BlogAds

Show Me Progress blog advertising is good for you

In KC? Join us for libations every Wednesday!

Vulcan's Forge:
The Midwest's Premiere Sterling Silver Jewelers

Located in the heart of Westport -- The Original Kansas City

Californo's: Elegant dining in a delightful atmosphere, located in the heart of Westport

Missouri news, views, and issues - Show Me Progress

Hecklers at the Carnahan town hall

by: hotflash

Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 21:19:21 PM CDT

UPDATE: Here's a link to the results of the CBO report that shows a $6 billion surplus projected over 10 years if the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 were enacted. (added by Clark)
______________________________________________

I assume that Russ Carnahan's Monday morning town hall on health care reform was part of Obama's push to mobilize support for passing the legislation. I got a robocall this evening while I was out from Lacy Clay, inviting me to take part in a conference call about health care. Part of the same campaign, probably.

And maybe Carnahan convinced a few more people in the crowded cafeteria at Forest Park Community College that the current ideas being floated in the House are worth their support. Most of the audience members were Democrats, as you could tell by the vocal support when Carnahan mentioned the proviso in the legislation calling for a tax on the most affluent 1.2 percent of the population to help fund health care reform. But there were plenty of right wingers there who wouldn't have been convinced of the need for health care reform if Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater had appeared in the flesh, with halos shimmering above their heads, and told them so.

The wingnuts were there to heckle. Listen to the tempest they raised when Carnahan said the CBO estimates that the new plan might actually accrue a $6 billion surplus over the next ten years.

There were plenty of other times when they booed or laughed or yelled, "Lies! Lies!"

hotflash :: Hecklers at the Carnahan town hall

Not that all of the heat came from right wingers. Quite a few single-payer advocates were in the room and they expressed their opinions--forcefully but in a mostly civil manner. They got in line at the mikes and had their say.

Despite the sometimes heated emotions in the room, Carnahan and the five people on the panel managed to dispense a good deal of information. Calmly.

But the bozos who think health care reform will send this nation to the devil provided an object lesson in the differences between Democrats at a Republican town hall and Republicans at a Democratic one. As soon as Carnahan announced that some of the questions would be read from cards that people had filled out, one yahoo yelled: "Gonna screen those? Or will they come out of a basket?"

The fella's been attending too many Republican town halls. Hey, mister? Don't assume that Democrats follow the same play book as your guys. At the Akin/Luetkemeyer town hall last April, the questions obviously were screened, and only after listening for half an hour or more to factually-challenged assertions from the two representatives, did one man speak up and point out that the Employee Free Choice Act did not contain any provision depriving workers of the right to a secret vote, as Akin was saying it did. The protester wasn't voicing a mere matter of opinion. He was pointing out incontrovertible fact. That audience member was escorted from the room.

Admittedly, the questions Carnahan read off of cards--there were only a few--were screened. But anybody could have his say at the mike. Indeed, one of the right wingers did.

If I'd gone into that meeting with no opinion on the merits of the new legislation, the wingnuts would have helped me decide what I believed. The opposite of whatever they did. But the apostles of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who find bombastic hatefulness appealing, wouldn't understand those of us who don't.

Tags: missouri, Russ Carnahan, health care reform, hecklers, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Hecklers at the Carnahan town hall | 9 comments

This seems to be part of an organized effort .... (0.00 / 0)

here Michelle Malkin implies as much (with pictures of protestors in front of McCaskill's ST. Louis Office last Friday).

These guys obey the rule that says if there aren't enough people who share your opinion to prevail by force of numbers, hide that fact by trying to make much more noise than the other guys. The problem is that it works with some of our congress people.

by: WillyK @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 02:31:50 AM UTC

Hmm (0.00 / 0)

While not condoning what the disupters said, calling them wingnuts does nothing to advance any sort of discussion and I would appreciate a link to Rep. Carnahan's and the CBO's claims of a six billion dollar surplus if anyone has that handy.

by: John_Schultz @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 22:28:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Uh... (0.00 / 0)

...we're a partisan progressive political blog. Calling right wingnuts "wingnuts" is an integral part of the zeitgeist here:

User Guidelines/Disclaimer
...Wailing about being victimized doesn't wear well on anyone. It's laughable when it comes from supposedly self-reliant right wingnuts. Be the rating...

[emphasis added]

543,895 votes

by: Michael Bersin @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 23:55:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

The CBO link... (0.00 / 0)

...is now above, thoughtfully provided by Clark.

543,895 votes

by: Michael Bersin @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:25:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

It took 2 seconds of Googling (0.00 / 0)

by: Clark @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 16:47:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Heh. (0.00 / 0)

Why am I not surprised?

543,895 votes

by: Michael Bersin @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 18:22:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you for the link (0.00 / 0)

Now, where is the $6 billion surplus quantified? I pulled this from the executive summary and it looks like a net increase in the deficit:

According to CBO's and JCT's assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill's insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those
10 years.
By the end of the 10-year period, in 2019, the coverage provisions would add $202 billion to the federal deficit, CBO and JCT estimate. That increase would be partially offset by net cost savings of $50 billion and additional revenues of $86 billion, resulting in a net increase in the deficit of an estimated $65 billion.
It is important to note that the figures presented here do not represent a complete cost estimate for the coverage provisions of the legislation. They reflect specifications provided by the committee staff rather than detailed analysis of the legislative language. They do not include certain costs that the government would incur to administer the proposed changes and the impact of the bill's provisions on other federal programs. Nevertheless, the estimates reflect the major net budgetary effects of H.R.

3200.

by: John_Schultz @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 23:36:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

You are right that the surplus is not apparent in this document ... (0.00 / 0)

because it has to be considered in conjunction with pay-go legislation in H.R. 2920:

If there are those who are wondering about the current difference in the CBO report that shows the House health care legislation adding $239 billion to the deficit, it's because the pay-go legislation which would strike this difference hasn't been passed yet. The Tri-Committee staff is basing their calculations of the $6 billion surplus contingent on the passage of the pay-go legislation. So until the pay-go legislation is passed, the $245 billion which is being carved out from the pay-go legislation won't be compared against the CBO projected addition of $239 billion to the national deficit in the House legislation. Once the pay-go legislation is passed then the $245 billion carved out from the pay-go will be compared against the $239 billion to the deficit to produce an overall $6 billion surplus.
The pay-go legislation, H.R. 2920, by Rep. Steny Hoyer will be scheduled for a vote this week on July 21st at 3PM in the House Rules Committee for full consideration to be introduced onto the House floor.

by: WillyK @ Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 05:29:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

For anothe take on the savings .... (0.00 / 0)

whch sees saving as part of a process that is taking shape over time--as long as we do the right things now-- see this article by Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic. Among Cohn's points is that this legislation, which is still a work n progress will be designed as far as costs go, "to bend the curve over time."

An interesting side issue that he raises is that:

Many of the lawmakers complaining that reform won't go far enough to control costs aren't willing to back proposals that actually would control costs. Over at the Post website, Ezra Klein has devised a clever five-part test for any politician--or anybody else, for that matter--who wants to criticize reform by citing Elmendorf. It's a safe bet many of reform's loudest critics would fail.

by: WillyK @ Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 16:38:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]