Bill Moyers Journal: Ask the Reporter and Producer: Exposé on Bill Moyers Journal

В каком-то блоге я уже встречал такую тематику да ладно

Posted by: Beedexeva | December 1, 2008 9:20 PM

What I really like about Bill Moyers' program in general and the Jacoby piece in particular, is that ignorance is tackled from many different angles. You can't blame people's ignorance and lack of curiosity ALL on the media, or ALL on public education, or ALL on parenting, or ALL on the culture. The media has been scrutinized, as has education, and family involvement. With the Susan Jacoby piece, she puts it on us: have WE read any books lately? Have WE bothered to clarify some things ourselves? Have WE challenged ourselves? What are we doing to enlighten ourselves about our country and system of government? I just love this stuff.

Posted by: Virginia Johnson | March 22, 2008 7:48 PM

Why is the book "Hell To Pay" not discussed by the news media???? See sample below. Taken from the book “Hell To Pay” by Barbara Olson. Chapter One - Hillary’s Baby "Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life." — Saul Alinksy, Rules for Radicals Do you remember Hillary’s pre-election baby? In the summer before the 1996 election, when the Clintons’ popularity had waned and it seemed as if the struggle for re-election might not succeed, Hillary Rodham Clinton let journalist Walter Isaacson know that she and the president had "talked about" adopting a baby. She let it slip that they were "talking about it more now." She added, "I must say we’re hoping to have another child." That baby was never adopted, and the story dropped from sight. It seems the polling numbers weren’t so bad after all, and the Clintons’ Republican opponent, Bob Dole, was having trouble simply walking and talking at the same time. But the baby story had its intended effect. It softened Hillary’s image as a cold, steely ideologue...

Posted by: Carol | March 18, 2008 6:13 PM

My name is nicci and I am a 3rd year journalist student from New Zealand. I am doing a research report on investigative journalism and I find Mr David Heath very interesting. I would love to be able to get in contact with him via email. Would I be able to recieve an address? Thank You very much, Nicci.

Posted by: Nicci | March 3, 2008 7:59 PM

With Mr. Bushes current ranting and raving to eavesdrop... Isn't it odd that Mr. Bush is fighting so hard for the eavesdropping on Americans, yet when one turns the tables and ask him and his administration for basic information, or emails from his administration, it is all together a whole different story. Which brings me to my question. Why is there debate as to whether the Bush administration has authority to secretly spy on you and me, with little oversight, and in a way that was previously illegal? Shouldn't the answer be obvious and beyond discussion? And, why when asked for basic information, documents, emails, etc., even with a subpoena, does the Bush administration become obstinate, play games, drag on and on, adamantly refusing to give up any information? While I am aware that water boarding and/or other forms of torture are not an option to use on the President and staff; besides it wouldn’t produce creditable information anyways; but couldn’t the Congress sneak into to the surveillance law a loophole to allow the secret surveillance of Whitehouse emails, phone calls and document? Maybe break into the administration’s offices without a warrant, and download databases and remove documents, all in...

Posted by: Mister O'Cooney | February 28, 2008 11:49 PM

Why are the candidates never asked to explain their view of the Exec Branch and Signing Statements, or about that highly paid mercenary army in our employ, Blackwater? Why do we need a mercenary army? Why does Obama never answer questions from the audienced, townhall style questions? If both candidates are pretty equal in their positions, shouldn't the female preceed the Afro-American? After all, about 50% of the population is female, and about 12% is AfroAmerican. Seems to me like the woman at the office with 35 years of service is about to be promoted to an opening slot for manager... but here comes another young male in a suit with a fancy degree, and she will be squashed again.

Posted by: jody kay | February 28, 2008 10:13 PM

Why were earmarks created to begin with? Were they ever intended to benefit the public (other than the immediate recipients) or were they expressly created to divert funds?

Posted by: Laurie | February 28, 2008 4:07 PM

Why were earmarks created to begin with? Was there ever an intent that would benenfit the public at large or are they 100% pork and pork by products?

Posted by: Laurie | February 28, 2008 4:04 PM

I am so inspired by your work! I will look more deeply into what you both do and how you do it. One way to approach this problem might be for there to be citizen activist groups in each congressional district, watching and following the trails of the earmarks by their representatives. One possible way to go is for one of us citizen activists to set up a prototype website/webblog to track these earmarks and inform other citizens within the district of them. Then the prototype could be replicated in other districts as well. I see the larger issue of campaign finance reform as being absolutely essential to our democracy's ability to continue. I think that in the end, our elected officials would be freed from having to rely on this method of financing successful campaigns, and could instead shift back to just doing for constituents what they want to be done, sans earmarks, which are really for business, not for people. Thanks so much for your efforts and your successes. I truly admire you both.

Posted by: Linda | February 26, 2008 11:14 PM

This is like the elephant in the living room that is being studiously ignored by the media, the press and certainly the folks in D.C. Senator Cantwell's aide told me, when I called, that a "she is working on a response to this news." Shocking, shocking, shocking. Can't we vote Ms. Murray out on grounds on gross incompetence and greed?

Posted by: Cathryn Baillie | February 26, 2008 9:34 PM

I appreciate the database efforts, but the Expose show itself was a little too Dateline-ish and not up to PBS standards. A few too many theatrical pregnant pauses when a reporter finds out that the government wastes money... Bill Moyers you have done and can do better.

Posted by: Ken D | February 26, 2008 10:53 AM

One thing I have noticed in watching limitless amounts of cable and network news programs is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to gauge and understand what is at the heart of many of these discussions, whether they be about Iraq, any amount of election coverage, or just about anything that gets air time these days. My question is in an American media world where these news personalities are liable to blurt out the first thing that pops into their heads and every single opinion can be allegedly backed up with studies and statistics of various kinds, how can one judge which "facts" to believe when it seems that facts have all become relative to one's political opinion?

Posted by: jack Leary | February 25, 2008 8:30 PM

Agreed. We need to wake up and see what current and potential abuses to the public trust, the government can gravitate to when it comes to our money and our freedoms, especially under the excuse/ruse that it is for our own good or for our protection. We need to also resist giving away hard earned freedoms in snap decisions, esp. responding to emotional rhetoric designed to take logical rational thought out of the equation. A tiny bit of governmental paranoia is not necessarily a bad thing, if it keeps our eyes open to possible threats to our current and future well being. Human history and human nature tends to repeat itself, and if we're not aware of history and governments' tendency for abuse of power, as the saying goes: if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. Awareness and early action can help us prevent or at least slow this governmental proclivity for abuse of power.

Posted by: Chuck Macedo | February 25, 2008 5:44 PM

Dear David Heath, You have done a huge service to benefit the educated public here in the USA. Of course, your work has only started as there are all those other earmarks for agriculture, energy, et cetera, to trace similarly (only kidding or maybe not)! I gave a copy of Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the new (in 2007) Congresswoman here in Tucson, Gabrielle Giffords, and continue to mention the fact that it does not exclusively warn about the military-industrial complex, but goes beyond that point too. In three pages or so, Dwight Eisenhower did the nation a great service. Now we citizens have to keep awake up and do something about it. Thanks again. R. Parson

Posted by: Robert Parson | February 25, 2008 4:24 PM

I recently received an email with an op ed article from the San Francisco Chronicle: "Rule by fear or rule by law?" Lewis Seiler,Dan Hamburg It can be found on their website: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL The article states, for example, that "the government has has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted " It goes on from there. How much of this is true? Can Bill Moyers do a show on this?

Posted by: Lynn Marlow | February 25, 2008 10:57 AM

Put $20k in and get $20m back?! As a struggling small businessman I want in on the game. Is there a manual somewhere? I've been so naive about earning my keep the old fashion way- with honest work and contributing to society. I see that our elected leaders have taken me for a fool. But no more, I want to be on the game too. Show me your purse.

Posted by: charles | February 25, 2008 1:24 AM

This expose points out why the only way to have a democracy in the day of media ads determining who can run, is to have total federal funding of elections, like Just$6.org is promoting. Expensive ad campaigns for election and mass media editorial control have made "our" elected officials campaign donation whores instead of legislators. Michael Couch 910 DeKalb Ave. 4B Brooklyn, NY 11221

Posted by: Michael Couch | February 25, 2008 12:29 AM

This expose points out why the only way to have a democracy in the day of media ads determining who can run, is to have total federal funding of elections, like Just$6.org is promoting. Expensive ad campaigns for election and mass media editorial control have made "our" elected officials campaign donation whores instead of legislators. Michael Couch 910 DeKalb Ave. 4B Brooklyn, NY 11221

Posted by: Michael Couch | February 25, 2008 12:25 AM

EMPOWER THE LEADER FOR “REAL CHANGE”! Nader running for president Consumer advocate announces third-party bid on ‘Meet the Press’ updated 10:33 a.m. ET, Sun., Feb. 24, 2008 WASHINGTON - Ralph Nader is launching a third-party campaign for president. The consumer advocate made the announcement Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." He says most Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties, and that none of the presidential contenders are addressing ways to stem corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promote labor rights. Last month, Nader began an exploratory presidential campaign and launched a Web site that promises to fight "corporate greed, corporate power, corporate control."

Posted by: Chris | February 24, 2008 11:43 PM

Many of the problems with congress, in my opinion, are the result of the seniority system. Legislators should have powerful positions based upon merit not seniority. We need intelligent representatives who can think and act on what is good for the country as a whole and not just good for their district or state. Stevens of Alaska and Byrd of Virginia are examples of legislators who put the interests of their consituents above those of the country.

Posted by: Bob Finer | February 24, 2008 7:39 PM

To David Heath: Three cheers for all your work, and for putting the database online (!!!) Did you find anyone, in or out of Congress, who might possibly be willing to make tracking down these earmarks any easier? Maybe a Nader-like NGO would take on a lawsuit on the grounds that all the barriers you encountered (the anti-OCR tricks, the non-posting on the web, the "you can't have any copies of this from your government because you're just a mere citizen" jazz. And how do you find the conference/mark-up committee reports? I remember from "Perfectly Legal," David Cay Johnston's prior book, that it was in a conference report that a tax committee set the (very low) rate at which Jack Welch and other CEOs had to declare the "fair--or maybe fare?--market value of their travel by corporate jet. It wasn't in the bill, it was in the markup committee report. But that's what the IRS treated as "law." Next question: How long did it take you, and then you and your two interns, to input all of this database? And do you plan to take on the budget in its entirety (or don't our solons slip earmarks into the main...

Posted by: Bill Wilt | February 24, 2008 7:13 PM

Dear Bill and David, Thank you so much for the work you have done, and for the presentation. I am repeating what Brian wrote above when I ask you to post the database so that citizens can join you in the fight. While it's interesting to know who gives and gets, we can be part of this process if we begin to write our Senators and Congresspersons asking them about specific earmarks. This year will mark the most open process ever, and for that we can be grateful. But there are on-going projects that will never see the light of day if we cannot be part of it. Please help us by posting what you have gathered and if I can be of any help tracking down information, I am retired and on my computer all day. I will be happy to do some of the research. This works best when we work together and when citizens are asked to join in -- from all over the States -- to ask their representatives what they are doing and why. This next vote in 08 is just the beginning of our responsiblity as citizens. We have a lot of work to...

Posted by: Jill Livingstone | February 24, 2008 6:31 PM

Thanks to David Heath and the Seattle Times for their superb investigative reporting on earmarks. Your reporting underscores why the country is deparate for anyone who appear sincere and committed to changing the way Washington works.

Posted by: SAM | February 24, 2008 4:05 PM

If it is true that these earmarks are already funded from the approved budgets of the specific departments, doesn't the fact that earmarks for items not needed, not wanted, or for items that just don't work use up or lessen the funding for the initial approved request, resulting then in not enough money for what was originally intended to be purchased? Because the Gvt. is so huge, I am sure you can argue either way here, with many stories supporting either side. May I again suggest TERM LIMITS as the only way to really handle this long term!! Has anyone added up the numbers of the total earmarks for the Defense Dept alone, and perhaps pointed out why there are shortages of things they really need, and were approved, but were prevented from purchasing because the funds got used up by our powerful representatives for ther own "local" earmarked projects thus benefiting their election campaign contributions?

Posted by: bobsr | February 24, 2008 1:13 PM

Great reporting! We must expose the waste and fraud in government, if we are ever to make government work and accountable. The masses have to be educated if ever something is to be done to fix government, "America's Biggest Problem".

Posted by: Davy C Rockett | February 24, 2008 9:25 AM

Great reporting! Thanks for exposing the corruption in our government. If we are ever to stop them from their crimes, we must educate the masses to their lawbreaking.

Posted by: Davy C Rockett | February 24, 2008 9:21 AM

David, Great investigative reporting! You have uncovered vasts amount of information which can be used...if so desired. Someone named Chris Boses hit it right on the nail with the comments of "this stuff is even all an outgrowth of Roberts Rules of Order!" - AMEN! What the public really needs to review is how decisions are made in government. Sometimes it's a combination of Roberts Rules of Order and their own dirty little internal secrets. Here in Florida we have the Sunshine Laws that make reference to meetings, minutes, notices, etc. But it is very vague, and noone in government takes no responsibility for their actions. Maybe this will changes in the future and the governement can be more accountable...unfortunately, we have the same situations here in Central Florida.

Posted by: Peggy Green | February 24, 2008 9:04 AM

Thank you for a great report and for making available the details of earmarks. The piece mentioned a handfule of legislators, including Jeff Flake, who are not earmarking. Could you, please, let us know who the others are? They deserve our support!

Posted by: Steven Wilkinson | February 24, 2008 6:49 AM

With the increase in the number of earmarks from Congress, maybe someone should evaluate “why” there has been an increase instead of just labeling them as “bad.” First, a little perspective: The total amount of money “earmarked” for particular uses is a very small percentage of the overall federal spending each year – one percent or less. To equate earmarking of federal dollars to out-of-control spending is not factually supported, and even if you wiped out every single earmark (begging the question of what an “earmark” really is) the financial impact upon the country would likely be unfelt. If you doubt this, take a look at the FY2007 continuing resolution, which knocked out most earmarks. Did anyone really notice? The earmarks scrutinized by “Taxpayers For Common Sense,” the Sunshine Foundation, and others are all contained in appropriation spending bills. They do not impact the total amount of funds spent, just where and how they are spent. Think of it this way – during the budgeting process, Congress decides how big a pie to make. They decide how much of an ingredient to put in the pie (tax revenue) and when they finally pass a budget, it’s like putting it in...

Posted by: Angela | February 24, 2008 5:46 AM

I am amazed at the responses. I will be contacting my congresspeople to confront them on this issue. This is a country of laws and the laws are designed by certain people who have grown sick with their bloated greed. our government is first, a wealth creating system for a minority of private individuals. anything that adds to the quality of life for the majority of Americans that trickles down from that creation of wealth for a specific number of connected individuals is purely coincidental. we, americans, have the greatest system of government in the world for extracting wealth and creating denial in the majority of citizens who never see but a few pennies of their tax dollars spent on them. I wonder if our elected officials go to sleep each night counting citizens.

Posted by: lee jankowski | February 23, 2008 9:54 PM

I walk around daily thinking: 'I'm street-smart','a self thinker', 'nobody's fool'...That is, I feel that way until I watch 'yet another' Bill Moyer's Journal...Then I realize, how very ignorant & naive I really am. The many levels & complexities of greed, I find incomprehensible and I also realize (again & again) without Bill Moyer's Journal, by simply allowing 'the truth' to be released that perhaps one day I may actually rise to my own expectations of being street-smart & a self thinker...Thanks again for opening eyes, including mind...

Posted by: Sir Vertual | February 23, 2008 8:31 PM

Airing the Seattle Times' expose and placing there database online so citizens can check out their congressman is the best public service I have seen. A magisterial piece of journalism! One hopes this database is continuously updated.

Posted by: Tom Shillock | February 23, 2008 6:35 PM

This piece flowed like a suspense movie. It revealed one aspect of why the US is drowning in a sea of red ink. Thank you so much!

Posted by: karen aranas | February 23, 2008 5:36 PM

RE: Expose' Mr Heath Goes to Washington. Terrific piece. Again, this show is the most important thing on TV (you now outrank Frontline in my book, and that's saying something). My question: I'm a product of a journalism school education, with a strong grilling (in the 1980s, post "woodstein") in public affairs investigative reporting. However, I was never able to secure a job in this field, much as I would have liked it. But I just figured checking public records for all governmental actions was SOP and had been for years. In other words, I know, beyond, FOIA, that open records laws off the top REQUIRE at all governmental levels, from county property records to the highest legislative bodies in the land, that the activities of those bodies be available and open to the public. I even remember basic high school social studies lessons in how the congressional appropriations process works, which I understood as a variant of how it worked with my local county board. I understand the earmark process and why it exists, and honestly, I am not questioning it. I am questioning its oversight, both within Congress (which has GAO and Inspector Generals, right?), and by journalists...

Posted by: Chris Boese | February 23, 2008 5:17 PM

To: Sheila A. Litsch This is a reply to your post looking for the financing info on the polyester shirts (InSport) segment of the story: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/beneficiary.php?id=500

Posted by: Mark H. | February 23, 2008 5:06 PM

Sorry about the URL but I'm somewhat computer illiterate. I'm trying to locate the area in the report about the clothing sold to the marines that contained polyester. Could you give me an idea or where to look? Thanks for the endless hours spent on this report. Sheila Litsch

Posted by: Sheila A. Litsch | February 23, 2008 4:51 PM

RE: earmarks I put up a previous post on this blog regarding ROI (return on investment) siting some numbers from the story, but given more detail off the Seattle Times website, regarding Microvision: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/beneficiary.php?id=636 it shows the real scoop: Amount given to lobbyists: $10,000 + $265,000 = $275,000 plus Amount given as campaign contributions total: $45,250 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- equals amount invested in the current private campaign financing process totals: $275,000 + $45,250 = $320,250 this returns one, in earmarks a total of: $1,650,000 + $1,000,000 + $1,000,000 = $3,650,000 so ROI is: $3,650,000 /$320,250 * 100 = 1140% Not as high a return as calculated in the previous post, but still a great return. I'm in the wrong business. This is the way to riches in America, off the backs of the working middle class. Thank you very much Washington, D.C. and the Republicans and the Democrats, for this system.

Posted by: Mark H. | February 23, 2008 4:37 PM

RE: Expose' Mr Heath Goes to Washington. Terrific piece. Again, this show is the most important thing on TV (you now outrank Frontline in my book, and that's saying something). My question: I'm a product of a journalism school education, with a strong grilling (in the 1980s, post "woodstein") in public affairs investigative reporting. However, I was never able to secure a job in this field, much as I would have liked it. But I just figured checking public records for all governmental actions was SOP and had been for years. In other words, I know, beyond, FOIA, that open records laws off the top REQUIRE at all governmental levels, from county property records to the highest legislative bodies in the land, that the activities of those bodies be available and open to the public. I even remember basic high school social studies lessons in how the congressional appropriations process works, which I understood as a variant of how it worked with my local county board. I understand the earmark process and why it exists, and honestly, I am not questioning it. I am questioning its oversight, both within Congress (which has GAO and Inspector Generals, right?), and by journalists...

Posted by: Chris Boese | February 23, 2008 4:31 PM

I would like to thank the publisher, editors and Investigative Reporter David Heath along with the staff that assisted in you doing the earmark story and file for all to use. I am currently residing in the state of Louisiana and this type of information is very much need for the amount of political corruption that exist in this state. Will you be creating files for other areas where earmarks are given besides the defense dept? I would like to use this information to send letters to editors to inform the citizens about the politician that they are considering electing to represent them in our congress and senate. I cannot thank you enough. I'm overwhelmed with the amount of polical corruption in this state and throughout our government.

Posted by: lena anderson | February 23, 2008 4:11 PM

Every politician bemoans how they HATE fund raising, but they have to do it to get elected/reelected. It is within the power of elected lawmakers to end this promptly. It's called public financing. Guess why they don't pass it? They would be on equal footing with an opponent and might very well loose the election. It is a well know fact that incumbents far outraise their opponents. Now we know how they do this and of course they have to repay their "constituents". Wake up America. Demand change. It won't happen until we vote out the abusers. Then others might get the message (for a while, at leats).

Posted by: vmcmath | February 23, 2008 4:10 PM

I’m sorry. In my passion, I forgot to thanks you so: Thank you Mr. Moyers and Mr. Heath for your work to preserve our democracy and for giving a voice to the people here on your blog. See following comment - Curtis Davis, SLC UT

Posted by: Curtis Davis | February 23, 2008 3:54 PM

I’m sorry. In my passion, I forgot to thanks you so: Thank you Mr. Moyers and Mr. Heath for your work to preserve our democracy and for giving a voice to the people here on your blog. See following comment - Curtis Davis, SLC UT

Posted by: Curtis Davis | February 23, 2008 3:53 PM

Isn't there a way to challenge these “ear marks” from a constitutional position. The constitution reads: "to promote the general welfare". It would seem to me that the special interest politics of Washington are unconstitutional. Since the corruption of our government is so widespread that it is impossible to get government officials to make changes (which are unfavorable to their self-interest), how could we get the Supreme Court to rule that these appropriations are unconstitutional?

Posted by: Curtis Davis | February 23, 2008 3:46 PM

Could earmarks be considered an inexpensive alternative to the appropriations process? I mean how stupid would it be for our government to spend a million dollars in order to appropriate another million? Secondly, as long as a president has something similar to a line item veto and as long as he vetos all funding except that which benefits his approved legislation doesn't an earmark provide a 'balance of power' for congress? For sure any process like this that could so easily be misused should have total transparency. So, how about each member of congress maintain a list of their earmarks on their web pages with an explanation of why that funding was approved?

Posted by: Andy | February 23, 2008 3:46 PM

Given what's happening in Congress regarding earmarks, what's happening on our borders, not to mention, our U.S. banks allowing China and other foreign countries to infuse cash to offset the billions of investor dollars continually being lost, then written-down, not to forget that more and more property in the U.S. is being purchased by foreign investors and that the borders, which now separate Canada, the United States and Mexico, that these borders will soon disappear, America, as it once was and as former president Dwight Eisenhower warned us about, back in 1960, that day is already here. While I agree with many that we need a Constitutional Amendment to correct what's wrong with earmarks, who's kidding who? To make that happen, America would need to care more about their country than we do about American Idol, Britney Spears, let alone, what's in their own wallet. Let's face it, while we Americans are caring people, that type of caring will never happen. Danny Nitzen 14531 Clarissa Lane Tustin, CA 92780

Posted by: Danny Nitzen | February 23, 2008 3:32 PM

Greetings Mr. Moyers, Do you think James Joyce said “History is a nightmare from which I’m trying to awaken” hoping that one day his words will wake us up? Humans, we are strange, aren’t we, Mr. Moyers? All other animals have the survival instinct ON the minute they are born, humans, don’t. The only time our survival instinct kicks in is when we are in a dangerous situation or when we’re diagnosed with a terminal illness. I think we must force ourselves to turn our survival instinct ON. We cannot postpone this date any longer. We have become way too dangerous for our own good. Most Americans don’t know what chaos really means. Just be sure that it is out there, just take a quick glance at your neighbor country, Mexico. How hard must life be there for most people that they rather take the risk of “dying” crossing the border, than to stay in their country? I wish you all the best in trying to come to senses. United States of America has everything that it takes to be a good leader. Where are all your intellectuals? Where are all your scientists? Where are all your academics? Where are...

Posted by: Angela M. Gomez | February 23, 2008 3:10 PM

I realize that lobbying is an ingrained part of our political system that was adopted from the British Parliamentary system. I also realize that the wealthiest of us get to administer our Republic. It appears to me that the 'real constituents' are not the great unwashed masses but are Corporations. In an age when campaigns cost millions upon millions of dollars, the peasants cant support the politician with money, only votes. They only pander to us with rhetoric during an election. Therefore, we are not constituents. We do not matter, save for taxes. The program was introduced with Eisenhower's 'military industrial complex' speech. I believe that what he was truly warning us about was Fascism. In the defining words of Benito Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." So here we stand. A record 9 Trillion dollar defecit (which was a surplus 8 years ago), War without end, A public education system in shambles and woefully underfunded, A collapsing economy, A disappearing middle class, An erosion of Liberty...etc...etc... To me the reporters shock at the surreality of our earmark system comes a little too late. Only in America can...

Posted by: Eric Sanger | February 23, 2008 2:08 PM

It would be important to the voters to see a list of the earmarks each Presidential candidate has endorsed and to whom those earmarks benefitted. Corruption in Washington is nothing new, that is why no elected official should be allowed more than two terms in office. Dynastic politicians are the reason for such behaviour. Public service should be public service, not a career. As far as retirement benefits for our elected officials, it should be based on time in office, otherwords I mean that if an individual works forty years to achieve a moderate income from retirement, then an elected official working no more than an 8 year stint, should recieve one fifth a normal retirement amount.

Posted by: Joe M | February 23, 2008 1:54 PM

I just listened to Bill Moyer's Report on earmarks. I think it was well done and definitely needed. In it he quoted the President about his plan to veto any bill that didn't cut the earmarks in half. He went on to say that he had packed in thousands of his own earmarks. Is it really true that the President can change a congressional appropriations bill? It was my understanding that he doesn't have that power. The appropriations bill may have already contained some earmarked funds or projects that he agreed with or supported and had gone through the Congressional approval process but I don't think that he can just add them himself. Am I wrong on this or has the law changed?

Posted by: Dick Downing | February 23, 2008 1:49 PM

Regarding "Exposé: Mr. Heath Goes to Washington"... This was a sad statement, about both the inundation of corruption of the government but also of the media. Let me start with the first. Kudos to the reporters for all their hard work and results. It is the standard for "elected" "representatives" to actually be representatives of governmental corruption instead of the people, as the reporters were working hard to find out. They also discovered that the system is designed for this corruption, to allow it, and to make it very difficult to discover. And, once it is discovered, the (In)justice Department will do nothing with it, for the whole governmental system, the important parts at least, is totally corrupt. To put it bluntly--and not just from this report, but from taking a look at the whole picture, see www.ExcaliburBooks.com/RedAlert/--we have an invalid, illegal, and unconstitutional government: a repressive regime, not a constitutional and representative republic (as it should be). Then, near the end of the report, the establishment press rears its ugly head and reveals its complicity and involvement in this corruption of the government. Amazingly, the establishment press admits that it has politician friends and favoritism--shocking, or at least it...

Posted by: Bret Hughes | February 23, 2008 1:42 PM

Bringing back Federal spending into the district is "Job 1" for a congressman. I lived in Tom Lantos' district in San Mateo, CA 10 years ago. Right before an election he would publish a newsletter detailing all of the Federal money coming into the district (thanks to him? not!) The table of Federal taxes coming out of the district was not available even when I called his office. {:^q A congressman not bringing spending into the district is not doing his job and will lose the next election, Ron Paul excepted?

Posted by: Roger Barker | February 23, 2008 1:11 PM

Bringing back Federal spending into the district is "Job 1" for a congressman. I lived in Tom Lantos' district in San Mateo, CA 10 years ago. Right before an election he would publish a newsletter detailing all of the Federal money coming into the district (thanks to him? not!) The table of Federal taxes coming out of the district was not available even when I called his office. {:^q A congressman not bringing spending into the district is not doing his job and will lose the next election, Ron Paul excepted?

Posted by: Roger Barker | February 23, 2008 1:10 PM

The program was excellent, as usual, and again I thank you for providing a transcript to those of us who have scheduling conflicts. This time in particular I want to also thank those who have posted here in the comments section - the comments have been a most worthy adjunct. I would add that Ralph Nader is to appear on 'Meet the Press' Sunday morning. With the revelations of Expose' and Mr. Moyers' Journal in mind, I will be watching and listening very carefully.

Posted by: juliania | February 23, 2008 12:07 PM

Thank you Seattle Times, David Heath & staff, and Bill Moyers for the monumental work you have done in gathering all the data and reporting the information on earmarks. It is staggering to contemplate. I am always captivated by the Bill Moyers Journal, the best source of information on television.

Posted by: Connie Berglund | February 23, 2008 11:59 AM

I read many of the comments on this blog. First let me give you the definition of insanity. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting differrent results. How many of you complaining on this blog have voted, over and over again for the same individual to go back to congress. We as citizens of this country only havr ourselves to blame. These people are no differrent than a kid getting into the cookie jar, we don't spank their hands and we damn sure don't out them in the news papers, TV. No we just blissfully send them back to do it to us all over again.None of this would be happeming if Congress was to do something they don't want to do. When a bill is presented on the floor, it has to stand on it's own. The only ammendment that can be attached has to do with that bill. The president doen't need line item veto with what I'm proposing. But no matter we Americans would rather sit back and bitch about what is going on in Congress and hope someone else will do something about it. Well for me it starts with my...

Posted by: Steve Pass,Chandler, Az | February 23, 2008 11:35 AM

I truly appreciate your determination in locating this information and in putting it in a form that the ordinary citizen can access. One question: you investigated the defense appropriations. Health care would be a different committee, different conference report, is that correct? I am not trying to make your work seem incomplete, I am just trying to get a grasp on the whole picture. An aside: I am always amazed when members of the prevailing administration go to "less developed democracies" and maintain that help from the United Stated is predicated upon the elimination of corruption in their government. I guess it all depends upon how one defines corruption, corrupt policies, transparency, waste, and elitism.

Posted by: Barbara | February 23, 2008 10:58 AM

Bill, Thank you for Bill Moyer's Journal. Our democratic government no longer exist and the earmarks proves this. I want to thank David Heath for all his hard work. Corporations now run the goverment. The government does not represent the common working man. I really do not have any faith in the goverment. I'll soon be 65 still turning a wrench and have savings but do not see any light at the end of the tunnel.

Posted by: Ray Morse | February 23, 2008 10:46 AM

What a wonderful program to witness. I am a full believer that TV is now a programming device that influnces our every decision from politics to clothing, sex, hair styles, the list is disturbing. Now with as many as 500+ stations to view on our programming device called the TV, this station PBS, is currently the only one worth watching. The older I get the more interested I am in politics and family life. My education I'm sure is nowhere near the majority that post here, but my concerns are the same. Mr. Heath did an excellent job, my first thoughts were is he the next Ralph Nader? Corruption is mad in this country. Favoritism is just another word for corruption. How many of you have lost a promotion, or a job because of it. Its not just our Government that practice's this, the whole stinking country does, and i will bet everyone that posted here as done it at least once or twice, who are we to past judgment, just because they (Governement Officials) do it on a larger scale and for bigger $$! It's sad where this country is going, society is going to the crapper, our kids...

Posted by: Paul G. Upstate NY | February 23, 2008 10:42 AM

I agree with George and Michael; Who were the 13, and from which states, that did not earmark taxpayer dollars??? I would like to support these individuals. -Brian

Posted by: Brian | February 23, 2008 10:35 AM

It would be helpful if you would post links as to where one can get a copy of the earmarks and the campaign contributions. It was clear from the program that a large amount of research is needed to reveal the corruption. Making it easier for interested people in extending this type of expose' could be of use. It would be a constant drip, drip, drip of bad news for sanctimonious incumbents who try to deny any connection between "campaign contributions" and votes or earmarks.

Posted by: Daryl M. San Diego, CA | February 23, 2008 10:30 AM

The Seattle Times work on earmarks is both noble and rare. Local newspapers typically praise earmarks rather than question them, which is why newspapers are part of the problem. If someone in your town proposed the building of a letter-opener museum, backers of the project would almost certainly seek federal money and would almost certainly get it. Just as certain is that your local newspaper would praise the politicians who delivered the pork, citing a wildly inflated number of jobs projected to be created by the letter-opener museum. The system is broken, and so are most of the newspapers that cover it. More of them should emulate the Seattle Times.

Posted by: Richard Babyak | February 23, 2008 10:03 AM

Dear Mr. Moyers and Mr. Heath: What a great report! Your journalism empowers the citizens. If we can't clean this up, then we truly will get the government we deserve. Immediately I sought to apply Think Globally, Act Locally. I looked up my Congressman's earmark values and wrote to him asking for an accounting of how the money was spent. If our representatives and senators cannot fully and completely explain these appropriations to their constituents and have them stand up to the light of day -- hopefully their days will be numbered. Seems that information technology is good for something besides spying on citizens' cell phone records. Imagine a world in which we can eliminate corruption from our political leaders. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Posted by: John Lehmann | February 23, 2008 8:26 AM

Thanks for carrying the Expose story about the Seattle Times, and kudus to them for doing the hard work necessary to shine a light on these earmarks.That they are so hard to find and that the GPO shrunk the type size is a sure tipoff that they were not meant to see the light of day. I was particularly sad to learn that a candidate I had contributed to through Emily's List, Sen. Patty Murray, was so utterly gullible. I have to agree with Mr. Heath: it's something about the culture, and we need to clean it up, not just posture like John McCain. How ironic that Expose shows him lambasting those useless boats at the same time the Washington Post reveals that most of his campaign staff are lobbyists!

Posted by: Carolyn | February 23, 2008 7:56 AM

Incredible pieces! Writing to Congress over the past 2 years has done me no good. I have expounded on "my feelings and wishes" to no avail. Congress is just not listening. I've forwarded the link to last night's Journal to about 30 of my friends, hoping that at least some will reach out to Congress after watching or reading the stories on Afghanistan and the horrible waste of my/our hard earned money in Iraq and Afghanistan. Am I the only citizen who works this hard, earns so little, and speaks out so much? Cannot be! Thank you, Mr. Moyers. I am SO pleased to hear such detail offered by Sarah Chayes and your story on David Heath on the failures of policy makers and this war. It is sickening to see the proof, but so much is at stake. Thank you for continuing your journal of wisdom and sharing it with the people. I/we do care!

Posted by: Debra | February 23, 2008 5:23 AM

Is it time for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution permitting the people to directly recall the president, vp, and the administration, and a second clause permitting the people to directly recall members of Congress, and lastly to include initiatives and referenda? Some states, such as California, have such powers invested directly in the people. That's real democracy. The principle reason Congress will not impeach Bush is because Congress has been irresponsible as well, and thus unresponsive and immobile. Although I had supported term limits in years past, neither this, nor micromanaging the budget process by outlawing earmarks, will bring good government. Systemic failures can't be fixed with proverbial band aids. The political process of electing representatives is now so thoroughly corrupted by corporate money that the people's business will not be attended to in a just manner without removing the sources of corruption. Corporate money should be totally eliminated from elections, and a constitutional amendment also to reverse the "One dollar, one vote" electoral process. It is time for a Constitutional Convention for the people to consider such matters.

Posted by: Mark Mason | February 23, 2008 4:10 AM

Why cant we as American Voters unite to pass a Constitutional Amendment to remove earmarks from this sneaky process of legislation? Each item should stand on its own merit and vote. Then each dollar could be accounted for and we could get to a balance budget.

Posted by: Bonnie | February 23, 2008 1:29 AM

I found the Seattle Times investigation very enlightening, adding to other stories regarding earmarks. When they were reporting about the very small print the earmark, documents were printed with, I thought I would pass on a small hint. I recently had to replace my computer mouse. The new one has a built-in magnifier. Hope this helps any one trying to read the small print on anything.

Posted by: Lita Joness | February 23, 2008 12:54 AM

Mr. Moyers, in his follow-up comments to the report on earmarks, read Senator Clinton's name among those US senators and reps who have made a lot of earmark appropriations. Please tell us more about the earmarks sought by (and campaign contributions received by) Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain, our three presidential candidates who are currently US Senators.

Posted by: S. McCabe | February 23, 2008 12:49 AM

Just took a look at the referenced "Seattle Times" database called the "Favor Factory," and it's totally amazing. It made me sick to see the millions of dollars in pork that my state's congressional delegation was allowed to siphon off us taxpayers to pay for idiotic projects to fatten the wallets of cronies, relatives, and campaign contributors. More likely, these projects will be paid for with money borrowed from China, Japan, and other foreign countries, and future generations will be paying it back with interest. The only thing we as citizens can do is to hold members of Congress accountable for these earmarks by letting them know that we know, by publicizing their actions in local media, and by writing letters to them questioning their pork projects. The more they know that their constiuency is watching them, maybe the less likely they'll be to sponsor this lunacy in the future. Thank you for a great show and thank you to David Heath and the other "Seattle Times" reporters and staff for providing such an invaluable service. It's extremely important work to shed some light on wasteful pork spending practices and the unethical behavior it can engender.

Posted by: bluebird | February 23, 2008 12:45 AM

Dear Mr. Heath, Here is one for you that I personally have brought to the attention of decision makers in the military from the soldiers guarding the borders entry points of Iraq to levels close to the Pentagon as early as 2005. There was a problem with a Vehicle scanning system, how it was deployed and used on the borders of Iraq .....it was not working as planned, insurgents were crossing the borders at the crossings at will, but nobody was listening. Background: Various US Military headquartered in Virginia, Baghdad, and organizations supporting the Afghanistan mission had purchased a number of the Vehicle scanning systems from a US based company. In turn this company subcontracted out for the related warranty, maintenance and training support packages. In February 2005, I entered in a subcontractor’s agreement with this company to perform as a Senior Field Service Engineer (FSE) responsible for the daily operation and maintenance of this Vehicle scanning system, and the training of US military and Iraqi personnel to operate these systems. Training of Iraqi operators: The US organization responsible for the selection of Iraqi candidates who would attend the Vehicle scanning system operator’s training and was also responsible for conducting...

Posted by: PA | February 23, 2008 12:29 AM

Quote From Jim Howell: The common man has no recourse short of the ballot box and then we'd have to throw out the vast majority. The nature of the 3 clowns we now have as primary leaders shows us how far we have descended into insanity. Nero fiddles as Rome burns. 300 Million people and this is the best we could come up with. People should refuse to go to the polls. Less than 50% turnout means no govt can claim a mandate of the people. Extremely low turnout would effectively announce the failure of and the lack of legitimacy of the corrupt two party system. The only other alternative solution to the "America of 1984" is the "America of 1776".

Posted by: Rick | February 23, 2008 12:27 AM

Isn't it about time that, a la the boy in" the emperor's new clothes" story,you should stop using the word"contributions" and use the term "LEGAL BRIBERY"to acknowledge what they really are?

Posted by: stanley Marcus | February 23, 2008 12:18 AM

Thanks for putting this in the public venue. Lot's of behind the scenes earmark spending. We are a country living beyond it's means and this practice is furthering this poor economic practice. Most common folks are either blissfully uninformed or informed and somewhere between frustrated, overwhelmed, and just plain angry. We are paying for all of this and we don't know about it and cannot afford it. Oversight is painfully lacking and DC'ers see it as not illegal, just immoral so in their eyes it's acceptable. The common man has no recourse short of the ballot box and then we'd have to throw out the vast majority. How do you combat a pervasive culture in DC that abuses the very people who vote them in and bleed to pay these horrendous bills. This country is living beyond it's means and this practice of earmarking is just digging us a deeper hole. The legislative body doesn't appear to care much about the next generation if this is what is being gifted to them.

Posted by: Jim Howell | February 23, 2008 12:15 AM

All the investigative reporting and exposes in the world will do no good because the American people are willfully ignorant, selfish, materialistic, unconscious sheep and cowards.

Posted by: Rick | February 23, 2008 12:12 AM

Both interviews fantastic (2/22/08). Need earmarkers by states. Please publish. Thanks. Bought her book via Amazon Kindle.

Posted by: sock puppet | February 22, 2008 11:51 PM

Regarding the "earmarks" story: I say, scrap the current private campaign finance system, it's root of the current evils related to Washington's corruption of the public's interests. Has anyone calculated the average ROI (Return on Investment) that the companies which contribute to election campaigns get back via their earmarks. I would be interested if someone could come up with that number. I noticed the few thousand dollars that one Senator got in campaign contributions in return for $5,000,000 in earmarks. My calculations based upon examples from your story: ROI below = Return on Investment Elected Official | Campaign Gift | Resulting Earmark | ROI Sen. Patty Murray| $5000 | $5,000,000 | 5000000/5000 * 100 = 100000% Cong. David Wu | $8800 | $2,000,000 | 2000000/8850 * 100 = 22598% Based upon the above examples, it looks like the one of the best hidden and safest investments to make in the US, is paying your local elected official in campaign contributions, in return you get multiple orders of magnitude back in profits. Why isn't this sure and easy way to make money not in an infomercial? Because it's too lucrative to make it too well known. Therefore, I think the current...

Posted by: Mark H. | February 22, 2008 11:51 PM

I agree with George's earlier comment about the earmarks expose. I would like to know who were the 13 members of congress who DID NOT earmark any taxpayer money. The Sarah Chayes interview was very enlightening. Why is she relegated to the media ghetto of "Democracy Now" and PBS? CBS News should be ashamed that "60 Minutes" hasn't done a feature about this brave and brilliant woman.

Posted by: Michael | February 22, 2008 11:48 PM

Wonderful show. It is unfortunate and very suspicious the way the beneficiaries of government spending are hidden from the citizen. Has there been any analysis of where the $15 billion for aids treatment in Africa (a wonderful cause) has actually gone? Seems like a lot of money, with no public knowledge of specifically how it has been spent over past 5 years. Thank you for any followup. Bob G.

Posted by: Robert Gabel | February 22, 2008 11:42 PM

Where can I find a database of non-defense earmarks?

Posted by: Richard Howerton | February 22, 2008 11:30 PM

This report ignored the issue of what the presidential candidates have done about earmarks (a subject I wrote about at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/clinton-by-far-worst-abus_b_84102.html).

Posted by: John K. Wilson | February 22, 2008 11:27 PM

Do individual legislators have the ability and expertise to properly research and vet these things they authorize? I don't for a minute believe that Sen. Murray would know the first thing about what she is authorizing except for the dollar figure associated with the bonanza for her campaign contributors. What do you think of her use of the term "1000 per cent". It exposes her lack of sophistication regarding scientific matters. In the end she is a victim as all of us are of the system of political funneling that the government has become. Sarah Chayse could just have easily been describing our country....

Posted by: Richard Watterson | February 22, 2008 11:27 PM

Dear Mr. Moyers. I love watching your show as well as Mr. Rose show and others on PBS yet I don’t understand you. I start really getting frustrated by the stupidity and nativity of you asking questions… that any child of the post perestroika era in any country east of the Berlin wall can tell you. “Money corrupt…, ultimate money (understand over 5-6-7 digits, sometimes even less) corrupt ultimately”. You are wondering that someone is using unfair tactics to gain money in the case of the, t-shirts, boats etc, by winning government contracts… it’s about making money and that is what America is all about. Fair or not… who cares, as you ones quoted “Greed is good”. Sorry but that is the reality. And now you have to deal with it. Meanwhile that money will build hell of a lot wealth in US, as most of them never left the country. Afghanistan… Well, what shall I say? I’m feed up by that story too. You poor billions in a country humm…? No actually you don’t the country get a one tenth that you say it gets. The other nine tenths you pay for the services, which American companies and the...

Posted by: Nick | February 22, 2008 11:25 PM

While I don't doubt the importance of this expose story, it doesn't compare to your insightful interviews. I hope you won't continue to air anything but your wonderful interviews

Posted by: Jim Fry | February 22, 2008 11:23 PM

I hope that this story will not go away. I like many other citizens are totally amazed that the public as a whole is not outraged about the drunken spending. It appears to me that the only way we will break this cycle is to turn to term limits. Thank you, Bob Mooney

Posted by: Robert L. Mooney, Sr. | February 22, 2008 11:10 PM

I am also from Oklahoma,with US Senators whom I fear are implicit in this earmarking fiasco. The only way I can think this would have a way of dismantling this process is by a small group of "thoughtful, committed citizens" in each of state to put Sunshine on the activities of their state's US Senators and Representatives. I begin tonight.

Posted by: Barbara Starr | February 22, 2008 11:03 PM

I understand a member of congress wanting to get money for their constituancy. What I dont like are those members of congress who have complained (in a highly publicized fashion) about others "pork" while quietly producing their own earmark "pork"? I think that earmarks are really dangerous. Some may author earmarks in a completely honest fashion. Others may actually be attracting bribes. A third who doesnt support the practice doesn't end up on a commitee suggesting something illegal is occuring. Even when its not. If any practice is likely to sow distrust for the system this is it. Even if its used legitimately.

Posted by: andyvc | February 22, 2008 10:46 PM

Maybe members of Congress should be prohibited from receiving campaign contributions from any recipient or employee of any recipient of an earmark.

Posted by: Rich in Lansing, MI | February 22, 2008 10:33 PM

Mr. Heath, Was it on "Why We Fight" that it was mentioned that Eisenhower's orignal speech had the words: Military/Industrial/Congressional Complex and that he took Congressional out at the last minute? Chris Carter of The X-Files used the term: Military/Industrial/Entertainment Complex. If you have ever had experience with enormous Californian corporations that do defense contracting and have seen the internal Movies they produce you can see how well the second one applies. Let us not forget that even the Three Stooges did propaganda for WWII in their short films. Personally, I use all four in the string since they are all members of the same family. Literally. They are connected by blood. If you want to do your next expose, then see if these extensive geneologies are valid: http://www.illuminati-news.com/royal-trees.htm A previous poster made comments about Obama being part of the Elite, however no one concentrates on his announcement on Jay Leno that he is a cousin of Dick Cheney. Have you found a link between campaign donors and blood relation with the recipient?

Posted by: Paul | February 22, 2008 10:30 PM

Aleksandr Mikhaylov, the head of the department of interdepartmental and informational activity at the Russian Drugs Control Agency, was shown saying that economic measures to tackle the problem are foundering on local corruption. "The local authorities draw up seriously forged lists in which an amount is recorded for the amount destroyed and, in fact, the crop has not been destroyed at all. The theft of the money to combat narcotics is going on and is flourishing," he said. The accusation that US forces are involved in drug-trafficking came from Geydar Dzhemal, chairman of the Islamic Committee of Russia. "Without the control and connivance on the part of the special services none of these things are possible. For example in Afghanistan, the CIA and the special services are quite brazen. Under the protection of the American army they meet the necessary people. They collect the stuff, go to the Bagram airbase and they hand in a large consignment of narcotics, which is then taken away," he said. The report went on to say that heroin reached the Balkans via Turkey, which "has been a member of NATO since 1952 and is the USA's closest ally in the region". It said it...

Posted by: Circle of Accountability | February 22, 2008 10:28 PM

I've seen Expose several times on my local station, despite the fact that it does its best to put it on at a time when no one is likely to see it. It's a good advertisment for journalism today, all the more surprising because ten years ago investigative reporting was a dead letter. I think many ppl would however defend earmarks and log-rolling in general as necessary revenue-sharing rather than corruption.

Posted by: RE Mant | February 22, 2008 10:22 PM

Excellent interview with Sarah Chayes. Listening to her describe the" criminal enterprise" and "drug trafficking" in Afghanistan thriving thanks to" the international community that put them in power" she could have been describing the situation in Kosovo. The territory is a main drug traffic corridor and rife with corruption beginning at the very top. Start with Hashim Tachi, the prime minister, who was the leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army. Learn more about him here: http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=561

Posted by: ceci | February 22, 2008 10:21 PM

Would not Public Financing of Campaigns go a long way towards suppressing the temptations from special interests?

Posted by: Paul Silver | February 22, 2008 10:14 PM

Would not Public Financing of Campaigns go a long way to reducing the temptations of special interests?

Posted by: Paul Silver | February 22, 2008 10:12 PM

Sarah Chayes' dissection of the realities of Afghanistan is half the story. The other half - all too familiar in other settings - is the disconnect between the policy makers and the recipients of that policy. If the Afghan government is, indeed, a criminal enterprise and if, indeed, this is an opium economy, then our policies simply sustain this arrangement indefinitely.

Posted by: Clive Irving | February 22, 2008 10:09 PM

Mr. Heath, Your work is admirable and I will not take anything away from it. New sentence: The work that you did is the responsibility of the GAO. Why didn't they produce your database before you did?

Posted by: Paul | February 22, 2008 10:08 PM

Bill Moyers: I was disappointed that you did not list the 13 Congressman who DID NOT take any earmarks. Is it too late? George--Cincinnati

Posted by: George Ellis | February 22, 2008 10:06 PM

The interview with Sarah Chayes was greatly informational and what a clear view she gave on her experience in Afghanistan. I admired it.

Posted by: Joanna Gjoka | February 22, 2008 9:58 PM

What a mess. Will the country ever clean up its act? I am so discouraged with the direction the country is going. And as I grow old, these people are running our world. What a nightmare! Margie

Posted by: Margie Miller | February 22, 2008 9:58 PM

I love the interview with Sarah Chayes, but listening to her makes me very fearful for her life when she returns to Afghanistan. I hope she is wise enough that she doesn't become a martyr like Benazir Bhutto.

Posted by: Stu | February 22, 2008 9:51 PM

Earmarks can be a good thing when used properly. They are a great way to fund small projects which couldn't hope to receive federal funding otherwise. However, as your report clearly shows, they are often used as a method of rewarding ones political supporters. We need to clean up the system, but how? Matthew Tobias Burlington,Vermont

Posted by: Matthew Tobias | February 22, 2008 9:37 PM

Excellent report on earmarks (so far). This sounds like a job for a "Wiki" approach, doesn't it? A progressive and conservative joint project to shine the light on this crap! Center for Responsive Politics and heritage Foundation joint earmark wiki? Keep up the excellent work!

Posted by: Chris Hughes | February 22, 2008 9:18 PM

EarmarksMoyersJournal23feb08 After the first wave of anger-turning-to-sadness about this earmarks "culture," about what's happened to "my" country, I look back at what life was like when I was a suburban kid three-score and five years ago. Back then, my mother stayed home and looked after my brother, sister and me and dad worked at Kodak--for 39 years, as it turned out. His salary supported the five of us, even put all three of us kids through college. All my friends' and school-mates' mothers were "stay-at-home moms" too. We all were very fortunate. During the war, my Dad had wanted to fly planes in the Army Air Corps, but he was a chemist working on film emulsions and was kept at Kodak, working on aerial reconnoissance film to give it higher resolution and faster exposure speeds. We had a victory garden in the vacant lot next door. Dad had a very green thumb--he grew up on an Ohio farm during the Depression and by the time he was 8, he was using the family's one horse, Mary, to plow the fields for corn and wheat planting. He was the eldest of the 13 surviving children (one sister died in child-birth; another...

Posted by: Bill Wilt | February 22, 2008 9:18 PM

Do you ever make it back to Oklahoma which town are you from. David Glover

Posted by: David Glover | February 22, 2008 9:12 PM

Your last week segment, 2/15/08, on the debt and deficit never addressed my interest in trust funds used to significantly falsify/"reduce" the reported deficit since Bush took office (I've heard it's been in effect since 1999 which isn't credible since we had a surplus then, but do recall Gore mentioning it at some point). The annual social security trust alone is maybe $250 B. It's a huge issue that only a right winger would ignore and am surprised you didn't comment on it, or am I missing something. I've made no effort to research it.

Posted by: William G. Lewis III | February 22, 2008 7:54 PM

What can we do so that the average American can know that they are respresented in Washington? Until then these discussions are pointless. Does anyone in Washington give two cents for what I think? Our values are upside down. We hide from the facts of truth by saying nothing in many fancy words. concerned retiree --bill poole

Posted by: bill poole | February 22, 2008 6:48 PM

Why o why can you not dwell on anything but the negative????????????? I am not decryning ypur value in pointng out the NEGATIVE things we need to cure but there is so much that we as a People are doing right that you miss ....... have you ever heard of the " POWER OF POSITIVE THINKING" that is not at the expense of the negative which we need to cure but it is a part of the nations mind.

Posted by: thell M . Woods | February 22, 2008 6:02 PM

Dear Mr. Moyers, Please review the book Citizen Power by Senator Mike Gravel. Many authors can describe the problem, that our government is a Coporatocracy not a Democracy, but few propose a solution. The National Initiative offers real hope and change. Currently we give all of our power away on election day and then beg, plead and protest to have the government respond to us. With Senator Gravel's National Initiative, we The People would be empowered to vote on the issues not just politicians, who obviously have other vested interests. Switerland has this system and they live in peace and prosperity. Please make an effort to read the book. We need solutions! Your report on earmarks underscores this yet again. With appreciation, Lynne Mosier

Posted by: lynne | February 22, 2008 4:40 PM

Is there a correlation between Senator Obama and Fisk (from John Grisham's "The Appeal")? A come-from-nowhere, Obama is almost squeaky clean, no skeletons in his closet and his campaign funding is never ending. Who is funding his campaign? If he is the Democrat nominee and then the President, will his advisors be the special interests who paid for his campaign? Bill Moyers reminds us how the media is gaining control of what we watch and selectively shaping our opinions on the candidates and issues. Is there a correlation between the people/groups funding Obama's campaign and the people/groups working to change the FCC regulations allowing big media to own local stations? Grisham's book left me with lingering doubts and fears about not only our judicial system, but the election system as a whole.

Posted by: L. G. Pickels | February 22, 2008 3:50 PM

Cleo Tomlin. You should have heard some of the opinions of Mrs Lincoln!Is that really an adult criteria for selection of a leader? Do you really mean for it to be or are you just looking for an excuse to attack Obama? Isn't it time we started looking for leaders who can lead all of us. Isn't it time to go back to a reality-based world

Posted by: P Keeley | February 22, 2008 3:44 PM

What about the comments made by Mrs. Obama's about finally being proud to be an American. This makes me sick and why isn't the media taken her to task about it? We are suppose to elect someone whose wife has an attitude like that. Thank you, Cleo Tomlin

Posted by: Cleo Tomlin | February 22, 2008 3:28 PM

Earmarks, smearmarks, the people must rise up to change that which they dislike. We must fight to make things better. And quit complaining! (All the great reporting in the world doesn't matter if we are only bystanders.) Then, how about taking responsibility for electing a presidential candiate who actually has a solid record regarding national policy? Obama is merely the flavor of the month for the elites. How sad for us all if he is actually elected since he takes donations from the same folks who have created the same process that we claim to abhor. How dumb are we? (He's a "smooth operator" as my sis loves to say!)

Posted by: Joan Halgren | February 22, 2008 1:23 PM

Earmarks are a small part of the problem: Black budget items are what kill and impoverish us. Now that they've hit that spy satellite (lucky?)they are ready to bet our lives against incoming nukes. Its like Murrow said about Harry Reasoner's documentary work: "He shows an agonizing injustice in detail, then convinces you it's the 'way of the world,' and gets you to passively accept it as inevitable." Bill, You're making old Harry look like an amateur. BAM!

Posted by: Griffin Jones | February 22, 2008 8:51 AM

Dear Mr. Moyers, Can you please take a very close look at what is going on with the US Coast Guard? And the Maritime industry and Port Security and more? Including the DEEP WATER programs allied w/ Boeing? Sea Launch? Sea Code? And programs of Integrated Coast Guard Systems? And the Coast Guard's use of MILITARY TRIBUNALS of American Civilians? Or Commandant Admiral Thad Allen's willingness to take over a Civilian Agency as Admiral from a Branch of Military and then fielded Military Forces to attack a hurricane and rescue the victims of Katrina and Rita? And his wishes to write this off in his most recent National Security Press Release to simply "excuse himself on this as an "anomaly" somehow? And the Coast Guard's recent involvement in the recent Cosco Busan incident? Or Commandant Thad Allen's marriage to Pamela Hess of the Hess Oil dynasty where a "REGULATOR" is literally in bed with and married to the regulated... or their relatives....? And even bring up issues involving the Blackthorne where 23 CG members were killed, and the Exxon Valdez and what has happened from that in the aftermath as to the use of LLC's and more? Also the COAST...

Posted by: Lt. Eric N. Shine | February 22, 2008 1:19 AM

It would be grand indeed if journalists asked the simple questions of whether they, themselves, if they were not in office, would want their tax dollars to go for such a project. This lack of connection is often the cloak under which decisions made make the difference of whether legislators are pressured to be accountable to voters, and the one too often not asked that helps to expose the motivation of what taxpayers might consider frivolous or unreasonable earmarks made for personal gain, for favors as campaign paybacks, or to induce reciprocal funding between parties. Taxpayers understand the earmark concept but in being unaccountable, they fear wide leeway to make unnecessary private grants or those for private purpose, not public purpose the way most taxpayers imagine public purpose grants could or should be made. It also helps to make known whether or not legislators consider themselves as constituents or simply as Samta/legislators - too often their portrayal. The theory of whether they, themselves would want to be taxed for the earmark, and WHY, goes to the essence of responsible representation as legislative representative of the persons who elected them - a critical feature of integrity.

Posted by: Pat | February 21, 2008 7:59 PM

I hope you will also use this opportunity to discuss the New York Times story on John McCain and his relationship with the female lobbyist and the fairness of the story. I'm having trouble, not knowing all the facts, deciding if this was an imprudent move by the Times.

Posted by: Robert Compton | February 21, 2008 7:25 PM

So, what is the solution? In the End, you can expose and complain about the status quo, but if there are no practical solutions then what is the point? I suggested to Obama during his sophomore year that the ONLY thing wrong with the US government is that there is NOT: One Bill - One Vote. With this system you would know who really voted to save the whales and cut Medicare on the same bill while financing a bridge to Nowhere that was stuck in by some coward late at night. There's your Solution - now, who has the courage to implement it?

Posted by: Joe | February 21, 2008 7:24 PM

I hope you will also use this opportunity to discuss the New York Times story on John McCain and his relationship with the female lobbyist and the fairness of the story. I'm having trouble, not knowing all the facts, deciding if this was an imprudent move by the Times.

Posted by: Robert C | February 21, 2008 7:20 PM

Are not Earmarks just another symptom of the lack of public financed elections? They need these give aways as a quid pro quo come election time. Can we not take back control of our FCC and the public airwaves they rent to big media? Can we not increase the rent and negotiate free airtime during Presidential elections?

Posted by: Bill Sharpless | February 21, 2008 6:11 PM

Dear Mr. Heath, Why are earmarks as your program states, "perfectly legal"? = MJA

Posted by: Michael J Ahles | February 21, 2008 10:52 AM

Could you ask if the Seattle paper is a local owned paper or a part of a large national or international corporation. If local, I wonder if they believe local ownership provides the flexibility to investigate as much as they do?

Posted by: Harry DeLong | February 21, 2008 7:25 AM

Dear Mr. Moyers- I couldn't agree more with Susan Jacoby's views concerning the dire state of general public educational acumen. Its not just the youth, but the older generation, as well. I do lay a lot of blame on the educational system, but then, the teachers themselves are products of a generation who didn't get a good foundation either. You can't pass on what you do not know. In addition, history and government, I feel, are poorly taught; short shrifted as part of the curriculum, treated as having little connection to our present, and has been for some years --- boring! I say, back to basics, including a little philosophy, which teaches one to empty the mind of preconceptions and connect the dots. Maybe the educational system needs another required year of high school to stuff it all in. But then, you have to care, and sadly, as illustrated by comments of a grocery manager when I asked if she'd voted, "No, I don't know anything about that stuff. I don't understand it. I'll just leave it to those who know more about it than I do." Its like, Where is Sudan? Sudan? Never heard of it before. Scary. Thanks...

Posted by: Corinne B Livesay | February 20, 2008 9:36 PM

Ask the Reporter and Producer: Exposé on Bill Moyers Journal

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment

Our Posts

Your Comments

Moyers Beats

Subscribe

Podcasts

Frappr!

Archives