On April 21, 2010, after an 18 month absence, Congressman Tom Perriello returned to the “ring” (aka The Schilling Show), this time to debate a 5th district constituent, Michael Del Rosso, on the process, merits, and constitutionality of nationalized health care legislation—for which the Congressman proudly voted.

Listeners may be frustrated by Tom’s elusiveness: using “stick and move” to avoid directly answering questions is a hallmark tactic of Congressman Perriello.

Despite the Congressman’s attempts to sidestep substance, though, the conversation was illuminating in myriad ways, most specifically as to the underlying Marxist principles by which Perriello  justifies his support of socialized medicine.

Is Tom down for the count? Was he saved by the bell? Read and/or listen to the interview, and then you score the round!

Click to listen to the interview via podcast:


Read the complete transcript:

Transcript of the Schilling Show interview with Tom Perriello and Michael Del Rosso:

Rob: [Music plays] Welcome.  Fellow citizens of the world, welcome to The Schilling Show, where the news is made.  And today is a news-making day, as in just a few moments, we will welcome back to the show after about an 18-month absence, the Congressman Tom Perriello along with Michael Del Rosso, talking about the healthcare bill today.  And I’m very, very pleased to have the listening audience that we do.  I know there are people tuning in from all over the place who have been anticipating this conversation.  So thank you so much.  We will begin in just a moment.


We have Michael Bisceglia holding it down for us today in master control and fielding your phone calls, and we’ve got a lot to talk about.  977-1070 is the phone number.  Let’s dispense with the formalities because we do have so much to say, and we’re going to set up kind of, I guess, in advance just a little bit of ground rules and an introduction to what we’re gonna talk about because we have such a limited amount of time with Congressman Perriello.


So let’s start out by saying that we wanna talk about the healthcare reform bill, its effect on the economy, where we go from here.  There have been so many questions about the Constitutionality of the bill.  And I think, really, that we’re at a crossroads in America right now, and our guests may agree or disagree with the statement, but I think both the Republicans and the Democrat administrations in the past have brought us to this place.


And we have to ask the question are we gonna become, I guess, what you would call a full blow European-style socialist state, or are we gonna return to limited government.  I don’t think this central ground is where we can stand for a long time.  And so, before we get started – because I know these terms are gonna come up in the conversation – I wanted to throw some definitions out there as well as we talk about socialism and communism because these words have been used in conjunction with people who disagree with the healthcare bill that was passed and are concerned about the ramifications of it.


Others may not agree with it at all, but I would like to put the definitions out for socialism and communism, just so we have a common ground of understanding.  The, uh, Merriam Webster Dictionary defines socialism as, “Any, uh, various economic and political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”  And a socialist is, “One who advocates the practices of socialism.”


All right.  Let’s talk about communism because some people have certainly said that’s where we’re headed.  And that is, uh, defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as, “A system of social organization in which goods are held in common, the opposite of a system of private property and a communalism, any theory or system of social organization involving common ownership of agents, of production, of industry.”  So I think those are important things.


And then, finally, because I know that we’ve been talking about this in our, um, American Principles 101 course that we’ve been doing over the past few weeks around The Schilling Show to kind of draw a contrast here, and then, we’re gonna open the conversation up.


The Declaration of Independence defines American Principles as a political philosophy where, number one, everyone is created equal.  Remember that we’re created equal and free, that we don’t need government to grant us rights because all of our rights come from the creator.  That would be God.  And they are inalienable rights.  That the, uh, sole purpose of governments are to secure the God-given rights and governments are deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


Now, we’re going to welcome to the program, uh, Congressman Tom Perriello.  Thanks so much for joining us today on The Schilling Show.

Tom: Hi.  Thanks.  It’s good to be back.

Rob: Well, it’s good to have you here, and you’re welcome here any time.  And I hope we can do this again and again in the coming months.  And Michael Del Rosso, thank you for joining us.

Michael: Hi, Rob.  Hi, Tom.

Tom: Hey.  How you doing, Mike?

Michael: Good.

Rob: So anyway, I would like to – because we have such a limited amount of time, I would like to see if we could keep our – our responses from all of us, from my questions, so the responses of Michael and Congressman Perriello to about a minute or so so that we can move quickly through this.


And uh, I would appreciate if we could work towards that very much.  And so, let’s just start out by talking about this – this concept of the town hall meetings.  And Tom, you have received a lot of praise, and I think rightfully so, for having the town hall meetings.  You held, I believe, 21 of them.  I was in attendance at two or three.  And uh, you talked to a lot of people.  And I know you heard a lot of opinions, and perhaps most of the opinions, at least at the town halls that I appeared at were opposed to the healthcare legislation.


But you stepped forward and voted for it anyway, so I wanted you to talk about that for a minute, about voting – I don’t know if you would agree that you voted against the will of your own constituents, and uh, why it was that you voted that way?

Tom: Well, I’ll try to do that in your 60-second, uh, guidelines.

Rob: Okay.

Tom: Um, first of all, I think the town hall meeting has a – a tremendous history in the United States, and – and one that is, uh, part of the civic republicanism at the core, um, of how this country got started.


But we also have a lot of technology now that we didn’t have then to be able to do, for example, uh, tele-town hall meetings to be able to communicate with people online and hear their opinions in all sorts of ways.  Um, and so, you know, for me over the period of many months and talking to thousands of constituents, I did hear the full range of opinions, and those opinions fluctuated with time.  And I think my responsibility, primarily, is to listen, um, to everybody and every opinion and then make the best judgment I can about what’s – uh, what’s right for my district and then go out and explain it.


Rob: So I – I just wanna see if your – if you think what a lot of people have expressed on this show and – and certainly, you weren’t here to hear them, so I’ll ask the – the question that they’ve asked was did you vote against the majority will of the 5th district citizens in – in, uh, voting for this healthcare bill?

Tom: No.  I think it depends how you ask the question, and you know that that’s, uh – and when you ask the question.  Certainly, when you pass – when we passed the House bill, for example, I think the, uh, the support for the bill was stronger.


Um, but it’s also something where when you actually talk about what’s in the bill, people like that overwhelmingly in the district.  I think it’s also a matter of understanding what some of the particular challenges in areas like central and southern Virginia are and why some of these reforms are even more urgently needed, uh, in those areas.  Um, so I don’t think that there – you know, it’s easy to take a snapshot at any one moment and say what the majority says.  What the majority said was they don’t like insurance companies being able to kick them off the insurance when they get sick.


They don’t like the idea of government-run healthcare.  So there’s no public option.  There’s no government-run option, uh, in the plan, which was something people wanted.  There is, uh – uh health insurance accountability in the plan, which people wanted.  So I think, uh, you know, if you just ask the question, um, you know, it really depends a lot on how you ask it.  If you get into, hey, are these the things the people of the 5th District wanted, then I think in – in a very real way, they were.

Rob: Michael Del Rosso, do you share, uh, Tom’s opinion in – in how he’s looking at this?  Because I know you’ve had some concerns that this vote did not represent the 5th District.


Michael: Well, he – he said it’s important when you ask the question.  Well, there was a CNN poll taken over three days, the last of which was the day Obamacare passed the House, courtesy of Tom’s vote.  And they found that 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill and only 39 percent favored it.  So almost two-thirds – if that’s a sampling, I would think, represents our district as well – opposed the legislation, but the vote for it was a very brave vote but against such opposition.  So it’s – it’s a matter of was Tom being brave defending the will of our constituents or is he being brave in defying them?


Because what I really wanna know is, uh, why does he and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and everyone think they know better than each of us of what’s best for us?  And why doesn’t every American have the right to be left alone by government so that we can go take care of our own health?  85 percent of Americans have health insurance.  The large majority are happy with it.  Uh, there – there’s surely better ways than a 2,300-page bill to cover 15 percent of Americans.  And by the way, the things that are wrong with healthcare are further intrusions of government federal law that shouldn’t even be on the books.


Rob: So Tom, do you think that, uh, that Michael Del Rosso has a point here and that, uh, people know better for themselves what’s good for themselves than government does?

Tom: Well, I think that, uh, generally speaking, yes.  And I think in this bill what people said was when you pay your hard earned dollars to your insurance company, um, so that you’ll be covered when something horrible happens to your family, and then, when that happens, they kick you off your insurance, I think people overwhelmingly, uh, object to that.


I mean, what – the – the principle behind this bill is actually not one based on government takeover.  I know Heritage is trying to distance itself from it, but it’s a basic deal from a conservative think tank that says we think individuals have to take some personal responsibility, and in exchange, we’re gonna make sure that insurance companies follow basic standards of decency, accountability, and competition.  And I think when you get into that level of it, it’s – it’s, uh – um, you know, that – that – that’s the deal that was, uh, there for – for the American people.


Rob: Michael Del Rosso?

Michael: Well, you know, insurance companies are – are, uh, state chartered organizations.  And in fact, if there wasn’t, uh – uh regulations that prevent, uh – uh – insurance companies from operating across states, we could have what the founders envisioned, which was an experiment amongst the several states where we get to choose the states we like best.  So rather than 2,300 pages of legislation to have actually, um – uh – uh – uh remove the impediments to let – to let, uh, states that wanna give, uh, free reign to, uh, free market solutions of insurance that don’t mandate, uh – uh everything under the sun have to be incorporated in a policy.


A lot of policies are, uh, unaffordable because they have things that people don’t need.  They don’t want drug health – they don’t want mental health insurance.  They don’t want abortion.  But they do want to be covered if they have a catastrophic cancer or something.  And – and uh more and more government intrusion prevents that from happening, so you know, I – I have a couple of questions for – for Tom.  I mean, is it possible for you to pass a Constitutional law to require me to buy a General Motors automobile?


And if – if not, then how is it possible for you to pass a Constitutional law to require me to buy healthcare?  The last I saw, refusing to buy something can’t possibly be interstate commerce, so explain yourself, please.

Tom: Is that going for you, Rob?  Or is that coming back to me?


Rob: Yeah.  No.  Go right ahead, Tom.

Tom: All right.  Um, a few things on that.  I mean, and first of all, I think, you know, I’ve tried to work, uh, up here across the aisle on the idea of buying across state lines.  And um, you know, the Republicans really didn’t wanna do it in any way other than [inaudible] at the bottom, which I think is not the right solution.


I think what we were trying to create was a more competitive market, including, uh, across state lines in terms of where it could go from there.  And I think in terms of looking at the system right now, small businesses pay 18 percent more than big businesses for the exact same product, um, individuals – individual contractors, etc., out there trying to buy in the open market.  So the basic principle here was that this system has worked for big companies that have a lot of employees, um, but it’s really been at the expense of small business.


It’s also been something where people who have private insurance, the people who are happy with their relationship with their doctor, are paying $1,500.00 or more extra every year, uh, to cover the hidden cost of the uninsured.  And what we’re actually saying, ironically, is that people should be taking more responsibility for that instead of dumping it on the people, uh, that have private insurance.  So I actually think, you know, even within the context of what you’re saying, um, we’re – we’re moving to a system that – that, uh, that isn’t just a balloon where you squeeze here and it goes over there, but tries to get people into the system so that we can actually have folks, uh – um in a system that makes sense.


You know, particularly, again in – in areas like my district, where many of our hospitals have a disproportionately high level of the uninsured, that means the rates have to go up and up more on the smaller percent that do have insurance.  And I think we’ve just pushed too hard on those middle class families and small businesses that have been doing right and playing by the rules so far.

Rob: So I think, though, that we – we kind missed the point of the question was can the government mandate us to buy a car from General Motors?  And how do you differentiate a – a health insurance mandate from any other sort of mandate?


Tom: Well, uh, I mean, it’s – it’s not a mandate.  It’s an option.  Right?  You can either get insurance or you can pay, uh, some of the costs that you impose by not having insurance.  And both are those well – are well within, you know, the constructs of what, uh, has happened before.  We mandate Social Security and Medicare, flood insurance and other things.  Um, and you know, the fact is that, um, my freedom to move my fist ends at the tip of your nose.  And there – there are costs imposed by – by not having insurance and you can choose to keep not having insurance, but uh, there is gonna be some, uh – uh [inaudible] to contribute for the costs that that imposes.


Rob: Michael Del Rosso?

Michael: Uh, that’s an absurd concept.  I don’t oppose any costs by not having insurance.  In fact, you know, I’ve run large corporations where we [inaudible]


Tom: That’s just not true, Michael.

Michael: It is true.  The reason why a hospital has to pay some, you know, indigent person or illegal alien’s, uh, emergency, uh, bill, is because you have a federal law on the books that makes it illegal for them not to cover them.  And once you have a law – again, government forcing a private entity to do something against their will, taking wealth or service from someone –

[00:13:01] [Crosstalk]

Tom: That can happen through you or your company going bankrupt either, Mike.


Michael: [Inaudible]

Tom: I mean, you know – you – you can’t –

Michael: No, no, no, no, no.


Tom: I mean, it’s all well and good when you’re healthy, but when you incur a cost that adds millions and millions of dollars –


Michael: The law – the reason why – the reason why you have these – these billions of dollars [inaudible] – hey, I’d like to finish, Tom.  Hang on.

Tom: Sorry.

Michael: The reason why there’s billions of dollars of – of uncompensated health services going out is because there’s federal laws that make it have to happen, and they shouldn’t be on the books either.  And – and if you eliminated all of those – I mean, you – you were at a town hall meeting.  You once said it’s because the Hippocratic Oath we have all these expenses.  The Hippocratic Oath doesn’t sell – tell an emergency room to go steal my money to go pay for someone else’s.


Now, are we our brother’s keeper?  Sure we are.  But is the government?  No, it’s not.  And that’s – that’s the fundamental difference in government and – and the – the – the things that you advocate from each according to his capabilities, to each according to his needs, are not American principles.  They’re just clearly not.  And – and this legislation and legislation that’s been passed by Republican administrations as well has been stacked up.  And we’re – we’re – we’re at a point right now where we’re heading to having the majority of the economy of the United States is – is soon to be controlled by federal regulation.


And that is not at all what the founders envisioned.  And it’s not at all what the Constitution permits.

Tom: Look.  I mean, as – as Ron Paul has said, there’s a much better argument against this bill as being corporatist than being socialist.  I mean, this is an expansion of the private insurance market, not the government insurance market.  It’s just not true that it’s an expansion of the government insurance market more than the private market.  And Ron Paul was saying, “Look, if anything, this idea is handing over more power to the corporations.”


Now, I think we have that balance by having accountability in there for those things, but the idea that this is some massive march in the other direction, I – I just – I just – I disagree with on the facts.  And I think that’s why, again, conservatives like the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney and others who don’t – who wanna distance themselves from it now, they reached this conclusion as an alternative to the liberal approach of a public option or single payers to say, “Look, why don’t we simply expand the private market, but expand some of the accountability rules?”  And that’s basically the – the path we walked down.


Michael: Well, you hit the – you hit the – the nail on the head with corporatism.  That’s a termed coin by Mussolini, and in fact, whereas, socialism really sought to totally control the economic process, you know, uh, fascism is more where it’s a collaboration where the state picks the winners and the losers.  And that’s exactly what this legislation is doing.  And if you think that it’s not designed to go – if you think – if you think that’s it not –


Tom: Why?  Why does this chose – which companies does this choose?

Michael: – designed to go and stop, uh – uh private healthcare and to impose a single payer system, you – you know, we have Obama saying, “I happen to be a proponent of single payer universal healthcare.


You know, his – his – uh, Jacob Hacker, well, I think the insurance industry will be very opposed because it’s gonna eliminate it.  You know, your – your colleague, Jan Schakowsky –


Tom: But those were about [inaudible] – Mike, come on.  Those were about drafts that were like never even – I mean, first of all [inaudible] considered an earlier draft.


Michael: No.  These are – every one of them said that these are steps toward – uh, toward single payer, a – you know, Barney Frank, he – there’s a famous clip on YouTube – Barney Frank saying that, uh, that you can’t do – I’m with single payer but we’re gonna do it incrementally in steps.  And everyone knows that that’s what’s going on here.


Tom: Come on, Mike.  Argue about the bill that’s there, not about some YouTube clip that’s out there.  The bill that’s there isn’t that.  It’s not that bill.  It just isn’t.


Michael: Well, but Max – Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he admitted during the Senate – Senate – Senate reconciliation debate that, quote, this is also an income shift.


Tom: Show me.  Show me where there’s a government option in this bill.

Michael: This legislation will have the effect of addressing maldistribution of income in America.  When – when is –


Tom: Mike, show me where in the bill there’s a new government option.  There isn’t.

Michael: No, no, no.


Tom: It’s not there.


Michael: This is a – I said every one of these people said it’s a stepping stone because the second you go in at the end of the day you’re gonna end up with a few insurance companies left that are basically reconciliation houses.


And you have – you have Max Baucus saying that this is – this bill is – is addressing the maldistribution of income in America.  You had John Dingell saying, “Hey, it’s hard to craft this kind of legislation where – because you gotta get it just right because we’re gonna control people,” your colleague, John Dingell, saying that.  You had – you had Tom Harkins saying that this – now we’ve taken the step where we’re granting you the right to healthcare.  And like all rights Congress gives us, we’re gonna go and – and – and modify this right as we go along.


Well, you know what?  In America, people – tyrants don’t give citizens rights.  They come from God, and your only job is to protect them.  So you don’t – you – you – government – these things that you’re mandating, you’re gonna give someone this and take from someone from – something from someone else to give it to ‘em.  That’s not the role of government.  Your – your – your role of government is to make sure I’m secure in the natural rights I have in the natural state, not – not to give me anything.  And it’s surely – surely not to take anything away.

And I think you got the entire concept of American principles wrong.  And I – and I’d love to work with you, recommend some books to you, to – to get it right.


But you can’t possibly be faithfully carrying out your oath when you – when you think – when you pass 2,300 pages of legislation that – that’s focused on redistributing wealth.

Tom: Mike, let me – let me just say, first of all, you gotta argue from the bill that we passed.  You can’t argue based on some things that other people thought they might have wanted.  We’ve gotta argue with the healthcare bill we have, which is an expansion of –


Michael: Well, all right, how is this gonna [inaudible]

Tom: Wait.  I let you finish.  I let you finish.

Michael: Go ahead.  Go ahead.

Tom: So we’re talking about an expansion of the private insurance market.  We’re talking about more competition, not less.  We’re talking about people have to take personal responsibility, which I think on some level is, uh, an American principle.


And we are talking about the US Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation.  Most of the points you’re making about the Constitution are based on the Articles of Confederation that fell apart.  They didn’t have the tax and spends.  They didn’t have the general principles.  Those –


Michael: I didn’t make a single point – I – I have the Constitution in my pocket, and – and nothing had to do with the Articles of Confederation.

Tom: It – it is because they’ve rejected the theory that you’re offering of a totally anemic state.  It was a pragmatic document.  Then the confederate states of America tried a similar Constitution that also didn’t have those.


It once again lost.  We have a pragmatic Constitution that talks about a – a balance of local, federal, and state of individuals’ liberties, and we believe those are there.  And we believe that sometimes those rights and freedoms have to be, uh, protected.  That’s the oath.  That’s the US Constitution [inaudible] that private market.


Michael: No.  All the time the rights have to be protected.  It’s in the concept that the enumerated powers you have in the Constitution.  The sole purpose of any one of them that could be deconstructed as being something that protects me.


Now, of course, you know, raising military and things like that, uh – uh – or – or, uh, or dealing with interstate commerce issues, those – those all have the solitary effect of letting me better, uh, experience my rights without being interfered by from others.  But –

Tom: You’re gonna say something that’s 20 percent of the economy doesn’t have interstate commerce implications?  And you –

Michael: Not –

Tom: And you can’t say that, well, my lack of buying it isn’t either because even Scalia joined onto the decision in the Ratia case saying, actually no, an absence of commerce can be [inaudible].


That was the same thing with the desegregation cases.  They made the same argument.  Right?  Well, I’m not letting them in my hotel, so it’s a lack of commerce, and the courts rejected that, too.  So this is 20 percent of the economy [inaudible].


Michael: No, no.  Congress at the time was specifically trade.  I mean, if you – if you look at Lopez, uh, versus United States and Justice Thomas’ concurrent opinion, it was very clear that, uh, commerce is just trade.  It’s not like manufacturing auto – automobiles.  It’s – and it’s surely not, uh, being forced to buy something.


And – and [inaudible]


Tom: Well, look at – look at Scalia and the Gonzalez decision, and I agree – you know, Lopez is fine.  I’m more than happy to carve out and say here was a combination of education and crime, which are traditional state levels.  And let’s face it.  Congress likes to get lots of points for looking tough on crime, when often, we’re just adding on top of existing state laws, and it’s not that helpful, so those are useful.


Michael: And the police function are truly in the state.  But here, let’s go back – how about – how about this.  You can – you can illuminate me.  This healthcare bill requires unfunded mandates – mandates that the states have to make up.  Do you have any advice for Governor McDonald on how he’s gonna pay for the unfunded mandates that you voted for?


Tom: Well, the states – Virginia does, uh – uh, is very low on the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, and we actually do a tremendous amount to help the states afford the cost of healthcare, uh, in this situation.  And there’s a federalist deal, which is they get to set up the exchanges that, uh, they want at the state level.  And we’ll see – we’ll see what they do in that regard.


Michael: So your – your fellow Democrat, a governor from a neighboring state, Phil Bredesen, now, he’s an healthcare expert.  And he says that this legislation will be quote, unquote, a disaster for the state of Tennessee.  Now, what do you know that Governor Bredesen, who created a large publicly traded healthcare management company knows that – that the government doesn’t – Governor Bredesen doesn’t know?


Tom: The biggest costs in this bill are tax cuts to small businesses for providing the insurance they already provide and to middle class families.  Uh, that’s the group that’s getting pitched in the middle on this, and so, the expenses that we’re talking about here are mostly tax cuts and credits, which again, I think is a – a decent idea when if you’re really poor or really rich, you’re probably covered in the system but the people in the middle are – are getting pinched.

Rob: Tom – Tom Perriello, we’re running out of time.  And I appreciate you being with us, sir.

[00:21:31] [Crosstalk]

Tom: You’re out of time.

Rob: Uh, let’s talk about, uh, very quickly, uh, Ken Cuccinelli, the attorney general’s, uh – uh lawsuit in Washington, DC, and uh, the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act.  Do you support Ken Cuccinelli in defending Virginia law against the federal government mandate?

Tom: I support his right to bring the case.  I think that’s exactly how this should play out.


Rob: Do you support him?  No.

Tom: No.  I don’t think – I think the history of state nullification laws are incredibly problematic, but again, that’s why we have an independent branch, um, and that’s why we should let these things play out.  And if the Supreme Court says, uh, any – uh, agrees with Mike and not me, then we’ll, uh, adjust to that, and that’s the way the system should work.


Rob: Are you supportive of the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act, that is, Virginia law that was signed by the governor?

Tom: The – if – if it’s the state nullification one, then I – I – I am not generally supportive of that, so.

Rob: Okay.  But it is law, so you do support the law that we have in the state right now?

Tom: Well, we have a – I mean, this is what happens between state and federal, right, is that there is supremacy clause and you bring the case and one side’s right and then you go from there.


Rob: Yeah.

Tom: That’s why you have an independent judiciary.


Rob: Michael Del Rosso, Tom Perriello, I wanna thank you very much for joining us today on the program.  It has been a fascinating discussion.  And Tom, I hope you’ll come back and join us again very soon.

Tom: Thanks to both of you.  Look forward to it.

Michael: Thanks, Tom.  Bye-bye.

Rob: Yeah.  Thanks very much.  All righty.  We’re gonna head into a break here, and when we return, we’re going to be, uh, continuing with Michael Del Rosso, and also your calls at 977-1070.  [Music plays]

It’s rare that we get a chance to talk to Tom Perriello.  I’d like to hear what you thought about it, and we will open up the phone lines right after the news.  Stand by for more of The Schilling Show.


And boy, that was wild.  977-1070 is the phone number if you have comments or questions.  Michael Del Rosso stays with us to kind of break down what just happened in this last, uh, half an hour with Congressman Tom Perriello making his first appearance on The Schilling Show in about 18 months.  And we do have callers on the line, and uh, let’s go to Michael real quickly before we get to the callers for, uh, just a quick, um, wrap up of what you heard happen in that previous half hour.


Michael, go right ahead.  What did you, uh, what did you take from that last half an hour?

Michael: Well, you know, I was sorry that the – it – it diverted into, uh, you know, rattling off corporate – or Supreme Court decisions because, in fact, America is much simpler than – than uh a bunch of, uh – uh, legal decisions.

Rob: Yes.

Michael: You know, and the – the definitions of what we’re dealing with, he brought up corporatism.


Well, corporatism was a word coined by Mussolini, and you cannot have, uh, corporatism if you don’t have state intervention to direct corporatist policies.  Period.

Rob: Uh huh.

Michael: So you know, you – you read – those definitions you read of socialism, communism, and American principles –

Rob: Yes.

Michael: – let’s add one from the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, which we – we’ve mentioned before.  And this is a contrast between socialism – because he said it’s not really socialism.  What we’re doing is corporatism.  That’s what Tom just said.

Rob: Yes.


Michael: Right?  Well, that – corporatism is fascism.  And here’s from, uh – uh, Dr. David Henderson, quote, where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly through domination of nominally private owners.  Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly by requiring owners to use their property in the national interest.  That is as the autocratic authority conceived it.  That would be Tom and his colleagues.


Rob: Uh huh.

Michael: Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.  Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities.  Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.  In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace, entrepreneurship was abolished, state ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions, end quote.


Rob: And this is exactly what’s happening right now.  We can see it.  And yet, you know what Tom used to defend it was very interesting, and I’ve seen him do this before, he picks out – he cherry picks a, uh, comment from Ron Paul and then tries to act like he’s on the same side as Ron Paul.  Did you find that as disingenuous as I did?

Michael: Completely.  And – and I in fact, again, if you get back to – he goes debate the bill.  Well, you know what, I really – we didn’t have time, but you know, debate the bill?


It’s 2,300 pages.  I mean, I – I wanted to ask Tom does he consider himself a gifted speed reader?  Because he only had 72 hours, not only to read that bill, you know –

Rob: Yes.

Michael: – but also how did he actually analyze it?  How did he know what the unintended consequences are in a 2,300-page legal document that he had 72 hours to look at?  And as Nancy Pelosi – I mean, if you go to Nancy Pelosi’s website, in her press releases, right now, just look on March 9th, she has, quote, unquote, we have to past his bill before we know what’s in it.


Rob: Hmm.

Michael: That’s – I mean, she’s got it on her own website in one of her press releases, and that’s exactly what he did.  And that is absolutely irresponsible.  That is – that would be professional malpractice if my attorney told me to go sign a document and he never read it.

Rob: Yes.  Uh, absolutely, it is.  And you know what’s interesting, and we’ve called this out on The Schilling Show blog in the past, because Congressman Perriello made a big stink in the one of the previous bills that he said, you know, he’s calling on Nancy Pelosi to let the public see it for 72 hours.


She said no, and he voted for it anyway.  So I don’t believe he really cares about that one way or the other, and I don’t believe that he read the entire bill or that he really cares what’s in it.

Michael: No.  And – and we only had a limited amount of time, but you know, I really wanted to ask Tom if the Democrats retain a majority, is he gonna be voting for Nancy Pelosi again?  I mean, most people don’t realize this, the very first vote that Tom Perriello cast in the United States House of Representatives was to vote for Nancy Pelosi, who is a wide-eyed, uh, coast, uh, socialist, to be Speaker of the House.


And – and out of 434 other colleagues, he’s telling me that that was the only person he could go with that – so essentially, he’s saying that he thinks Pelosi represents the interests of the 5th District of Virginia.  Because he put her in a position to completely guide the entire legislative directive of a majority, uh – of both houses and the – and the – and the White – Executive Branch.  And he voted along with everything that she proposed.

Rob: Let’s go to the phones because we have people who have been waiting a long time and like to get in here.


977-1070 is the phone number.  Michael Del Rosso joins us as we break down the previous half hour with Congressman Tom Perriello.  Greg, thanks for calling The Schilling Show.

Greg: Uh –

Rob: Hey.  You’re on, Greg.  Go right ahead.

Greg: Hey.  This is Greg.  How are you?

Rob: Fine.

Greg: Um, I’m gonna make three points.  Um, one is I’ve talked to Tom several times in the coffee houses, and you know, I feel like he’s a decent person inside, but I think he’s a bit naïve as to the people that he’s – lets surround him and influence him.


And that being said, I’m gonna talk about [inaudible] aspect of the, uh, healthcare bill, and that is it’s once this thing’s in place, uh, a lot of people will fall down to the rolls where they can qualify for Medicaid, state Medicaid.  Because they won’t have the money where the – the mandate would be required of $1,900.00 because they wouldn’t have the income to require that.  So then, they would be pushed down to state Medicaid.  Then, uh, once – once that goes in place, uh, the commonwealth of Virginia will – it’s budget will burst at the seams.


They won’t have as much money.  And then, that will be rolled on down into put on a localities where property taxes would eventually go up.  And the third thing is I would like to see this whole thing changed and be a bottom-up government where we collect all our revenues, federal and state and local, at the local level and disperse them upwards as we see fit here at the locality.  And then, I’ll let ya’ll comment on that.

Rob: Yeah.  Greg, thanks very much, and there’s a line open at 977-1070.


So what do you think about Greg’s point, and particularly, that this is going to bankrupt the states, which I believe he’s right on target?

Michael: Well, I know it’s going to.  In fact, he – he didn’t answer the – my question if he had any advice for Governor McDonald.

Rob: No, he did not.

Michael: And in fact, you know, you have to ask himself, you know, how could he justify trillions of dollars of deficit – deficit spending?  Because right now, I mean, if you asked him would you favor to have, uh, Virginia, uh, who’s blessed with considerable offshore oil resources, support taking that – those billions of dollars from Virginians to pay for deficits that are expanding?


And the – and – and – well, just yesterday on Neil Cavuto, one of his Democratic colleagues, Senator Byron Dorgan, he said exactly that.  He said any money that comes from Virginia offshore oil should go directly to the federal government to pay off –

Rob: Wow.

Michael: – the massive deficits that Dorgan and Perriello and all their colleagues are voting for.

Rob: John is on Line Number 3.  John, welcome to The Schilling Show.  You’re on with Michael Del Rosso.

John: Okay.  How ya’ll doin’ this afternoon?

Rob: Hey.  We’re doing very well.


Michael: Just great

Rob: Thanks for calling.


John: Okay.  Hey, Rob, I’m glad that you – you – you got Tom on there to answer these questions.


Rob: Yes.

John: And I got a – a [inaudible] from his office in Washington, DC, all that they was telling about the healthcare, you know, like he read everything.

Rob: Yes.

John: And then, he’ll – and then, down at the bottom, it’s – you know, it’s [inaudible], um, papers in there, too, about – about healthcare reform, what they – what they not gonna cut.  And they said that they not gonna cut Medicare benefits for the seniors, but Rob, they already done cutting Medicare benefits for the seniors.

Rob: Michael, would you like to comment on John’s query?

Michael: Yeah.  Not only is it being cut, but what’s he gonna do?


There was a New England Journal of Medicine survey just a couple of months ago, where over 46 percent of primary care physicians feel that the passing of this health reform legislation will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.  And over 62 percent of the physicians feel that, yeah, we need some health reform, but that a – a – a targeted, gradual way as opposed to this legislation.  So over 60 percent of physicians were against this, and when you have – if you have 46 percent of physicians actually follow through and leave the profession, how are you gonna cover more people with almost half the number of physicians?

I – you’re – you’re right.  You’re gonna get – you’re gonna get rationing and you’re gonna get a lot of other un- – adverse, uh, consequences.  And you know, people should look to states that already have this.  Well, for instance, Oregon, they already have government healthcare.  Right?  And Oregon also already has, um – uh physician assisted suicide.  So right now, uh, in Oregon, uh, the last couple of years there’s people that are dying of cancer and they’re denied treatment because it would bust their budget.


And they have to contain the budget, but they are offered the option of being – having the state pay for physician-assisted suicide.  And – and those are documented cases.  You can find them, uh – uh, from, uh – in – in the mainstream media reporting them.

Rob: 977-1070 is the phone number.  We’re running a little bit late for the break.  And John, thank you so much for the call.  It’s always good to hear from you.  And when we get back, I wanna continue this conversation.  We will take more of your calls at 977-1070, breaking down the discussion that we just had with Congressman Tom Perriello as Michael Del Rosso stays with us for the remainder of the hour.


The Schilling Show returns in just a moment.  [Advertisement plays]


[Advertisement plays]


[Advertisement plays]


[Advertisement plays]


[Advertisement plays]  [Music plays] And Bessegly is standing by for your calls at 977-1070, continuing our conversation with Michael Del Rosso and breaking down the previous half hour of the program with Congressman Tom Perriello.  And I heard – I heard him – there’s a few things I wanna bring to you, Michael.


Number one was he said that he does not support the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act.  And the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act basically said that Virginians shall not be compelled to, uh, participate in this program and shall not be fined if they do not.  And it was astounding to me that our own Congressman, who’s supposed to represent us is telling us we don’t have the right to say no.  Did you find that to be astounding and also disturbing?

Michael: It – it’s un-American.


Rob: Absolutely.

Michael: And he went on blathering about Articles of Confederation and the Confederate, uh, Constitution.


And – and at the end of the day, none of that really matters because American principles are very clearly laid out, as you did at the beginning of the show in the Declaration.  And any Constitution we have is really, uh, just a tradeoff, of – of those principles.  Right?  They’re – they’re – they’re compromises.  Some – some are – some are, uh, principled, and some are unprincipled.  So for instance, we had a Constitution that said slavery was legal when we first founded this nation.  And that was an unprincipled compromise.


Because as everyone knows from the Declaration, slavery is wrong because all men are created equal.  And so, likewise, if he – if he – if he – he’s basically disagreeing with the fact that our rights come from God and the – and the government’s, uh, purpose is to secure them.  So if there’s something in the Constitution that says otherwise, like slavery, then the Constitution has to be fixed, not that that says he’s supposed to pass laws that, uh, you know, give, uh – uh recovery of slaves from northern states or whatever might the situation be.  You know?


Rob: Yes, indeed.  And there was another thing that he brought up that we didn’t get a chance to address, but I’ve heard this before coming from people on the left side of the spectrum that, well, we have all sorts of mandates and we’ve done them for years, like the Social Security mandate.  How do you respond to that?

Michael: Well, you know, don’t get me started.

Rob: [Laughs]

Michael: Social Security you would go to jail because it’s a ponzi scheme and the reason why you would go to jail and what a ponzi scheme is a pyramid scheme is because it’s mathematically provable to be unsustainable.


Yet, government, uh, has – has proffered such a system and at the point of the gun forced us to pay into it and then took the money that was supposed to be in our, quote, trust fund, and spent it on everything under the sun.  So right now, they thought Social Security was supposed to be bankrupt in six years.  It’s bankrupt this year.

And – and – and uh, in 2006, you had 34 percent of Americans not paying federal income tax.  This year it’s 50 percent.  So essentially, you’re at 50/50 state.  So if people are gonna get healthcare, and they’re gonna get it from trillions of dollars being raised by taxes by the federal government, then, only half the people are paying for that – those taxes, and the other half are receiving them.


Rob: You know, we have – we have, uh, deconstructed the Social Security myth here on the program a great deal with, uh – um – in great depth with David Morada, who appeared and wrote an excellent column, saying exactly what you said, that this is a ponzi scheme.  And yet, we have people like Tom Perriello who are coming forward and basically saying, well, that’s a great thing.  And uh, we need to do this because of how great that is.  You know, do you think he knows this and just doesn’t wanna tell the truth?


Michael: I don’t – I don’t – you know, what experience does he have?  I don’t know that he – you know, the jobs he had are really, you know, George Soros funded, uh – uh, you know, Marxist community agitator kinda jobs.  I don’t think he’s ever made a payroll.

But if you wanna get down to – you know, Social Security’s a very easy problem to fix.  Here’s the – here it is.  Uh, when – when – when contested about – when the government was challenged in the ‘30s about collecting money for the Social Security trust fund, that it’s not in the Constitution, you know what they said?  You’re right.  There isn’t anything.  Social Security is just, uh, income tax.  And then, when you look at the Constitutional authority to spend money and to force me to give you money to be – well – again, it’s income tax.


But to spend it on retirement or – or medical purposes like Medicare and Medicaid, there’s no provision there.  So essentially, the federal government committed fraud for the last 75 years.  And the easy answer is to say, look, you know, God bless anybody that’s – that’s gonna rely on this that really needs it.  You means test it, and say, look, you’re – you’re – we’re not gonna leave you on – on the doorstep, not because the federal government has a responsibility for charity, because that’s not the government’s role –

Rob: That’s right.

Michael: – but because the government committed fraud to let you think that you’re supposed to be – uh, you were gonna be taken care of.


So we’ll take care of you people, but everybody else – I mean, I’m 53.  There won’t be a penny in it for me because it’s bankrupt today.  And it would be absolutely immoral for me to expect my children to pay for me.  So the quicker we cut this charade out and just say, look, if you’re really stuck because we committed fraud as the government, we’ll take care of those people that are really indigent, but everybody else, hey, all bets are off.

You know, we got – we gotta cut the whole charade of Social Security.  You’re gonna pay taxes because we’re gonna have to pay for the indigent people, but you better make other plans for your retirement.


Rob: I think there was another, uh, fraud that was perpetuated in the last half an hour.  And uh, he said that this was, uh, a good thing.  This healthcare bill was a good thing because it’s going to create competition and how great that is and that he – he made a claim, although, he, uh, he said it very carefully that, uh, he tried to bring intrastate – uh, interstate competition to the insurance market and the Republicans didn’t wanna do it.

Michael: Uh, that’s – that’s a totally specious argument.  He – he’s part and parcel with the people that passed this.


And every one that’s passed it – we could spend a whole show doing nothing but a sound board of people like Representative Chan Zyskowski, Ron Bloom, uh, the Manufacturing Czar, uh – uh – uh – uh – uh, Tom Harkins.  We got a couple of good clips we should play anyway that are short ones, but every one of them say that these are just a stepping stone to eliminating the private insurance market, and – and – and imposing single payer.  You know, Barney Frank said, “Look, don’t be stupid.  We have to do it incrementally.”  So everybody says that this is what we’re doing and that everyone – and – and there’s even quotes that say – or you know, everyone knows that this is where we’re going.


And – and they’ll tell their own faithful – you know, uh – um – uh socialists that this is exactly what they’re doing.  And Tom knows this because he’s in those crowds, but he doesn’t wanna admit it on the radio because it doesn’t sound good.

Rob: Exactly right.  977-1070 is the phone number.  Hank is on the line, and Hank, you’re on The Schilling Show with Michael Del Rosso.

Hank: Michael, I – you’re – my compliments to you.  Excellent job.  If ignorance is bliss, then Perriello is euphoric right now.


Rob: [Laughs]

Hank: Um, and the other thing I can say is –

Michael: Well, I’ll let you go, but you know, really, Tom’s a very bright guy, and he’s not ignorant.  It’s just that so much of what he knows is not true.  He’s the victim of a liberal education because he believes things that aren’t American and the thinks that – he thinks that’s the right term he’s supposed to use for them.  I’m sorry.  Go ahead.

Hank: But – but you kept bringing up the fact that we – any – anybody with common sense as an American citizen understands the slippery slope effect, and you kept throwing to him that this is as stepping stone.  This is a stepping stone.


Well, you can choose to ignore this and 15 years from now, or if it even takes that long when we’re all tyrannized by the slavery that this thing’s gonna bring about, we can – he can remember.  But then, of course, it’s too late to take back your vote.

Michael: Oh, it’s totally too late.


Hank: My compliments to you.

Michael: Well, thank you very much.  Well, I tell you, you know, if you just look at the facts, uh –

Rob: Go ahead.

Michael: – Tom and his party increased the deficit more in one year than Bush did in the last six.  Now, I’m a – I’ve never been a big Bush fan.  And in fact, I was critical of him constantly.


I remember I was at a – at a anti-Bush rally and people wanted to impeach him, and they – and I was just there to show support for the troops.  And I said, “You have no idea,” uh, you know, they – they thought I was, you know, uh, diametrically opposed to him.  I said, “No.  I have more reasons to impeach Bush than you can name right now.”

Rob: Uh huh.

Michael: Right?  But – but when is Tom gonna accept responsibility for this massive deficit?  How does he – how does he – how does he justify, uh – uh – uh – uh voting for something without paying for it?  And if you look at what they legislated, this is – so far, this administrated has legislated over $600 billion in tax increases with 14 of them affecting people making under $250,000.00.


And they have another 1.8 trillion dollars of new taxes, uh, working its way through the process right now.  How can this make any sense when America is so economically fragile and there is such widespread unemployment?  I have no idea, but that’s what Tom votes for every day.

Rob: You know, it’s just amazing that he was – he was on this argument.


Let’s talk about the – the bill that we voted for and not thinking about what are the ramifications of that bill and what people have said they intend to do, including the President of the United States once this bill gets going and starts having its intended effect of, uh, destroying the, uh, private medical system that we have in America right now.  I mean, it’s just amazing to me that he’s saying, “I’m only gonna take a snapshot of this moment and everything else doesn’t matter.”

Michael: Well, the CNO – CNN poll, the snapshot the day he voted for it, but let’s – let’s look at this bill.  All right.  I was a C Level executive of a – at a number of large, uh, public companies.  And you have security exchange reporting requirements.


And amongst them, when all these, uh – uh, you know, you had, uh, right now heavy equipment makers, Caterpillar and John Deere reported that this new law will cost them 100 million and 150 million, respectively in the coming year.  How is that good for a nation reeling with economic shocks?  And the reason they reported it is because they’re – they’re responsible to the SEC to tell their shareholders when something happens that is gonna adversely affect their economic output.  And major corporations, ATT – AT&T and others all had to go make statements that this is racking billions of dollars of expenses that they never planned on that the shareholders are holding in stock.


And all of a sudden, you pass a law and you just caused billions of dollars of what should be my equity in a corporation because I – I’m running on my, uh – uh, my stockholdings for my retirement because you squandered the Social Security money.  And – and you pass a law that just squanders billions.  And it’s – these are real numbers on this bill because they read the – these corporations read that bill and said, “Uh oh.  We have to report that it’s gonna make us do this, and this is gonna cost us billions.”

So – so that is the real bill, Tom.  These companies, they – in real time, they responded to your legislation.


Rob: Michael Del Rosso, it has been an illuminating hour and this will be podcast later on today.  And I want people to listen to it and share it with their friends.  And I wanna thank you for joining us and, uh, presenting American principles versus whatever principles Tom was presenting.  They certainly weren’t [inaudible]


Michael: Oh, corporatist fascist principles.  He – he admitted that that’s what he voted for, a corporatist, uh, system.

Rob: Absolutely.


Michael: Because that’s what – that’s what he said we have now.

Rob: Absolutely.  Thank you so much.  We look forward to our next visit.

Michael: Thank you.  Bye-bye.

Rob: All right.  And I just wanna reiterate that, um, [music plays] you know, American principles, what are they?


Well, let’s go back again to the Declaration of Independence and the definition.  Everyone is created equal and free.  That would be free from a government mandate, Tom, or free from having to pay a fine.  You think that’s not a lack of freedom and taking away our freedom?  That we don’t need the government to grant us rights.  And Tom, you’re not granting us a right as healthcare because all of our rights come from the Creator.  That would be God.  And they are inalienable.


The only purpose of government is to secure God-given rights to us and that governments derive their just – just powers from the consent of the governed.  Boy, I wish he was paying attention when they taught that, or maybe they just didn’t teach that.  Unbelievable.  The Schilling Show will be back after the news at the top of the hour.  Stand by for more.  [Advertisement plays]

[End of audio]

Duration:  46 minutes


Leave a Reply