Bill Moyers Journal: Where Does (And Should) The Money Go?

Solution of majority of problem and everything else will fall into place so that all(not only the elite) americans can once again prosper would be to do away with borrowing from the private banks(Federal Reserve) which isn't even a federal program, that was sneakingly made by 8 well to do men(private bankers) on a small Island that charges interest to loans given to government. We can go back to Gold and regain value and have no taxes and low cost interest for all. Go on a pay as you go system where people run the government instead of the elite benefiting off others hard work who get nothing in return. We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. Americans need good paying jobs for all, instead of the few greedy reeping it all.

Posted by: gfinmn | June 22, 2008 2:52 AM

Dear Mr. Moyers, The following is a copy of an email I sent to the House Financial Services Committee: I understand some big banks would like to weaken the bond ratings agencies such as Standard & Poors. My question is, with all the problems we have had in the past, I believe the bond ratings agencies should be STRENGTHENED. We have to know ahead of time what direction the economy is going because up to now, most of the business has been going to China. You can't keep borrowing from Social Security forever. Our dollar is at new lows and if Senator Obama follows through and TAXES THE HEDGE FUND DEALERS, you would find out just exactly why those DERIVATIVES that are circulating are virtually WORTHLESS and the fact that they should have kept the Glass-Stegall Act according to the testimony given by Robert Kuttner on October 2, 2007 before your committee. Also, "As Warren Buffett famously put it, you never know who is swimming naked until the tide goes out." Yours truly, Disgusted Middleclass Taxpayer, LaVern Isely

Posted by: LaVern Isely | June 7, 2008 3:46 PM

Dear Mr. Moyers, Fed Chm. Ben Bernanke didn't have to go down the road to bailing out the investment bankers. He should have contacted the IRS and found out--WHAT ARE DERIVATIVES? Because he knew how the HEDGE FUND DEALERS were using them. It sure would have saved the FBI a lot of work and if that didn't work, then they should do like they do over in England when Northern Rock got in trouble, they nationalized it in February of this year. Do that just once and they will get regulations and reinstate the Glass-Stegall Act. Why take it out on us overtaxed middleclass taxpayers? Yours truly, LaVern Isely

Posted by: LaVern Isely | April 5, 2008 3:37 PM

The two main steps that I think need to be taken are : (1)Raise taxes on the top ten percent of income earners (and especially on the top two percent), and on the largest, most profitable corporations. (2) Cut the military budget in half. If wasteful spending on useless high-tech boondoggles were to be eliminated, we would could cut the military budget in half and still increase spending on the rank and file soldiers, sailors, etc(higher pay, better benefits, and especially, better treatment for wounded vets, including those suffering from PTSD). I would eliminate the star wars missile defence scam, and any other high-priced, high- tech weapons systems that are unwanted by the military.

Posted by: ellenjay | March 16, 2008 12:32 PM

Don 2-23 12:16AM Fla. passed a lottery with your argument, but the politicans took out of the education budget an amt. equak to what the lottery supplied & Fla. Bright Scholors scholarships are to be funded by the lottery, but due to revenue shortfalls dropping or reducing it was considered! --trusting govt. with the numbers racket (lottery) is risky! Also, Congress has an incentive plan--seem to rock the boat, but keep the tax money flowing in & then out to earmarks. Respectfully, Billy Bob, Fla.

Posted by: Billy Bob | March 3, 2008 9:54 AM

The tax code should be modified to a flat tax starting at roughly $50,000 of income. I think as American citizens we can afford to give this "break" to those under this threshold regardless of age. We need to insist that federal agencies justify their existence. We can always target the large programs i.e. Social Security, Medicare, etc., but a thorough review from bottom to top would probably eliminate many programs whose purpose was accomplished many years ago. How many of you have continued performing a task just because it was necessary for some forgotten reason? Our Republican leadership continues to insist that they are fiscal conservatives. I believe a fiscal conservative lives within their means and uses additional tax revenues when emergency expenditures exceed current revenues. I think tax increases should be for specific programs, projects, etc with a sunset date. However, our fiscally conservative leadership has operated as deep pocket spenders during the last 7 years and have the audacity to complain if someone mentions the possibility of raising taxes. I ask, how else are we going to balance the budget? The Bush leadership is not willing to reduce expenditures, nor review any our our current problem areas...

Posted by: Anita | March 1, 2008 4:52 PM

Because Jim Bullis is a sincere engineer I cut him some slack on the Miastrada. Even Bucky Fuller built and drove a few prototypes. His concern about coal versus efficency is right on. My philosophy is "Bikes Not Bombs" which is compatible. See Lester Brown's lecture about the waning coal plant boom ar Earth Policy Institute. (I don't use links:You can google.) At my folk school we don't talk enough about Social Security, but some of us are retired or disabled on it. Ravi Batra of SMU wrote an entire book about Greenspan's Fraud outlining how the 1983 FICA tax boost was unfair and unnecessary. (SS has always been a target of Benthamite conservatives who believe labor can only be extracted through hunger.) A Christian friend came to me with tears in her eyes describing how pitiful the institutionalized elderly are in Cuba, fed barely enough to live, denied the powdered molk that is in such short supply. Laura, I said, haven't you seen the rest home squalor and neglect here at home, with the jello and instant potatoes? It's bad in Cuba, made worse by the embargo, but elderly disposal is everywhere when we don't value older people. Our...

Posted by: Jack Martin | February 27, 2008 11:42 AM

Curiously, solving the money problem is about who should get taxed. Or who's benefits should get cut. No doubt there are some adjustments needed. But it would be a lot better to fix this with methods based on a re-invigorated industrial system. My commenting friend Jack Martin wrote under the heading, Assessing the Economic Growth Package, remembered, "(Old Speaker Jim Wright told Reagan,"You can't have an economy by washing each others cars and delivering pizza: Voodoo economics is a debt recipe with Depression sauce.")" Somehow Reagan escaped the Depression Sauce outcome. Not to get too excited about Reaganomics, where a gamble with debt paid off, yet there was an invigorating effect of his policies that helped business get revitalized. Somehow, that recipe does not seem to be working now, which might suggest that it was more than that recipe that made things get better in the 1980's. I do not recommend the answer in a plan presented by General Motors, http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/PDF/presentation-sm.pdf. This plan seems to embrace electric vehicles as the way to "shift more energy to transportation", this to have an effect of reducing the use of oil. It could do that, even though there is no mention of making...

Posted by: Jim Bullis | February 25, 2008 2:48 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 11:40 PM

Here are my top objections to raising taxes to address government deficits: In total, more than 50 percent of my wages are already confiscated by my government in taxes. At some point, I will be unwilling to work "for free." More than 90 percent of those tax dollars are lost to fraud, corruption, graft, and war profiteering. The income tax is immoral and unconstitution. (If you don't understand why, get on the web and find out.) The Founders of our country made no provision in the U.S. Constitution for an income tax -- and for good reason. (If you don't understand why, get on the web and find out.) Wages are not "income" or a "gain" but a means of survival in an economy based on "division of labor," which, incidentally, makes it all but impossible for anyone to opt-out and be self-sufficient. Given Objections 2, 3, and 5, taxes on wages are a form of slavery. Years back, the FICA tax was raised to 12.4 percent to "save Social Security." Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Don't believe them! Given all of the above, I suggest that the time has come for a...

Posted by: Paul Mac | February 23, 2008 12:46 PM

PutCongress on an incentive plan. Start by eliminating their health care and pensin benefits until they find a way to raise or cut money from the budget that equals the amount of said benefits. Or perhaps give them an incentive to balance the budget. For each year they balance the budget they get a one lump sum payment equal to one years pay, tax free.

Posted by: Don | February 23, 2008 12:24 AM

Institute a national lottery, so what if it competes with the states, people live on the hope of winning a lottery and they will continue to play both - state & national. Assuming the numbers support the effort offer 25 to 50 weekly $1,000,000 tax free prizes. Earmark the revenue for a specific purpose, e. g., education, social security, debt reduction, etc. And clearly show how it off-sets taxes.

Posted by: Don | February 23, 2008 12:16 AM

How to change the tax code? Take them one at a time. How about this one "Tax free dividends". Figure out the amount a family uses to buy food, shelter, transport etc. devided by the number of family members and thats the maximum amount of dividends or whatever that you can have tax free.

Posted by: andyvc | February 22, 2008 10:56 PM

The Decade of Progressive Sacrifice For one special decade, great sacrifice is offered for the benefit of our grandchildren. Everyone is enouraged to "give 'til it hurts". And while the poor may not be able to give more than a button, there are yet others of whom it would take millions and millions before any real pain would be felt...unless they really are that fragile. Might do 'em some good. There are greater rewards from giving it up, than from hanging on to it. At least that's what Meister Eckhart said, but I think he's still dead. Love the show. You're more than relevant. You're a legend.

Posted by: David K Beckwith | February 22, 2008 8:05 PM

Bill Moyers guessed it: Listening to the interview with Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson I wondered "why is he airing this Right-wing Republican garbage? I kept wondering: if the rest of the industrialized world can give its citizens universal healthcare and decent retirement benefits, certainly the USA "the richest country in the world" can do so, if it just (a) starved the military instead of the poor, (b) reduced inequality of income and wealth (Universal healthcare would help that, as would restoring a progressive tax system). The right-wing nature of the interviewees was revealed by their referring to military expenditures as for "the war on terror" --a real give-away that they are little Bushies. I kept thinking: why is this on the Moyers journal: don't we get enough of this propaganda on CNN, FOX, and the Wall Street journal program? Apparently many other loyal Moyers-watchers were similarly appalled! I hope that beyond posting these comments, you will follow some of the posted suggestions for airing correctives.

Posted by: Sherry | February 22, 2008 12:24 AM

To Gary 2-20-2:00PM What was the Japanese Ambassador doing in Washington while his country was launching its war ships to Pearl Harbor? What was England's & the USA's relationship with Russia during WWII? What did the USA do to Japan & Germany after WWII? Enemies yesterday-friends today. Why does the USA remain friends with Saudia Arabia & Egypt after 9-11 esp. given the human rights records of both? Why would the USA have helped Iraq in its war with Iran? Here's a thought: The USA couldn't attack Saudia Arabia & Egypt after 9-11 without big problems with oil supplies, so we sent Shock & Awe to let countries supporting terrorist see what may be in store if they did not stop attacks on Am. soil. So, they just raised the price on oil-so the USA devalued the dollar-so what does this have to do with our budget? I was around during the oil embargo of the 70s & our fiscal budget could really be in trouble if we don't associate with un-American countries & individuals.

Posted by: Billy Bob | February 21, 2008 10:18 AM

Regarding the DoD and the GWOT spending: Osama Bin Laden, must, above all, be remembered as a former CIA asset, rather than a representative of Islam. Quo Bono? Muslims? CIA nitpicks. They didn't Fedex money and weapons directly to OBL. No, they financed "the nexus of Hekmatyar and Bin Laden", later known as Al-Qaeda. With pleasure. And they sent weapons directly to OBL associates, even according to Norman Solomon at FAIR describing the media's and Republicans' and Pentagon's Al-Qaeda lovefest of the 80's, supporting the most vicious and violent psychopaths. Brzezinski's plan, implemented under Carter BEFORE the Soviet invasion, was to LURE the Soviets to INVADE Afghanistan, so then there would be an excuse to drive them out and bog them down. He said so. Republicans ramped-up this plan, which was backed by the Heritage Foundation and their THREE Al-Qaeda lobby groups (i.e. for "the people of Afghanistan"). The Christian Coalition said it was UNPATRIOTIC to not support the Islamic Radicals, and that any Cong that voted against this did not deserve a seat! Well. Years later, the Republican Policy Committee -- donning tinfoil hats? -- produced a detailed and footnoted "conspiracy theory" report that said that Al-Qaeda was still...

Posted by: Gary | February 20, 2008 2:00 PM

I second the opinion of the poster above who cited the excellent comment by economist Dean Baker of CEPR (cepr.net), in his 'Beat the Press' Weekly Roundup, 2/19/08' piece. The reporting in this Moyers show on the 'deficit problem' was shockingly unbalanced, not to say economically ignorant.

Posted by: Mary | February 20, 2008 7:01 AM

From The 'Beat the Press' Weekly Roundup, 2/19/08, I quote Dean Baker of CEPR: February 15, 2008 Bill Moyers Goes off the Deep-End on the Deficit, Again The budget deficit has been somewhat larger in recent years than it should have been but very few economists see this as a crisis. Over the long-term, the budget is projected to face serious problems but, as the Congressional Budget Office has pointed out, this is primarily due to the projected increase in health care costs. Since the government pays for approximately half of national health care costs through Medicare, Medicaid and other public sector programs, if health care costs follow the projected path, then it will lead to major fiscal problems for the federal government. Of course, if health care costs rise as projected, the increase will also have a devastating impact on the private sector. The moral of the story to any serious analyst is that the United States must get its health care costs under control; something that every other wealthy country has managed to do. Unfortunately, there is a whole army of deficit fear mongers who have tried to use the projected explosion of health care costs as a...

Posted by: Mary | February 20, 2008 6:52 AM

The problem with government is the same as the problem with people: overconsumption. Every service that government provides is DIRECTLY related to how much people WANT to SPEND. The solution lies in the FairTax bill, but the Democrats are too stupid to embrace it, and the Republicans are too rich to worry about it--yet. Every time we buy something, we increase the need for police, fire, military, and medicare. The more we spend, we exponentially increase our risks. The ONLY people who benefit from an income tax are those who can finagle a special consideration to get out of it or to get paid without people being able to change their mind. If consumers could see how much government and consumption costs them every time they pull out a credit card, then maybe we wouldn't be so beholden to other countries to provide junk we don't need and maybe our farmers could get paid for food instead of for fuel to support the advertising industry. Ban all advertising outside of 200 miles of where a product is sourced, also. No, these aren't politically correct suggestions. They are logical ones. Buy less, buy local: and the land and the people will...

Posted by: auntiegrav | February 19, 2008 11:05 AM

I fervently hope that you inquire further into this issue. If my Professor, Clifton Grubbs were still alive, I'd recommend that you have him on to expose Bittle and Johnson's strawman theory. But someone of Dr. Grubbs' caliber is available; he's the competent and forthright economist, Dean Baker.

Posted by: Joel Norvell | February 19, 2008 12:05 AM

Last weeks guests completely disregarded the defense budget. Isn't the over $7 billion being spent every month on the Iraq War contributing to the national debt? It's clear now that this war was never about weapons of mass destruction, but about the greed of an oil man and a defense contractor (who just happen to be two "leaders of the free world"). Given this, doesn't anyone else want to know just how much of all that money has gone into the personal fortunes of our president and vice president? And, will they be paying taxes on that? It would be interesting to compare their worth going into the White House to their worth when they leave. Will we ever know?

Posted by: Ann | February 18, 2008 11:44 PM

It’s generally accepted that the richest 1% of the US owns more than 30% of the country’s wealth, the top 10% more than 70% of the wealth, the top 20% hold more than 90% and the bottom 40% have less than 1%. To fix the economy, Biddle and Johnson place the onus squarely on those that have the least, both in terms paying more taxes and receiving fewer benefits. In other words, for wealth distribution, anything goes but when it comes to supporting the government, the burden should be shared all.

Posted by: mark feder | February 18, 2008 4:56 PM

Moderators, Diane D. Please get this to Bill and producers. I have been in personal contact with economist Dr. Ravi Batra of SMU and he has expressed his strong interest in appearing on the Journal to discuss some real solutions to the deficits strangling our economy. He has recently published several provocative books about these solutions. I have asked him to contact the Journal, but you can reach him at Southern Methodist University where he is still teaching. Please, the well-being of our nation depends upon it.

Posted by: Jack Martin | February 18, 2008 3:49 PM

Bittle and Johnson forfeited the vast bulk of their credibility by waiting more than seven years into the "W" era to suddenly discover a crisis which requires major sacrifice by the middle class. That they and Mr. Moyers would cite similar concerns from a billionaire (Bloomberg) as further proof of a crisis really disappoints. If these people really were looking out for the middle and poverty classes (which are fast becoming one and the same) they'd have been protesting loud & clear & constantly each of the tactics in the War on the Middle Class, including Cold War-era size Dept. of Defense/war budgets for the past decade (welfare for the military industrial complex), Republicans' massive tax cuts for the rich (welfare for the wealthy) and grotesquely low corporate tax rates from Reagan on (welfare for corporatocracy). If there is a crisis, it's not the doing of the middle & poverty classes and shills for the wealthy such as Bittle & Johnson have no business appearing on Mr. Moyers' Journal trying to sell their particular brand of billionaire bailout economic snake oil. Again, I'm REALLY disappointed that one of my heroes, Mr. Moyers, would give them such a soapbox.

Posted by: Robert A. Ethington | February 18, 2008 1:36 PM

Eliminate all foreign military aid, including the $2.55 Billion for Israel, and cut the defense budget back to a budget that is really for defending the US in case of attack, not for fighting wars all over the world. Restructure the tax code so that people who make barely enough (or not enough) to live on pay no taxes at all, and people who have a surplus pay more - up to 80% of their surplus. This is how civilized countries maintain a decent standard of living for everyone. Eliminate tax breaks for foreign investment, and make investment that truly creates US jobs more advantageous.

Posted by: Bea Dewing | February 18, 2008 11:33 AM

A balanced budget suggest $ spent are no greater than $ received. That is the black & white of it; BUT, the gray allows for $ spent to be limited to the $ obligated to be SENT OUT within the "budget period" & not include the total $ owed, (ex. a loan over 10 yrs. only the payment for that period would count). To balance a govt. budget requires only that our govt. be honest& fair. When that is figured out then all will be great! After all, look at the results, against great odds, our country delivered in WWII. OH! YEH! The free world was in the last inning before the USA acted as a unit for the good of all. More recently we have tried to get in the game by the 3rd inning in international affairs-maybe we won't wait till the 9th in our enocomic arena. Respectfully, Billy Bob 2-28-08 Fla.

Posted by: Billy Bob | February 18, 2008 8:13 AM

Since our country's culture has long entailed taking and not giving, complaining about "excessive" taxation, yet not recognizing how much they get for those taxes, I can't imagine any situation that will make the vast majority of Americans ungreedy enough to accept raising of taxes in order to fund all they are "entitled" to. We're demanding more health care from the government, yet refuse to pay more for it. My suggestion is that Americans chose from options such as one does in the HR department: 1. You can chose to pay more in taxes and have full benefits in Social Security and Medicare. 2. You can chose to pay less in taxes and be entitled to fewer SS/Medicare benefits. That way no-one is forced to pay taxes if they don't want to, but they can't later get the benefits that they didn't pay for. Sign me up for package 1!

Posted by: Amie Kafer | February 17, 2008 9:34 PM

Hey Bill, If Bittle and Johnson want to fix the system then they should go straight to the money. No, the real money, all those corporations, owners and directors who use money to leverage their one puny vote into a vote that can reverse a law. Example: Glass-Steagall banking act. It was part of the New Deal legislation. It was in response to a house of cards investment scheme that helped precipitate the great depression. In 1999 president Clinton in a fit of "compromise" repealed the act - because the "money" wanted it so, and they promised that they had learned to play nice with the economy. Result? Sub-prime mortgage mess. Good for them. Bad for a lot of us. Do I need to say more? So if you really want to make America fiscally sound you need to start at the TOP not the bottom of the food chain. Corporate tax and tax credits need a whole lot of reform, especially when a company can make a billion or two and still get money back on tax filings. Nobody wants to be taxed at an unfair rate so a more level all inclusive tax would really be useful. Bittle...

Posted by: Gerry E. Powell | February 17, 2008 9:06 PM

Bill, How about having Naom Chomsky or Howard Zinn, or Alanna Hartzok (earthrts@pa.net) to counter those two idiots you had on last week. Joan

Posted by: Joan Sage | February 17, 2008 4:47 PM

Bill, the previous posters have all laid out the problems with the program, particularly the confusion of social security (not much of a problem) and medical costs and Medicare/Medicaid. When Mr. Petersen, Ms. Johnson, and Mr. Biddle say cut social security and Medicare, they are really saying that for most lower and working class Americans that they have to accept a decline in their living standards in old age and to accept that they will be denied medical care for their health problems if they can't not pay for it themselves. Meanwhile, Mr. Peterson only has to pay tax on 15% of his billion dollar annual income (thereabouts for his last year at Blackstone, before he took it public just before the market turned), and no doubt resents paying that much (the unproductive 90% of the country should pay for war). I would be willing to consider some change to Social Security to take into account longevity (say higher disability payments in return for a later retirement age for those fit to work), but not what Concord group has in mind, that is that that most of us should work, work, work and then drop dead. Have another show with...

Posted by: Rickstersherpa | February 17, 2008 4:20 PM

Bill, There are three answers to the national debt; Cut defense spending, Eliminate the tax cuts to the wealthy, and raise the ceiling on social security. All of the answers I hear about this issue seem to focus on spending on "entitlements". No one talks about cutting the military budget. Why do we need 725 bases around the world? Why do we need multi-billion dollar submarines, bombers, aircraft carriers, and all of the other things that are for fighting a war we no longer face. Remember what happened to Russia when it lost the butter or guns argument. Why do we spend 50+% of the worlds budget on the military? We are now the worst nation on earth in the income disparity department. The haves have gotten everything in the past 8 years, and the number of people in poverty has grown. Average citizens cannot afford health insurance, and half of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills. Wealthy people get whatever care they need. They can afford to pay for it. The rest of us need national health insurance. Finally, why is it fair that Bill Gates pays social security for 15 seconds before he hits the cap on...

Posted by: John Goodhart | February 17, 2008 4:08 PM

Wow, Bill, two Establishment representatives you put on--Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson--unless they are worse than that. There was a lot of talk about the deficit, but little about the much more important issue: federal debt, and what the difference is between debt and deficit. A bigger issue still is: if the government can print money, why is it in debt? Why do you let propagandists on your show? Are you also an Establishment representative? I'm questioning your integrity more and more. Bill, why don't you talk about the real issues. See: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936 Try talking about how the Federal Reserve is a private bank that institutionalizes usury on our entire nation's economy, for no reason! The Federal Debt is bogus; it is a tool for social control. The personal income tax is unconstitutional and there is no law requiring it. Bill, please talk about the bigger issues. Don't let the Establishment propagandists manipulate people using the platform of your show. You stand shamed. -- We are being lied to; know the truth: http://www.ExcaliburBooks.com/RedAlert/

Posted by: Bret Hughes | February 17, 2008 3:31 PM

Bill Moyers: Beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing! Authors Bittle & Johnson may not be what they seem. As a retiree on social security & medicare, the Concord Coalition and Heritage Foundation and their associates at Public Agenda, Bittle & Johnson, are not my friends. They want to eliminate or privitize SS & Medicare. The Reagan administration tried to "starve the beast" with budget cuts. When that didn't work, Reagan, and later, GW Bush, spent us into oblivion, supporting the military and going to war. The strategy changed to "feed the beast". Conservatives and their fellow travelers reason that when the deficit becomes intolerable, the American people will rise up and dump social security. Can you imagine 44 million retirees out in the cold. Your authors are part of the advance guard who want to pave the way for doubt about the cause of our deficit. They spent an inordinate amount of time blaming social security. Count the number of times the authors used the term "social security" during your interview. Please followup with a broader discussion of the subject. Jim

Posted by: Jim | February 17, 2008 2:52 PM

Mmm, let's see. If we eliminate Medicare and Social Security, we'll definitely free up money for more defense programs, the space program, pork barrel programs and maybe even tax relief for the wealthiest citizens. Why worry about social programs and the environment because the earth is losing it's vital resources and will become uninhabitable. Someday soon, the wealthiest and best "connected" will get in their space craft and whoosh off to the next inhabitable location to start over. Dr. E. O. Wilson commented previously on this program: BILL MOYERS: Live in a synthetic ecosystem. E.O. WILSON Yes that's right or people who say, "Well, let's keep on going the way we're going. Let's use up the Earth. And-- and by that time, our smart scientists"-- trust me, I'm a scientist, and I-- I'm-- none of us could be very-- that smart. But they figure that they-- that by that time maybe we can make it to the next planet, terraform it, you know? Turn it into an Earth-like place and so forth. Dream on. This is crazy. This is the only planet we're ever going to have. This planet has taken-- tens, hundreds of millions of years to create this...

Posted by: L. G. Pickels | February 17, 2008 2:34 PM

This was not your finest hour... Let me tell you why Bittle and Johnson make me both laugh and cry. The road to hell is paved with good intentions; No doubt these pleasant smiling people have the best of intentions. They are a likable version of Peterson and Rudman’s Concord Coalition, called “root canal economics” by Mark Thoma of Economist’s View. They regard the federal government's budget deficit as the country's number one problem. B & J didn’t once use the word “entitlements” but they are very worried about Social Security and Medicare. Shouldn’t we worry about the government’s long-term plans and obligations? Yes, we should. However, worrying about budget details is crazy when Congress continues to allow massive off budget spending. I’m talking about our insane militarism and the off budget appropriations for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and environs. Now, I can accept and understand the idea of an off budget appropriation in the fall of 2001 right after the 9/11 attacks, but that was many years ago. The fact that Congress continues to allow this supreme folly indicates that budget numbers and budget projections are bogus. The fact that Congress ignores the hundreds of signing statements made...

Posted by: Bob Snodgrass | February 17, 2008 2:07 PM

Jean Johnson quoted Homer Simpson that it takes two to tell a lie, and she and Scott Bittle, with the assistance of Bill Moyers proceeded to illustrate the principle several times. (We often accuse George W. of being drunk: I accuse Bill Moyers here. Maybe he was in the back alley with Robert Bly guzzling some heady wine before he could face these two upperclass cheshire cats.) Lie #1- The United States is a wealthy country. Rebuttal: Firstly, if we owe over 9 trillion, with a "t", dollars how can you call us wealthy. Secondly, the mass of people are providers of labor and hold few assets. The wealth is held by a tiny oligarchy, their agents and corpporations, the government as steward of resources being held in trust for them until needed (to avoid taxes) and the instruments of debt they hold against the government and the greater mass of people as taxpayers. Lie # 2-The organization "Public Agenda" is nonpartisan. Rebuttal: While it may be true that this think tank does not advocate for individual polititians, and that it will accept money from both liberal and conservative coffers it is certainly not nonpartisan in the generic sense. It...

Posted by: Jack Martin | February 17, 2008 1:25 PM

for the most part, this was the most direct remarks inregards to the state of the economy that I've ever seen on T.V. Altho the guest failed to touch on other issues that have profound impact on the economic status of our nation. problems such as the U.S. prison system, which due to over bearing laws against drugs etc..are stuffed to the brim. 60 billion a year or more is the estamated annual cost of our prison system. 2 million americans populate our prisons. 57% of those 2 million are in prison for non-violent drug charges(i.e. possesion) many of those in prison will return some 67.7% 45% of the american people claim to use a illegal narcotic of some type. is this simply a very expensive war agianst the american people that we are willing to fiscally ignore? or will we continue to pay for highly expensive adult day cares. Many criminals are "institutionalized" and find that in the "outside" they cannot function, and simply commit crimes agian with the intent of being caught and placed back in the system. or is this the conservative idea of socialism? to wage war on nearly half of the population? we are also...

Posted by: james a. patton | February 17, 2008 8:30 AM

Bill, I have been watching your show for quite a while, but you need to have another go at this piece. As many other comments astutely point out, public debt is not inherently a sour concept. The fact that these two guests claim unanimous, bipartisan opposition to growing debt does not make it so. Many respected economists and policy-makers do not view the current debt as a "crisis." Robert Reich, Clinton's Secretary of Labor from 92-96, recently blogged that moderate deficit spending will benefit Americans: Finally, the next president will need to wean the public off the false notion that fiscal austerity is necessarily good for the economy. There's a crucial difference between public spending that builds the future productivity of the nation's workforce -- spending on education and infrastructure, for example -- and spending that improves today's living standards. Borrowing in order to accomplish the former is wise because it enhances the capacity of the nation to produce goods and services, and thereby shrinks both the deficit and debt as percentages of the total economy. By analogy, while it makes no sense for a family already in debt to borrow more money to finance a cruise, it makes eminent...

Posted by: R.E.D. | February 17, 2008 8:24 AM

My respect for Moyers contribution to America and the quality of his work, including the Journal, meant that I was profoundly astonshe d by the shallow wrong headedness, and one sidedness of the 'debt' discussion. We have known for decades that 'deficit spending' is itself not a problem but a tool. The remarks by Dean Baker below make that point. To them I would add that 'spending' as a concept is the root of hte problem. Government investment which increases productivity and value should not be counted in the same way as transfer payments and other pay outs. IN addition, here are Baker's comments on te program: Bill Moyers Goes off the Deep-End on the Deficit, Again The budget deficit has been somewhat larger in recent years than it should have been but very few economists see this as a crisis. Over the long-term, the budget is projected to face serious problems but, as the Congressional Budget Office has pointed out, this is primarily due to the projected increase in health care costs. Since the government pays for approximately half of national health care costs through Medicare, Medicaid and other public sector programs, if health care costs follow the projected...

Posted by: Richard Flacks | February 17, 2008 2:27 AM

I was waiting for Moyers to ask why we need to spend a trillion dollars a year (according to Ron Paul) supporting our worldwide military empire. He never did. Odd too that we never hear a word about that from the two remaining Democratic candidates, isn't it? Ron Paul has sponsored legislation requiring that excess social security tax receipts be invested in real income producing assets like CDs instead of being "invested" in IOUs we write to ourselves (treasury bonds)as the government has always done. The fund could actually grow, just like the proposed private accounts that the Republicans love so much. Odd that this proposal never made it to the network news. Evidently no one on this show seemed to know about it either. Moyers, who are you shilling for? Or do you not know how to ask tough questions?

Posted by: Sam Baker | February 17, 2008 12:32 AM

The mention of the Bush tax cuts expiring in 2010 in this piece remind me of a thing I heard earlier this week on a Yale Law podcast, about an alternative approach to taxation (though it isn't in the RSS feed, it is in the iTunes subscription http://www.yale.edu/opa/podcast/ ). It is all concerning the book: "100 Million Unnecessary Returns: A Simple, Fair, and Competitive Tax Plan for the United States" I don't really know if this is "The Answer", but perhaps we have an opportunity to get various ideas on the "discussion floor" in America in the next couple years, and find out what tax systems would serve the US well in the future.

Posted by: David Burrowes | February 16, 2008 11:48 PM

Bill, Is this your view of balanced journalism? What's this 'we' crap? Why don't your guests talk about taxing The Rich? Buffet got millions in tax CREDITS. Why do your 'helpful' guests always blame The People when it is Corpunism that always has been the problem? Social Security does not need to be 'adjusted' for normal citizens when Billionaires can collect it too (it may be the law but that doesn't preclude it from being stupid) especially when they don't even pay their fair share. The government doesn't even fund Social Security - it is a file full of promisory notes. I got that from watching NOW with Bill Moyers - ARE YOU EVEN WATCHING YOUR OWN SHOWS? If you were you would be asking tough questions of guests who are nothing but hacks who blame the patient for being sick. The true answer came from your other guest that citizens need to hold politicians responsible for the mess they've made. But with the mind numbing chemicals in the water supply that will never happen. "Figures never Lie" - but liars sure can figure. Stop hosting such insultiing guests.

Posted by: Sparky | February 16, 2008 10:05 PM

Bill, Is this your view of balanced journalism? What's this 'we' crap? Why don't your guests talk about taxing The Rich? Buffet got millions in tax CREDITS. Why do your 'helpful' guests always blame The People when it is Corpunism that always has been the problem? Social Security does not need to be 'adjusted' for normal citizens when Billionaires can collect it too (it may be the law but that doesn't preclude it from being stupid) especially when they don't even pay their fair share. The government doesn't even fund Social Security - it is a file full of promisory notes. I got that from watching NOW with Bill Moyers - ARE YOU EVEN WATCHING YOUR OWN SHOWS? If you were you would be asking tough questions of guests who are nothing but hacks who blame the patient for being sick. The true answer came from your other guest that citizens need to hold politicians responsible for the mess they've made. But with the mind numbing chemicals in the water supply that will never happen. "Figures never Lie" - but liars sure can figure. Stop hosting such insultiing guests.

Posted by: Sparky | February 16, 2008 9:47 PM

BRAVO Bill Moyers for being possibly the bravest voice in television! When it comes to the budget, though, we need to end the war system of dispute settlement. The last number I heard was that the world is spending $1.2 trillion per year on the war system. These expenditures are welcomed by the companies receiving them, of course, but they are not PRODUCTIVE. Money spent on bombs literally goes up in smoke. The world has become so interconnected that warfare, especially in the nuclear age, has become absurd. But it's still profitable. How about having on one of the world federalists who are proposing a world PEACE system? If we are going to get serious about protecting the planet from climate change and upheavals from oil and water scarcity, we will have to scrap the war system because we need the money for the people's business.

Posted by: Hank Stone | February 16, 2008 8:30 PM

Grace said "Despite all the explanations, I still don't understand WHY Social Security and Medicare were allowed to get in such dire straits." Grace, Social Security and Medicare are NOT in dire straits. Moyer's guests were trying to fool you. What they were talking about is "projected debt." That means that some time in the future IF people don't pay for Social Security or Medicare, THEN those programs will run into deficit. The CURRENT debt is mostly a result of the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts. Those Presidents said that tax cuts would produce more revenues. They have not. Then they said the tax cuts will lead to economic growth that will pay for the deficits. So far that has not happened. In any case they can't have it both ways: they can't say "deficits don't matter," and then turn around and say "the deficit is going to kill our children and grandchildren." Currently Social Security is in SURPLUS. It is lending money TO the government. Arguably the current debt is due mostly to the Reagan arms build up and the Bush "war on terror." These might or might not be good things to go into debt...

Posted by: coberly | February 16, 2008 8:27 PM

Re: "Where Does the Money Go." After seeing the broadcast, I thought these authors showed their allegiance to the current administration and it is business as usual for the wealthy and not average citizens. It sounded like these authors were pushing the Republican agenda. No one mentioned that the Social Security fund has been siphoned of money over many years to pay other bills and the money was never put back. They failed to mentioned the corrupt Federal Reserve system of printing money with out anything to back it up, that the wealthy tax breaks are a fraud to the average American. Only low-paying service jobs have been created. The outsourcing of our jobs overseas that have also brought down Americans wages and the loss of our Manufacturing base, turning America into a comsuming society. This government always has money for foreign aid and foreigners and not for Americans and our infrastructures. I don't think the true story was reported nor the right questions asked, a disappointing show!

Posted by: maggymay | February 16, 2008 7:16 PM

Great work by many of the previous posters. Mr. Moyers should schedule Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot to explain what's really going on with the budget... Social Security and Medicare. Frankly it's pretty poor journalism--which we've come to expect from most other sources--to let someone get away with saying "by 2040 every dollar... will be taken by Social Security, Medicare, and interest..." without asking why exactly that may be the the case. Note that in 2040, the very youngest of the baby boomers will either be turning 76 or be dead. The older boomers--like me--will more than likely be long gone. So that means the problem is not one of demographics. The numbers are driven by medical/health care inflation. If we don't fix our health care system and its cost continues to grow, we won't be able to afford Medicare because most of us won't be able to afford health care of any kind. If we fix the health system, we go a long way toward fixing the long term budget numbers. I was also distressed that the guests did not bring up the military budget until Bill brought it up himself. Then they seem to dismiss it as only...

Posted by: Andrew Brewer | February 16, 2008 6:05 PM

I was very interested to hear what your guests last night had to say about the American debt. I was astonished to hear nothing about the debt-based Federal Reserve System as the main culprit of our financial woes, indeed, the financial woes of the world. In the place of the investigative journalism I have come expect from you, Bittle and Johnson offered a naïve, tighten-our-belts, share-the-burden strategy with no insight into the role the central banking system plays in our daily lives and that the system is designed to accomplish precisely what is occurring to common people everywhere. Their information was incomplete at best and fundamentally misleading at worst. Dennis Kucinich’s economic advisor, Richard C. Cook, a twenty year veteran of the treasury department and his colleague, Susan Boskey, provide not only a thorough explanation of the system but how to remedy the situation, both personally and nationally. You can learn more about Cook’s upcoming book, We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform,in Boskey’s December newsletter, http://community.icontact.com/p/qualitylifeplan/newsletters/interview807/posts/win-win-economics-december-2007. I’m still a tireless fan who thrives on your courage to tell the truth. Yours truly, Robert Bystrom

Posted by: Robert Bystrom | February 16, 2008 6:04 PM

Now that we understands where the money goes, please explain where it comes from! From whom do we borrow these trillions? WHOM do we owe - or perhaps, WHO OWNES US?

Posted by: Patricia Nakamura | February 16, 2008 4:42 PM

Your Guests are clueless about the dynamics driving the public deficits, (and completely forget the crisis of total public, private and household debt that’s now over 350% of GDP) The deficit has nothing to do with Social security since social security is supported directly by the pay role tax. It is in fact in surplus by 150 billion a year, and does not go into deficit until at lest 2058, not 2017 as to your guest falsely asserts, (this according to even the CBO.) Many estimates put the social security short fall even further out. You should Read Paul Krugman's analysis on social security. It's Krugman's assertion that the crisis of social security is essentially an invented one, driven by dubious numbers by the Bush administration and right wing think tanks like the Heritage foundation and the enterprise institute. What’s worse, the “crisis” of social security has become dogmatic in the media, including apparently Bill Meyers and PBS. It would require an increase in revenue of no more than .6% of GDP to keep social security solvent well into the 22 century. The financial industry could only wishes for such issues"

Posted by: Max | February 16, 2008 2:54 PM

There were seven things you forgot to point out on the discussion of the budget deficit. Workers not only have money taken out of their paycheck for federal taxes but there are additional deductions for social security and Medicare. People have paid into these funds over their entire working career. Most people are totally dependent on getting these funds when they retire. They expect to get their funds back with interest. This Republican administration has done so many things to create a very large budget deficit in the last seven years. The constant need of the Republican Party to give tax breaks to the wealthy, the very ones that don’t need it. We are spending about 70 billion dollars a year in a war that wasn’t necessary. We now have a rebate plan of about 170 billion dollars that will increase the deficit. We also spend half our yearly budget on the military, yet our soldiers were ill equipped in Iraq. Where is money being spent? The core middle class has been losing ground in wages for the last several years. The average wage increase has been about 1.5 percent per year while inflation has been running about 4...

Posted by: Rex | February 16, 2008 2:54 PM

Bittle and Johnson didn't measure up to the standard to which we have become accustomed on Bill Moyers' Journal. They sounded cold and detached from the reality of the lives of the "regular" people. All working individuals have contributed to Social Security and Medicare. These two safety nets for the "working" class are not the reason for the financial problems of our country. I recently became disenchanted with both "major" political parties. I explored the possibility of becoming a Libertarian, until I discovered they are typically wealthy individuals, whose motto is, "I have a right to accumulate wealth by having you work for me at a minimal wage and you have a right to starve to death." I think Bittle and Johnson may be Libertarians.

Posted by: John Sherwood | February 16, 2008 2:51 PM

Feb.15 program WAY BELOW your usual standards.Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson came across like over smiling "feelgood" hucksters extolling the current Republican Administration's delusions about Social Security and Medicare?Underfund and destroy the last safety nets available to poor people and a squeezed middle class and the Revolution will begin! Your one timid question about "Iraq war costs" hardly helped. KBR, Halliburton, Private Contractors, CORRUPTION Blackwater,....whoever is building the US Embassy, the entire "GREEN ZONE" needed and duplicative weaponry,missing billions from the DOD, THATS WHERE THE MONEY HAS BEEN SQUANDERED..and the 700plus bases we man around the globe...and payment on the interest we owe China, Japan loans, etc..that's where the money has gone. Anthony Cordesman in a overall very perceptive GREAT DECISIONS article from Foreign Policy Assocation on choices in Iraq frets about the tons and tons of WAR STUFF, etc. that may have to be abandoned if a "Swift Withdrawal is inevitable" Not to worry, ruling class war profiteers will be only too happy to churn out more weaponry, etc. Will anybody ever heed IKE's warning about the Industrial-Military Complex. IT RUNS THE NATION. Susan Jacoby makes some of the same points Morris Berman's tome about the terminal crisis of...

Posted by: Werner Simon | February 16, 2008 2:22 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with coberly. If Bill does not get Dean Baker on the show next week then he has done the American people a serious injustice. I came to this site completely independently of coberly, but it is heartening to see that another regular reader of Dean Baker's blog was disgusted enough to post his feelings. Bill, get the story right. Do what Susan Jacoby would want you to do, and get Dean Baker on your program so he can dissect the misleading statements you were suckered into parroting. This shouldn't be happening. I was extremely disappointed in this first interview Bill. You can make amends, please please do. BTW: I loved the interview with Susan Jacoby. The bit on "soldiers" vs. "troops" was great.

Posted by: vorpal | February 16, 2008 2:17 PM

Thought provoking and true. But why discussion only of social programs when the biggest "yoke" on this countries shoulders is the defense budget? It is grossly inflated, pro-war, and corporation friendly. Where is the discussion/books on reducing the defense budget? A guest on your show to discuss this issue would be educational. Gene Boschee Sherwood, Or

Posted by: Gene Boschee | February 16, 2008 2:01 PM

Interesting and important segment, but it is neither necessary to raise taxes nor to cut programs to ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Not only would their solvency be assured but, combined with existing spending, they could be expanded to provide a single-payer national health care system for all Americans by simply closing two gaping loopholes: the taxable income cap ($97,500 for 2007) and the 100% exemption on 'unearned income' (income from profit, interest, rents, etc.). In fact, the tax rate could be lowered if this were done! A fringe benefit would be to free American companies and local governments from their growing health care burdens! (Further saving could painlessly result from means-testing if desired or necessary.) The main federal budget is another matter. In a 1968 LBJ's effort to conceal the cost of the Vietnam War he conflated Social Security and general budget spending - a deceptive practice that continues to this day. If you factor out the independently-funded Social Security and Medicare it becomes obvious that the real problem is the grotesque level of military spending (including interest for past spending, etc.) consumes almost two thirds of the entire main federal budget! All problems have...

Posted by: Steve J | February 16, 2008 1:39 PM

Yes, our government spends more than it takes in, but of all the people that you could have chosen to talk about the federal budget and spending, Social Security and Medicare, how did you come up with Bittle and Johnson? There are people in this country who understand these issues and can explain them.. I was very disappointed in the questions asked on this segment of your program, and the answers didn't stand up to what I've read about the issues that were never really addressed on your program. This segment of your program was a big letdown for me from the usual content of your programs. I would recommend a couple of books to help the producers of your programs to better understand Social Security. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Michael Hiltzik's book “The Plot Against Social Security: How the Bush Plan is Endangering Our Financial Future', and the book by economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot, “Social Security: The Phony Crisis”. A quick web search would also lead you to organizations working to dispel doomsday myths about SS. As for the comments on health care costs I would ask that, as Susan Jacoby suggested, we look at what other...

Posted by: John Nikkel | February 16, 2008 1:37 PM

We were happy that Bill Moyers brought out the contributions of both the current wars and the tax breaks of the rich to the deficit, and don't believe in their minimization by Bittle and Johnson. We think, however, that he missed another couple of points that could have been emphasized. We note that the proportion of the total US tax burden borne by industry and commerce has decreased by about 50% in the last half century. Considering the huge profits made by the oil, arms and insurance industries over that period and beyond, as well as the general economic growth, we believe this would make a great deal of difference if it were turned around in the future. Secondly, we understand that many of these industries, as well as big agriculture, have the benefits of large governmental subsidies whose provenance is an obvious drag on this country's financial stability.

Posted by: Ellen & Leonard Zablow | February 16, 2008 1:24 PM

We were happy that Bill Moyers brought out the contributions of both the current wars and the tax breaks of the rich to the deficit, and don't believe in their minimization by Bittle and Johnson. We think, however, that he missed another couple of points that could have been emphasized. We note that the proportion of the total US tax burden borne by industry and commerce has decreased by about 50% in the last half century. Considering the huge profits made by the oil, arms and insurance industries over that period and beyond, as well as the general economic growth, we believe this would make a great deal of difference if it were turned around in the future. Secondly, we understand that many of these industries, as well as big agriculture, have the benefits of large governmental subsidies whose provenance is an obvious drag on this country's financial stability.

Posted by: Ellen & Leonard Zablow | February 16, 2008 1:16 PM

I keep hearing we must cut social security/medicare benefits to save our economy. What about off-shore corporations again be part of the U.S. scene by paying income tax. How about no more subsidies to oil and corporations. How about cutting NASA spending so we can heal the earth instead of looking for new human footholds on Mars. I believe our excessive military spending is a coverup for funding the admin's corporate buddies who manufacture our war supplies -- what's the admin cut? I hear Our War on Iraq is a coverup in getting an oil agreement signed by the Iraqi's so that our huge oil mongers get 80% of the Iraqi oil profits -- then we'll get out??? We are creating such a travesty!!!

Posted by: Ellie | February 16, 2008 1:03 PM

Bill Moyers may enjoy being made a fool of by the Peter Petersons, but if he were at least an honest fool he would invite someone like Dean Baker to give "equal time" for the proposition that there is NO problem with Social Security. To make it short: IF we are going to be living longer, we will need to save more for our retirement. The safest place to save is the Social Security "tax." In order to meet the cost of living longer, that "tax" would need to be raised about one dollar per week each year during the same time the average wage is going up ten dollars per week per year. But if you assume the people will not be allowed to save more -- increase their payroll tax -- and project the "deficit" out for 75 years across 200 million people, you can talk about 4.7 Trillion Dollar Unfunded Deficit. Then, if no one askes any hard questions, you can do the same thing with Medicare, only there you get to make wild assumptions about increases in cost play any game with the numbers you want -- Moyers won't catch you -- and talk about really...

Posted by: coberly | February 16, 2008 12:42 PM

I find most of this fear mongering over social programs dragging the country down to be just another chapter of the Right Wing's mantra attacking so-called entitlement programs. This goes along with the Right Wing’s Ownership Society that interprets the Constitution’s grant of inalienable rights as rights only for those that can afford them. My favorite quote is from retired British politician Tony Benn; he is featured in Michael Moore’s movie SICKO. Concerning government sponsored social programs, Mr. Benn said, “You can always find the money to do these things when it is the right thing to do”. Mr. Benn continues, “National healthcare in Brittan was a very controversial program but it was adopted largely because the people of England were not afraid to confront their political leaders”. I do agree with one point, politicians from both parties have not been totally honest with American Citizens. Social Security was never meant to be a comprehensive retirement system for American Seniors. It is a support system that supplements private savings and investments made during a senior’s working years. My point about politicians not being totally honest can be verified by the fact that Americans are not saving. However, one can hardly...

Posted by: Richard | February 16, 2008 11:52 AM

IN considering the opinions of jean and scott and then listening to the age of unreason segment, I am drawn to compare our economic situation to other western countries. how insular the thoughts of jean and scott are. as if the united states could never reach out of their current reasoning of priorities to affect a more healthy distribution of capital. it would be acting from more consideration of the generations to come rather than immediate return on investments. I think the philosphy of jean and scott keeps us going in a self destructive path of action though at a slower pace than currently. This still leaves our children to deal with the reality that must come from a lifestyle change rather than a re-adjustment of mis-guided and obscene spending over the next 40 years.

Posted by: lee jankowski | February 16, 2008 11:01 AM

The information presented in this sector was factually inaccurate as concerns Social Security. There are many sites which discuss the economic status of Social Security using real data and projections, so I won't cite figures. Economist Mark Thoma leads discussions on the topic frequently on his blog, for example. Consider the misinformation in the light of the question asked on the Susan Jacoby segment as to why people only listen to those who agree with them and you will see one of the reasons. Those in the "fact based" community don't need to spend time listening to misinformation. Those in the ideologically blind community don't want to have their beliefs challenged by data. This is a psychological thing which has been studied for the past 40+ years by psychologist Robert Altemeyer. He has identified what he calls the "right wing authoritarian" personality type. Someone who combines a need to follow a strong leader with an unwillingness to examine issues critically. He has a free, online book which summarizes his findings, it's at theAuthoritarians.com He would make a good guest for a future show, by the way. Just ask John Dean for a recommendation, he based his previous book on Altemeyer's...

Posted by: robertdfeinman | February 16, 2008 9:47 AM

I have not read the book, so my comments are based only on your segment with the authors in which you focused on particular issues like social security, tax cuts and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. The authors state that ending the wars will not make that much difference, but this is only a small part of the much larger problem of the cancer of military spending. Why does the US have to spend more on its military than the entire rest of the world? Not only is the total spending out of control, but the Defense Department has repeatedly flunked all measures of its accounting and accountability practices. When you add to that "black" operations budgets, the taxpayers have no way of finding out how much is being given away to war contractors of all sorts. The important spending issue is one of priorities. In general, social programs, like Social Security and Medicaid, require long term thinking and planning. It is much easier in the current US political system to gin up fears of survival to justify huge, and now invisible military spending in the short term financed by future generations. Real national security is based on the health and education...

Posted by: Bill Howley | February 16, 2008 9:36 AM

Please believe me when I say that I understand the difficulty of paying for something that costs more than the available funds. For example: When the ecomony in Michigan collapsed in the early '80s and I was unable to pay the electric bill, the power company turned it off. When I became unemployed due to injury and fell behind on the mortgage, the bank initiated foreclosure. You get the idea. The point is; in every instance that I made a contractual commitment and encountered difficulty, no one, ever, "adjusted" my obligation. Likewise, I have a contract with the U.S. government for social security. I've fulfilled my obligation as the government seized part of my income for over 30 years. And now, as a result of the combined failure of the politicians to govern wisely and of the people to vote wisely I'm asked to give what I've never received and allow the government's obligation to me to be "adjusted"? Over my dead body! Whatever difficulties the politicians and the people endure to meet their commitment to me is the price they pay for the poor decisions they made. Why should it not be so for them as it's been so...

Posted by: Thomas Wood | February 16, 2008 9:26 AM

Please believe me when I say that I understand the difficulty of paying for something that costs more than the available funds. For example: When the ecomony in Michigan collapsed in the early '80s and I was unable to pay the electric bill, the power company turned it off. When I became unemployed due to injury and fell behind on the mortgage, the bank initiated foreclosure. You get the idea. The point is; in every instance that I made a contractual commitment and encountered difficulty, no one, ever, "adjusted" my obligation. Likewise, I have a contract with the U.S. government for social security. I've fulfilled my obligation as the government seized part of my income for over 30 years. And now, as a result of the combined failure of the politicians to govern wisely and of the people to vote wisely I'm asked to give what I've never received and allow the government's obligation to me to be "adjusted"? Over my dead body! Whatever difficulties the politicians and the people endure to meet their commitment to me is the price they pay for the poor decisions they made. Why should it not be so for them as it's been so...

Posted by: Thomas Wood | February 16, 2008 9:25 AM

I just wanted to re-print the comments about this segment posted by economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. Baker has a blog on the Prospect magazine web site, called Beat the Press. I would suggest perusing the CEPR site and Baker's blog to anyone who would like to gain an understanding of our economy. Baker recognizes that the press does a poor job putting the economic numbers reported in a context that we can understand. It is the goal of Beat the Press to do just that. CEPR talks about many economic issues and recognizes trends such as the housing bubble -- years before it burst. I would also ask that Bill Moyers interview Dean Baker or any of the other CEPR economists in order to provide a counter-balance to this Bittle and Johnson interview. from the post Bill Moyers Goes off the Deep-End on the Deficit, Again: Just to note a few of the misleading comments from the piece: 1) it pointed out that we ran deficits in 31 of the last 35 years and implied that this is a serious problem. In fact, the country can run deficits every...

Posted by: Mike Ryan | February 16, 2008 9:13 AM

I, too, am disappointed in this segment. For Scott to say that he knows how much is being spent on the war is pure arrogance, seeing that no one knows how much is being spent on the war. This attack on Social Security is a trend in economic theory and they are capitalizing on it with a book. And let us remember that economics is not a science but a group of competing theories. Has he calculated the cost of the Blackwater mercs? Has he calculated the corruption? Take a look at PublicIntegrity.org if you want to see the depths of that. Also, the money in this country is moving ever upward, for proof of this, go see the United Nations site and look for the United States as it is rated on the Human Development Index. To point to Social Security as the culprit is absolutely absurd. And the arrogance, again, these two individuals….If you think that an economist can’t be wrong about things, just look at Bernanke. For Bill Moyers to help these two charlatans foist their book on the public is simply wrong. “Let’s cut money from the poor, whose ranks are growing, to balance the budget...

Posted by: Deborah Cunningham | February 16, 2008 7:54 AM

I am very disappointed with the discussion of the impact of war spending and tax cuts for the rich on the deficit. The glib assertions made by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson in the transcript need a solid graphic showing the relative costs of the war, the tax cuts, social security, and Medicare in sensible proportion. I share the view of many commenters that this portion of the show was disappointing. Is there a section of their book where this data is laid out with concrete numbers? Bob in HI

Posted by: Bob Schacht | February 16, 2008 3:17 AM

This was a throughly disappointing and one sided interview. Mr. Moyers would have done better interviewing Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute because it would have been more honest. Look Social Security is not a budgetary item. Social Security is a trust fund that was put "on budget" by the Johnson Administration in 1969 to conceal war spending. Since Moyers was a member of the Johnson Administration he knows this. Also in 1983, in order to replace the tax giveaways to the rich via the 1981 Kemp/Roth tax cut a bipartisan commission headed by Alan Greenspan shifted tax burdens onto the Social Security payroll tax. The major component of the debt are tax cuts for the rich and spending on the military including the War in Iraq. About 80% of the debt can be attributed to military spending and that is what needs to be cut not social spending as being advocated by the guest. That segment was an utter disgrace and a disservice to the American people.

Posted by: Deadbeat | February 16, 2008 2:21 AM

What if the legislative and executive branches of government were held personally and financially responsible for any money spend beyond our means. That would sure nip their overspending in the bud, wouldn't it? Make them pay! = MJA

Posted by: Michael J Ahles | February 16, 2008 2:12 AM

The numbers I will be using, I obtained from the U.S. Treasury web site(www.treas.gov). Presently, the Bush administration has available debt balances only back to 1998. On 9/22/2004, I was able to view end of fiscal year debt balances back to 01/01/1791. I did an analysis using FIFO(first in first out) to determine the repayment schedule of the federal gov't. I found that the federal gov't retired its debt usually within 40 years except for the Civil War debt, which took 60 years to retire. Our national debt on 12/31/1980 was 930.21 billion. Our national debt on 2/14/2008 was 9.29 trillion, a nearly 10-fold increase in 28.5 years. When I took a fiscal year-end debt balance and subtracted the preceding year-end debt balance to arrive at either a negative number(surplus) or a positive number(deficit), starting at the present and working back to my first negative number, I was shocked to discover that it was not till 1960 that I had a surplus. The surplus of 230 billion in 2000 was actually an increase to our national debt of 17.9 billion. The debt held by the public did decrease by 230.8 billion, but the intragovernmental holdings portion of the national debt...

Posted by: Jim | February 16, 2008 2:06 AM

The government responsibility should be in the hands of the people to express their “ WILL on ALL ISSUES”! The truth is the "Government is dysfunctional! There is no accountability today...”! "Specific economic stimulus package - plan" are based on a printing press economy! $150 billion dollars is not free! It only increases the national debt! We were told that “$150 billions dollars is 1% of the GNP”! $1 trillion dollars is 10% of the GNP! $10 trillion dollars DEBT is 100% of the GNP! Simply, the country is BANKRUPT! The Country is in “CRISES”: WAR, DEBT, ECONOMY, HEALTH CARE, RAMPANT CORRUPTION, ELECTIONS, UNEMPLOYMENT, DEPRESSION INFLATION, LAWS, SOCIAL SECURITIES, 360,000 veterans HOMELESS, EMIGRATION, EARMARKS etc.! “TO BEGIN THE WORLD OVER AGAIN “ is to CHANGE, “AMEND THE CONSTITUTION"! The solution to the problems should be to: AMMEND THE CONSTITUTION for the people to express their WILL on ALL MAJOR ISSUES; REPEAL LOCAL, STATE and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DEBT ACT; Amend “the duties and responsibilities of the Congress, Senate” and all other elected official from LIBERARLY construed to “STRICTLY construed”; Specifically stating their duties and responsibilities by “SHALL... and/or MUST...”; Repeal “the immunity statutes” for all elected official! All “LAWS and...

Posted by: Chris | February 16, 2008 1:43 AM

Although it is certainly a politically naive approach to helping solve your intractable financial situation, I feel compelled, as an interested Canadian observer of the American political stage, to point out that the rest of the developed world remains incredulous as you continue to insist on keeping taxes unrealistically low. America pays the lowest fuel prices and income taxes in the developed world and you still think you're overtaxed! Reasonable taxation - which, incidentally, all developed countries use to help pay for universal health care for their citizens through either a mixed public/private system found throughout Europe or a single-payer system as we have in Canada - will not get your fiscal house in order but it will go a long way to curtailing uncontrolled consumption. The drug of choice, to quote a friend, has become mass consumerism. So take that $600 tax rebate - borrowed from the Chinese, of course - and make sure you go out and buy the latest $1000 toy from Wal-Mart - made in China, no doubt - and ask yourself, as you condemn future generations to perpetual debt, who exactly is benefiting from such a misguided economic policy. If only you didn't take the...

Posted by: Wayne Saray | February 16, 2008 1:37 AM

Since our benighted PBS afilliate does not carry the Journal until 11:00 PM est, I at least get a good idea of the response to the Bittle & Johnson interview. While I support the necessity for the free expression of even such half-baked thinking as this, where were you Bill with the usual incisive questions we have come to expect?

Posted by: Francis Coyle | February 16, 2008 1:35 AM

Regarding Mr. Bernie Zelazny's valuable details re the cost of the Iraq war, I wonder if he or someone could factor in the cost of maintaining our military had we not gone to war at all. There would be costs of replacement of at least some equipment, cost of the training of our active duty units, cost associated with rising fuel prices, no matter whether the fuel is burned here or in Iraq. I have continually seen this set of expenses left out of the picture. What would be the actual cost of the war if the cost of keeping a strong military force were subtracted? Still far too much, but likely not a trillion dollars to date.

Posted by: Dr. Curt Schmidt | February 16, 2008 1:30 AM

From Virginia Morris at 11:43pm - " Those who own this nation, the five percent with half the nation's assets, are not interested in change. They have what they want already. Those who own the nation run the nation's affairs. Until that changes, it is all blather." Right on!

Posted by: Paula VandenBosch | February 16, 2008 1:29 AM

My research since the close of your program tonight indicates the current cost of the Global war on Terror (GWOT) far exceeds the $500 billion amount you stated. In the article "Rising price of the war on terror" in the November 21, 2006 edition of the CS Monitor it states the war in Iraq had surpassed $300 billion and the combined cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan then totaled $500 billion. If you visit The Cost of War thier running total will soon reach $500 billion for the cost of the Iraq war alone. Based on that figure and the added cost of the war in Afghanistan it seems to me that the "published" cost of the War on Terror is fast approaching $900 billion. Of course these figures probably do not included hidden costs such as the CIA and other related activities such as the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, etc. It seems safe to estimate more than $1 trillion has been spent on the GWOT to date. As further proof of the yet to be determined total cost of the GWOT check out the July 18, 2006 GAO report which states, "DOD's reported GWOT costs and appropriated...

Posted by: Bernie Zelazny | February 16, 2008 1:00 AM

My research since the close of your program tonight indicates the current cost of the Global war on Terror (GWOT) far exceeds the $500 billion amount you stated. In the article "Rising price of the war on terror" in the November 21, 2006 edition of the CS Monitor it states the war in Iraq had surpassed $300 billion and the combined cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan then totaled $500 billion. If you visit The Cost of War thier running total will soon reach $500 billion for the cost of the Iraq war alone. Based on that figure and the added cost of the war in Afghanistan it seems to me that the "published" cost of the War on Terror is fast approaching $900 billion. Of course these figures probably do not included hidden costs such as the CIA and other related activities such as the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, etc. It seems safe to estimate more than $1 trillion has been spent on the GWOT to date. As further proof of the yet to be determined total cost of the GWOT check out the July 18, 2006 GAO report which states, "DOD's reported GWOT costs and appropriated...

Posted by: Bernie Zelazny | February 16, 2008 12:59 AM

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Posted by: Arcee Gomez | February 16, 2008 12:57 AM

I found the interview with about the budget disappointing. For starters, the escalation in costs of Medicare and Medicaid results from the government paying for a profit-driven health care system. We in America have been really bamboozled in believing health care is a commodity best delivered by profit-driven corporations. Secondly, one of the authors of the book said that this year the Iraq war would cost $600 billion. Does he not know that a sizable portion of the defense budget is classified, that is, the spook contracts? Since they are classified so no one knows these contracts for people, supplies and services even exist, and the government can deny their existence, their cost is unknown. The Iraq war is costing $18 million an hour, and the next defense budget (unclassified portion) is $515 billion. For what? After World War II, it was quite clear to the federal government and to corporations that permanent war fueled the economy and generated prosperity. Then, the military-industrial complex was quite egalitarian, insofar as thousands of small and medium-sized businesses subcontracted with the Lockheeds and General Dynamics bohemoths. The industry has contracted severely, so the prosperity has disappeared, except for the shareholders of the nine...

Posted by: Rheba | February 16, 2008 12:48 AM

America's greatest deficit is one of rational thought. The most significant problem with our failing economy is Medicare, so we're asking the question: Do we increase taxes or cut benefits? Are we so braindead that we can't even consider fixing healthcare as a solution? We pay doctors to treat us but not to cure us or prevent disease. Isn't it obvious where this will inevitably lead? We pay healthcare managers and investors to not treat patients. Can't we see this is a bottomless pit? Consider the example of Crohn's Disease. There's overwhelming evidence that infection by paratuberculosis bacteria is behind the spread of Crohn's Disease, but we ignore the most obvious possible cause then treat the infection by suppressing the immune system and surgically removing the intestines one section at a time as the infection progresses. In a country that doesn't believe in evolution, we're dealing with this infectious disease by letting it kill off those who are genetically susceptible, eugenics? The answers aren't that far out there. Think, people!

Posted by: Dale Roose | February 16, 2008 12:43 AM

I hate to sound like sour grapes, but I my husband and I are reaching retirement age. In our lifetimes, the republicans screwed the budget under Reagan and we were forced to pay for it in the form of double social security taxes.. and more income taxes... when Bush One ruined the economy, there was the RTC and more taxes... when Bill Clinton came to the rescue, it was double the taxes. Every time the government wants to balance the books after they loot the treasury and hand it over to corporations, they dig at the pockets of the workers. Well this time we don't want to play. We want our social security and our medicare that we paid double the price for. We want out of the sucker game and we don't want to pay again. Let the younger people pay for it because they are the ones with the high paying jobs and all the discretionary income we never dreamed of having. We quit. We are simply tapped. Most of the boomers got laid off when they turned 55 as part of the Bush program for lowering social security payments to our generation so we are already screwed...

Posted by: Sandra Wayne | February 16, 2008 12:32 AM

Why is there no mention and discussion of the Greenspan motivated social security increases in 1983? The guests and Bill sagely discuss what should be done but nothing about the basic problem..there is nothing to prevent Congress from continuing to spent money taken from us for these programs. Anybody..Google "Greenspan social security tax increase". You won't hear about it otherwise.

Posted by: Joel | February 16, 2008 12:29 AM

Despite all the explanations, I still don't understand WHY Social Security and Medicare were allowed to get in such dire straits. It seems to me that if I, and all the other people my age, have been paying into these programs since 1963 and if the federal government has been doing its job of being good stewards or brokers or whatever they like to call themselves, we even have a crisis. When I think about all the reports about companies who have been prosecuted over the years for mismanagement of retirement funds, I have to wonder where the Federal Government gets off telling us there just isn't enough money any more in the funds they have been managing.

Posted by: Grace | February 16, 2008 12:27 AM

Please multiply old dollar values by the inflation factor, close to 30 now. Military spending circulates in our economy. If you cut it, a different group becomes unemployed. Maybe these aren't the sort you want to be footloose and desperate. It would take a Constitutional ammendment to eliminate the influence of the states that don't pull their weight, but they still have the power to stop anything from happening because of the supermajority needed. Our ability to pay off debt depends on our standard of living, which is strained by too little energy and too many people.

Posted by: Charles | February 16, 2008 12:26 AM

Money is Debt. Debt is only real thing about modern economics system. I would recommend the Producers of Bill Moyers Journal to watch this video. and may be write an executive summary for Bill. So half the bogus stuff talked about in the interview would debunked. http://zaphodforpresident.com/2007/04/11/money-as-debt

Posted by: rd | February 16, 2008 12:23 AM

Just one small comment on this part of your program: when we first moved to Illinois, we were in Henry Hyde's congressional district. At the time, he periodically sent out letters to his constituents. Many of them included a page of "check the programs for which you believe that federal spending should be increased." The other side of that page was headed "check the programs for which you believe federal spending should be cut in order to provide the increased funding that you suggested." I had never before known - nor have I known since - of a politician who was so completely in touch with reality. I do not know the extent to which Mr. Hyde's actions matched his words; but I believe that his example should be emulated by every Congressman and Representative.

Posted by: Virginia Morris | February 15, 2008 11:43 PM

In my eighth decade, I have heard the same complaints about fiscal irresponsibility over and again. We hear lots of noise from the peanut gallery. What I have noticed is that few politicians talk about it. Bittle and Johnson's remarks that the financial problem is obvious mimics those trying to alert us to the destruction of our planet. Seeing the problem has no necessary connection to solving it. Those who own this nation, the five percent with half the nation's assets, are not interested in change. They have what they want already. Those who own the nation run the nation's affairs. Until that changes, it is all blather.

Posted by: January | February 15, 2008 11:35 PM

Before I make any suggestions, I want to reiterate most of the above, There is NOT a crisis in Social Security! The Federal Government has to make good on the Treasury Notes, there in! Social Security was never designed to have a surplus. This occured in the 80's for the specific purpose of covering the baby boom! In other words, we paid for the generation before us, and ourselves! Simple fix, remove the cap, and or make a donate hole from 100k to 200k! Why should the poor/middle-class pay on ALL their income and the wealthy stop after the first 90k? As stated above, Medicares minor problems, someof which are directly related to the heavy subsides paid to HMO/Insurance Co. for the Advantage Programs! Another program your average poor Social Security recipient, can't even afford! We pay twice as much per person for healthcare, as the next cloes industrialized nation, all of whom cover all their citizens! To Cut Spending: 1 No foreign aid to countries that have a higher, better standard of living then us! (like Isreal, and others)They get healthcare! 2. We pay more for the Military/Pentagon ect. then all other nations in the world put together! We...

Posted by: Andie Gudat | February 15, 2008 11:32 PM

I was disappointed in this show because there was no point to it. Privatization of Social Security? Debt? What? Think about this: In 1950 the national debt was $257 billion. Today the national debt is about $8.7 trillion. It seems as if the numbers jugglers and bean counters have their knickers all twisted because they have projected to balance the national books the current national debt will need a 4-fold increase over the next 68-years. Over the last 57-years America survived a 34-fold increase in federal debt. But we can’t survive a 4-fold increase over the next 68-years? When it comes to projections, I can’t help but recall Mark Twain, when made this observation: “The Army Corps of Engineers said that due to low snow fall last winter, the Mississippi River is 250 miles shorter between St. Paul and New Orleans. At that rate in five years the distance between St. Paul and New Orleans will only be 20-miles.” The answer is the money should come from our federal government. The U.S. Constitution, delegates the right to Congress in Section 8. Para. 5. "To coin money (and) regulate the value thereof...". Of course the dormant clause is that no one...

Posted by: Richard | February 15, 2008 11:20 PM

Your guests make a good point, but all they talked about were the social security and medical issues. They never mentioned the biggest gorilla in the room: the money spent on defense. The US government spends about 40% to 50% of our budget on various defense programs. We spend more on the military than all of the rest of the world's governments combined. Sure, some wise planning and some modifications of social security would help. But it is madness not to mention the huge amounts of money spent on a military we don't need, or shouldn't need.

Posted by: Lee Baker | February 15, 2008 11:20 PM

The public debt is large, but this is actually a very small way to think about it; what you'd expect of accountants more than economists. In actual fact it is so large, largely because of inflation, but it is expected to never be paid, and merely to contribute to the depreciation of our money until the entire economy collapses and our nation bankrupted. Before the growth of mfrg we had little money of our own and we began by writing instruments of credit to ourselves to use as money. But we seem to have continued to be stimulated to any sort of work by credit, and it is likely that all economic activity would stop if we were forced to save first, because to operate entirely on savings would require a different more self-reliant and self-motivating personality. In the 19th c the tariff and consequent growth of mfrg increased productivity and savings and our stockpile of gold, but as productivity has declined the US has moved backwards to a commodity-based economy in debt to overseas mfrs, with an aristocracy, servants or slaves like the antebellum South. As mfrg has declined so have savings and the middle-class. The sale of commodities...

Posted by: RE Mant | February 15, 2008 11:12 PM

Very disappointing discussion on debt. Your two guest are playing games with numbers. Bill we deserve better. They tie social security, which is basically sound, and paid for well past the 2040 time horizon they discuss, together with Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are in a funding crisis. The real crisis of both (ask a competent economist, like Paul Krugman for example) is due to the overall rising cost of healthcare. Conflating Social Security and Medicaid is dishonest and disingenous. These two writers do have an agenda, and it's not very hidden... Bill you let us down big time with these guests. You are one of the main voices of sanity on so much. Please find some honest voices on spending (not Peter Peterson) and revisit this.

Posted by: Josh | February 15, 2008 11:12 PM

"Lawrence Green' hit the nail on its head. America monetizes its wealth and, more importantly, it monetizes the industry (work) of our citizens by issuing debt bearing instruments through the Federal Reserve. A Federal Reserve Note is not a device of wealth, it is what it states it is, a "note". Every Federal Reserve Note is a debt upon which interest must be paid. It's a "bank note" owed to a bank with interest added. People can't understand this simple point...yet. So to say much more is futile. The public isn't going to get the picture until we realize we are sharecroppers and bankrupt (no net worth). My prediction is it will be at least another 5-years before the public will fathom the full breadth and depth of the corruption and failings of the US government and the Federal Reserve and their manipulation of our system of currency.

Posted by: Richard | February 15, 2008 10:59 PM

I generally enjoy Mr. Moyers Show, however those two "Repug Like " yapping about Social Security and Medicare every other sentence was absolutely rediculous !Considering I am no Liberal nor Conservative I can just picture how the 40% of those watching felt. "60% of the US Voters are now Independant and most of us are going to the Green Party. Have any doubts as to why?

Posted by: RussSr | February 15, 2008 10:44 PM

There is one simple fix that will by itself put a good amount of money into the SS system. That is to totally remove the cap on income, which for 2007 is $94,200. This is the most highly regressive tax we have. Let each income level pay at the same percentage. Congress needs to show courage to get this done. Make sure they do.

Posted by: Merry Foxworth | February 15, 2008 10:39 PM

When you make an error here you have to rewrite everything. Can't this be retained? It is absolutely uncnscionable for the U.S. Government to disregard these valiant Iraqis who worked for the U.S. Government. They should be given the utmost attention to reach the U.S. and also receive medical attention from the U.S. military in Iraq, if necessary. Also, Bill said something to the effect that, "It is hard to understand that these people have become turnovers of history.." something to that effect. That is hardly germane to humanitarian concerns. We must move from passivity to action and DO something to help these abandoned Iraqis who threw their lot in with the U.S. How about Semper Honor?

Posted by: Gerri Michalska | February 15, 2008 10:29 PM

As timely and pertinent their book is, Mr. Bittle and Ms. Johnson still don't get the ultimate reason why we are in the mess we're in. The United States has been in bankruptcy and continued bankruptcy reorganization since 1933. Every time the congress raises the debt ceiling, it constitutes another reorganization. The true problem is the continued existence of the Federal Reserve Bank - neither federal nor reserve. The interest that is continued from generation to generation can never be repaid. The only true course of action is to restore the republic's responsibility of issuing the nation's currency, based on the real value of the nation, its output, and its resources. To continue to discuss income taxes - that pay for nothing except the interest on the national debt - is but a red herring. We didn't have an income tax until the Federal Reserve came into existence. No Federal Reserve, no income taxes. A value based, constituional currency backed by the value of the united States of America is the only way to save ourselves from eternal servitude by the bankers.

Posted by: Lawrence Green | February 15, 2008 10:05 PM

I second Charles Rusnak's comment above. Bittle and Johnson in their interview used the vocabulary and half-truths of Republican party "talking points". Social Security is not and will not be in crisis. America's health care/insurance, but not Medicare alone, is already in an unsustainable state. Linking the two issues in one sentence is dishonest.

Posted by: Mimi Lawrence | February 15, 2008 9:51 PM

The government needs to take some of that money and create good jobs with benefits for people in their senior baby boomer earning years. Many of us don't own a house, don't have a retirement fund, and can no longer get waitressing jobs. We are not likely to die soon, and hey, how about a job? stop marketing credit cards to college students who dont' have jobs. stop outsourcing the middle class jobs to other countries, no wonder the tax revenues are down. Get ahold of those hedge fund termites who infest the stock market and tax them. and put the money back into getting people back to work.

Posted by: Janet | February 15, 2008 9:41 PM

I am disappointed that Mr Moyer allowed himself to be spun. Social Security can by made solvent by relatively minor adjustments. Medicare's problems are those of the healthcare and health delivery system in general. The rising costs of health insurance and medical care need to be addressed apart from the Federal budget. And Mr Moyer posed a good question about military spending and the costs of our current wars. But his guests answered by saying the costs of the wars are part of the budget crisis, but not all of it. Notice how they completely ignored the part of Mr Moyer's question concerning overall military spending. Our bases around the world, our non-working "star-wars" initiatives, our spending on duplicate and redundant weapons systems - how much do these add to our budget crises? I hope Mr Moyer will address these budget costs in a future show.

Posted by: Charles Rusnak | February 15, 2008 9:30 PM

I can't believe it. My wife and I are 55 years old and both of us have lost our jobs. Millions are losing their houses and cars and these guys say that we have to sacrifice! The middle class has sacrificed like no other group in this country. Make the elite pay there fair share like this progressive tax system is suppose to work. Reign in the military industrial complex and send the illegals home.

Posted by: Stan | February 15, 2008 9:20 PM

I was shocked to hear Mr. Moyers make a flippant comment, comparing excessive government spending to repeatedly getting drunk, "Does being drunk get normal?" As someone who has lost friends to a drunk driver, I won't soon forget that Mr. Moyers himself was arrested for drunk driving not long ago. That he still considers it a joke is staggering.

Posted by: Joyce Miltz | February 15, 2008 9:15 PM

I think we can afford to jettison a lot of pork and subsidies; change them into temporary transition assistance to help subsidy addicts find new, profitable forms of work. Of course, we might have to rearrange our system of presidential primaries if we ever want to cut the corn subsidy... We spend more on defense than the rest of the planet put together. I think we can afford to concentrate on the forces that will solve 21st century conflicts rather than being prepared to fight two major simultaneous land wars. We should also increase government transparency and accountability, so it's easy to tell who ordered spending on what. The government works for the people, and as the bosses, we should have the right to audit the books.

Posted by: Max Kaehn | February 15, 2008 7:37 PM

Where Does (And Should) The Money Go?

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment

Our Posts

Your Comments

Moyers Beats

Subscribe

Podcasts

Frappr!

Archives