…because I’m an economist and a mom–that’s why!

CNN’s “Your $$$$$” Show to Feature IOUSA Solutions

April 9th, 2010 . by economistmom


If you’re not too busy watching golf or your own kid on the Little League field (that’s where I’ll be on Saturday), please tune in to CNN for the “Your $$$$$” show on either Saturday at 1 or Sunday at 3.  From the “All Things CNN” blog, here’s the scoop:

This weekend, CNN’s Your $$$$$ will feature sections of I.O.U.S.A.: Solutions – America’s Debt Crisis, a groundbreaking and timely documentary that takes on what some say is the biggest problem facing our country – the national debt. In this follow-up film to the original documentary I.O.U.S.A. featured on CNN last year, the dire debt situation is explored from all angles. Your $$$$$ co-host Christine Romans moderates a panel that not only covers all viewpoints, but spans across generations. I.O.U.S.A.: Solutions is a documentary directed by Patrick Creadon, produced by Christine O’Malley, and presented by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

Panel guests include: Pete Peterson, Founder and Chairman of Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Co-Founder and Chairman Emeritus of The Blackstone Group and former U.S. Commerce Secretary; David Walker, President and CEO, Peter G. Peterson Foundation and former U.S. Comptroller General; Bill Bradley, former U.S. Senator and Managing Director, Allen & Company LLC; Amy Holmes, Independent Conservative and Co-Host, Talk Radio Network’s “American Morning News;” Diane Lim Rogers, Chief Economist, The Concord Coalition and Blogger,; Maya Maguineas, President, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and Director, Fiscal Policy Program, New America Foundation; Joe Johns, CNN Correspondent; Jeanne Sahadi, Senior Writer, CNNMoney.

CNN Your $$$$$ - I.O.U.S.A.: Solutions - America’s Debt Crisis will be 2 hours 1 – 3 pm (ET) on Saturday and 3-5pm (ET) on Sunday!!!!!!

11 Responses to “CNN’s “Your $$$$$” Show to Feature IOUSA Solutions”

  1. comment number 1 by: Peggy Carlisle

    When will you play I.O.U.S.A.: Solution’s-American’s Debt Crisis again? I would like to record it for my classes.

  2. comment number 2 by: SteveinCH


    I saw/heard most of the Solutions program today (nice long trip to the gym). It was actually quite well done in my opinion. The only real exception to me was the segment on health care. All of the other segments touched on the core issues. The health care one not so much.

    There were two major misses in my opinion. The first was the argument that total health system costs need to be controlled in order to control government costs. I just don’t see why this is true. Government can constrain cost/procedure and access to cause government payments to slow regardless of what’s going on in the broader market. Would it be easier/politically more palatable if the whole system rate of growth slowed? Of course, but I’m not sure the government can do this and I’m quite convinced it isn’t their responsibility.

    The second miss was on the fundamentals. People skirted the issue a bit but in the end, if you’re going to control costs, there are only two levers, price and quantity. Long term, we either need to slow the rate of growth of price (that means paying providers less) or reduce the growth/shrink demand (that means rationing by whatever name you want to use). It seemed like most of the panelists ducked it as did the movie.

    Quick question, do you think the panelists could agree on “specific” recommendations? Most of the discussion was still at the conceptual levels and didn’t really make any tradeoffs across areas. Do you think the panel could have agreed 80 or 90 percent on a specific solution? If yes, that’s reason for hope but I suspect the answer might be no.

    Someday, I hope Concord can reassemble the panel and get a bit more of a dialog going as opposed to a serial discussion with the moderator.

    Take care

  3. comment number 3 by: Jim Glass

    Quick question, do you think the panelists could agree on “specific” recommendations?

    I don’t understand. We’ve already paid 40% of the cost of HCR with these savings. Right?

  4. comment number 4 by: SteveinCH

    Well yes, I understand that 40% of the payments for HCR are unspecified savings that Congress can override in Medicare. That just makes it worse of course and will have to be part of what we eventually agree on.

  5. comment number 5 by: Brooks

    [I submitted a comment but I think a tech problem messed up the submission, so I'll recreate it more or less below]

    I saw most of the program and thought it was good for a general audience.

    One thing I was wondering: Why was Amy Holmes there? All the other panelists seemed to be making a good-faith effort to approach the issue in a serious, impartial way, but Holmes seemed to view her role as that of a typical talk show host: get in as many ideological/partisan talking points as possible. There is certainly no shortage in the media of such talking points from each “side”, so no need to have a personal representative among serious panelists seeking to present a realistic view of the problem and of potential solutions. And if the idea was to include some (typically less serious) ideological/partisan talk show host types just to deal with what they say to their respective audiences, why no liberal counterpart?

  6. comment number 6 by: Brooks

    Oh, and I realize one/the answer could be “For higher ratings”. I just meant I don’t see a substantive rationale for her presence (or at least not for a talk show type from just one side).

  7. comment number 7 by: Mo Ahmed

    Is Sarah Palin and the Tea Party viewing the splendid documentary? Add Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Wrangel, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Hannity and others on the Left and the Right. Maybe they will learn something.
    Mo Ahmed

  8. comment number 8 by: Brooks

    Good column, with some food for thought re: various potential ways to hack away at projected deficits. Usually when I see Richard Wolf he’s on Olbermann’s show in partisan liberal mode, but this column seems more thoughtful.

  9. comment number 9 by: SteveinCH

    Read the same column. It seemed reasonable. But we are all going to have to move past the laundry list approach to resolution at some point in the near future

  10. comment number 10 by: AMTbuff

    Here’s a proposal for massive spending cuts:

    As with the Ryan package, the specific service reductions are not identified. Just as arguments for generic tax increases, this approach is not serious and not particularly useful.

    I brought up this proposal to make a point: After the government bond market crashes, spending programs will suffer service cuts even more extreme than those implicit in this “2007″ proposal. Therefore it would be useful to go through the exercise of what we would cut to bring spending down to 2007 levels. Those proposals can then be put on the shelf until the crash.

  11. comment number 11 by: SteveinCH

    I’m with you AMT. My own personal oddsmaking has grand compromise at a 500:1 shot and crisis at 500:499.