The second--and actual--listening session I attended yesterday was held by Wisconsin Assemblymembers Tony Staskunas and David Cullen in West Allis. Their purpose was to give an opportunity to be heard to the people who had been shut out from speaking at an official public hearing last month on Gov. Scott Walker's 2011 budget and budget repair bill. Although the venue at the West Allis Library was considerably smaller than the Whitnall High School auditorium in Greenfield when Ryan held his session, it too was SRO.
After a brief introduction, Assemblymen Staskunas and Cullen invited every one of the 50 to 75 people who were there to speak for up to five minutes. I didn't keep count, but many did--including me, although when I decided to attend the session and even after I arrived, I certainly had no intention to do so.
I thanked the assemblymen for providing people the opportunity they were affording their constituents, remarked about the difference between that session and Ryan's and raised the question I would have asked had Ryan called on me.
My question was based on Ryan's "path to prosperity" in America idea of flattening the tax rate for everybody, which he says would result in lower taxes for everybody.
Although Ryan's flatter-tax stucture and lower taxes for everyone, including multibillionaire hedgefunders who pay, at most, 15 percent on their income because they are allowed to claim it as capital gains instead of the top income rate of 35 percent sounds good, it is antithetical to reality, based on this country's history.
For example, the 1950s, which was our country's most prosperous decade in modern times, had a tax structure that was anything but flat--those in the highest income bracket were taxed at 90 percent. And guess what, they remained rich, very rich.
And if cutting taxes really would set us on a "path to prosperity," why then didn't that happen when George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003, cuts that were especially generous to the rich? Why, instead, did the country plunge into the deepest recession since the 1930s?
What really struck me at the West Allis session, though, was the willingness of these working-class, middle-America people to pay more taxes if it would mean saving programs that benefit their fellow citizens who are disadvantaged, lacking access to resources and suffering financially. One young man who was there with his wife and baby daughter personified what I thought was the stricking difference in tone and outlook between Ryan's session in which most of the people seemed to be more of the "I've got mine, so don't screw with it" crowd and the Staskunas-Cullen session.
"A community," the West Allis father said, "is judged on how it cares for its people."
The same thing, no doubt, is true about a nation.
Showing posts with label listening session. Show all posts
Showing posts with label listening session. Show all posts
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Listening, and Not
I attended two so-called "listening sessions" today.
One was held by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan on his 2012 budget proposal. The session was held in a high school auditorium that was packed. Packed two ways.
Packed in the conventional sense. Every one of the 550 seats was filled. But also packed in the sense that a court is packed. That is, when a court-appointment/nominating authority, whether the U.S. president or state governor, picks judges or judicial nominees with whom she or he is ideologically and/or politically aligned. And it showed at the Ryan session.
Way more than half--perhaps even three-fourths of those attending--gave the congressman a standing ovation when he walked out onto the stage and again several times during his presentation (remember, the event was billed as a LISTENING session) and during his response to some of the questions.
The questions were also a give away. Most seem to have been planted. They were either softballs or were asked in ways that gave Ryan a platform to reiterate his primary messages many times over.
Two things struck me. One was the way the questioners were selected. Ryan picked out people who had hands raised. And there were many. He made it look random and constantly remarked at not being able to see the audience very well because of lights shining in his eyes. Yet, he called on one woman this way, "The woman in blue jeans."
First, I dare say that at least half of the women there were wearing jeans, including me and my daughter who was with me.
Second, the woman he was pointing was about half way back in the auditorium, meaning not near the front, and certainly way beyond his being able to see clearly (because of the lights).
Since she was so far back and and sitting down, he couldn't possibly have seen whether or not she was wearing jeans, why would he have identified her that way?
Another thing that aroused my suspicion was that Ryan repeated often and loud in his presentation and managed to work into his answers -- even when no one asked specifically about it -- that anyone who is 55 or older would not be affected in any way by his proposed changes in Medicare. They would continue to be covered by Medicare exactly as they are now. That placated a huge majority of the audience -- which was mostly over 65. How do I know that? Because Ryan made sure he knew it was by asking early in the session for everyone who was over 55 to raise their hands.
Yet, despite making that point often and emphatically during the session, the last person he called on had one simple, direct question. Would the changes he proposed in his plan affect Medicare for people over 55 years old?
That gave Ryan the opportunity to not only re-enforce his promise that it would not, but that it also would be the very last thing session attendees would hear him say, so, therefore, would be the single thing they most likely would remember from the session. That is very important to Ryan, not so much for getting his plan passed as it is to his re-election. Ryan knows that people vote according to what they think will benefit them the most and that older white people (and all the faces I saw there were white) vote in larger percentages than any other demographic.
One more thing I'll say about Ryan's "listening session." It was anything but. He began with a very slick PowerPoint presentation with snazzy, eye-popping charts -- and viscerally scary graphics. And the majority of the questions he took seemed either designed or accidently framed in a way to give him an opportunity to expound at length on the wonderous and savior aspects of his plan. And he cut off and interrupted the few negative questioners, indicating that he wasn't going to give any opportunity for antagonism or argument. So much for him listening, I thought.
I'll write tomorrow about the second listen session I attended today. I will say now, though, that it was far different from the one Ryan held.
One was held by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan on his 2012 budget proposal. The session was held in a high school auditorium that was packed. Packed two ways.
Packed in the conventional sense. Every one of the 550 seats was filled. But also packed in the sense that a court is packed. That is, when a court-appointment/nominating authority, whether the U.S. president or state governor, picks judges or judicial nominees with whom she or he is ideologically and/or politically aligned. And it showed at the Ryan session.
Way more than half--perhaps even three-fourths of those attending--gave the congressman a standing ovation when he walked out onto the stage and again several times during his presentation (remember, the event was billed as a LISTENING session) and during his response to some of the questions.
The questions were also a give away. Most seem to have been planted. They were either softballs or were asked in ways that gave Ryan a platform to reiterate his primary messages many times over.
Two things struck me. One was the way the questioners were selected. Ryan picked out people who had hands raised. And there were many. He made it look random and constantly remarked at not being able to see the audience very well because of lights shining in his eyes. Yet, he called on one woman this way, "The woman in blue jeans."
First, I dare say that at least half of the women there were wearing jeans, including me and my daughter who was with me.
Second, the woman he was pointing was about half way back in the auditorium, meaning not near the front, and certainly way beyond his being able to see clearly (because of the lights).
Since she was so far back and and sitting down, he couldn't possibly have seen whether or not she was wearing jeans, why would he have identified her that way?
Another thing that aroused my suspicion was that Ryan repeated often and loud in his presentation and managed to work into his answers -- even when no one asked specifically about it -- that anyone who is 55 or older would not be affected in any way by his proposed changes in Medicare. They would continue to be covered by Medicare exactly as they are now. That placated a huge majority of the audience -- which was mostly over 65. How do I know that? Because Ryan made sure he knew it was by asking early in the session for everyone who was over 55 to raise their hands.
Yet, despite making that point often and emphatically during the session, the last person he called on had one simple, direct question. Would the changes he proposed in his plan affect Medicare for people over 55 years old?
That gave Ryan the opportunity to not only re-enforce his promise that it would not, but that it also would be the very last thing session attendees would hear him say, so, therefore, would be the single thing they most likely would remember from the session. That is very important to Ryan, not so much for getting his plan passed as it is to his re-election. Ryan knows that people vote according to what they think will benefit them the most and that older white people (and all the faces I saw there were white) vote in larger percentages than any other demographic.
One more thing I'll say about Ryan's "listening session." It was anything but. He began with a very slick PowerPoint presentation with snazzy, eye-popping charts -- and viscerally scary graphics. And the majority of the questions he took seemed either designed or accidently framed in a way to give him an opportunity to expound at length on the wonderous and savior aspects of his plan. And he cut off and interrupted the few negative questioners, indicating that he wasn't going to give any opportunity for antagonism or argument. So much for him listening, I thought.
I'll write tomorrow about the second listen session I attended today. I will say now, though, that it was far different from the one Ryan held.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)