|
The first question was regarding the voucher program - specifically that it would raise costs by shifting from Medicare's 6% expense margin to private insurance companies 20% profit margin.
Charlie emphatically stated the program was "not a voucher," but was instead a "premium support system." Oddly, he stated this system wouldn't take affect for ten years, as it only affects persons 54 years old and under, yet he later stated the medicare trust fund, according to the CBO, would be broke in nine to 11 years.
Charlie stated twice that "budgets are not law." Then explained how a bill becomes a law. He also stated medicare was not part of the budget.
In the most partisan move of the evening, he blamed Obama and the Democrats for not proposing a 'fix' to medicare before the Republicans, stating they "didn't want to stick their necks out first."
The second question was also regarding vouchers, and that any real solution would require "slowing the rate of costs."
Charlie responded that "the Federal government is the biggest provider of health care in the world," and that there currently is "very little competition." He is proposing a "universally deductible premium," which according to him, would benefit the self-employed. He stated we was a proponent of shopping for health care across state lines. He repeated that the medicare voucher program was not a voucher program but rather, a premium support system, that if enacted would not take affect for ten years.
Charlie stated medicare would not be dramatically different than it was before. (!!!) He ended with this zinger, that we've heard "..nothing from the administration yet, or the senate."
The third question again involved health care, specifically relating to high premium costs for a couple of 62 years old, unemployed, and not eligible for medicare. The questioner stated we needed to do something about the cost without damaging medicare.
Charlie was by now starting to stammer. He commented that he had to shop for health care the four years he was out of congress, that he had one choice of provider, and that we had no competition.
Next question about the Ryan budget, relating to tax rate reductions for wealthy, and reducing benefits for those under 55. Questioner was concerned about creating a 'divide & conquer' situation between the younger and older generations, specifically that the younger generation would be paying for the older generation's "Cadillac Plan" without receiving their own.
Charlie stated the tax reductions were not for the wealthy, but were instead for the corporations, who are subject to "the 2nd or 3rd highest tax rates in the world." At this point, Charlie started speaking quite loudly, and using standard talking points I would guess were part of a stump speech at one time.
"I want to grow the economy, stimulate real growth and create jobs. It's our money."
The next question related to unfair trade practice from China, and that countries manipulation of their currency. The questioner specifically asked Bass to support HR639, which repeals title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Charlie responded with statistics. He had spoken at the Grafton County Economic Development Council's awards dinner the prior evening (to which I had an invite, but decided not to pay the $20 to hear him speak, when I could get it for free today). During his visit, he learned that Grafton county's unemployment rate was 4.7%, and that 1 in 4 jobs in this state directly related to trade. He further stated that free trade was important, but all countries should play by the same rules.
The next questioner was hilarious. He rambled on about cold fusion and crazy scientists. Everyone fidgeted for five minutes while he advertised his website. Charlie thanked the man when he finished. Priceless.
Grant Bosse spoke next. The Bosse family is 'big' in Hillsboro Grant specifically runs a Libertarian / Tea Partyesque 'Watchdog' website, complete with standard-bearing 'press releases.' They're usually full of nothingness, but can be entertaining. He stated medicare was 'going broke,' but decided to ask about Libya, specifically relating to committing the military without congressional authority.
I have a diary to this misunderstanding of reality - the President does not need congressional authority to commit the military in support of a UN resolution. But I digress.
Charlie trotted out the war power act, and that Libya was "perplexing and frightening." He stumbled around a bit, but basically stated he thought the actions were misguided and should have received 'significant debate in congress.'
The next question related to the government selling their GM stock at an $11B loss over this coming summer. Charlie knew nothing of it, though he went on to say he opposed the GM bailout.
This next part is unreal. Charlie insisted if the government did nothing, GM would have become 7 or 8 strong and lean auto companies. (!!!) He further stated that because of the government's actions, GM closed Pontiac, Saturn, Oldsmobile. He ended with this, those actions were "not in the best interest of American manufacturing."
I have to say, this is clear evidence this man knows little about the auto industry, how bankruptcy works, or the national security argument for saving the American auto industry. I'm a car guy - thus my screen name - and I could go on and on about how saving the auto industry was the right thing to do, and how Charlie is waaay off. But that's for another day.
The next question asked what was happening with tort reform promised in the health care bill, and why was it harder for businesses to start up today compared with years and years ago.
What a softball.
Charlie stated businesses were absolutely over-regulated, and went on to complain about OSHA required posters that were intended to protect worker's safety. He later answered he supported tort reform.
The next question referred to raising the debt limit. Charlie got excited and took a 'poll.' We had three choices: raising the debt ceiling with no strings attached, raising the debt ceiling with "significant budget controls, and not raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.
I will give him credit for this, he stated raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the future, and it had everything to do with past spending commitments. He's right.
The poll had a small showing for options 1 and 3, and most support for raising the limit with controls. Charlie stated he agreed.
The next resident stated the Clinton surplus was squandered by the Bush administration when they decided to lower taxes instead of reducing the deficit. Charlie, whose face was starting to get red and voice was getting louder, stated the surplus was more the result of the GOP congress, and Bush raised spending and lowered taxes as a result of 9-11. Funny, I seem to remember getting a $300 check prior to the attacks. He further argued with the standard statistics that the rich pay most of the taxes, while the poor pay very little.
The next question involved the northern pass, and the need to find clean sources of energy. She further stated the younger generation was proud to live among wind turbines.
Charlie stated he supported wind turbines, specifically stating he enjoyed riding on Route 31 to see the Lempster farm. He shared a story of seeing a small-scale 'co-generation' plant on government property in Thornton. He was pretty excited about that. He went on to say NH should be at the fore-front of green technology.
I agree with him (gasp).
The next question involved raising funding for special education. I know little about this one, but it related to raising funding to 40% from the current 18%, though when Charlie started in congress in the 90's, it was 3%. He blamed the Democrats for denying his amendment in the 90's to increase special education funding by a half billion because it stole funding from a program they 'liked better.'
The next question involved the questioner's misunderstanding of how the social security COLA is determined. She was complaining about not getting an increase the prior two years, yet seemed to forget the rather large increase three years ago.
It's not complicated. Each year, a benchmark is set. If one year's inflation is raised to a new high-water mark, then the next year costs plummet - no adjustment, then the next year inflation goes up but not above the high water mark, there is no increase. This isn't rocket science.
Charlie spent his entire answer complaining about how the bureau of labor statistics (BLS) calculates inflation, and that it should be changed, rather than explaining to the poor old woman how it all works.
The next question involved off-shore gambling, which appeared to be a pet peeve for the questioner. Charlie opposes gambling. Moving on.
"What are you doing to help create green jobs and spur green innovation?"
Charlie wants to extend tax preferences for green energy: wind, solar, biomass. But also wants a level playing field for all energy, including oil. He further stated policies should benefit the whole country rather than regions.
The last question involved speculating within commodities futures markets. The questioner was rather informed on how the market works, specifically naked shorting.
Charlie seemed a bit taken back by the specificity of the question, choosing to 'think' for a moment. He began asking the questioner how it all worked. Priceless. Charlie basically concluded limits should be set on those trading or taking positions in the futures markets who cannot take delivery of the commodity - oil in particular. Miraculously, I agree.
So there it is. No screaming, threatening or Obama bashing, and oddly a few things on which I agree with the man. But in general, Charlie is not a powerful speaker, does not possess a clear strategy - he appears to be along for the ride, and most importantly, the man is pessimistic. Not to mention his 100% backwards idea of fair taxation and business practices in general. Annie is FAR more hopeful, with a positive vision of the future, and a clear understanding of how to grow green jobs here in NH that cannot be exported.
Slam dunk in 2012.
|
