But one place it was well-received: The Charlie Rose Show, a comfortable place for CEOs and insiders to pontificate. The fact that this show is a staple of public television stations around the country is part of the problem FAIR identified in our new report, "Taking the Public Out of Public TV."

The Rose show presented a discussion of the Simpson/Bowles plan on November 11. One guest, Harvard's Martin Feldstein, had this to say:

There is a lot to like in it.  I think that it is very bold.  Every aspect of the fiscal problem has been put on the table.   And yet when I looked at the numbers I thought it didn’t go far enough.

The other guest--David Walker of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation--countered with his take:

I think it was a courageous plan.  It was very comprehensive.  There were changes in every major aspect of the budget.  It  demonstrates that we are in such a deep hole that nothing can be off the table and you have to make some tough choices.  Frankly, I think he could have been even more aggressive with respect  to some of the reforms.

Walker went on to complain, "It is amazing how much controversy there has been, especially from the left, with regard to the Social Security reform proposals, because they are not dramatic or draconian."  He added:  "You get the far right and far left that are out of touch with reality, we need to come up with sensible center solutions."

And just to make sure viewers knew that the guests weren't outside agitators:

ROSE: Did both of you have an opportunity to wade in on this commission to make your views clear?

FELDSTEIN: I did have a chance to talk with some of the commission members about my views on this.

ROSE: David?

WALKER: I had a chance as well, plus it's my understanding that most if not all of them read my book Comeback America.

Public television, giving voice to the voiceless.

What does Feldstein have to say about the tax code change? Well:

In effect, the change would be a tax on the charities, reducing their receipts by a dollar for every dollar of extra revenue the government collects. It is hard to imagine a rationale for taxing schools, hospitals, medical research budgets and arts organizations in this way.... The proposed tax change would apply to married couples with incomes of more than $250,000....

I dunno. I think one rationale for taxing charities in this way is that the government somehow has to come up with the $180 billion it just handed over to AIG.

Seeking a reason for this logical disconnect, Schwarz looks to the Post's identification of Feldstein as simply "an economics professor at Harvard University [and] president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research" and notes "one affiliation the Post left out": "Martin Feldstein is a longtime member of AIG's board of directors. He's also a member of the board's finance committee."