Shillville

Forbes on Fox tomorrow, 11 am eastern, I'll be on discussing whether or not the death of Bush's Social Security proposal is good for the stock market. I argue that it is because the trillions in debt taken on to create private accounts would spook the market. I also finally said something I always wanted to say:

I implied that raising the social security tax by 2% would, as the trustees say, solve the problem. Steve Forbes, sitting next to me, said that adding money to the fund is just adding money to a fund that politicians will raid for other purposes. He's right. But, I said, not funding a program just because our representatives are irresponsible is no answer. Then, what came out of my mouth was, "by that logic, we might as well dissolve the government." And Steve said that might not be a bad idea. When we went off the air, Steve and I had a good laugh that we had shared an "anarchy moment" seemingly calling for the end of government in all forms. And, I never thought I'd have an anarchy moment with Steve Forbes, but, that's actually the kind of guy he is. I'm so lefty and he's so righty that he and I tend to come full circle whenever we talk. I never would have guessed that, back before I knew him and watched him run for President twice.

I think I've learned one other thing about TV and if you see this, let me know what you think... I used to memorize a lot of "hard" numbers before I went on the air. But I now have the feeling that saying "trillions in debt" is more effective on television, than saying "$7 trillion in debt." All in all, I feel like I'm loosening up on the show and that I'm getting my points across better because of it. Journalistic writing demands exactitude. TV seems to punish it. I think. I'm still new at this!