I watched it and also read his bio on wikipedia, for what that's worth. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be quick to praise or agree with him because we may like or agree with what he says.
He helped institute the long trends that are very apparent today starting at the beginning of Reagan's first term. So, he put up some resistance to certain elements of that plan, which also hasn't been deviated from since, only adjusted to maintain it's trend line, and being only 10% or 20% guilty by his involvement is still guilty. He's a failure in the real world of finance and at putting his knowledge or beliefs into action in that area too. But, where he really lost my interest was pointing to the same old falsities in our supposed budget shortcomings. The last I knew, SS and Medicare was funded by itself, although the funds are diminishing faster than they are coming in, pointing to those two and saying they are a part of the cause of all problems is ludicrous. The only way that I see either of those two things as an issue, is because the lack of funds to payout must be borrowed because they have already been spent, so interest is the only issue.
But, if we apply the same somewhat loose standards to saying SS and Medicare is a "cost", let's also apply that to the numerous amounts of foreign aid that is given to specifically buy our military hardware or equipment, because that also affects the numbers.
Beyond that, anything Stockman says can be interpreted to be against the status quo, which is Obama's budget. Of course the right leaning networks would give him the time of day. I think he's just trying to put himself in the spotlight to help sell his book, or give it some credibility.
The Kazinski thing kind of flew over my head, what did you mean about that?
