was closed and gold broke out from $35 after being there for 20-some years so the market overruled what the -- the government kept lying to us. our dollar is as good as gold. they're more or less doing the same thing now. our dollar is as good as it used to be. everyone will take it forever. market even with the self-interest where china is not hanging on to the dollar and not bringing us down. there will be a day that somebody will precipitate that they will buy the dollars less or dump the dollars and market will win

out. we can't have a system that would print money forever. if that were true none of us would work. we'd just say send me money, ben bernanke would send us a check every month and we'd be so wealthy and we'd buy stuff from china and be wealthy forever. that's extreme and what we're moving toward. eventually it will be rejected. >> congressman paul, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> the tax cut package and more earmarks. mixed messages for business, investors and taxpayers. bring in panel list. tom woods author of "nullification, how to resist federal tyranny in the 21 z century." i love that book. steve moore, economic writer for "wall street journal." and the fox business network senior correspondent, my buddy and author of "bought and paid for," charlie gasparino. charlie, to you first. are the markets stronger than the government? will they always correct or modify government excess and government commands?

>> generally. government is in cahoots with wall street in many ways. 1994, a mexican peso crisis where they bet wrong and bailed out the wall street firms that should have taken it on the chin and it led to risk-taking that occurred in 2008. what ron paul said is right. bond prices are starting to go down, yields are spiking. if they don't get the deficit under control, doesn't mean they shouldn't cut taxes but we'll have a massive problem in the bond market. >> steve moore, where do you come down in the divide amongst republicans? on the ron paul side we have to vote for this package that the president negotiated because it keeps the bush tax era rates in place? or are you on the jim demint/michele bachmann side that is i won't vote for anything without a spending cut because it raises the estate tax? how do you see it? >> this process is one of the most reprehensible processes

i've seen passing a budget and tax bill in 27 years i've been this washington. >> indeed. >> americans should be appalled by this. remember, people are forgetting, at least people in washington are forgetting. we had an election 45 days ago. what people voted against was exactly what this lame duck congress is doing. what did they say in the election? stop spending and stop the bail-out. they act like the election didn't happen. they have 50 democrats now in the house who have been voted out of office, who are voting for all the earmarks. >> all right. how would -- >> i'm just so disgusted by the process. >> how would you vote? >> on the tax bill, on the tax bill, i would vote for the bill because i agree with ron paul. we have can't allow the taxes, the tax bomb to detonate on january 1. or it would jeopardize double-dip recession. you know what? if the democrats take this down, because they're passing a bill in the house that breaks the deal.

raises it higher than the deal. in the "wall street journal" we said if they did that, deal is off and kill it and deal it in january when we have republican house. >> tom, have the republicans gone back on their word on earmarks? or are earmarks a small part of this it's political path and long run is it's drop in the bucket and it doesn't matter if earmarks are in this or not? >> the earmark is an attempt to distract tea party to real cuts. it's a rounding error in the federal budget at a time we'll face in ten years $1 trillion on the interest payment on the debt every year alone. just interest payment on the debt. earmarks are a triviality. if the republicans did go back on that, that is not my issue. but my issue is the promises were so lame to start, like we'll cut $100 billion in the budget. given the crisis that's $3 off a trip to moon. be a little more ambitious. >> charlie, even if it

passes -- talking about the tax bill. and bush tax era stays where they are, is it enough to plan and advance? can it be done in two years? >> better than the alternative. i talk to the ceos all the time and they're worried about the massive taxes to be hitting small businesses. and individuals. if you grow the economy, deficit will go down and is smaller percentage of gdp. if you believe the guys in congress, keep the paul ryan in congress and they'll start cutting. >> ron paul said it might not be a bad thing if government shut down for couple weeks, especially around christmas when there aren't that many government services provided

anyway. how would life be if we realize we don't need the great federal government 24/#? what do you think about that? >> given that we are facing a fiscal crisis, that the life in tunnel is oncoming train. we might as well realize the seventh grade schoolboy of government tells us we can't do without it or that program or that program. to the country we'd flourish without these things. the faster we can slash and burn. three words thatgarian etee default -- >> what? >> darren etee -- guarantee its "off the table." you're kidding. we need giant table with everything on it. >> steve moore, to get in the political area here. were you surprised when the president started saying things like tax cuts will help unemployment? tax cuts will advance

prosperity? this is the exact opposite of his entire career. as a politician, professor and community organizer. senate senator and u.s. senator and candidate. did he discover can u.s. politics 101 or did he read election returns? >> you know he has to hate himself for saying that. here is the story. we have $200 billion stimulus bill two years ago. we talked about this many times. it didn't create a single new job because government spending doesn't create jobs. now they have to revert to tax cuts. i agree with charlie. this is essential that we get this done and we keep the capital gains and the dividend taxes where they are. i want to say one thing if i may on the issue of the earmarks. i agree it's small part of the budget. the way they bully through the spending bill is buying off the republican senators with pork projects.

>> you are exactly right. steve moore is exactly right. this is a christmas tree ornament and virtually a bribe to get members of congress to vote for it. we'll give you this for your district. vote for us on the other. >> it always works. >> i thought you'd be outraged! >> we've defined agency down. i'm not as outraged as i once was at this stuff. >> are we saddled forever a government like this, that takes back with one happened that it has given for the other? nature of the beast? or will washington change when tea party folks get there in three weeks? >> i would love to believe that, judge. so much. what i suspect will happen is that we'll continue spending the same trajectory until the house of cards comes down and they'll get religion so to speak. that's what it will take. that moment is the moment we can in fact renew pledge of what america is. bankruptcy could be the best

thing to happen to this country. >> wow! charlie, tom, steve, thank you for joining us. ahead, glenn beck and advice from his mentor next.

last night, glenn broadcast a special program from wilmington, ohio. a town devastated when d.h.l., wilmington's major employer left. the town did not shut down. neighbors helped neighbors. people prayed for food to show up in the food pantry. glenn's message that wilmington should not be pitied, it should be imitated. glenn even spoke to a woman who made a deal on a handshake. it may sound crazy, but a very successful person has some of the same beliefs. glenn recently sat down with self-made billionaire john huntsman senior. take a look. >> there is one man in my life who has been a mentor of biblical proportions. john huntsman. he is a guy who gives me the confidence to know you don't have to cut corners. you can make ethical decisions. even if it seems like you

lose at the time, you win. a guy who really truly believes a handshake is enough. look a man in his eye and a shake his hand. that's the kind of country that we, most of us at least want to be. he is the founder and the executive chairman of the huntsman corporation, founder of the cancer institute and author of the book you must read. "winners never cheat." john, i want to take you to there was never a time when you thought, you know, i was going to cut this corner? i'm just going to cut this corner. i'm just going to compromise here. >> you ask me a question about cutting corners. but i have to say something that may be way out of whack and way out of place. but one of the finest men i've ever men in my life is glenn beck. >> stop. >> no no. >> he's avoiding the question. he's obviously cut corners. >> i'm not avoiding it. your audience doesn't know. this i've been fishing with

you, glenn. i've been in the mountains with you. i've been alone with you. you and i have had discussions on everything from religion to space to families. we have cried together, we've laughed together. you are one of the finest, sweetest good men, glenn beck, i've ever met. [ applause ] >> thank you. >> so mr. huntsman, you have avoided the question. because you told me the story of shell which cost you mu much money when you were selling your -- was it shell? you were selling part of your chemical company to shell. >> great lakes chemical company, yes. >> glenn: you agreed on a price and shook hands on a deal. can you tell the story? >> i can. i don't want to sound self-serving but in a nutshell i used to sell a part of my business every three or four years and i'd

buy it back again when things were good. this one occasion, i sold 40% of our country. the business was quite large at this time. it sold 40% of it we have agreed on a price of $54 million. they sold it to great lakes chemical company. headquartered in lafayette, indiana. it took six months for lawyers to get around to the contract and by the time they got around to the contract, the prices of our petro chemicals and other products had gone straight up. and the value of that 40% piece of our business was now worth $250 million. because earnings increased dramatically. >> you just shoot hands with him no, contract. $54 million. >> we shook hands on day one. anderson camp, their ceo and i shook hands. he came back after six months and said it's been six months, it's my fault. my attorneys didn't move fast enough. tell you what i'll do.

the business gone up dramatically and let's split split the difference between $54 million and $254 million and say it you get $125 million. i'll pay you that much because you're entitled more than $54 million. i said no, you don't understand. we shook hands. all i expect is $54 million. i never thought about anything more than $54 million. >> glenn: there is no one around you going "jon, shut up"? >> probably a few. [ laughter ] but it just never occurred. it wasn't something that you thought about. >> how do you teach that, jon? i know you give money to wharton school of business. they are having a hard time teaching ethics. people don't understand is this good or this good? they say this makes more money. this good. that is not ethical. how do you teach it?

>> i made an agreement with him. an agreement is an agreement. he never got over it. when he passed away his wife had he speak at his funeral. with the governor of indiana evan bayh. people said that's unusual. i said no, it's not. what is unusual about being honest? it isn't that trying to sound self-serving. i wasn't at all. there is just ethical aspect about life. if we're straight with each other then we're straight with our god and straight with our family and straight with our wife and children. >> glenn: you don't believe the okay, he's telling a lie in his personal life but his personal life doesn't matter. this is business. you don't believe in that.

you can't operate under two standards. >> tomorrow on the program, glenn's special from wilmington. what you did not see on the television. tomorrow night at 5:00 p.m. next, the wikileaks founder is out of jail on bail. we'll explain it all at the

top of the hour. now back to the judge in for glenn. ♪ ♪

wikileaks founder julian assange released on bail a few hours ago. he's wanted by prosecutors to answer their questions about alleged sexual assault in sweden. here is what he had to say. >> it's great to smell freshbe air of london again. first, some thank yous. to all the people around the world who have had faith in me. who have supported my team. while i've been away. >> he has lots of supports and critics but did he commit a crime? with me now kathryn mango ward. and radio talk show and fox news contributor leslie marshall. leslie, to you first. do you think that there is a basis to charge him in american law for his dissemination of documents,

bearing in mind the manner in which the supreme court treated the first amendment and bearing in mind the special protection the first amendment gives for journalists in our society today? >> well, judge, you certainly know the constitution and the law better than i. i don't when i read -- i reread it this morning knowing we'd talk about it today. first amendment does not say we have freedom of the press unless we share with the world information that could bode negatively on the american people. our soldier diplomat or put us in danger. he is a journalist. he calls himself anarchist, but he is a journalist and the first amendment does cover him. with the first amendment, no, i don't think charges should be brought against him though i feel his actions were irresponsible and reprehensible. >> kathryn, does it appear as though the charges from sweden are a pretext or were a pretext to keep him in jail for a period of time in hopes that miles per hour

prosecutors could file the charge. that didn't happen. in my view it's because les liz just explained the law to us. beyou -- do you see the hand of the government in this? the charges were dismissed when they first filed. >> if the state department is behind it then i hope assange finds cache of cables to erelease later on. if he is by sliltsing and releasing information, that the u.s. government would rather keep secret, if he is a criminal, so are we on fox news right now. what he is doing is what a good investigative reporter on security beat would do. cultivating sources and make it easy to share. >> nobody claimed these are

phony documents, that he made this up. for example, the things like the secretary of state hillary clinton instructed special agents in the state department to steal credit card numbers of foreign diplomats to know what restaurants they're going to. if that's true it's a crime for mrs. clinton and those stealing credit card numbers could be prosecuted. should we know if they're committing crime, albeit petty one in our name? >> for years we were committing many crimes and they were called fortorture. >> yes. >> credit card numbers are petty and illegal, do we want transparency? why are we just talking about assange?

he threw his comrades under the bus overseas. >> that's a good issue. the government claims over a million pages of documents were stolen by one buck private. i have difficult believing that he had the chance to get these things and distributed them on his own. the government kept him locked up 123 hours a day for six months claimed that he and he alone did this. do you believe that? >> the more government clamps down, more is denied to the public. the more assange and bradley manning there will be. he may or may not have released the document. i have no way to no. you are right, he is getting harsh treatment now, the treatment we reserve for the convicted murders with the dispalestinian problems in jail -- discipline charges in

jail. but request filed for information that he wound up disclosing and were denied. if they had been granted i'm not sure that assange would be the hero, anti-hero he is today for so many in the transparency world. >> leslie, the three of us are journalists, opinion people. we don't just state the news down the middle. we say what we think about it. in the long run isn't it a good thing when we know what they've done, even if it's lied or stolen or cheated or killed in our name? as mature adults in functioning democracy, isn't it better to know these things than we don't know them? >> not all of it. as an american and somebody who practices what i do professionally under the first amendment and a woman in this world and country who can do that.

>> i don't want to know if it infringes on bsoldiers. i don't want the line crossed. >> but the supreme court said he can do so. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. net neutrality could come to a computer near you. to your computer sooner than you think.

net neutrality at the top of the progressives' wish list this year and now the s.e.c. is ready to grant the wish. just before christmas. seton motley has the details. the president of less government. how bad is this and what is the government trying to do? >> this is a bad deal. how are you? >> good. >> there are two facets of net neutrality to be concerned. tiered pricing which the left is against. discrimination of content which they're a for. if we live next door and i'm downloading a movie and you are on the twitter account. they give you more internet

than i get and done with the movie. comcast gets million url request a second. >> what does the government want to do to the relationship? >> they say you can't do that and you can't manage the network. socialism for internet. no matter what you're doing, they say you cannot get any more bandwidth than the person next to you. saying the fire department that house is on fire and that house brushes its teeth and they get the same amount of water. >> as i read the law, the f.c.c. has zero authority to regulate internet. secondly, the internet is so free, so pure free market it's worked to perfection without government involvele. >> it's a solution looking for a problem. the last time the congress addressed the communication policy was the 1996 act. the chairman told himself that the communications act does not address broadband.

the courts said they don't have the authority but they're going ahead with the vote anyway. >> going ahead with the vote three days before christmas when the federal courts will be closed and 90% of the country is occupied with other things. they'll spring this on us. >> a last minute you should the cover of christmas spring on the american people. not unlike last year's christmas eefz vote on healthcare. >> what can we do other than someone filing lawsuit to federal court of appeals in washington? what can we do between the time they spring it on us and they open the doors? >> the congressional review act is the way to deal with this. from new congress they have 60 days from time of the vote. simple vote in house, majority rules. senate, it gets to the floor

and it's not filibusterable. you only need 51. >> so what we need to do is make sure that everybody knows to tell representatives in both houses of the congress this is a monstrosity waiting to destroy freedom. it's easy to stop. stay on top of this for us. it's a serious issue. feds working to stop terror attacks but are the actions constitutional? next.

questions surrounding tactics used by the feds in recent arrest of alleged terrorist in baltimore and portland. both cases they provided the men with fake bombs to carry out fake attacks and they were seeking support from radical muslim groups and charged with using attempted weapons of mass destruction. did the feds overstep their bounds? we're joined by former federal prosecutor, bob barr.

we see this over and over and over again. f.b.i. finds a weak link. person unstable. talk him in to cit a crime. they lead him to believe he'll commit a crime and get him to say things on tape and then stop him before he commits the crime. it's usually impossible because what he thinks is a bomb is filled with saw dust. how does the government decide who to target or go after when he does these things? >> a good question. frequently it's easy target. and some of them are baltimore dependent, in this case martinez, posting things on facebook that led the f.b.i. to him. one can presume someone stupid enough to talk about engaging in the terrorist acts on facebook is not real bright and doesn't know what he's doing. probably not a real terrorist to begin with.

they ought to focus on those with good foreign intelligence that is analyzed and disseminated. >> when they pick the doops and they plant the scene of the crime. they lead them to believe they'll commit a crime. how do they do that? they thought it was petrol but it was saw dust. >> a tactic that has been around for a long time, judge, but it's taken on new urgency whether or not congress and the american people ought to be satisfied with this thing. they rope someone in and it's impossible to claim entrapment. they rope someone in. the weak link and it's impossible for the person to commit the crime. then they can get them with a

conspiracy or attempt and area of the penalty laws the penalties can be a life sentence. whether it was impossible or not. >> big picture. we have 30 seconds left. does it keep society safer? >> no. >> congress ought to look in the issues with the new folks coming in. they have not looked at the entrapment defense, the impossibility defense. where f.b.i. is allocating resources. >> congress needs to have oversight on. >> i hope the people realize the government doesn't always keep us safe. pleasure and early merry christmas to you. final thoughts next.

does the government work for us or do we work for the government? natural rights guaranteed by the constitution really guaranteed? or subject to whims of politician or wishes of bureaucrats? we began the year with debate over government power to regulate healthcare.

it forces americans to purchase health insurance whether they want it or not, that compels the state to raise taxes and tell them how to spend money they raised. micro manage the insurance companies. i asked jim clyburn from the house of representatives and person in charge of getting the healthcare bill passed in the house where in the constitution the federal government is authorized to manage healthcare. he replied telling me most of what congress does is not authorized by the constitution. this should come as a surprise to no one. i condemn his oath to uphold the constitution. constitution is supreme rule of the land. it's written to restrain federal government and compel the guarantee freedoms.

if jefferson was right, the freedoms are as natural as our fingers. since our freedoms don't come from the government, the government can't take them away. we have witnessed ray of hope for fidelity to the constitution. the massive 300-page law that the house passed last christmas eve was declared unconstitutional this week by a federal judge in virginia. this is just one ruling by one judge and there are many more to come. but this judge courageously did what the judges are supposed to do. when the congress enacts laws not authorized by the constitution, duty of the court to invalidate the law. if it's not done what it should have done it's invalid. if it's in the so they could tax any event and freedom and

property would be lost to the tyranny of the majority in congress. when he wrote the constitution james madison said if men were angels there would be no need for government or constitution. we know men are not angels and most members of congress are not faith to feel the constitution -- faith to feel stoougsz. we rejoice when a judgep stops them in their tracks. the government has no ability to force us to purchase healthcare or punish us when we don't. the government job is protect our rights. we at fox news and you in your daily lives are on the battle lines every day. but we should pause and remember event that happened 2,000 years ago in the middle