Gov't Knows Best? White House creates 'nudge squad' to shape behavior.

Sound like we been warn all ready and Beck was right on the money in 2010: BECK:  CASS SUNSTEIN, OBAMA REGULATION "CZAR"To manipulate them."

You're the hapless Homer Simpson who lacks self-control, so you will be manipulated. And progressives, like Sunstein, the solution to this problem is manipulation and control by the federal government.

I don't want to be manipulated. I want individual freedom, liberty. I want personal responsibility. Hold me accountable for my own actions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," September 27, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GLENN BECK, HOST: Hello, America.

All right — let's start with the latest in a long line of insults hurled at the Tea Party movement. But this one came from Senator John Kerry, who actually said this with a straight face:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY, D-MASS.: We have an electorate that doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on. So, you know, people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than by the facts and the truth or what's happening.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Boy, it's taking everything in me not to say a simple slogan like "hope and change"?

Tell me if this isn't true: The American people, at least in my lifetime, have never been so connected to their own history. I have never in the history — in my lifetime — I have never seen people show more that they care about the actual process of what's happened. We're making sausage in Washington. And they care. And they're paying attention.

For the first time in my lifetime, the people of this country know that the Founders are counting on them. They know absolute firm reliance on the knowledge that when the three branches failed, the media was supposed to stop it. And once the media failed, the only — the only thing standing between fascism or chaos and the American people are the American people.

And for the first time in my life, I can tell you that I'm amazed by the American people as a whole. I mean, we've always been incredible treatment. But what we're doing now is this, and I haven't seen it in my life. We're being responsible. We should have been there the whole time, but — me included — we weren't. I mean, we were escaping. We thought the ride would never end.

This is a reason to celebrate, not denigrate the American people.

Evidence? Have you checked out the best-selling books that have just — at least come from this show? I mean, we have — these are just some of the books — "Road to Serfdom." Have you read this? It will make your eyes bleed.

"Road to Serfdom," came out in 1944. So you know, it sells about 7,000 books annually. After one episode on this program, this book sold 70,000 copies in a week. This audience is devouring books like never before.

And there are books like — oh, here's one. You should read this one. This one actually explained to me, this is what really got the ball rolling for me, one of them. This is — this is "Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism." It has foot — it was riddled with footnotes.

We have said — "The Five Thousand Year Leap."

Here's one, this is Peter Lillback's book. This is incredible. I told you every person in America should own this book. It's "Sacred Fire." When I found this book — it had been out for five or six years. It didn't say the number one national best seller. People are devouring it.

"New Deal, Raw Deal" is another one. The "Real George Washington," unbelievable. "Tempest at Dawn" even.

How about this one? "Phillip Dru: Administrator. A Story of Tomorrow." Have you read this book? I wanted to hang myself through this book. Every American should read this book. It's what we're doing. And it was written in like 1912.

Are you kidding me? Don't tell me that the American people are stupid. Don't tell me that the American people — those — some of those books are scholars' books. They weren't ever meant to be consumed by the American people. These are gigantic, small font, boring beyond your wildest imagination, yet highly informative books.

Now I'm just guessing, but I don't think people are just reading these at the beach going, this is a page-turner, it's about Woodrow Wilson.

The American people know that something was wrong and they were trying to figure out how did we get here? And they're informing themselves. They're trying to get to the truth of what's happening. They're being responsible.

And America, here is the truth: The truth is there is a fundamental difference in America right now. We've talked about this choice — this choice. It started to write America needs to choose, but America must choose between these two.

This is the choice — and it is growing more and more defined every week: Do we believe in a government that is constitutional, limited federal power, has a low flat tax, whatever kind of tax — lower taxes, limited federal spending, personal responsibility, and a government that helps those who cannot help themselves — not help those who will not help themselves? Do we believe in this?

Or — choice two, it's a big progressive government. And this is the choice we keep going through. Republican, Democrat — Republican, Democrat, big progressive. The Republicans, they'll be telling you what to do in your bedroom. The Democrats will be telling you what you are going to do in every room.

I don't want them in my bedroom. I don't want them in my living room. I don't want them in any room. I feel like cat in the hat here. I don't want them to have this much power.

Why? Because our Founders knew this — the Founders knew people are flawed. They're flawed and power corrupts.

Now, Cass Sunstein, he is the latest. He — I think he fancies himself as a refounder of the United States of America. I've told you on this program, he's the most dangerous man in America, because no one will see him coming. He's Obama's progressive regulation "czar."

We found an old clip — it was put up on TheBlaze.com. Here he is, pretty much spelling out everything this show has told you in the past. Watch:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASS SUNSTEIN, OBAMA REGULATION "CZAR": Some legal conservative thinkers, like Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, think that Constitution means what it originally meant. That means we should understand the document by going into a kind of time machine and capturing the public understanding of the public that ratified the document a century — or more than a century ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: OK. He's saying that it has no relevance — the Constitution has no relevance — because you have to go in a time machine.

This is an all you need to understand: The Founders knew, limit the size of the government, through the Constitution, because people are flawed and power corrupts. Thus, don't give people power over you because they will become corrupt — as they are people, thus, they are flawed.

Progressive don't think the Constitution applies to today — that's why they're called progressives. Make progress, towards what? Away from what? The Constitution.

The Constitution evolves over time and it changes as society changes. Yes, it does, but through the Constitution called amendments. We used to amend it all the time.

The rest of Americans believe the Constitution still works. Now, that's the debate that is coming down to. But that's the debate nobody is having.

The debate comes down to this: Do you believe in the American experiment, the American ideals? Do you believe in this — people are flawed, power corrupts, don't give people power over you because they will become corrupt as they with people and they are flawed? If you believe in this, you must choose this.

Progressives don't hold the Constitution in high esteem. And that's bad enough. But when coupled with what progressives think about the American people, that's when things start to get dicey.

You just saw Cass Sunstein dismiss the Constitution, but let me play again what he says about you:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SUNSTEIN: Once we know that people are human and have some Homer Simpson in them, then there's a lot that can be done to manipulate them.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BECK: "To manipulate them."

You're the hapless Homer Simpson who lacks self-control, so you will be manipulated. And progressives, like Sunstein, the solution to this problem is manipulation and control by the federal government.

I don't want to be manipulated. I want individual freedom, liberty. I want personal responsibility. Hold me accountable for my own actions.

If I — if I make a bad move in business, then I make a bad move in business. I should be allowed to fail. I don't want the big George Bush government or the big Obama government. I don't want any government that is telling me exactly what to do all the time. I want a government that holds up merit and personal responsibility, has very little on control, but also a government that is compassionate for those who cannot do it themselves and when the private sector can't help them either.

The people in Washington have already decided what kind of government they're going to give you. Do you know that 80 percent — 80 percent — of the ruling class in Washington say that this is it? Eighty percent say they are now on the right track — except 60 percent of Americans say they're on the wrong track. That's a pretty big spread. Why? Because they're corrupt and they have power.

Now, let me show you what they're doing in Washington. These are just things that just broke over the weekend. Let me show you what they're doing and you tell me: Is this the choice you would make?

In California and eight other Western states, the government can now actually place a GPS device on your car and track you, because according to a court, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, even in your own driveway. They, by the way, don't need a search warrant.

The FBI and other agencies will now no longer need a search warrant to track your location. They'll use your cell phone. Nobody is going to a judge. They just — where's Bob Jones?

This happened after a federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled. Once again, the Obama administration argued Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to where people place and receive cell phone calls.

Now, here's the latest from The New York Times: The government is now seeking a new federal law forcing Internet, e-mail, instant messaging and other communication providers to offer encryption to build in backdoors for law enforcement surveillance.

OK, wait a minute. This also will not have to be used with a search warrant. They don't have to go to a judge.

Now, if I may, I remember the left complaining about warrant-less wiretaps on phones when we were talking about terrorists. I was with you on that. You don't tap the phones of American citizens without going to a judge and getting a warrant. You don't do it.

Now, here we have warrant-less car-tapping, warrant-less cell phone tapping, warrant-less Internet tapping and there's silence. Silence from the left, silence from the media, silence from the American people.

Is John Kerry right? Is it because we don't have a simple slogan for it?

Here's one of the most disturbing stories, because we're being stonewalled on it — a story in Forbes about an incredible security van, not against this technology. I think — here's the van — I think this is incredible in a war zone. They're called "X-ray vans." They can see through walls. They can see through your clothing.

They were previously only bought by the Department of Defense for use in Afghanistan and Iraq. But, now, it seems the federal government has bought at least 500 of these vans and they're being used here domestically. Why? For what purpose? Who's using them?

They're using them now in your neighborhoods — possibly. That's what we're being told. Congress can't even get a response on this one. The Obama administration is being elusive, won't say exactly who's buying them and why we're driving these vans apparently down the streets in our neighborhoods.

Now, again, if they're used in a war zone, if they're used for shipping containers in our ports, if they're used at our Mexican border — which I know they're probably not — or our Canadian border, I'm cool. Let us know. But pardon me if I'm a little hesitant in giving government free rein to look into people's houses, driving down the street without a search warrant.

Gang — I mean, I hate to put on the hoop skirt and wig, but doesn't the Constitution figure into any of this? Is it really a good idea to give people who openly think that Americans are Homer Simpson and thus can be manipulated, who openly feel it's their duty to control them for the greater good — should we give them this much power to monitor everything we do? Should people give power to people who think that SUVs and your thermostat and big screen TVs are what's destroying the planet? Should we give them the ability to control our thermostats through a smart grid and manipulate us in every choice we make and monitor everywhere we go?

Should we really give more power to people who go to our school children and indoctrinate them like this?

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: There are some things about our world that you know that older people don't know.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BECK: Here he is speaking in front of 12 and 13-year-olds. There are things that you know that older people don't know. Excuse me? What are those things that parents don't know that their children do?

Can we please ask the media and the politicians — how is it now that kids are smarter somehow than their parents? Can someone give me a definition or when it changed, when it was OK or a good idea to pit kids against their parents and allow government officials to do it?

The president recently announced he wants to elongate the school day and school year so kids will be away from their parents for even more time during the year and now they're in the hands of Department of Ed, a monolithic faceless bureaucracy that America was somehow or another able to limp through without until 1979. This is not some institution that we've always had — 1979 — and nothing has gotten better.

This is a new organization, the Department of Education. And they are gaining more and more power.

Our U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan vowed to make sure that his department — take a guess. What? Improve graduation rates? No. Improve test scores? No, no. He vowed that his department would work to make American children into good environmental citizens. Watch:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

ARNE DUNCAN, EDUCATION SECRETARY: A well-educated citizen knows that we must not act in this generation in ways to endanger the next. They teach students about how the climate is changing, they explain the science behind climate change and how we can change our daily practices to help save our planet. They have a role in preparing students for jobs in the green economy.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BECK: There is no green economy.

America, this is your job as a parent. Did you ask your schools to make your child a green environmental citizen?

And then there was the assistant secretary of energy who recently talked about the administration's four tactics for the deployment of clean energy. The first three were government subsidiaries. The last one, quote — you're going to love this — she says, "It's where we have a mandate, where we can actually just issue regulations and do market transformation."

OK, hang on just a second. That's Cass Sunstein. As the secretary says, we're going to make people save money for themselves. This is all part of the appliance standards we told you about last week where most people don't even pay attention to the story. And it results in yet another choice taken away, because they will force you to save money.

They already have so much control and they continue to eliminate choice after choice after choice. Some may seem mundane, like building sandcastles or growing vegetables. But one day, you will wake up and
wonder: Where has it all gone?

This is the progressive opportunity and they know it. They are not willing to let it slip away. There are radicals. There are revolutionaries. Van Jones is one of them. He is telling people now about the upcoming election — he is telling people that you should be afraid. I'll show you what he said — next.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/09/28/glenn-beck-from-nudge-to-shove/#ixzz2aXmcLYUp

The federal government is hiring what it calls a "Behavioral Insights Team" that will look for ways to subtly influence people's behavior, according to a document describing the program obtained by FoxNews.com. Critics warn there could be unintended consequences to such policies, while supporters say the team could make government and society more efficient. 

While the program is still in its early stages, the document shows the White House is already working on such projects with almost a dozen federal departments and agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. 

"Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals," reads the government document describing the program, which goes on to call for applicants to apply for positions on the team.

The document was emailed by Maya Shankar, a White House senior adviser on social and behavioral sciences, to a university professor with the request that it be distributed to people interested in joining the team. The idea is that the team would "experiment" with various techniques, with the goal of tweaking behavior so people do everything from saving more for retirement to saving more in energy costs.

The document praises subtle policies to change behavior that have already been implemented in England, which already has a "Behavioral Insights Team." One British policy concerns how to get late tax filers to pay up.

"Sending letters to late taxpayers that indicated a social norm -- i.e., that '9 out of 10 people in Britain paid their taxes on time' -- resulted in a 15 percent increase in response rates over a three-month period, rolling out to £30 million of extra annual revenue," the document reads.

Another policy aimed to convince people to install attic insulation to conserve energy.  

"Offering an attic-clearance service (at full cost) to people led to a five-fold increase in their subsequent adoption of attic-insulation."

[Read the full document here]

Such policies -- which encourage behavior subtly rather than outright require it -- have come to be known as "nudges," after an influential 2008 book titled "Nudge" by former Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and Chicago Booth School of Business professor Richard Thaler popularized the term.

The term "nudge" has already been associated with the new program, as one professor who received Shankar's email forwarded it to others with the note: "Anyone interested in working for the White House in a 'nudge' squad? The UK has one and it's been extraordinarily successful."

Richard Thaler told FoxNews.com that the new program sounds good.

"I don't know who those people are who would not want such a program, but they must either be misinformed or misguided," he said.

"The goal is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government by using scientifically collected evidence to inform policy designs. What is the alternative? The only alternatives I know are hunches, tradition, and ideology (either left or right.)"

But some economists urge caution.

"I am very skeptical of a team promoting nudge policies," Michael Thomas, an economist at Utah State University, told FoxNews.com.

"Ultimately, nudging ... assumes a small group of people in government know better about choices than the individuals making them."

And sometimes, he added, government actually promotes the wrong thing.

"Trans-fats were considered better than saturated and unsaturated fats in the past. Now we know this is an error."

Every intervention would need to be tested to make sure it works well, said Harvard economics professor David Laibson, who studies behavioral economics and is in touch with the people in government setting up the program. He added that the exact way the team will function is currently unknown.
                                     
"We have to see the details to be sure, but this could work out very well," he said.

Asked about details, Dan Cruz, spokesman for the U.S. General Services Administration (the department which the team will be a part of) told FoxNews.com: "As part of the Administration's ongoing efforts to promote efficiency and savings, GSA is considering adding some expertise from academia in the area of program efficiency and evaluation under its Performance Improvement Council."

Maya Shankar did not respond to questions.

Laibson added that he hoped the U.S. program would stay away from overly controversial subjects.

"Let's say we want people to engage in some healthy behavior like a weight loss program, and then start automatically enrolling overweight people in weight loss programs -- even though they could opt out, I'm guessing that would be viewed as offensive ... a lot of people would say, 'I didn't ask for this, this is judging who I am and who I should be."

But Laibson added that there are very real benefits to some "nudge" policies -- such as one that increases the number of people registered as organ donors by making people decide when they apply for a drivers' license.

Thaler, who is also an adviser to the British Behavioral Insights Team, said that his research also supports automatically enrolling people in retirement savings plans.
              
"Many people have struggled to save enough to provide for an adequate retirement. ... Two simple design changes can dramatically improve the situation ... automatic enrollment (default people into the plan with the option to easily opt out) and automatic escalation, where workers can sign up to have their contributions increased annually," he said.

Jerry Ellig, an economist at the Mercatus Center, said that some "nudges" are reasonable, but warned about a slippery slope.

"If you can keep it to a 'nudge' maybe it can be beneficial," he added, "but nudges can turn into shoves pretty quickly."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/30/govt-knows-best-white-house-creates-nudge-squad-to-shape-behavior/#ixzz2aXlkkYOT