James Steele: Here's an example of the Top Down... steal here: Look at the kind of money just that some of these folks are putting out there. We cite the Koch brothers in the book. But even since the book came out, one of their non profit identities has announced that they're going to pump millions and millions of dollars into the electoral campaigns in the so called "swing states." States like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. And in the case of Pennsylvania, their whole pitch is going to be that Obama's a deficit President. Well, you may not like Obama, there may be something about his policies you don't like. The "deficit President?" I mean the deficit President was a locomotive running through this economy by the time he took over. Which means it was going to pick up steam. Secondly, you have the economy in a melt down, which means your tax revenues are going to fall off, which is going to further add to the deficit. Thirdly, rather than implementing really significant broad based programs to put money in the economy, there's really nothing beyond the Stimulus Bill which was roundly and strongly criticized by various deficit hawks. But here you go, you've got two brothers together worth what $50 billion in their various Foundations. They can pump money into this campaign to try to change peoples' lives? I mean is that what democracy is about? So the point you made a minute ago about how they're going to hold tenaciously to this, is so true. The question is, is there going to be enough counter billing, advertising and power to discredit that effort. And that's what we're worried about, because very often in some recent previous elections it's been very influential in shaping peoples' vote, very often not to vote in what turns out to be not their best interest.
Rob Kall: Can you talk a little bit about how those ultra wealthy are influencing government and policy and regulation, and taxes, that they hold onto and grab even more from the middle class and the poor?
James Steele: [Jim Steele] What they do in part, and this is one of the things that was kind of interesting to us when we did the book. So many of the foundations that spew out a line of reasoning that says "minimum wage is bad; de-regulation good; and unrestricted free trade good for the country.. low taxes or no taxes, best in all situations." Most of those foundations are non profits date from the '70s. It's very interesting. They were not, a whole lot of them, years before that. And they all got up to speed with their in-house scholars and scientists, and they turn out their position papers that look very scholarly. And a lot of the media has picked up a lot of this stuff as though some of these arguments are shared evenly around the country, when in fact many of the positions advocated by these think tanks really only benefits a tiny sliver of the population. But because of that, it's contributed to this notion that these are widely discussed and widely debated issues. And a lot of the media, our business unfortunately, has succumbed to this and picked it up as though these things are really bona fide discussions when in fact they're, most of them are bogus. And affect, and really do not affect the great mass of people. But that's affected our legislators, that's affected a lot of public opinion, and it's ultimately, we think, a very pivotal factor in dismantling the middle class. Putting pressure.
Rob Kall: All right, let's talk about the media. I want to talk about your experience. Now you are highly honored and celebrated journalists. I'd like to get some advice from you for writers nowadays. There are a lot of bloggers, there are a lot of amateur writers out there. How can people, who have a lot of time because they're out of work, or because they're passionately caring and interested in this" how can they learn from your experience? What advice would you give them as writers and journalists?
James Steele: [Jim Steele here] We have always, and this hasn't really changed" we've always suggested that unfortunately people have to kind of connect the dots. There's no one place that you're going to see everything. But you just [have] to be informed, because information comes in so many different directions, you really have to try to pull some of that together. And you know, that's what our business ought to do more of. That's what Don and I tried to do over the years. We've tried to connect those dots on a lot of these big issues. But more of it needs to be done. And the problem now in some ways, it's almost a blizzard of information that people half the time don't know what to go to, what to look at, what to believe. And the internet is both a marvellous creature, but also the purveyor of a lot of nonsense. So it's in some ways harder then ever to connect the dots than the old days. But it's still what has to be done to know what's happened.
Donald Barlett: And one good sign out there is the investigative reporting today, some of it is the best it's ever been. And contrary to what people like to think. There's always been investigative reporting, but it was very little of it for, you know, most of the life of journalism. It's really only come of age since the "70s, and as bad as things are in journalism right now, there's some remarkable investigative reporting going on. And somehow this has got to be further expanded, you know, that's for, you know, people to figure out how to do. But what it does show you, is that the potential is there. We just have to find a way to get people to do it.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
