Counting tonight’s episode, Charlie Rose has had five guests discussing the Simpson/Bowles deficit reduction plan, and all five have been right-leaning proponents of the plan’s austerity measures. To call for a broader discussion, see FAIR’s latest Action Alert. Please leave copies of your messages–or comments on the alert–in the comments thread here.
As a long-time viewer of Charlie Rose’s program, I am extremely dissatisfied with his decision NOT to present anything but the Center-Right position espoused by the reigning corporatocracy and plutocrats. This is ridiculous. Last I looked, we are still a democracy, and our media ought to represent the full range of points of view on every topic. Why did Charlie wuss out? Is something threatening him? Holding something over his head? What?
WE NEED FAIR REPORTING BY AN INDEPENDENT PRESS. If you folks aren’t interested in that, maybe you ought to quit your jobs and go looking for a job with the media in an autocratic country like Iran or China. You’d be more at home there. THIS is AMERICA, and we don’t cotton to fascism here.
Karen-Lynette
Mr. Rose,
I’m concerned that your recent explorations of the Bowles/Simpson deficit commission have featured voices that represent primarily the right/center-right of the political spectrum. The issues the commission raises can and should be debated by a diverse group of thinkers.
Please include voices like Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Kuttner and others in future broadcasts on the Commission and the future of social security. Thank you.
Tracy Egan
Tigard, Oregon
Mr. Rose –
It’s great that you’re covering this public issue, of course. But why do you ignore substantial, serious, critical voices from the progressive part of the spectrum? Please bring some diversity to your discussion of the deficit commission, which so far has exclusively featured right-leaning supporters of the Simpson/Bowles plan.
Dear Mr Rose:
I am a regular viewer of your show and was surprised by the lack of diversity in viewpoint among the people you’ve interviewed about the report of the deficit commission. Where are the voices from left of center and center? Where is Paul Krugman, James Galbraith and Henry Aaron?
I am disappointed, to say the least.
Sincerely,
Enid Shomer
Sent: Tue, Nov 16, 2010 03:51 PM
The essence of democracy rests on the ability of differing views to be shared, exchanged, and debated. Your attempt at “informing the public” does not work when one view is represented. I’m demanding you bring some diversity to its discussion of the deficit commission, which so far has exclusively featured right-leaning supporters of the Simpson/Bowles plan.
I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!
Howard Beale
Network
Dear Mr. Rose,
How about having an economist like Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitzs on to offset the right of center folks you’ve had on so far discussing (supporting) the Simpson/Bowles plan. All this talk of deficit reduction during a deep recession is pure “Hooverism.”
Dear Mr. Rose,
I am generally impressed by the diversity of opinion that is available on your program, but this time I’m disappointed. The commission appointed by the White House to present a plan regarding deficit reduction has presented its ideas, and I would expect your program to provide an in-depth discussion of all points of view.
Unfortunately, so far you have only brought on supporters of the Simpson-Bowles plan, which is definitely a plan that favors the opinions of the middle-to-far-right. There are significant criticisms to be made of this plan, and I’m writing to encourage you to provide your viewers with balanced information by including those more liberal thinkers who oppose it.
Despite those who have given up on the idea of objective journalism, I’m counting on you to stand up for it, represent all sides, and offer us the opportunity to hear educated discussions from many points of view.
Sincerely,
Susan Schoch
Idledale, CO
Dear Mr. Rose:
In the interests of having a better rounded airing of views on the recent Deficit Commission report, is it possible you can include guests who are not either open proponents of the aforementioned plan, long time opponents of the idea of Social Security as well as the reality of Social Security, or part and parcel of the DC Beltway? How about getting Dean Baker or Joseph Steglitz or William Greider?
Instead of echoing the conventional wisdom, which is almost always incomplete, why don’t you give us a real debate on an important topic?
Brian Tanguay
Santa Barbara, CA
Dear Mr. Rose,
As decades-long supporters of PBS and NPR, we favor programs that stimulate critical thinking and honest debate. After your show tonight with Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, you will have interviewed five enthusiastic supporters of the White House deficit commission’s report.
In the interests of fairness and intellectual honesty, your next five guests should be progressive economists who have considered the potential negative effects of the plan.
Our recommendations include:
Henry Aaron
Dean Baker
James Galbraith
Paul Krugman
Robert Kuttner
Whatever your personal opinion of the commission’s report, you owe your viewers a fair discussion.
Sincerely,
Blair and Charlie Moser
San Francisco
Members of KQED and KTEH
Mr. Rose –
Please balance your show’s coverage of the recent Deficit Commission report by hosting guests who will contribute alternative information to that offered by the exclusively Commission-supporting guests who have to date been given air time.
Thank you,
C. Cramer
Missoula, MT
Your show has invited five guests to discuss the deficit commission plan on the show, and all five are enthusiastic supporters of the austerity-themed blueprint of spending cuts, Social Security cuts and tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.
It’s easy to find left-wing critics of the deficit commission’s plan. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research called the commission a “waste of time,” since the report failed to deal seriously with the dramatic increase in healthcare costs that are largely driving the projected deficits.
Other revenue streams that have been championed by progressive experts, like a tax on financial speculation, are not considered in the Bowles/Simpson plan.
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, who labeled the whole commission a “compromise between the center-right and the hard-right,” critiqued the plan’s arbitrary cap on federal revenue and called its tax suggestions “a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases– tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class.”
Other economists who have strongly criticized the Bowles/Simpson plan on progressive grounds include James Galbraith, Robert Kuttner and Henry Aaron.
Recently, your executive producer Yvette Vega wrote that criticism works to “keep all of us reaching further and farther in presenting guests and programs that are both varied and diverse…. We will continue to expand and look for as many views as possible on a topic and subject.”
This would be a good chance for the Charlie Rose show to put your money where your mouth is. Give a forum to guests who disagree with the Bowles/Simpson plan’s conservative bent. As it stands right now, you’re not reporting news, you’re not fostering discussion: you’re pushing propaganda.
Date: 11/16/2010 5:17:25 PM
To: charlierose@pbs.org
Subject: Diversity on your programs need to be reviewed.
I am asking you, Mr. Charlie Rose, to give your show some diversity to its discussion of the deficit commission. You have in the last month been featuring only exclusively right-leaning supporters of the Simpson/Bowles plan. As a viewer of your program, from time to time I find it very strange that you don’t present both sides of an issue.
In a recent New York Times article by columnist Paul Krugman (11/12/10), who labeled the whole commission a “compromise between the center-right and the hard-right,” critiqued the plan’s arbitrary cap on federal revenue and called its tax suggestions “a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases, tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class.” As a middle class American, I feel that this is not right that we continue to pay, while the rich only get wealthier at our expense. There are other economists who have strongly criticized the Bowles/Simpson plan. They include James Galbraith, Robert Kuttner and Henry Aaron.
Let’s see some diversity and hear the other side of the agrument on your show.
After all this is “public television” – we all have a right to hear both sides.
FAIR’s recent report on the state of public television (“Taking the Public Out of Public TV”) included an evaluation of the elite guest list on your show, Charlie Rose (Extra!, 11/10). In response, your executive producer Yvette Vega wrote (10/25/10) that such criticism works to “keep all of us reaching further and farther in presenting guests and programs that are both varied and diverse…. We will continue to expand and look for as many views as possible on a topic and subject.”
I think this is a good opportunity for the Charlie Rose show to prove that they mean it.
Sincerely yours,
Mary
Dear Mr. Rose:
I have enjoyed your fine show for years, but was frankly disappointed in your lack of diversity in your two right of center guests. This Deficit Commission Report is really important. The future of our republic is teetering, as you probably noticed. The decisions we make now to handle these vast debts owed by our government is crucial in determining just what kind of future our kids and grandkids will have, in fact the kind of future we will have! By showing a lack of diversity in the views on this seminal issue, you have removed the public from public tv. Come on, get balanced!
Sincerely,
Daniel O. Rynberg, M.S.Ed.
Yarmouth, Maine
To: Charlie Rose
Make we ask why you are featuring only right-leaning supporters of the Simpson/Bowles plan? Why not include James Gailbraith, Robert Kuttner, Henry Aaron, or Dean Baker? Paul Krugman ( remember him, the Nobel Prize winning guy?) labeled the entire commission â┚¬Ã…“a compromise between the center-right and the hard-right.
Your elite guest lists have been taking the â┚¬Ã…“publicâ┚¬Ã‚ out of Public Television. You and your producer, Yvette Vega are not â┚¬Ã‚ presenting guests and programs that are both varied and diverseâ┚¬Ã‚ as she has stated.
I no longer watch your program and many of my progressive friends have followed. Perhaps we can start a write in and telephone campaign to Public Television and stop contributing to our local stations.
Carol L. Haddad
Michigan City, IN
The Charlie Rose show has given plenty of air time to right-wing supporters of the Simpson/Bowles plan -five supporters so far and no real critics, except ones that think it doesn’t go far enough to the right. It is time to allow some left-leaning public voices back into public television. How about having Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research on your show? Or how about Michael Hudson of the The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends ?
To charlierose@pbs.org
Please bring some critics from the other side to your coverage of the Bowles-Simpson commission report. There are really many other perspectives on the deficit and what to do about it in the current economy. Really, so far your guest list is ridiculous, considering the views out there both among economists and in the general public. Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, James Galbraith are some names to start with, if you’re having trouble wondering who might have other takes on the issue. As it is, you’re making it hard to see how your show offers any perspective different from the commercial media.
Sincerely,
Jary Stavely
I am writing to express my concern about your presentation of deficit issues and the need for austerity measures in the United States. It seems that your show is only interested in presenting far right voices and proponents of the Simpson deficit reduction plan. I think it is important for you to have diverse opinions on this issue and would like to see alternative views on this issue. Good journalism requires nothing less.
Matthew O’Neill, Esq.
I’ve been disappointed in your interviews regarding the Deficit Commission report. They are not up to your usual standard of point/counterpoint. In this case, there is no counterpoint at all. And I don’t expect that the situation will improve with 2 members of the Deficit Commission on your program. Although I want to hear their points of view and the decisions behind the report they released, I also want to hear more depth on the considerable criticisms of the report and hear the ensuing discussion when supporters and critics are at the table together.
I’ve been watching your program since the late 80s and have noticed a gradual slide into complacency. You used to provide cutting edge analysis and discussion with teeth. These days your guests sound more like unchallenged proponents of the corporate status quo. I’d love to see you get back on the horse and really ride it for all it’s worth. I may decide to put the nag out to pasture and find other occupations for my time.
I have skipped a year of donating to my PBS station because I’ve watched PBS growing ever more friendly to the views of the wealthy, the corporatists, and the conservatives, while mostly ignoring the concerns and needs of the ever more beleaguered working and middle classes.
The Charlie Rose coverage of the decisions of the deficit commission has been no exception. The only views expressed were that the OBVIOUS thinking was to pound the solutions out of the working and middle class by raising the retirement age and by decreasing the amount paid to retirees. The wealthy obviously don’t give a damn about this small amount of payment. And as none of them are elderly manual laborers …. they think, sure, why not have them work until 70!?
The idea of taxing income over $106,000 of course hasn’t been considered, nor has taxing Wall Street speculation. This is a prime example of Charlie, PBS, the wealthy, and the conservative-leaning commission watching out for themselves and their wealthy buddies.
….. and besides, the way I understand it Social Security doesn’t even play a part in the deficit.
Marlen Beach
Dear Mr. Rose,
In the interest of diversity please dedicate 3 shows to the poverty stricken, unemployed, underemployed, poor and middle working class people.
Invite guests with a different perspective on â┚¬Ã…“austerity measuresâ┚¬Ã‚ to those you already interviewed. Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, James Galbraith, Robert Kuttner, Henry Aaron, William Black, Bill Moyers, Michael Moore and Bill Maher would lend balance to the discussion.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
Thank you,
Joseph A. Mungai
We didn’t keep a copy of our response to Mr. Rose, but, in effect, it said we are deeply disappointed in his lack of fairness and deeply disappointed in PBS. So many people we know are affected by attributing the deficit to social programs. Why aren’t we talking about the huge amount we pay for war– for so-called defense measures? The tv media has left our viewpoint un-discussed, except for MSNBC and Amy Goodman. It isn’t just Charlie Rose, it’s been Jim Lehrer and The News Hour, as well, that has helped skew the media’s perception of the American people as a “center right” nation. America is “center right” only on the news, not in the discussions in our part of western North Carolina and with our friends around the country.
Dear Mr. Rose,
Tax breaks for the rich via Bowles-Simpson? Is that the only message your program can deliver? As if the American public hasn’t already endured the brow-beating message of bailouts and now THIS!
There are other scenarios and other proposals. Why not expose your public to a debate? instead of spoon-feeding them?
By the way, I hope you’ve seen the film, INSIDE JOB.
Thank you,
S. Brenner
Consider interviewing:
Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
Paul Krugman of the NYT
James Galbraith
Robert Kuttner
Henry Aaron
for a more balanced debate on how to bring the deficit down.
The wealthy are NOT paying their fair share of the expenses…and it looks like your show is being controlled if you do not interview people who oppose the White House deficit commission report.
Dear Charlie,
Often I come across your program and slightly pause to see who your guests are, and it’s rare that I stay and listen. You probably believe you are discussing a broad range of subjects. If that were so, I would not be able to predict what your guests are about to say.
You need to broaden your circle of friends beyond old, white rich guys.
Particularly, please bring some diversity to the discussion of the deficit commission, which so far has exclusively featured right-leaning supporters of the Simpson/Bowles plan. Did you know that social security isn’t within the budget and has its own fund? Do you really think it’s fair to ask men and women who do hard, physical work to not retire until 68? Do you know anybody that gets their finger nails dirty for a living? They need social security and Medicare the most, and they don’t live as long as the blustering, privileged, patronizing fools on you show who claim that people are living longer. THEY and others living in high security buildings and gated communities are living longer.
Just try LISTENING to blue and pink collar peoples’ stories. Your world will open up exponentially.
Hey Charlie,
Why are you just having cheer leaders for this commission? How about some critics like Paul Krugman or James Galbraith? Do you only love right wingers? How come the commission said little about health care cost, which is the greatest driver of future deficits along with tax cuts for the richest? You are on PUBLIC TV. How about including all the public in the debate.
Thank you.
A San Francisco liberal (and Navy veteran)
Dear Mr. Rose,
I was very disappointed to learn that all of your discussions of the White House deficit commission’s report have included only people who are in agreement with almost everything in the report.
The fact is that the deficit stems from two related causes: first, 30 years of de-taxing the very rich and corporations – i.e. who have the most ability to pay and who benefit most from government policies like :”free trade” and the bailouts; and second, the US government’s endless colonial wars, waged without any thought about their economic costs, or any acknowledgement that taxpayers would ultimately have to pay those costs.
Detaxing the rich has created the greatest wealth gap in the history of the planet. Virtually all of the economic gains of the last 40 years have flowed to the top 10%, most to the top 1%. Despite the endless propaganda, this tide has lifted only the mega-yachts, leaving even the upper middle class pretty much dead in the water while shredding the middle middle class and driving those below ever deeper into economic disaster. Meanwhile, the USA has become the greatest debtor of all time.
Continuing these terrible policies will surely lead to social disintegration and lead the US Empire to the fastest collapse in history. It took centuries for Rome to fall; the US seems likely to do it in a few short decades, swiftly going the way of The British Empire and the USSR.
Sadly, neither you nor anyone else in the chattering classes seems to have any idea how close to the rapids we are, or how dangerous they will be. Economic and social collapse will arrive even as the age of cheap, abundant energy screeches to a halt, devastating not only commerce but even more food production, which is totally dependent on oil.
There may still be time to avert catastrophe, but not if those with the means to act are completely preoccupied with trying to garner the last few chips on the table and determined not to recognize the social and economic perils of intense wealth concentration – let alone peak oil and climate change. It will be cold comfort for the rest of us that they have only themselves to blame – although they will doubtless keep on trying to pin the disasters they cause on scapegoats like liberals, Chicanos, and social security.
My friends and I are boycotting all products and services advertised on the Charlie Rose Show. Further, we will never again view this show. We refuse to watch the right-wing propaganda promulgated by this fraud.
Dear Mr. Rose,
Above is a quote from your executive producer, Yvette Vega. Towards this goal, please bring some diversity to your discussion of the deficit commission, which so far has exclusively featured right-leaning supporters of the Simpson/Bowles plan. I would suggest Dean Baker from the Economic Policy Institute, Paul Krugman, Noble Price winner in Economics, James Galbraith, Robert Kuttner and Henry Aaron.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Gary Fitzgerald
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 5:59 PM
To: charlierose@pbs.org
Subject: financial speculation tax
Dear Charlie Rose, I hope you are going to ask the Senators why their Deficit Commission report did not even suggest a financial speculation tax. As I understand it, this could raise more than $100 billion a year with very little impact upon real economic activity. Also, the New York Times recently featured an interactive budget puzzle on which I had no trouble reducing the deficit. I’d surely like to see you interview someone who wants to cut military spending first! Sincerely, Helen N. Hanna
Cc’d to Yvette Vega:
Dear Mr. Rose,
It’s not a dialogue when all of your guests take the same position; that’s a monologue.
Please balance your discussion by including the views of those opposed to the conservative agenda you seem to favor. You do, after all, appear on â┚¬Ã…“publicâ┚¬Ã‚ television and much of your public is well-informed enough to detect the bias and misinformation you are currently promoting on this topic.
It wouldn’t take that much effort on your part to include knowledgeable guests such as James Galbraith, Robert Kuttner, Henry Aaron, and Dean Baker and those are just a few examples of the other side of the dialogue that should be occurring.
In the market-place of ideas, informed debate is the only way to separate the spin from the truth. Give it a try; it might just improve your ratings.
Paige Garberding
Attorney at Law
Associated Counsel for the Accused
Seattle, Washington
There is No DEBATE There! SS is Off the BOOKS and OFF THE TABLE.
“Mr. Rose,
I am shocked and dismayed at the selection of guests for your deficit commission “debates” on your November 11th and November 15th shows. Are there no other voices or viewpoints available than the same old corporate-speak mouthpieces also infesting the commercial media? Are there no progressive voices, no consumer advocates, no community activists, no one from the 98% of the population that will be the most adversely affected, qualified to offer opinions on your program?
Even though your show is supposedly independently produced, it appears on PBS, as in PUBLIC broadcasting. This means you should feel at least some obligation to provide a true debate featuring a variety of opinions and perspectives meant ultimately to inform and educate. What you have provided thus far is shameful and not of the standard I have become used to over the many years I have been a viewer.
It seems that you, like PBS and the commercial media, will find that your fealty to the godfathers of the Military/Corporate/Security Complex will make you less and less relevant to those of us increasingly migrating to the new media landscape currently taking form.
Ultimately, the people will seek the truth wherever it is. You and Ms. Vega better keep that in mind.”
I want to join those who are expressing concern with the implicit bias in coverage of the deficit reduction issue.
Many of us who have long held the deficit needed urgent attention, are disappointed that those advocates of tax cuts for the well-connected are being given the floor to discuss their lobbying position, while other sides are ignored. The current proposals, which disproportionately force poorer Americans to shoulder sacrifice, need to be identified as biased in favor of the privileged. I am concerned the guests you are bringing to discuss the issues come universally from the same side. On this issue there clearly are multiple important perspectives. A fair discussion should give all sides a voice.
Dear Mr. Rose,
Please include a more wide range of opinion in your selection of those who are setting the parameters of the debate as it occurs on your show. If this was a debate in 2006 on the state of the economy I doubt whether the rules you are using to select guests would have led to a fruitful debate, which is what was urgently needed at the time.
May I make a few suggestions? Michael Hudson, Nouriel Roubini, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Kuttner, and Dean Baker.
Dear Mr. Rose,
Regarding the future direction of the American economy, please give another point of view a chance. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman offers a brilliant critique of the commission’s suggestions. Please let another perspective in.
Sincerely,
Lori Bedell
Port Matilda, PA
Dear Mr Rose,
I am one of the ‘lesser people’ that Alan Simpson of the Catfood, er Deficit, Commission talked about with regard to Social Security. So far, you have only had supporters of the commission’s proposals on your show, including David Walker of the Peter Peterson Foundation, who are hell bent on dismantling Social Security. How about some balance? I bet Dean Baker, Paul Krugman & Joseph Stiglitz, to name but three, would be happy to share a different perspective with you and your viewers on *Public* TV.
Thanks
Pete Marshall
I am writing to respectfully ask you to show some balance on your programming in relation to the Bowles/Simpson (Commission) proposed plan for deficit reduction. It’s apparent to all of your viewers that when selecting persons to appear on your program, you choose those who are either center-right or far right in their position regarding this plan.
It is apparent to the rest of us that many proposals could have been added and examined in their plan which went completely without regard. If Social Security is on the table, then our country is truly lost.
I request that you ask others, such as Paul Krugman and like-minded, progressive economic experts to participate in your â┚¬Ã…“debate.â┚¬Ã‚ I think it’s the least you can do for our country.
Thank you for reading my e-mail!
Dear Mr. Rose:
Please bring a greater diversity of views on solving the deficit crisis. Your show has put on the cheerleaders of Simpson-Bowles plan. Now let’s hear from the critics. Put the public’s interests in mind; the “P” in PBS should be taken seriously.
Thank you.
Naoko Shibusawa, Ph.D.
Why have only right leaning supporters of the Simpson/Bowles plan had a platform on the Charlie Rose show? Are you only interested in what benefits the top 1%?
Are you trying to ignore the continued sacrifice of the working and middle classes who subsidize the lifestyles of the uber-wealthy and paint the predicament as fair-play and normalcy?
This is PUBLIC TELEVISION. How can you kick us under the rug?
Sincerely,
Dian Wilson
Charlie Rose,
Bring some diversity to your discussion on deficit reform. Move to left side of the table some time. Will you?
A viewer since the beginning,
KQED
San Francisco
Let’s be Fair and Balanced unlike FOX News as we know it. Let’s call the problem as it is. Bush’s tax cuts + a war of choice has put us in this predicament. The Iraq war cost were hidden in the budgets. The cost will be far greater for the coming decades as we pay for the wonded. Where were the spend cut proponents back then? We all have to pay for the misery ot the past president. Tax increases are necessary or we will fail. The Tea party is dooming us for their personal benefit.
Please be fair and interview ALL viewpoints on the Deficit Commission…so far you’re playing right into the hands of Grover Norquist and gang who’ve long wanted to abolish every government safety net and “drown government in a bathtub”.
Lorna Moore
Santa Barbara, California
Dear Mr. Rose:
I stay up every night to watch your show at 11:30 PM. I consider you to be one of the best at interviewing your guests.
Since Nov. 11 you have had five guests that are thrilled with the Simpson/Bowles Deficit Commission — this does not seem Fair and Balanced to me! There are many leading economists in this country who do not agree with their recommendations and frankly, neither do I! Please have an equal number of guests who relay to the public the other side of the story.
On Social Security for example, here is an idea: Raise the taxable earnings cap of $106,800 past $2 million in order to strengthen Social Security for the future. Many wealthy also draw Social Security benefits, why allow them to escape paying in on their full compensation? The wealthy in this country have been coddled way too long to the detriment of the hard working (former) middle class and poor. In America we have socialism for the wealthy and it is the other 99% of us who pay the price.
Please, Mr. Rose, be more fair and balanced when you invite guests to your show. I see few women for example, and none who disagreed with Simpson/Bowles. Actresses don’t count!!!
I look forward to hearing from you regarding this issue.
Dear Charlie,
Are you angling for a job on Fox News? Your style woudn’t play well on Fox but your politics on the deficit commission, or the Bowles-Simpson proposal, would surely meet their standards.
You might want to talk to Krugman or Baker on the execrable billionaire predator Pete Peterson and his crusade to make the rich even richer, and in the process destroy this country.
Instead you feature his right hand man.
If you persist in this, if you fail to invite critics of the plan (who incidentally do see the deficit as a problem, but unemployment and deflation and income polarizarition too, and have different
ways of dealing with these linked issues), then shame on you and loss of audience too.
regards,
bill resnick
Portland, OR
Just sent the following:
Dear Mr. Rose,
I’ve long enjoyed your late-night conversations with a wonderful variety and quality of guests. I’m very pleased that you’ve opted to provide an avenue for discussion of the pros and cons of the proposed White House deficit commission Plan. As a senior retiree, I’m convinced of the necessity for some dire sacrifices to be made by the people, business and government in order to reduce the ballast of Wall Street bingo, out-of-control medical care expenses, debt and credit spending that is sinking our ship. I emphasize the responsibility for those sacrifices MUST BE shared by the PEOPLE, BUSINESS and GOVERNMENT! Only an egalitarian plan can possibly be successful.
Thus far, your discussions of the proposed deficit Plan have represented mainly points of view of proponents of the proposed Plan. I find that a bit disconcerting and not up to your usual standards. I’m hoping you will be fielding alternate opinions from similar quality guests, say Paul Krugman, James Galbraith, perhaps Elizabeth Warren (http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=82).
—————
Phase 1 : The reps & jobs
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
1. Even when the economy was on the cusp of entire collapse just like Lehman Brothers ahead of the roll-out of stimulus package, it was held hostage by Audacity of Nope, and the time was running out.
Power first said : Nope ! How do we pay for it ?, Just let him go under exactly like Lehman Brothers.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
2. It is also important to remember a small business bill that was blocked for weeks by a republican filibuster in the Senate.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
3. Power first now says without hesitation : Extend the tax cuts for the greedy until we’re out of this recession, or for the job creation.
Under the failed Bush tax cut for lavish bonus parties, a sole job plan for the reps, the country already saw millions of job cuts.
And hence it’s the right time to ask themselves as to how they can pay for it.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
4. Jobs ahead in another Bush era ( = Entire Downfall ) ??
I think D.S. is going to realize vividly how Bush era wrecked economy.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
Phase 2 : The reps Will Stomp On Middle Class & Economy.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
The SHAMELESS reps’ principal : No principal & power-only !
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
1. The reps campaigned on their ability to cut spending and balance the budget, so they should be required to make good on that pledge.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
But, the Bush tax cut for the greedy will add an additional $700 billion to the deficit over a decade.
As for the Democrats, sound investments = deficit hike.
As for the reps, failed giveaway policy = job creation.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
2. Over the duration of healthcare debate, using the preliminary cost analysis of CBO, the reps opposed the public option stubbornly, but after the release of final score, they have been defiant on the referee.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
Inaction cost in relation to health care reform totals $9trillion over the next decade.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that reform will reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years and as much as $1 trillion during the following decade
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
3. In view of Medicare & Social Security :
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
â┚¬Ã…“Don’t Let Government Touch Your Medicare & Social Securityâ┚¬Ã‚Â
â┚¬Ã…“We will instead Stomp On Your Medicare & Social Securityâ┚¬Ã‚Â
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
Phase 3 : Shared Sacrifice ??
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
1. The flagship proposal of the commission’s chairmen is to Stomp On Medicare & Social Security, or Middle Class.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
2. Diagnosis of Cancer, Prescription for Cold ??
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
The deficits have mushroomed not because of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid but because of “two unpaid wars, tax breaks for the wealthy, a Medicare prescription drug bill written by the pharmaceutical industry, and the Wall Street bailout.”
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
a. The total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion.
But it appears that the $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war’s broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than expected.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
b. The country got here because of the bursting of an $8 trillion housing bubble. This bubble was fueled by the reckless and possibly unlawful practices of the Wall Street banks, like Morgan Stanley, the bank on whose board Bowles sits.
Mr. Bowles is a director of Morgan Stanley, one of the bailed out Wall Street banks. He gets $335,000 a year for his work with Morgan Stanley. This may be one of the reasons that the co-chairs report did not mention a financial speculation tax as a possible source of revenue, even though financial sector taxes have been widely advocated by policy analysts around the world, including even the I.M.F.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
3. It is clear that there are a number of fair, progressive ways to reduce deficits without harming the middle class and those who have already lost their jobs, homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
A reeling housing market probably would slide further if, as recommended, Congress were to repeal the tax deduction for mortgage interest
Calls for upping the age of retirement to 68 and later 69, charging more for Medicare, limiting the mortgage deduction and reducing increases in Social Security related to inflation, all measures guaranteed to drive Middle Class into poverty and to further jeopardize the economic recovery.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
The government can overcome its trillion-dollar-plus deficit by merely cutting “waste, fraud and abuse”, say, can balance the budget by simply undoing the disastrous policies of the Bush administration. the job-cutting proposals
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
a. Why not stop the Afghanistan war at a price tag of 140 billion a year…why not reduce what U.S. spends for military 800billion a yearâ┚¬Ã‚¦U.S. military budget is as big as the next 27 countries COMBINED ! Even overall US intelligence budget tops $80 billion annually.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
Weapon Sell = Mexican Drug Trafficking = Destroy all, driving global economy in a destructive direction
And Weapon inventory is more likely to provoke constant wars.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
b. End Bush-era tax breaks for the greedy.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
c. Eliminate tax credits for big oil companies that have posted the highest profits in history, and the likes.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
Phase 4 : The choice is clear
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
AS we are all aware, while many of small businesses are in financial trouble, lots of big name companies are reluctant to expand businesses, even with adequate capital.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
From what I understand, they might take into account that the country is suffering from 9.6 percent unemployment, more than 25 million people are unemployed, or have given up looking for work altogether, tens of millions of people are underwater in their mortgage and millions face the prospect of losing their home to foreclosure, and beyond, say, low demand.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
Given, the choice is clear, which one is going a long way to desperately needed job boost, tax credit for middle class or others.
ã┚¬Ã¢”š¬
Hi Charlie,
As a regular viewer of your show, I have been seriously disappointed in the onesidedness
of the discussions on the show of the recent Simpson/Bowles Deficit Reduction Proposal. It was hard to listen of some partisan guests proclaiming their loud support for the proposal in the same language and with the same enthusiasm as the other guests with high degree of sameness between different guest. I was hoping in the upcoming shows you will balance the scales by bringing as counterpoint experts who have spoken critically of the proposal. A partial list for starters could be Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, James Galbraith, Robert Kuttner and Henry Aaron.
Charlie, inviting some of the people on the list and many others will
bring to the show some diversity to its discussion of the deficit commission, which so far has exclusively featured right-leaning supporters of the Simpson/Bowles plan.
I am confident in keeping with your penchant for high quality speakers and a balanced approach in informing your viewer you will take the right action ASAP as the debate will be proceeding at a fast pace.
Thank you.
Regards,
Arvind Agrawal
doubleaseven@gmail.com
Is Peterson associated with Newsmax?
Mr. Rose,
I’m concerned that your shows on the Bowles/Simpson deficit commission have featured voices that represent primarily the right wing.
The issues the commission raises can and should be debated by a diverse group of thinkers.
Please include voices like Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Kuttner and others in future broadcasts on the Commission and the future of social security. Thank you.
Sharif Corinaldi
San Francisco, CA
Dear Mr. Rose,
Please have a balanced discussion about the deficit. There are many viewpoints to consider in a public format, and if journalism does not inform and educate, then what good is it? You get balance, not by thinking right v. left, but by thinking about diversity of opinion. Personally, I feel that the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy transfers public monies from the public sector to the private sector. The rich do not provide the jobs that some claim they do; rather, they hoard it or spend it overseas. As for entitlements, well, if civilization is not people-centered, then what good is it as well? There is a school of thought in the U.S. that wants to eliminate Welfare, unemployment, Social Security, labor laws, and all regulations on business. This is the direction we are headed and balanced discussions will help people understand what that would mean.
Thank you,
James York
Dear Mr. Rose:
Wall St. is celebrating the fist public offering of new GM stock since the company’s bailout. It is no secret that the Federal government itself — as primary shareholder during both the bailout as well as the re-structuring of GM — will be the primary recipient of any profit these stock sales bring in. The rest of the common stock being offered is owned, in turn, by the UAW, the Canadian government, and former creditors of GM. They stand to make money on the rest of the stock offered if they wish to sell their common shares.
Preferred stock offerings will, however, be offered only by GM itself. These sales are to further capitalize the company and will largely be out of the hands of government regulation. Moreover, preferred stock prices will first of all vary with the ups and downs of the Treasury’s common stock offerings.
I’m not mentioning this scenario in order to confound or obfuscate the public’s perception of sales of GM stock. Others will do that for me — particularly the pundits who pontificate on America’s post-bailout financial re-structuring solely in terms that favor America’s corporate culture.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are expected to live with the outcome of cuts in social programs. I.E., the “ends” of the actual benefits of the Great Bailout are nowhere near the economic and social cost of its “means.”
One doesn’t have to buy into any bias I may have on either the GM stock offering or the Simpson/Bowles Deficit Reduction Task Force. Still — I know a stacked deck when I see one on either count. If the GM stock offering is biased toward America’s business culture — a culture that is permanently mired in political reaction — “Simpson/Bowles” will be just as disappointing. Paring down social programs — including public education — will reflect the further decline of America’s position in the world economy and a larger acceptance of a “hacienda-style” relationship between the bourgeois and America’s working class.
Therefore, Mr. Rose, you need a broader spectrum of financial experts than the “dog and pony show” you’ve so far paraded in front of your viewers.
I do not live merely to ensure that America’s biggest investors make deals that are as “risk-free” as one can make. George Pullman proved the folly of such business practices at the turn of the last century. His company was paying investors a dividend no matter how Pullman’s stock was doing. That left many of Pullman’s employees with bi-weekly pay packets of mere pennies in order to make sure Pullman’s investors got paid first. It took a Federal Court’s intervention to rein in George Pullman before many of his employees starved to death.
Maybe this scenario can no longer happen in so dramatic a fashion. Yet people can still starve — or die in epidemics — just to satisfy fat cat speculators. We don’t need Simpson/Bowles to “white paper” the beneficial effects of any long-term vs. short-term cuts in America’s social programs. There aren’t any. Even worse a scenario — after 30+ years of the “Chicago School of Economics” — is that we don’t even have enough trained economists who can think in terms of economic models outside of “Friedmanism.” This bollocks would seem even more pathetic if the end products weren’t so tragic for America’s rapidly growing underclass.
More needs to be revealed. You — Mr. Rose — can virtually make American TV history. I.E., invite socialists like David North, Fred Goldstein and/or Joe Kishore on your program. I guarantee you it won’t be boring.
pelle lindbergh
st louis mo
Dear Mr. Rose:
I urge you to bring other voices into the deficit reduction discussion, not just the right-leaning â┚¬Ã…“deficit hawksâ┚¬Ã‚ whom you’ve so far featured exclusively. The possibilities for alternative views are endless:
Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Kuttner, Robert Reich…to name only four, and there are dozens of others. We need to hear from more than those who crown themselves courageous heroes for cutting taxes on the prosperous and cutting services on the rest.
Best,
Frank Couvares
Dear Mr. Rose,
I write to ask that you broaden the discussion of the deficit commission. Your guests so far have had a center right/conservative viewpoint. It would serve your viewers well if you were to invite guests such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, James Galbraith, and Robert Kuttner to bring balance. As you know, presenting different points of view is important to the citizenry and our democracy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dear Charlie Rose,
Do you really think its fair to run a piece on the deficit commission and just bring right-wing guests on the show to talk about it. Are you a right-winger yourself? You must be because you are unfair and unbalanced like most right-wing television personalities and pundits. Have some back bone and tell your audience the truth Charlie. Where do you stand and who tells you what to do on your show. Are they right-winger? We want to know. This Davis Walker you featured on this piece works for the Peter G Peterson Foundation which is a extreme rightwing organization set up in part to abolish Social Security. Oh! You mean you didn’t know that? Of course you did. Now we will expose your political affiliations and connections and those of your program managers to the public. If you are going to run another right-wing propaganda show then we will slap that label on you for everyone to see. Hey look! it’s the Charlie Rose show doesn’t he also work at Fox News?
Dear Mr. Rose:
I watch your show and often find interesting content and discussion on it. However it troubles me that many important voices and views rarely make it to seats at your round table.
I looked at the NYT “do the deficit” exercise in last Sunday’s issue, and found it profoundly easy to balance the budget. First I thought “We need a market for what we produce…and that’s us”. The more our people are out there buying stuff, the better- but unemployed folks can’t buy stuff, nor can they pay tax. So, the tax structure should balance the budget with that in mind: Put money in lots of pockets. What that means is that revenue needs to be raised from those who have money. Then we can fund jobs for those who are unemployed. Soon the working class will be working again, and enriching those at the top once more.
Until the job problem is solved by tweaking trade treaties, currencies and taxation to benefit the vast majority of Americans, our deficicit will increase and our economy will go south. We have a debt fueled monetary system where banks are making it all up. That needs to change as it is simply not sustainable. Where are the voices on your show describing this aspect of the discussion?
I hope you will bring some other voices to the discussion of the deficit. Why is war never a debated point? We need to put the military on the chopping block and fund our senior citizens normally.
Thanks.
And to get further into the “why only . . .” discussion, why only the Simpson/Bowles report when Schakowsky (also on the Commission) has a plan that addresses a set of issues more inclusive of the general public?
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/17-3
Wake UP Media !! Wake UP Charlie !!
PBS is not worth watching anymore and certainly not worth my contribution $$$. I will not donate.
So suck up more and more corporate foundation money and see if that will provide a future for the coming generations Charlie.
Charlie Rose is a media name, a conservative patriot without a sound political conscience.
I read FAIR and heard about your White House deficit commission spin, Most Disappointed
Dear Mr. Rose:
I am writing to you as one who holds a Master’s in Economics, and who has long been employed as an economist within the Federal government.
I have recently read about your guests who were invited onto your program to speak on the work of the presidential commission charged with exploring ways to cut the Federal deficit.
My question is simple: Why have you invited only “authorities” from the [far] right of the economics spectrum? I know of several well-known and highly regarded economists from the mainstream of the profession — Dean Baker or Mark Weisbrot (Center for Economic & Policy Research), Professor Jamie Galbraith (Univ. of Texas), Professor Michael Hudson (University of Missouri @ Kansas City), Nomi Prins or Robert Kuttner (Demos) , et. al. — whom you could have also invited.
Please start bringing balance onto your program for this topic; it’s Crucial.
Sincerely,
Kevin M. McCarron
Washington, DC
Mr. Rose,
You are a gifted interviewer. However, the “Charlie Rose Show” has exclusively featured right-leaning supporters of the Simpson/Bowles plan and the deficit commission. I call on you to bring diversity to this discussion. It is a disservice to your viewers (and indeed, the country) to present such a one-sided perspective. As you undoubtedly know, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (11/12/10), noted that the deficit commission is a “compromise between the center-right and the hard-right,” critiqued the plan’s arbitrary cap on federal revenue and called its tax suggestions “a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases–tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class.” To exclude those who could present alternative expert opinions turns the Charlie Rose show into a mouthpiece for conservative politicians.
Fix this, I implore you, in order for your show (and you) to regain credibility.
Thank you,
Julie E. Kaufman, PhD
Chicago, Illinois
Mr Rose, you’re role of AMerican Patrician requires that you support policies that are detrimental to us plebes. We’re constantly asking ourselves, “Why does this man have a show?” You’d best thank the Sun King for PBS and your celebrity; try finding work at FOX.
Comrades, is Charlie’s greatest crime a lack of objectivity (still a myth, right?), or is it his being the most boring man in America. Is watching Charlie Rose forgivable? On your knees and pray!
Mr. Rose,
Your coverage of consideration of the deficit reduction commission has ranged from the right to the far right. Could you not speak with folks like Robert Kuttner, Dean Baker or James Galbraith for some balance?
Over 17% of the budget consists of health care spending, which, for the moderate good that the health reform bill did do, it did nothing to control inflationary costs of a system built around private for-profit insurances, which will be taxpayer subsidized upwards of $400 billion. A single risk pool public insurance with full choice of private providers (which can never be achieved with limitations of private insurance networks) could cover all and save upwards of $600 billion annually. This is an issue that Robert Kuttner could very ably address.
Please stop giving so much air time to the disaster capitalists who want to privatize everything for profit, and the Wall St. apologists. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest added almost $2 trillion to the deficit during his term. It is hypocritical to address the deficits on the backs of the working class, while preserving huge wealth shift to the elite class. Did anyone even mention extending the Social Security taxes above $106,000? Could we hear more progressive views to balance the hard right views that you have been favoring?
subject header: There is no debate if everybody is taking the same position.
Please, Charlie Rose show – bring some diversity to your discussion of the deficit commission, which so far has exclusively featured right-leaning supporters of the Simpson/Bowles plan. Bring on Jan Schakowsky, Robert Kuttner, Paul Krugman, for example. There are plenty of voices to support the common good and public interest against this deficit commission which appears to be declaring war on the general public in favor of the superwealthy. Please – put the public interest back into Public TV. The super-rich already have all the media outlets they need!
thank you
Margaret Copi
Oakland, CA
I am mightily disappointed with the coverage that Charlie Rose has given of the whole deficit issue so far. Every single one of the recent guests was on the right. There are plenty of people who are critical of the product that Erskine Bowles (not a centrist and clearly not on the left) and Alan Simpson have come out with. And Paul Ryan? And Marty Feldstein and some guy from the right-wing Pete Peterson Foundation? Please!
If we are going to have a debate, let’s have a debate that features all sides. How about Paul Krugman, for example? How about Jon Chait, who has shown that Bowles-Simpson, contrary to advertisement, actually redistributes income from the middle class up to the wealthy, who on balance make off like bandits, while the poor and middle class have their taxes raised proportionately much more and lose benefits to boot? How about my senator, Bernie Sanders, who will point out (correctly) that the Social Security System has not added one penny to the national debt (and who will point out, also correctly, that Social Security was NOT in the charter of the Bowles-Simpson commission). How about Jaime Galbraith? There are plenty of people who can cite chapter and verse about the deficiencies and disingenuous nature of the Bowles-Simpson proposals.
Charlie Rose can and must do better than this.
William H. Jefferys
Harlan J. Smith Centennial Professor of Astronomy (Emeritus)
The University of Texas at Austin
Adjunct Professor of Statistics
The University of Vermont
From: Mary
Date: 11/19/2010 2:58:48 PM
To: charlierose@pbs.org
Subject: Tonight’s show – with Baker and Schakowsky.
Thank you for Tonight’s broadcast of the Charlie Rose Show. I’m glad to see that you will feature a discussion of the budget deficit with progressive economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.).
——-Original Message——-
From: Mary McKeon
Date: 11/16/2010 5:17:25 PM
To: charlierose@pbs.org
Subject: Diversity on your programs need to be reviewed.
I am asking you, Mr. Charlie Rose, to give your show some diversity to its discussion of the deficit commission. You have in the last month been featuring only exclusively right-leaning supporters of the Simpson/Bowles plan. As a viewer of your program, from time to time I find it very strange that you don’t present both sides of an issue.
Follow-up:
I’m delighted to see that you’ve got Representative Schakowsky scheduled for tonight’s show. Her alternative plan for dealing with the deficit deserves air time, and I’m very interested to hear her elaborations. This is exactly the sort of balance to the austerity-line guests that I had in mind when I originally wrote in (text below). Many thanks for beginning to explore the full picture. I hope you’ll expand further in this direction with a panel of economists and economic historians, including both pro and con. This particular topic is a turning point moment for our nation, similar to the decisions facing Hoover and FDR. I would love to see your team at the top of your game, winning awards and approbation for your work in stimulating the important discussion and in educating the general public — and our elected officials — on the options and ramifications.
Again, thank you for scheduling Shakowsky.
FOLLOW-UP: Email to Bloomberg, sponsor of Charlie Rose
Dear Bloomberg representative,
I see FAIR says: â┚¬Ã‚¨”Tonight’s broadcast [11/19/10] of the Charlie Rose Show will feature a discussion of the budget deficit with progressive economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)”.
Please let Charlie Rose know that I am gladdened that he has featured these voices in his show.
I would like to know if the call from FAIR was influential in producing the counter discussion. ??
My concerns about PBS remain. And I will take the time to outline that. Please pass forward my comments to the PBS directors.
It is worrying to me because I see the high standard of production and attention to detail that makes PBS important and set apart from slick/quick stultifying money-making networks and cable television. We need a new improved PBS more than ever!
Yet PBS has always been a USA national patriot propaganda network and is therefore embedded in one national agenda, as that is manipulated, cultivated and perpetuated through media/advertising, school curriculum, universities and the state.
I am concerned about the way of collapse of the USA imperial superpower. A collapse of imperialism is welcome, and yet, such collapse seamlessly replaced with regenerative economy, ecology and equality enhancing common life, not destroying it, would be desirable and as it is possible since the wealthiest and greediest have as much to loose in not supporting a common revolution of trust and placidity.
But PBS is getting more restrictive not less. Journalists and producers edit terribly to meet unspoken PBS national broadcast content rules. They know what will fly on PBS and what will not. They tailor their storyboard to suit the station and cult audience. Like Presidents who ignore torture, PBS shows ignore facts and even misrepresent history seemingly “in the national interest”.
PBS and all broadcasters using the public domain have a responsibility for truth and inclusion. As distasteful as that sometimes is in facing the enemy within it has merit in strength of character and forming holistic longtivity in the national entity. USA residents need media that projects beyond nationalism as they live with global connectivity and global threats of extinction.
Evolving humans are tired of the consecutive turnover of cave-man empires… And so, as the next superpower falls another will rise up in the face of a more powerful and angered environment. It is time to review history fully and face the pains of scrutiny for better ways of survival, indeed perhaps idealistic cultures.
At this far gone point, only a “centre” fixed in truth, transparency and sustainability can avoid wanton destruction and usher regard for planet and life. We have nothing to loose by identifying the centre and using it as our compass.
PBS must lead, support real change, and fix it’s center, or it will certainly be outFOXed in following the commercial broadcast narrative.
Michael Daly
The show last Friday (11-12-10) was mind-blowing. It had the former director of national intelligence. Evidently the CIA, FBI, NSA and 14 other agencies he oversaw still ain’t sharing info.
Obama fired Dennis Blair (former Director) back in May.
When Charlie asked him “when will this end?” (the war). The dude replied “when Islam decides to reject terrorism”.
I have been looking around this cyber world and haven’t found any body talking about it but I got it on a video tape.
Charlie:
I don’t appreciate Simpson and Bowles’ view supporting the corporations at the expense of the poor on MediCal; though I am on Medicare, I can take a hit but not too much, I hope. Instead of reducing MediCal, why not let them negotiate a deal with the pharmaceutical and medical device companies. I didn’t appreciate the free pass to pharm or supporting pharm with Medicare D. In fact, it made me literally sick the night that passed congress.
I am faithful Charlie Rose watcher and even tell others to watch, but I am disappointed you don’t have people on who think outside the box on this subject. What about single-payer, what about population reduction through purposeful humane actions, rather than war, as it has always been? People don’t want to be consumers and producers right now; there are too many of us already rapidly destroying the earth. It is time to stop and find our way. Maybe our democracy experiment didn’t work. Too much money is needed to be elected and then politicians are bought and paid for; they can’t be public servants or representatives. There has to be a new order.
Jeanne Amato
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward.”
â┚¬”ÂVernon Law
Charlie, thank you for the show, but the deficit commission is made up of 18 people, 14 of which are considered to be fiscal conservatives, read that as Republican viewpoint. The thing Simpson/Bowles wants to do sounds like a Republican wishlist. Where is the shared sacrifice? The roughly lower 90% carries the burden. Please invite others who are not so enthusiastic about these two people’s recommendations. Thank you.
Thank you, I’ve just been searching for information about this subject for ages and yours is the greatest I have discovered till now. But, what about the bottom line? Are you sure about the source?