You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 506

PLAYS: 350

(White House Chief of Staff and later Treasury Secretary James Baker with "friend" - coincidence? We think nope.)

Smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand, stratagems and feints - all those characterizations to sum up the Reagan Economics plan. In this interview, part of the CBS News Face The Nation series from August 15, 1982, White House Chief of Staff, later appointed Treasury Secretary James Baker is asked point blank about the wildly varying opinions on the economic state and on the deficit.

George Herman (CBS News): “When do you personally think the deficit may be below $100 billion?”.

James Baker: “Well George, the official figure is of course is what I gave you and I recognize there are differences of opinion with respect to that. I think the point is that . .is that these ballooning deficits that we see are the reason why it is very important that the Congress implement the budget resolution that’s before it and it’s very . . .this is the reason it’s very important that we have a tax bill and that tax bill pass the Congress. Now, it’s really not important when I personally think the deficit might be below $100 billion. In the first place, I’m not an economist, and I really don’t have any independent view of that. The important thing, I think is that we need to constantly keep our eye on the fact that deficits are a major problem in this country. And that the ever expanding size of these deficits keeps interests rates up. And the fact that interest rates are remaining too high is what prevents the recovery from taking place. So it’s very important, we think, that as an administration that we . .that we do some responsible surgery, if you will, on these deficits”.

I guess having knowledge of economics wasn't a prerequisite for being appointed Treasury Secretary in 1985, at least not in the Reagan White House. I think its' safe to say the world o' crap we're in right now didn't necessarily start on January 2001.

But memories tend to be selective and short.

That's why we're here.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 507

PLAYS: 414

(The Wolf at the front door is starting to look like the family pet)

The never ending story of the Economy, and the ever perplexing world of Reaganomics of the 1980s. Probably not a revelatory view, but one given by Donald C. Platten, who was in 1983 Chairman and CEO of Chemical Bank. The interview via CBS News Face The Nation on August 14, 1983 gives some indication where things were heading.

Donald Platten (Chemical Bank): “The feeling I personally go to bed with every night is that the economy will shortly stop being in a recovery mode, in other words we will have reached the former peak of the economy and that there will be a growth that we’ll be able to talk about as far as our economy in the months ahead. I think what is going on now in the economy is very healthy. I don’t think we have to worry about it being over exuberant. I think there will be a good economy going from now right straight through the year end into 1984. I think there will be pauses. I think in certain industries there’s going to be really no basic recovery in a significant way. I’m afraid that the problem of unemployment is going to continue with us for some time to come, and that really is the biggest thing in the country today. We’ve dispensed with the word Inflation, really. It’s a non-subject, why? Because it’s down to around 3 to 4 percent as against 14 percent a couple of years, so now the unemployment factor is the one that’s on most peoples minds. And that is going to continue down as the economy continues to grow, that it will not affect everybody as well as some other people, there’s no question about that.”

Hindsight and the reading of Tea Leaves. Twenty-six years ago they were doing it. Twenty-six years later, they still are.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 473

PLAYS: 269

(Sen. John Tower . . . more or less)

The Reagan years saw Americas fair share of military excursions overseas. Between a disastrous stay in Lebanon, an invasion of the island of Grenada, the ongoing skirmishes with Libya, our clandestine involvement in Nicaragua and El Salvador - the list is pretty endless. All were done under the veil of the Cold War - the eternal "good fight" against Communist insurgency throughout the world. But more and more the real motives were being revealed and they had more to do with sources of raw materials (i.e. oil) than they did with Moscow. Russia was knee-deep in their own Afghanistan, and we were busy supplying arms to the Mujahadeen (i.e. Taliban) - but our "tinkering in internal affairs" was the subtext, while the Media attention was drawn to the splashier pictures - Mohammar Khadafi, Yuri Andropov and the Evil Empire. CBS News program Face The Nation had a panel featuring Senator John Tower (R-Texas), Chairman of The Senate Armed Services Committee discussing our latest set of situations and our Foreign Policy on August 7, 1983.

Sen. John Tower: “I think it should be understood that the United States is committed to the protection of its vital interests abroad . . . we don’t want to find ourselves more or less isolated in this world from important sources of raw materials.”

George Herman (CBS News): “Are you concerned at all about the issue of legitimacy, for example the side that we are supporting, that of President Hissene Habre` is a government which took over and forced out the previous President whose name was Goukouni Queddei, as I recall. So that we are really supporting rebels or insurgents ore revolutionaries against what was a legitimate government . . . .”

Tower: “The fact is, that is the recognized government of Chad. It is the government that is accredited to various capitals throughout the world. It is the government that is recognized by the Organization of African States.”

Herman: “But it’s a civil war, shouldn’t we . . . .?”

Tower: “I understand that . . but the point is, not involvement in the civil war, but . . trying to prevent the intrusion of others in the civil war and turning it to their own uses. Don’t think that Colonel Khadifi has any great philosophical notions about who should be in charge in Chad. Colonel Khadafi would like to be the dominant influence in Chad. And the implications for other African states and the implications for the United States and Western Europe and our interests there are very obvious to me . . . “

Eventually the lid would be blown off the Iran-Contra affair, but in 1983 it was Business As Usual.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 36

PLAYS: 8

(Sargent Shriver and Peace Corps Volunteers - an abundance of optimism)

The Peace Corps came about as the result of The New Frontier - the brainchild of the Kennedy administration. In 1961 a program was set up to get Americas youth involved in the world by going overseas to help set up schools, libraries, infrastructure - anything to be of service where it was needed. A nice idea, and one which captured the imaginations of thousands of young adults wanting to be part of the optimistic change that was so prevalent in the 1960s.

R. Sargent Shriver was given the task of setting the agency up. He was its first architect. He was also given the task of having to explain just what it was he planned on doing. And so he went on the talk show circuit to lay out in plain terms, just what the Peace was and what it wasn't.One of those talk shows was CBS News' Capitol Cloakroom from October 1961.

Nancy Hanschman (CBS News): “Are your Peace Corps men expected to proselytize to Democracy in any way at all? What is the briefing you give them on this?

Sargent Shriver: “ Well we give them a lot of instruction in American history and government and theory in government and political life and we expect that when they’re asked questions by the people in their foreign country they’ll be able to give them intelligent, informed answers. We don’t go out there and tell them ‘now here is Course Number 101 in American Government – sell this, if you can to the people in the Philippines.’ They’re not out there as traveling salesman, they’re not out there to get up on a soapbox and give a speech. But they are supposed to be out there as well informed, intelligent Americans, able to respond to questions, and even to tough questions from people in foreign countries.”

The Peace Corps became a great success and did a lot to improve our somewhat sagging reputation throughout the world.

And considering the number of "yanqui go home" placards from demonstrations around the world that graced most newspaper front pages and nightly newscasts through the 1950s, that was a good thing.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (61)

PLAYS: (366)

November 12, 2009 CBS News

From TPM Muckraker--Rep. Buyer Flounders In CBS Interview About His Iffy Foundation:

Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN) sat down for an interview with CBS Evening News about his charity, but struggled to answer basic questions about the Frontier Foundation, which collects big donations from industry sources trying to influence Buyer but gives out no money for its putative mission of supporting Indiana students.

Buyer abruptly ended the interview with CBS, which aired last night, literally rushing out of his seat to make a meeting.

Among the questions he couldn't answer: why the foundation, which as recently as last month shared space with Buyer's campaign office in Monticello, Indiana, no longer has a physical address

"I was so focused on making sure that we were legal, that I probably didn't pay as close attention as I should have on, quote, appearances," the congressman said.

Asked by reporter Sharyl Attkisson about legislation he has introduced or supported that helps donors to Frontier, Buyer says at one point: "Trying to match up legislation like that is erroneous. You shouldn't do that Sharyl. I think that it's, I think it's wrong."

Continue reading...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 41

PLAYS: 17

(Nguyen Cao Ky and LBJ in 1966 - Tea leaves in the eye of the beholder)

Since the talk this week centers on the endless war in Afghanistan, I thought it might be a good idea to visit another endless war from another time; Vietnam.

Like Afghanistan, Vietnam wasn't instantly met with derision and questions over our involvement. Like Iraq though, we were also sold a somewhat leaky bill of goods and goaded into pledging lives and untold millions over an involvement that had no timetable and no real plan.

The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is Iraq bears some resemblance to an organized country. Where Afghanistan is one big grab-bag of tribes, sects and factions that have been over-run, quasi-colonized and fought over for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Just like Vietnam.

In 1966 we were still getting our feet wet in Vietnam, having gone from "advisers" to "troops on the ground" in a little over a year. Support and the "domino theory" were still very much alive and our presence increased on an almost daily basis.

But also in 1966 there were the seeds of questions being sown - what was the plan? How long was it going to take? When it is supposed to end? How many troops are needed? What really was the government of South Vietnam all about?

Just like Afghanistan.

And so on June 21, 1966 Eric Severeid delivered a fifteen minute commentary on our state of siege in Vietnam.

Eric Severeid: “A crucial question: Whether our resistance in Vietnam is preventing the spread of Chinese dominance in other Asian countries, through their propaganda infiltration and subversion. The Administration points to Indonesia, where the powerful Chinese-inspired Communist apparatus was smashed not long ago. That would never have happened, we like to think were we not there in Vietnam. If this is true, all of us would feel very much better about this war in Vietnam. My personal opinion is that it’s not true.”

Needless to say, those questions only grew in number and intensity over the next several years as our justifications grew less and less feasible. It would seem we are heading in that direction again.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (75)

PLAYS: (166)

President Barack Obama told CBS News' Bob Schieffer that "the 24-hour news cycle and cable television and blogs" focus on the most extreme elements which fuels angry protests.

"They can't get enough of conflict. It's cat nip to the media right now. The easiest way to get 15 minutes of fame is to be rude to somebody. In that environment, I think it makes it more difficult for us to solve the problems that the American people want us to solve," said Obama.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 130

PLAYS: 22

("Same as It Ever Was . . . .Same As It Ever Was")

Believe me, I'm not singling out 1974 as a focal point for things gone wrong. But with all due fairness, most indications point to this being around the time of the Great National Nervous Breakdown and the long painful assessment of "where did we go wrong?". Call it Navel Gazing, call it Overwhelming Guilt, America was truly bothered by a lot of things - and Television News was viewed as a biggest culprit.

The problem then, as is the problem now with Mainstream News, particularly with Network News, is getting any useful information out of the half-hour format that's been the standard since the inception of Television News in the early 1950's. The problems were wide and varied, from advertising influence to the nature of Television being a visual medium and some news stories just weren't visual.

It hasn't changed and, if anything has become less and less relevant over the years as news has become more focused on entertainment, rather than a place of hard (and useful) information.

In this broadcast, again part of the National Town Meeting series, features New York Times Correspondent Harrison Salisbury, Journalist David Halberstam, former FCC Chairman Nicholas Johnson and former head of CBS News Sig Mickelson from November 3, 1974. The audience consists of Yale University students (where the Town Hall was held) who ask a number of pointed questions.

Bruce Burke (Student): “I kind of wonder about the whole notion of the Fairness Doctrine. As I understand it, the Fairness Doctrine tends to apply to hard news broadcasts . And it seems to me that, while the Fairness Doctrine to apply to Editorial type content would in fact be a wise thing, considering the immediacy of the impact and the availability to other speakers outside those of the Network organizations. It seems to me questionable for the various networks to be monitored, by either private organizations or others as to the fairness content of their hard news broadcasts. I was wondering what the speakers would think about the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine as it concerns hard news.

Sig Michelson: “I think the Fairness Doctrine is about as required for the human being as a tail, which we long since got rid of when we quit living in trees. I think as long as our broadcasting is operated on the basis of a trusteeship principle which was written into the Federal Radio Act back of 1927 and under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, that the licensing process in of itself is quite adequate to keep a reasonable degree of fairness as long as the broadcaster is a trustee of the public interest. On the other hand, I think it’s a very dangerous commodity as Mister Whitehead tried to use it in his speech out in Indianapolis in 1973 when he suggested that this was a wedge, a weapon the local stations could use to force the networks to knuckle down with their news broadcasting. I think it’s a very dangerous weapon and I would like to see it eliminated, and I’d like to see us go back to where we were before 1949, and operate on the Trusteeship Principle and maintain our fairness on that basis.

Bear in mind that this is before the wave of deregulation during the Reagan years gutted the FCC, converted entire networks into propaganda outlets, turned the Fairness Doctrine into a worthless piece of paper,obliterated newspapers, dismantled Broadcast News Divisions, converted the Trusteeship Principle into a very bad joke and replaced much useful news with team coverage of celebrity rehabs.

In short, made anything you could use pretty much impossible to find.

Every time someone (okay, my oldest childhood friend who, despite years of my positive influence, only watches Fox News with her libertarian hubby) tells me how her insurance is fine and she doesn't want Obama's "socialist" healthcare reform, I respond, "You don't have health insurance. You have the illusion of health insurance, and for your sake, I hope you never find out." Oy.

(CBS) President Obama will be promoting health care reform this week in Virginia and North Carolina, and plans to keep the pressure on Congress during next month's recess. One argument for health care reform is that 47 million Americans are uninsured.

But not everyone knows that another 25 million are underinsured as CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reports.

John Stewardson is up at dawn, working for the local 602 union in Washington, D.C. But by 11:30 a.m., he's home fixing lunch for his ailing wife Linda, a cancer survivor.

"I'm just going to have to take medicine for the rest of my life," she said.

Diagnosed with a brain tumor last summer, she's in remission. Now it's her family's financial health at stake. In March, their healthcare insurance capped-out at $150,000 of treatment, minimum coverage by industry standards.

The cost of treating cancer and its side effects demolished their life savings.

"It's like she fell out a cancer tree and hit every branch on the way down," John Stewardson said.

They owe more than $100,000 in medical bills.

Dr. Deepa Subramaniam is counseling more and more patients like Linda - forced to decide which treatments are worth the cost.

"I am trying to balance cost and effectiveness in her case," Subramaniam said. "You worry that somehow by choosing a treatment that is less expensive, that we are compromising the quality of the care."

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is leading the effort to push the affordable health choices act through the Senate. He supports a government insurance plan that eliminates lifetime and annual caps on all healthcare plans.

"The underinsured are a critical group," Dodd told Miller. "In some cases 53 percent don't know they're underinsured. So they either have a huge co-pay if the problem happens or the deductibles being so high they might as well not have insurance."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 142

PLAYS: 23

(Nixon in Caracas - It wasn't kisses they were throwing)

A look back at our previous stabs at foreign policy tonight. This one has to do with the ill-fated Vice-President Nixon Goodwill tour of Latin America in 1958.

The reaction was particularly hostile towards Nixon and it came as something of a surprise to the White House.

Initial reaction was Communist sympathizers whipping up anti-American sentiment, and targeting Nixon during his visit as a show to the world that the U.S. was losing support in the Southern Hemisphere.

But it seems the Anti-American sentiment had very little to do with Cold War posturing - we were simply the bad guys and no one in Washington wanted to admit it.

Shortly after the visit was cut short, CBS Radio ran a special edition of their "Radio Beat" discussion series and asked the question "what went wrong?"

The broadcast, from May 15, 1958 featured Moderator Stuart Novins and Galo Plaza, former President of Ecuador. Adolf A. Burleigh, former Assistant Secretary of State. Serafino Romualdi, Inter-American Representative for the AF of L/CIO (and also, it was later found, a long time CIA agent). Robert Alexander, Associate Professor of Economics at Rutgers University, Frances Grant, Secretary General of the Inter-American Center for Democracy and Freedom and CBS news correspondent Wells Church, who was traveling with the Nixon party.

This one hour panel discussion focuses on why the U.S. presence in Latin America has cultivated such a degree of hostility, and what has happened to U.S./Latin American relations since the end of World War 2.

Stuart Novins:

“ Vice-President Nixon is back in Washington. He and Mrs. Nixon have had a grueling personal experience. It’s not pleasant, to the say the least, when what starts out as a goodwill trip ends in booing, stone-throwing and a situation dangerous enough to cause the White House to alert Marines and paratroopers. It’s fair to say, I think, that this also was an unpleasant experience for most Americans. The realization that we are not liked is always shocking. But sober second thoughts follow the initial impact. Is it that we are not liked by large segments of South American, or is it simply that the Communists don’t like us? Does it matter whether we’re liked or not? Do we need to reexamine our national policies relating to South America? Is there a real communist threat there?"

As someone who spent two hours on the phone talking to six different insurance reps Monday, trying to find out why my insurer was trying to stick me with a $12,000 emergency room bill, I can only repeat what has become my personal mantra: The only people who are really satisfied with their health coverage are those who have never had to use it.

The industry that helped scuttle health reform 15 years ago with its "Harry and Louise" ads is back, voicing support for a central element of the Obama administration's plans: making sure everyone is covered.

That does not mean the industry is backing the administration. Indeed, the leader of the insurance lobby has sent lawmakers a message: Be careful what you change, because "77 percent of Americans are satisfied with their existing health insurance coverage."

Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), invoked the statistic to argue against the creation of a government-run insurance option. But the polls are not that simple, and her assertion reveals how the industry's effort to defend its turf has led it to cherry-pick the facts.

The poll Ignagni was citing actually undercuts her position: By 72 to 20 percent, Americans favor the creation of a public plan, the June survey by the New York Times and CBS News found. People also said that they thought government would do a better job than private insurers of holding down health-care costs and providing coverage.

In addition, data from a Kaiser Family Foundation poll last year, compiled at the request of The Washington Post, suggest that the people who like their health plans the most are the people who use them the least.

Those who described their health as "excellent" -- people who presumably had relatively little experience pursuing medical care or submitting claims -- were almost twice as likely as those in good, fair or poor health to rate their private health insurance as excellent.

The level of satisfaction expressed with private insurance was essentially the same as that with Medicare, the government program for the elderly and disabled.

The industry's stance against a public health plan revives shades of 1994, when it was instrumental in blocking President Bill Clinton's health-care proposals.

"A government-run plan would turn back the clock on efforts to improve the quality and safety of patient care," AHIP has argued. Such a plan "will ultimately limit choices and access," the big insurer WellPoint contends.

But systemic problems have persisted for 15 years, and it is not clear how much private insurers have done, or can do, to solve them.

"Insurers promise choice, they promise innovation, they promise a lot of things, but I think they've delivered very little," said Alan Sager, professor of health policy and management at Boston University. "I think net they give us very bad value for the 10 to 20 percent share of the health dollar they skim off the top."

Instead of choice, they offer "the illusion of choice," he said.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 799

PLAYS: 490

(There goes the neighborhood)

(John Amato: I thought it would be fun to hear actual news reports of the Moon Walk from 1969. Gordon's collection of historical events is truly amazing. Promoted from Newstalgia)

I suppose if you aren't aware we're sitting in the middle of the 40th anniversary of our landing on the Moon, you are probably living in an isolation tank, or unconscious - or both.

So anything I have to add to this mix might be construed as redundant.

That said, it's difficult not to sift through some 80 hours of sound recordings from the day and not get a little choked up, remembering all the anticipation and nail biting that went on.

You have to remember that, prior to this day in 1969, everyone's concept of the moon was this large ball in the sky that people wrote songs about. Funny, they don't write those songs any more. The romance of the great unknown has been popped, as it were. Romance got a big footprint on it.

Only a year earlier the best it became was an orbit around the moon with Apollo 8, with still the wistful romance very much in place.

From July 20th on, the world and our place in the universe changed, The Great Mysterious had been broken and there was no turning back.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2098)

PLAYS: (5030)

After quitting her job in Alaska while many Americans struggle to make ends meet, a new CBS poll found that most Americans think she's not up to the task of being President---including a huge majority of Republicans.

If Sarah Palin is resigning her position as Alaska's Governor to run for president, she faces doubts – even from Republicans – about her ability to be an effective one, according to a new CBS News poll.

Less than one in four Americans, 22 percent in particular, say she does have the ability to be an effective president. Only 33 percent of Republicans say she does. Sixty five percent of all Americans, and 51 percent of Republicans say she does not.

In this CBS News Poll, conducted one week after Palin announced she would resign, these assessments are even more negative than they were among registered voters before last year's presidential election. Then, 37 percent of all registered voters thought Palin could be effective if it became necessary for her to take on the job, and 53 percent did not...read on

I'd say that's terrible news for her, and it shows that America isn't buying the reasons she gave for quitting with a year and a half left in her term during the nutty press conference she staged. And what was with all the animals quaking in the background?

Another CBS poll, which was released on July 13th, now shows that most Americans believe she quit to help her own political career.

A majority of Americans believe that Sarah Palin is resigning as governor of Alaska not because it's in the best interest of her state but because it will benefit her political career, a new CBS News poll finds.

Just 24 percent of those accept Palin's explanation that she resigned because it was the right thing to do for Alaska. More than twice that percentage – 52 percent – cited her political ambition as the reason for her resignation. An additional 14 percent said they don't know the reason.

Even Republicans are skeptical of the explanation, with a higher percentage saying Palin resigned for her political career (36 percent) than saying she did so for Alaska (31 percent).

Wonder if all those right-wing talking heads who were touting the earlier polls showing strong GOP support for Palin will bring these polls up ...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 116

PLAYS: 19

(Just your average day in paradise.)

I'm always looking for the day in history where nothing happened. I have yet to find it. Well, take this seemingly innocuous date - June 17, 1953. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were clinging to stays of execution all the way to the Supreme Court. President Eisenhower was hopeful for a unified Korea at some point, and there was rioting in East Berlin against the Soviet backed East German government. None of the stories had happy endings, not in 1953 anyway.

But this is the way it was on June 17, 1953, as reported by Charles Collingwood and the staff at CBS News.

Further evidence there is no such thing as a non-news day.

Isn't it great, how our SEC is such an ardent watchdog of Wall Street's wrongdoing?

CBS News has learned that two attorneys at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are under "active" criminal investigation by the FBI for trading stocks based on inside information.

Accusations against the two lawyers - a man and a woman whose names have not been released - are detailed in a report by the SEC inspector general obtained exclusively by CBS News.

The report, based on a review and analysis of "more than two years of e-mail and brokerage records," puts increased pressure on a commission that has come under fire lately for failing to detect the $60 billion Bernard L. Madoff Ponzi scheme, and turning a blind eye to the Wall Street financial crisis.

"We ought to be outraged if there is one insider trading information that’s leading to personal profit," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CBS News.

In response to the IG report, Grassley sent a letter to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro expressing that outrage and requesting detailed information about the stock holdings and trading practices of all SEC employees.

"It’s hard to imagine a more serious violation of the public trust than for the agency responsible for protecting investors to allow its employees to profit from non-public information about its enforcement activities," Grassley said in his letter to Schapiro.

According to the report, the male attorney under investigation by the FBI works in the Office of the SEC's Chief Counsel and "has access to a tremendous amount of nonpublic information."

The report alleges both the male attorney and female attorney - who works in the enforcement division - "traded in the stock of a large financial services company" despite being told by another SEC employee of ongoing "investigations of that company." The report calls this is a direct violation of SEC rules.