Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – media availability (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 1 (August 14, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 2 (August 15, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 3 (August 15, 2010)

The fourth and final part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:

….Question: I feel like when you vote for health care making requirements for individuals, in this country we still [inaudible] individual freedom, the stimulus bill which is gonna cost so much money to my children and grandchildren, and financial reform, we all know has secret provisions in it and when I hear people like Nancy Pelosi and Chris Dodd say, you won’t know what’s in it ’til we vote for it, why do you vote for those things that are killing America’s freedoms?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Okay, there are three, you asked about what, health care, the stimulus, and financial reg?

Question: Yeah, but I can go on.

Senator McCaskill: Okay.

Question: [inaudible] other examples.

Senator McCaskill: Well, um, I , I will tell you on the stimulus, um. [crosstalk]

Question: You said, Claire, if I can quote you, you said, if it wasn’t about jobs. And let me repeat, if it’s not about jobs we should not be doing it.

Senator McCaskill: Yep.

Question: Those are your exact words. And, it’s not about jobs I don’t believe…

…Senator McCaskill: Well, let me, let me tell you what the stimulus did and is doing. Just about every orange cone you see in Missouri is stimulus money. Now I know those people working out there on those road projects would say those are jobs. The money that is being spent in the State of Missouri is stimulus money for all the road projects right now. The money that went to Jeff City that kept them from having to cut a total of three billion more than they’ve cut from the state budget over the last two years, that was stimulus money. Now I guarantee you, there’s a school superintendent that’s here, if those cuts would have gone through she would have lost teachers. Those are jobs. Those teachers would be out of work. Uh, they weren’t put out of work because of the stimulus.  Of that state stabilization money was one third of it – going straight to state governments to decide how they needed to spend to keep there from being an economic disaster within each and every state. Almost a third of it was tax cuts. Those tax cuts are still coming out of people’s, uh, they’re still getting more money in their paychecks as we speak. [crosstalk]

Question: If you work.

Senator McCaskill: If you work. That’s exactly right. If you have a job, any kind of job, you don’t have to be rich. You can have any kind of working man job, working woman job and you’re getting less money taken out of your paycheck right now. That was all [inaudible]. And then we’ve got high speed rail money and I think for this community and communities near here they understand what high speed rail could do for Missouri as it relates to the speed and the efficacy of train transportation between Kansas City and St. Louis. Being able to clear those lines so our freight trains move more easily – that includes commerce. That’s money, thirty-one million in Missouri right [inaudible crosstalk] there.

Question: But what about all the wasted things that, that are constantly shown on the Internet about, you know, [inaudible] crossings and, and, you know [inaudible][crosstalk].

Senator McCaskill: Well, I’m not aware, I, I, do I think that there are mistakes made with how federal money spent? I spend a great deal of my time trying to focus on that. I can’t argue with you that there are, every single dime is spent appropriately. I will tell you that most economists believed at the time that our country was teetering and that stimulative spending, which is classic economic one-oh-one, was necessary by the government. And that’s why I voted for it. Because I believed it was gonna help us in the recovery. And if you look at the job numbers we lost three million jobs the last six months of the Bush administration and another three million jobs the first three months of the Obama administration. That has stopped. We cauterized that wound. [applause] It is not, we [inaudible] losing jobs like that now. [applause] And I believe the stimulus helped with that. [applause]

Question: We continue to lose jobs, and [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: No. We’re gaining jobs.

Question: We continue to have four hundred fifty thousand new unemployment claims every week.

Senator McCaskill: We [inaudible crosstalk], there’s no question unemployment is still a major issue in this country. But we are net creating jobs now every month. It’s not a huge number, but we’re not losing seven hundred thousand a month like we were at the end of two thousand and eight and the beginning of two thousand nine. That was the crises we were trying to address.  I was making a good faith attempt to do what I thought, and here’s the interesting thing about this, you’re kind of darned if you do and darned if you don’t. Because when I run into people all the time they say, you know, you guys need to quite spending, what are you gonna do about jobs? You guys need to quite spending. What are you gonna do about jobs? Well, there’s only so much the government can and should do. I think what we did was the appropriate amount. I don’t think we can continue to do major stimulus spending going forward. Because there’s a point that you’ve gotta pivot and really begin to fasten down the ends in terms of how much spending’s going on. That’s why capping the growth, the amendment I’m supporting makes sense right now. We’re not cutting, because if you cut right now it could send us into another tailspin economically. But capping the growth is a reasonable approach in terms of the economics of it to do it. I think I talked about health care. And what was the final one?

Question: Financial reform.

Senator McCaskill: Financial reform. Um, it is a public bill. It is available for anybody to read. It exempts the community banks. There are only, the big national banks and two other banks in Missouri that are impacted by the new regulations, UMB and Commerce, because they’re over ten billion. And I gotta tell you the truth, I don’t ever want there to be another time where I have to cast a vote to put your money to save a major financial institution in order to save the financial health of this country. I don’t ever want to have to do that again. And this bill allows the government to go in like they do for other, like you do in a bankruptcy, like you do with a bank. If the local bank down here was about to go under the federal government can come in through the FDIC, they can make sure all the a, the deposits are protected, they can shut down the bank for one afternoon, a
nd reopen the bank on Monday [inaudible crosstalk], and by reorganizing the finances and it’s almost like a structured bankruptcy type process. We didn’t have the authority to do that with these giant mortgage bankers, these investment bankers. We couldn’t do that with Goldman-Sachs or AIG [crosstalk].

Question: [inaudible] that with Fannie or Freddie?

Senator McCaskill: You know what? Fannie and Freddie [inaudible], there will be, the main reason more wasn’t done with Fannie and Freddie when we did financial reg was the real estate community said, please don’t shut off Fannie and Freddie right now as we’re in the midst of this recovery. We are busy trying to make sure that our home prices don’t fall off the cliff, that we can still sell, and that is still a very needed source of funding for many banks loans, good bank loans, in this country, those guarantees. So, um, the, I mean, I know that, that, uh, some stations on the Internet, it’s all about Fannie and Freddie and financial reg was bad. But I honestly believe that we have taken a major step to keep the government from ever having to do that again.

Question: And there are bad things in it and I think you’re aware of that.

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, there, I’m, I, I, can’t say there are bad things in it. I’m not saying that any bill’s perfect [redacted] but I think it was the right thing to do to prevent bailouts in the future [applause] and I gotta [inaudible] now.

[….]

Question: I was wondering on the illegal immigration you keep saying that there’s no money in that for illegals. How do you prevent that when an illegal shows up at a hospital? [inaudible] Any politician says, we’re not paying and [inaudible] If they go to [inaudible] so the hospital is [inaudible] [crosstalk].

Senator McCaskill: It depends. He wants to know what happens to an illegal immigrant when he, when he goes to the hospital. It depends on what the present with. Honestly, if it’s life threatening I think most hospitals probably take in any human being that shows up that could die. [inaudible crosstalk] But [crosstalk]…

Question: But we still pay.

Senator McCaskill: I, I, there’s no question about that. And, but I’m not sure we’re ready in America to say that we need to let people die in emergency rooms.

Question: I agree absolutely.

Senator McCaskill: Yeah.

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, I will tell you that, uh, I have some personal experience with, uh, immigrant communities that, I mean, if you, there’s a priest up in St. Louis that’s very proud at, at, uh, St. Louis University, a Jesuit university in St. Louis, Father Biondi has just opened a clinic where they are trying to provide pro bono care for illegals that are in the St. Louis area because they can’t get health care anywhere else. And he’s doing it through donations at his church and throughout the St. Louis University community. That kinds of stuff goes on for, for medical care, um, but there’s no question there’s a price that the government pays, uh, for illegal immigrants that are in this country. [inaudible crosstalk] Direct and indirect. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, oh, I think what the reason it says that is people were saying that in the health care bill we didn’t prohibit illegal immigrants from getting the benefits of the health care bill. And that is strictly prohibited. They cannot buy insurance on the exchange. They cannot get subsidies to help them buy insurance on the exchange. That’s what that’s referring to, sir, it’s not, it’s not saying that somebody who presents dying at a, at a hospital is now gonna be told go die on the curb. It’s saying that within the provisions of the health care bill it strictly prohibit giving any government benefits [inaudible crosstalk] to the illegal immigrants.

Question: One other thing they, that I also hear talks about, uh, mainly the cost of [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: Uh, huh.

Question:…Starting to watch TV, and it says people are getting injuries to [inaudible].

Senator McCaskill: And that will happen for another couple of years. That will happen because the, the, the exchanges don’t go into place until twenty-fourteen. So, now, what will begin to happen next year, this is good news. We’re gonna have medical loss ratios that they have to begin reporting on next year. So, insurance companies have been hiring a lot of people to figure out ways to deny your claim. They make more money the more claims they deny. They, they’re now gonna have to report those expenses, how much of every dollar they collect from their premium holders, from their insureds. And they’re gonna have to report how much of every dollar they spend on health care versus how many people did they deny health care, their advertising, or salaries. And if they spend more than eighty-five, eighty-five cents, they spend more than fifteen cents of every dollar on something other than health care they gotta rebate to their insureds, not to the government. It goes back to their policy holders.

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, I don’t think it’s realistic to think we’re gonna have a good handle on changing the cost curve until provisions of the bill come into effect. So it is gonna take a few years. And yes, it’s gonna be hard for all of you who don’t like the bill, it’s gonna give you a lot of righteous indignation the next couple of years ’cause you’re gonna say, well look, we’re not any better off. But for a lot of people, for kids who can stay on your insurance policies longer, for seniors who are gonna get help with the donut hole, for small businesses that are gonna get, for people who have preexisting conditions, there’s a program now in Missouri they can sign up for. There are some good things that’ll happen the next two years, but in terms of really getting a handle on the costs I’m the first to admit that’s not gonna happen in the next two years.

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, the, his [crosstalk]…

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, I think the frustrating part for me, sir, I understand what you’re saying, but I run into people all the time that have the wrong information about what is and isn’t in the bill. All the time. And I had a whole bunch of people say to me, you know, I’m not really sure what’s in it, but I just figure it’s better to vote no against it than anything else because if the government’s involved it’s probably a bad idea. So there’s some of that out there, too, in fairness. I mean, I bet if I started quizzing you on all of the things that are in the bill I think you’d probably wouldn’t get a hundred percent on the quiz.

Question: I don’t think there’s anybody in America who’d get a hundred percent on that quiz. [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, I don’t [inaudible] a hundred percent, but I think I’d get, I’d be put in B plus territory. I’m pretty sure I would.

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: But that’s my job. I’m supposed to know it, right?

Question: Right.

Senator McCaskill: Thank you guys very, very much for being here. [applause] [inaudible] Thank you very much.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – media availability (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 1 (August 14, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 2 (August 15, 2010)

The third part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  [reading the question] If you are elected to represent the people of Missouri how can you support the health care bill when the people you represent are obviously against it in light of Proposition C.

Well, believe me, I noticed. Um, and I guess I can tell you honestly [redacted] that [pause] I know I may go home over this vote. I know I may go home over this vote. And when I cast it I knew that. I’m not dumb and naïve in that regard. There are really hard problems that we don’t solve in Washington because they, you can’t solve them without making people mad. They’re big, they’re complicated, they’re hard and you’ve got to step on some people’s toes to begin to solve them. And one of our problems in this country is people who go to Washington are so focused on staying they are never gonna make anybody mad. They never want to tackle a hard problem ’cause when you tackle a hard problem, you know you’re gonna lose voters. It’s hard to get anything done without making some people mad.

Now, I think overall, as time goes on and people learn how this bill will be implemented and learn that what they’ve heard is not true in regards to parts of the bill this bill, I believe, I may be wrong, but I believe it will become more and more accepted by the people I work for. And it wasn’t easy for me to vote for the bill knowing how unpopular it was, but I honestly believed it was the right thing to do for health care costs in this country. That’s the best answer I can give you….

…[voice: “Yeah, but your job is to represent us.”]  Well, let me ask you this, campaign finance law in Missouri. Do you remember the vote in two thousand seven? Statewide? Do you remember what the vote was to limit contributions to candidates? You know what happened right after that? The Republican legislature in Jeff City said, forget about it. No limits on contributions. The same people that put Prop C on the ballot are the same ones that wiped out campaign finance limits that Missourians voted for. Carrying concealed weapons, anybody remember that statewide vote? [voices: “Yeah.”] How’d the people vote on that? [inaudible crosstalk] They voted against it. The people of Missouri voted no on carrying concealed weapons. And what happened after that? The legislature said, we know better.  Now, I guarantee you in this room most people are glad the legislature did that. Right? [inaudible crosstalk] You thought the people that voted were wrong and you wanted it to be a different way. That’s the way our system works. These statewide votes are not binding. And sometimes you’ll like what the people decide and sometimes you don’t. But what I gotta do with each and every vote I cast, I’ve gotta make sure I’m doing what I believe is the right thing for the future. And I honestly believe, and I know you disagree by the way you’re sitting there, I honestly believe that as time goes on it will help bring down the deficit, it will help bring down health care costs, it will make Medicare more affordable and therefore sustainable for the next generation. And doing nothing was just simply not an option. [applause] That’s what I believe.

[….]

Senator McCaskill:  [reading the question] EMR, electronic medical records, where does the funding for this come from? Rumor has it, Medicare trust fund  and that being the reason for no [inaudible crosstalk], oh, you mean for, for the Social Security trust fund? Have we reduced our deficit to China at all?

No, we haven’t reduced our deficit to China at all. Um, but, we’re on a trajectory to begin to reduce it. Um, [inaudible] the next ten years, I mean if you look at the out, we are probably at a record high right now because of what we did, because of the economic disaster. Um, we’re slowly but surely getting all that money back. We’ve gotten almost all of the TARP money back with interest. Looks like we’re gonna get all of our GM money back, we’ve gotten big chunk of it back. Um, I don’t know about Chrysler. That’s still iffy, we may lose that money. Uh, and obviously we’re not gonna be engaged in another giant stimulus like we did at the point in time when things were very rocky. So, of course the deficit shot up because of those initiatives. But, as you see in this diagram, that light blue, that light blue is the deficit. I mean it is the, uh, TARP, is the stimulus. So light blue is the stimulus, that dark, the middle shade of blue, that’s TARP.  So, you see how that goes away ’cause we’re getting it back and the light blue goes down, the others remain. The economic downturn is huge. We have less revenue in government because we have less economic activity. So that’s obviously been a hit.

The first part of your question is EMR. No, it’s not being paid for out of Social Security trust fund. The electronic medical records are being paid for, well, frankly some of that was in the stimulus. So, it wasn’t paid for, it was just stimulus activity to try to generate activity out there. But in the long run they’re gonna save money. [inaudible crosstalk][voice:”…you need to delete this (rumor e-mail) because it’s garbage.”] Right.  There’s a lot of that, there’s a lot of that. [inaudible crosstalk] There’s a, healthcare.gov is a pretty good web site, the Kaiser Family Foundation is a pretty good web site for, for factual information on the health care stuff. [voice: “Thank you.”]

[….]

Senator McCaskill:  [reading the question] Does the new health care bill do anything to encourage doctors to practice in rural areas of the state?

Yes. There’s incentives in there for nurses and for doctors. And there’s also, uh, upping, uh, rural health care, uh, payments to hospitals. Um, in fact, what I need to do because of your role with the regional planning commission let me get you a summary of all of the things in the bill that are geared toward helping people in rural areas get the same access to health care that people in the cities have, with the same kind of safety net provisions. That’s were telemedicine will really help, too, by the way. Um, you know, it, wouldn’t it be nice if you could see a doctor without leaving your house? That’s why all this rural broadband money that we spent money on, uh, with the stimulus. That rural broadband that Missouri’s getting’ a chunk of that, allowing people to have fast broadband will allow doctors to be able to see patients long distance. Um, many instances that the cost and the time of driving to a doctor is sometimes, uh, you know, for something that’s minor, you could do that with telemedicine and really help people in rural areas get more access to the help they need.

[….]

Question: Uh, my question, I work in economic development [redacted]. Uh, through, uh, USDA and through Department of Energy there’s [inaudible], not grants, but low interest loans for gre
en [inaudible]. Uh, first batch went through six eight months ago and the majority of those never reached grassroots companies in rural communities that were actually gonna create jobs. And I know another batch is in the process now. Is there any way to try to encourage USDA and the Department of Energy to focus those funds which are loans, they’re not grants…

Senator McCaskill:  Right, they’re loans.

Question: …to create jobs, green energy jobs in, in rural communities rather than giving them to large electrical companies and electrical associations, oil companies? Uh, can we get ’em [inaudible] down?

Senator McCaskill: Well, a, a chunk of it is going to the rural co-ops. Um, so you know. And of course we got a lot of those incentives that have done the wind farms up in northwest Missouri. In fact, um, that, a lot of that was a, of, of, of investment that was both rural co-ops, local money, and private money and some federal money in terms of incentives. So there is that going on. But, I’m happy to get a break down for you of the rural versus urban use of some of those green, that green jobs incentives and so you can get a sense of where it’s getting broken down. I think you might be, if you add in biodiesel and you add in ethanol and you add in what we’ve done with wind you might be surprised to find that more of those dollars have actually gone to rural areas than have to cities. When you add those programs together. All of which, of course, are incentivizing alternative energy.

Question: Thank you.

Senator McCaskill : Uh, huh.

[….]

Transcript(s) of the remainder of the question and answer session will follow in subsequent posts.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) at a town hall in Concordia, Missouri on August 10, 2010.

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – media availability (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 1 (August 14, 2010)

The second part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:

….Question: My biggest question is, um,  I’m a businessman [inaudible]. My question is, [inaudible] in the thinking process, why was [inaudible]?  It does create a [inaudible]. [inaudible] It quadrupled in [inaudible]. [inaudible]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well, actually, I think that they will go across state lines, the exchange in Missouri, because you’re allowed to sell insurance across state lines in a cooperative basis. The decision was made to not have the place that people can go to pool risk, which they can’t go to now, uh, is all gonna be private insurance companies. And the states are gonna administer that. And the states have every right, if they would like to go together with other states. And I’ve talked to the man who runs the insurance department in Missouri – it’s his intention to try to go together with a number of states so we can make the pool even bigger. And so there will be that…

…But here’s the thing about going across state lines, interestingly enough. Some of the very people who have talked to me about going across state lines also say to me, what about state’s rights? Now what you do, when you say from Washington that insurance companies don’t have to pay any attention to state law, that they can just sell anywhere in the country, what you’re basically doing is saying that states have no right to regulate what goes on in their state. Which means that the rules they set for insurance companies in New York or in Florida or in Texas could be the rules that a Missourian would have to live by, depending on where [inaudible] coming from. So we’ve always tried to respect the right of states to regulate their marketplaces within their borders. It is a radical concept that we would wipe that out. And the very people who are waving the Constitution saying, Tenth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, I’m a Tenther, are the same ones that say to me sometimes, what about selling across state lines. And I get dizzy. I mean, you can’t have it both ways. We can’t wipe out all the state regulations and also respect state rights. So that’s why I think the way we did it, by having these decisions made at the state level so the state can decide if they want to go in with other states that maybe have similar regulations or rules, you know like in Missouri a woman who has a baby, you can’t kick her out of a hospital in less than twenty-four hours. In other states they don’t have that rule. Well, the Missouri legislature went down there, elected by all of you, and they voted. I think it’s twenty-four, isn’t it? I think it’s twenty-four hours in the laws you guys passed, isn’t it? Yeah. And, you know, so do we want to say to Jeff City you can’t say to insurance companies that women get to stay in the hospital for twenty-four hours when they have a baby? That’s the problem. [inaudible crosstalk] No, no, these are all gonna be private insurance companies. What this is gonna be, it’s gonna be like, uh, the best example I can give you is like Expedia. You know how you can go on Expedia and you can buy a airline ticket here or from Delta or from Northwestern or any of those? That’s what this is gonna be, it’s gonna be like a marketplace. There are gonna be a number of different kinds of policies and a number of different companies that are gonna offer polices. The idea is that it’s one central location where you can get a lot of people to go buy insurance, you get bigger risk pools. And the fact that everything is gonna be in the pool, the idea is it’ll bring down costs for everyone. And we will, you will no longer be paying for your competitor across the road who decides he doesn’t want to offer insurance. And somebody on his workforce breaks their arm, and they go down to the hospital and get their arm fixed and freeload off all of us, ’cause we pay for it with our higher insurance rates. That’s the idea behind this, as unpopular as it is, that’s the concept. Um, and that’s why we didn’t do a public option. It is not gonna be run from Washington. It’s gonna be run at the state leve and hopefully they will combine across state lines to make it more affordable for your company to continue to offer insurance.

[….]

Question: Immigration is one of my pet peeves. It seems to me that, uh, [inaudible] Do you agree with Obama and Hillary Clinton [inaudible] the Arizona law. In my opinion, it’s a [inaudible] Congress sitting on their hands [inaudible] They’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing. [inaudible] My, my question is, do you agree with [inaudible] Obama [inaudible}?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I agree with some things, I disagree with others. Uh, let me start with the best news. The best news is that, uh, the day before we left Washington last week we were able, I voted for a whole lot a Republican amendments to step up border enforcement, against most of the people in my party. I was able to get border security passed the day before we left Washington, six hundred million dollars. And the whipped cream and the cherry on top of this is the way we’re paying for it. Um, they way we’re paying for it – there are some foreign companies that have come to our country and more than fifty percent of their workforce is H1B visas. In other words, they’re bringing foreigners here with their companies to be the employees. So the idea was that if you have more than, if you’re a foreign company and you have more than fifty percent of your employees that are H1B visas, any other visas you get are gonna be very, very expensive. And the Wall Street Journal, the day after we passed it, this is the best, this Indian company that it will affect, it’s a, it’s a, basically a call center kind of operation, very, very large Indian company, it would affect them. And they were quoted in the Wall Street Journal, saying, this means we’ll have to hire more Americans. Yahoo!  I like that. That’s a-okay with me. That’s a great way to pay for the bill as far as I’m concerned.

This will [inaudible] six hundred million dollars in a very focused way along the border, um, for task forces. As a former prosecutor I know that, you know, you don’t just put the same amount of help everywhere along the border. It’s a very long border. It will be unmanned drones, aerial vehicles for real time aerial photography that we can see, real time, various places across the border without a lot of manpower. It’s gonna help. The good news also is immigration is down. Deportations are up. The percentage of the deportations being people who have committed crimes is up sixty percent. And audits against businesses that hire illegal immigrants are at a record high. So, we’re moving the right direction. More people are getting deported, more of them are bad guys, less people are coming across the border, and more businesses are being audited. Rather than just photo-op workplace raids, that’s wha
t we used to do, we’d do a workplace raid and the people that were there that day that were illegal, there’d be cameras rolling and everyone gets this mistaken impression that the employer was being held accountable and they never were. Employers didn’t even get a rap on the knuckle. Now we’re going more aggressively after the magnet that’s pulling them across.

I get the frustration in Arizona. Do I think that every border state can start doing federal immigration policy? I don’t think our Constitution allows for that. Now maybe we need to change the Constitution in that regard. I’m not here to debate that today. I completely understand the frustration of the Arizona people. But I think the way to get at that is do what we need to do to secure the border and begin to enforce the laws we have. I voted against comprehensive immigration, I voted against amnesty, I’m not gonna go there until this country demonstrates to the people who occupy it legally that we can enforce the law. So, that, that’s where I am on immigration. So that means I come down yes some places and no other places.

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] I’m interested in protecting the environment. How do you think clean energy can be made economically beneficial and promoted as so? Mos, most of the publicity has been to scare us about the cost to individuals of regulation. We’re behind many countries in this area.

I appreciate your sentiment. I will tell you that my hesitancy in this regard is because Missouri is a coal dependent state and this is a tough economy. The last thing I’m going to be a part of at this point is larger costs to working people in Missouri, small businesses and manufacturing, for a cost on carbon that we don’t yet have the technology or the alternative energy developed that make it a cost effective alternative. Now, there are allowances in the bill for coal dependent states, but I thought they were allowances in the bill that were paying off people that we shouldn’t be paying off. You know, I’m not big on let’s pay off this state to get these votes, let’s pay off that state to these votes, so that’s why I was not happy with the House bill in that regard. Um, we’re doing some things to incentivize alternative energy. And yes, I do think we need to lead the world, but on the other hand it’s the same atmosphere. And if China and India are putting up coal fired plants every ten minutes, I, I want us to lead but I don’t want us to be [inaudible]. I don’t want us to be in a situation where all of a sudden manufacturing is really fleeing our shores, going for cheap dirty energy in India and China because our rules are so serious and stringent and their rules aren’t. We’ve got to bring our competitors along. Not just Europe, who’s done this, but our competitors, which for manufacturing is, is more South America, India, China and to some extent Japan.

Voice: Do you think that the, quote, mainstream media is downplaying the dangers?

Senator McCaskill: Is the mainstream media, I’m breaking my rule here ’cause I’m not supposed to go out of order, mainstream media is, are they downplaying the dangers? I don’t know what the mainstream media is anymore. Here’s one of my com…[crosstalk] [voice: “The three networks.”] Well, the three networks I think probably cover it pretty accurately on the evening news, but here’s the, the problem we’ve got with all the media right now. We now have news outlets that you go to get affirmation, not information. My friends on the left they all go watch MSNBC and you know what they feel? Righteously vindicated. We’re right, we’re right, listen to Rachel, listen to Keith. People on the right? They go to Fox and they say, the listen to Sean Hannity and they, and they go, you know what? We’re right, we’re right. And meanwhile what I had as a kid? [voice: “You think they’re equal.”] I think both, I think in different ways they’re very alike. Both of them are playing to a segment of ideological opinion in this country as opposed to [inaudible] really trying to present both sides. And when I was little I had to watch the evening news on network. And that was pretty straightforward. [voice: “Huh.”] That was pretty straightforward. I mean, you know, whether it was NBC, Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, and then we’d talk about the news at the dinner table. And it was pretty objective. I’m not sure that all of our news sources now are as objective as they used to be when I was a kid. [inaudible crosstalk] Yeah [laugh].

[….]

Transcript(s) of the remainder of the question and answer session will follow in subsequent posts.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – media availability (August 11, 2010)

The first part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:

….Question: Hi, Senator McCaskill. Thanks so much for coming out today. I was just wondering, with oil spill wreaking havoc in the Gulf, what do you propose to do to make sure that a disaster like this never happens to us again?

Senator Claire McCaskill Um, there will be a, um, the question was, uh, with the oil that has spilled into the Gulf, what are you gonna do to make sure that a disaster like the BP disaster never happens again? Um, you, I see your t-shirt. You probably aren’t gonna like this answer, some parts of it. Uh, we will not be considering a bill this year to place a price on carbon. And these ladies in the green t-shirt are almost as unhappy with me as [redacted] in that I have disappointed them because I refuse to be supportive of a, a price on carbon. I’ve, I’ve been, I have been, um, reluctant to support a price on carbon, um, for a cap and trade bill. On the other hand there is gonna be an energy bill that we will debate when we get back in September that will do three things. The first is accountability for BP, making sure that there’s not an artificial lid on what they would be responsible for in terms of the clean up. My job is to make sure taxpayers do not pay for their mistake. And so we want to make sure we remove the lid so BP has no artificial limit on what they would be required to pay to clean up the Gulf, to make those business whole, to make sure the families down there have not suffered because of their carelessness and negligence. Uh, it does some other things, like making sure that the companies that are doing offshore drilling have relief wells before they begin. Um, this problem was, it was never a relief well required. Truth be known, the oversight of oil and gas drilling in this country kinda was in a coma. Uh, and this goes for both administrations. They had not really been doing an aggressive job. And there has been a complete housecleaning over at that, in that regulatory area in the Department of Interior. So, we’ll be happy to get you all, you probably have it, as active as you are, you may have all the details of what’s in that bill as it relates to oils company accountability for negligence in offshore drilling that’s in the bill. The other thing that’s in the bill is a incentive to convert eighteen wheelers from, uh, diesel to natural gas. And the final part of it is a homestar provision which provides incentives for homeowners to weatherize their homes. Allow them to do things that will make their homes more efficient and spend less on their utility bills which is a win-win, uh, in terms of carbon emissions and also win-win, obviously, for homeowners in their electricity costs. Those are the three things that will be in the energy bill that we will debate before the end of the year. But I do not believe that the price on carbon will be coming up.

Question: Thanks for your time.

Senator McCaskill: Thank you.

[….]

…Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] Are you, as you cut spending in education, what will you do with No Child Left Behind provisions?

Um, education traditionally in this country has been a state and local responsibility. About forty years ago the federal government began helping with state and local education. And then during the Bush administration passed probably the most seeping requirements from Washington [inaudible crosstalk] as relates to No Child Left Behind.

[inaudible crosstalk] Sir, we’re not gonna do this, we really aren’t. [inaudible crosstalk] We’re not gonna debate the, we’re not here to debate. [inaudible crosstalk] I’m here to answer people’s questions. [inaudible crosstalk] And I don’t want to be rude to you. [voice: “That was, that was Carter, was it not?”] That, actually, the first funding for local education was not under Carter, it was before Carter. But I’m not here to try to say it was a D or an R, sir, I’m not here, I’m trying just to answer the woman’s question. [inaudible crosstalk] It is not gonna be fair if you keep interrupting.  [inaudible crosstalk] No Child Left Behind was a mandate from Washington that frankly I think that just about everybody I’ve talked to in the education community, parents, teachers, superintendents don’t like, uh, teaching to a test, uh, an arbitrary number that people have to reach. So, it will not be authorized as it is.

The other thing that’s beginning to happen is I don’t think there’ll be as much money coming from Washington for state and local education. Now keep in mind, um, how many of you are aware that, um, there was eight hundred million dollars cut out of the state budget, a lot of, some of which is going to education in terms of education cuts? Okay. Keep in mind that had the stimulus not been at the state level that figure would have been three point two billion that would have been cut. They have been balancing the budget for the last two years with the stimulus money that we sent from Washington. Because we were clearly not excited about the idea of a whole lot of teachers and other public sector jobs being laid off, especially the teachers. There is another bit of help that’s coming if the House votes for it today. I didn’t vote for it the first time ’cause it wasn’t fully paid for, but we voted on it last week and it was fully paid for. And that will bring another four hundred million to help, to, to try to keep teachers from being laid off in Missouri at the state and local level. But this is a warning. For all of the federal programs, whether it’s CDDG, whether it’s state and local education, all of that, I think over the next twenty years there will be less and less money coming out of Washington and more and more reliance will have to come from the state and local governments. Because we cannot continue on the trajectory we’ve been on for the last twenty or thirty years in terms of the increase in spending for functions that were originally designed and traditionally have been borne by the states and local governments. [inaudible crosstalk]

Absolutely. And that’s the problem. No Child Left Behind was a federal mandate that didn’t have a lot of money with it, that frankly, I mean I bet if I asked everybody in here who your favorite teacher was you can remember. Right? And my favorite teacher that I remember, that really motivated me, they did it with imagination. They did it by being creative in the classroom. And the people who were the best teachers go into it because they want to be creative in the classroom. And the problem is [inaudible] No Child Left Behind was squeezing that creativity right out of the classrooms and forcing everyone just to teach to a test. That’s not how we’re going to compete globally in terms of bringing up our education standards. So, there is a very, very [applause] wide support for doing away with the way, and what we should be doing is measuring progress, not doing apples to oranges. Um, making sure that kids are making progress and that we are and that [inaudible] give credit that we do have a President who, and you’re probably a teacher.  Are you a teacher?  Yeah, superintendent. Yeah, you know, we have somebody who’s beginning to take on some of the teachers unions as it relates to performance pay, um, you know, not ninety percent of the teachers, a few of the teachers may not be as good as the others. And we’v
e been very bad in the education system in terms of weeding them out. And we need to do better at that. I mean the vast majority are wonderful, but the ones that aren’t great, uh, we need to have a way we can not keep them in the classroom, um, because that’s really gypping our kids.

So, next question.

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] Have you read the entire O, Obamacare bill?

Yes, I have.  [voice: “Two thousand nine hundred pages.”] I have. In fact, I’ve read parts of it twice. [voice: “Really?”] Yes, I have.  [inaudible crosstalk] And I read the financial reg bill, too. In fact, I’m co-sponsoring with Tom Coburn in the Senate, Dr. Tom Coburn, a bil, um, that will require all of the bills before we can vote on anything to be on the Internet for a minimum of seventy-two hours. [inaudible crosstalk] [inaudible] On the health care bill… [inaudible crosstalk] Okay. Section nine zero zero six in the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act amends section three forty-one of the Internal Revenue Code to require businesses to send Form 1099 to each vendor which they buy goods valued at more than six hundred dollars annually. [reading the question] How will health, health care be improved by this requirement?

Well, it was an attempt, which I disagree with, by the way, and there is a move to change this and I will make a prediction that will be removed by the end of the year ’cause there is wide support to remove it. It was put in there to help collect taxes that were owed. It wasn’t put in there to increase taxes, frankly, people are supposed to have taxes owed when they get reimbursed on business expenses over that amount. [inaudible crosstalk] Yeah. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, um, I hope you’re not surprised by them. Um, you know, the bill is public. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, and this is, you know, as I’ve said many, many times, the bill is not perfect, obviously. The bill is gonna need changes and tweaks along the way, it’s one of the reasons why all the provisions don’t go in all at once. They, they are, they are gradually gone in. I worry that some small businesses don’t know that they can get thirty-five percent of their health care premiums back as a tax credit this year. I’m worried that they don’t know that. I’m worried they don’t know that they get fifty percent of it back the following year. So, there’s both good news and bad news in this bill that people may not be aware of. As time goes on I hope they become more aware. This is something that I think is gonna cause more confusion than it is good. It is technically an effort to collect taxes that are owed. But the amount of paperwork that it’s gonna generate doesn’t make sense to me for the amount of taxes that we’re trying to, to collect. You know, all of us want anybody to pay the taxes they owe. I mean, I bet you most of you in this room pay your taxes like clockwork, but there’s a whole bunch of people out there that cheat. [inaudible crosstalk] And so part of this is trying to make sure everybody pays what is owed. [voice: “How about Timothy Geithner…he owed a whole bunch of back taxes? He still got nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury. How do we get by with people like that?”] Well, he paid all those before he was nominated. You’re right, he made mistakes. [voice: “There was six people in the Obama administration who were tax cheats. And there…”] There were definitely some people that were nominated who made mistakes on their taxes…  [inaudible crosstalk] have been repaid. [inaudible] I’m sure if you went through every administration you would find some of those. And it’s unfortunate. And I, I hope people don’t make mistakes on their taxes, but it is a problem that people make mistakes and some people intentionally make mistakes. [inaudible crosstalk]

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] What impact will Proposition C have on the health care initiative nationwide, and two, financially on the State of Missouri, mainly because of the long court battle.

I don’t know that there’ll be long court battle on this. Um, I, I don’t think there will. And it is, uh, basically what the referendum it doesn’t probably have much legal impact. Um, it was, uh, I think, largely political. Um, but, and I don’t think that it will have a huge amount of impact on what actually happens as it relates to the changes in health care that will begin to occur. I mean, people are still gonna get their checks in Missouri this year to help fill in the donut hole. The small business in Missouri will still get their tax credits this year if they’re paying for health insurance. They’ll get it next year. There’ll be a bigger check to help fill in with the donut hole next year. By the way, all that’s being paid for by the pharmaceutical companies who are paying back the government some of the excess profits we gave them on that Medicare D. They’re going to be paying the federal government back three and a half billion dollars next year alone to help pay for some of these things because we bucked them up a lot of excess profits of taxpayer money on Medicare D.

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] Promoting fiscal responsibility, why pass another bill to cap spending? Several have passed in the past fifty years and none have been adhered to.

Well, actually, that’s not true. Um, there was a cap on spending during the nineties and there was also Paygo. And if you remember during the nineties we actually balanced the budget. [inaudible crosstalk] You know what happened? They let it expire. [inaudible crosstalk] Because the people who voted for it [inaudible crosstalk] the [inaudible crosstalk] I, you know that’s a really good question. I wasn’t there. If I would have been there I would have said, this is a bad idea to let this expire [inaudible crosstalk] ever. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, I, I’m trying to get one passed that’s good for three years. If I said it’s forever I don’t know I could get it passed. But I’m trying, I’m trying, but you keep in mind when these things expired. They had both Paygo and a cap on spending in the nineties and we balanced the budget. And then in the two thousands, in the two thousands they let ’em go. And they took earmarking to a new art form and they never vetoed any spending and they took spending out of control. I don’t know why because we actually had a surplus at the beginning of the Bush administration. [inaudible crosstalk] Boy, me, too. [inaudible crosstalk] I’m one of two Democrats that do not take earmarks in the entire Senate. One of two. [applause] And, um, and I’ll tell you what you ought to watch for. Watch for somebody who’s runnin’ who says they won’t take earmarks this year, but they won’t promise anything about next year. Now that’s insulting. That’s insulting to voters that someone would actually say, you know, in an election year I’m not gonna take earmarks, but I’m not making any promises beyond the election year. Watch out for that. Watch out for that. Um, you can’t, either earmarks are a wonderful thing and you ought to fight for ’em and arm wrestle for ’em and get all of ’em you can, or they’re a bad thing and you shouldn’t do it at all. This is something you can’t be half pregnant on. You’ve got to either decide that you think it’s a good way to pay the taxpayer money or it’s a bad way. I think it’s a ridiculous way to spend taxpayer money because it’s not based on merit. I’m not saying there aren’t meritorious projects that have been funded. I’m sure they’re things within the crow flies ten miles from here, I know things at Whiteman [AFB] that paid for with earmarks that have been helpful to the community. Some of the projects that have been funded are good. But it’s the process by which they’re funded. Because you know how you get to decide how much money you get? I don’t either. It’s some kind of deal that if you’re like on a certain committee you get more. If you’re more senior you get more. If you’re an appropriator you get a lot more. If you’re not on the Appropriations you don’t get as much. If you’re in political trouble you get mo
re. This notion that somehow you’re gonna have people at home vote for you if you’re in trouble and not gonna get elected if you get more earmarks. The way in which the decisions are made on how the earmarks are decided are fundamentally wrong with public money. We should only spend money on projects that have competed on their merit, not on who you know. And the vast majority of earmarks that occur have lobbyists attached to ’em. The vast majority. [inaudible crosstalk] [laughter] Well, they’re not taking personal money, they’re not taking personal money. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, I would just say [inaudible crosstalk] regardless of whether, I mean, in every bushel basket there is a bad apple. In every bushel basket. But I will tell you that the vast majority of the people in Washington, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, are honest people. They’re honest people. They’re not feathering their own nest. I think they’re doing things they shouldn’t be doing in the way they spend the public money, but the vast majority of, I’m not saying they’re all perfect, we’ve go, I’m sure they’re bad apples there, too, but, um, most of my colleagues that are Republican are trustworthy and most of my colleagues that are Democrats are trustworthy in terms of being politically corrupt or graft. [applause]…

Transcript(s) of the remainder of the question and answer session will follow in subsequent posts.

Previously: Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) speaking with a constituent immediately after the town hall in Concordia, Missouri.

After yesterday’s town hall in Concordia, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill briefly took questions from media.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) (left) with the “second questioner” (center) and “first questioner” (right) at the media availability immediately after the town hall in Concordia.

[….]

Question: Drove down to say hi.

Senator Claire McCaskill: Yes, look at you all the way down here. You must have something controversial [crosstalk] to ask me.

Question: Nah, nah, nah, not at all, not at all, want to hear what people are saying.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Yeah, good.

Aide: Go ahead.

Question: First, let me ask, did, how did you vote on Proposition [inaudible].

Senator McCaskill: Uh, I voted no.

Question: You voted no.

Senator McCaskill: Um, hm.

Question: And it was the right vote?

Senator McCaskill: I think it was. Well, uh…

…Question: You like the individual mandate?

Senator McCaskill: Uh, I mean, the mandate obviously is the most unpopular part, but, um, when you ask people if they want to do away with preexisting conditions they say, well of course, that’s so unfair. Well, who’s gonna buy insurance before they’re sick. You can’t do away with preexisting conditions unless you set up an environment where everyone has insurance. The nice thing about this is it’s not gonna be government run, it’s not gonna be government policies. People are gonna be able to shop, make choices. And if they can’t afford it we’re gonna help ’em by making it more affordable with some help from the government. So I think it’s, is it a perfect solution? No. But it’s the best solution I think that anybody’s come up with to an untenable spiral of healthcare costs in this country.

Question: Let me change, que, and he’s got, um, you did get a couple questions that I saw on immigration. [inaudible] a huge issue in Kansas in the Republican primary. Chris Kobach is now the nominee for [Kansas] Secretary of State, I’m sure you’ve heard of his name, Claire. Give me some sense of whether you think immigration is going to, it was a big issue in oh-six, then not so much in oh-eight, now back in ten it looks like a huge issue [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: Well [crosstalk]…

Question: …that people are really worried about.

Senator McCaskill: …I think people want the laws to be enforced. I think it’s just that simple.  And I think we, um, need to make a priority. What I have tried to do since the day I’ve gotten here is be consistent with what I’ve said during the campaign. I’m gonna go to Washington and do everything I can [inaudible] the laws we have in place enforced and to go after employers who knowingly hire [crosstalk]…

Question: Right.

Senator McCaskill: …illegal immigrants.

Question: Which is kind of the Democratic approach.

Senator McCaskill: well, and, I think it’s a republican approach, too, by some people who now realize [crosstalk]…

Question: Their deal is build the wall. And the Arizona law.

Senator McCaskill: Yeah, well, first of all. [crosstalk]

Question: Which you don’t support.

Senator McCaskill: First of all, people aren’t coming across the border for vacation. They’re coming to try and feed their families. If they don’t think that they can get a job, this reminds me of when we were trying to deter crime. We had a hard time deterring meth cooks, but we could deter the businessmen that were selling the ingredients for meth. And that turned the tide. This is the same kind of thing. We can deter businessmen from hiring illegal immigrants if we come down like a load of bricks on ’em.

Question: Better than wall, better than Arizona in your view, I mean you told [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: Better. [crosstalk]

Question: …these folks you’re not a supporter of the Arizona law.

Senator McCaskill: Better. I said parts of it I support, parts of it I don’t support.

Question: But the idea of Arizona taking it on their own is something [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: I think we have to be careful of having fifty different immigration policies in this country…

Question:  Yeah.

Senator McCaskill: …that the federal government ultimately is gonna bear the cost for. But I get their frustration. I think border has to be part of it, that’s why I did the border [crosstalk] security bill…

Question:  Yeah, right.

Senator McCaskill: That’s why I’ve continued to vote for more border security. That’s part of it, but employer enforcement is also part of it. Once we get those two things better handled, uh, then we can maybe talk about something else. But I’m not interested in talking about anything else until we do a better job [crosstalk] on those two subjects.

Question:  Do you think that plays into the, into the, these midterms? [crosstalk]

Senator McCaskill: I don’t know whether it, I [crosstalk]…

Question:  Immigration, I mean is it [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: …don’t know if it plays or not. It just is my opinion [crosstalk].

Question:  Bigger than hea, no, but it, is immigration more important to people now than say health care, Claire? Is, or, or the deficit, uh, because it seems like it comes up. I went to a Moran [Kansas Republican U.S. Senate nominee] town hall, first five questions were on immigration.

Senator McCaskill: Yeah, I think people, um, people are uncertain and, and antsy about the economic conditions right now.  And when you feel uncertain about economic conditions then it, it, it’s more likely that you focus on well, who’s here that shouldn’t be here. Who’s taking part of the pie that doesn’t deserve it, because it feels like my part of the pie is shrinking and I’m playing by the rules. [crosstalk]

Question:  Particularly if their skin color is different?

Senator McCaskill: I don’t know about skin color, because I, I, I, I’m not gonna go there. I, I think this is more about a frustration that I’m playing by the rules, how come everybody else [crosstalk]…

Question:  Yeah.

Senator McCaskill: …doesn’t have to play by the rules?

Question:  All Right.

Senator McCaskill: I think it’s that simple.

Question:  That’s all I need to know. [laughter] [crosstalk]

Question [second questioner]:  Claire, getting back to Prop. C, you talked about the largely symbolic import, but. But what about the political ramifications, including the midterm elections as well as, perhaps, uh, your own reelection campaign in two years?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I’m, look, you know, I’m, I’m not, I’m not deaf, dumb, and blind. I’m sure there, there’ll be some political ramifications. I’m hopeful that as time goes on and people begin to realize the positive things that are in the bill and realize that some of the things they’ve heard are just not true, um, that, that it won’t be as unpopular as it was in the primary election. And, and the split in the primary election was very close to Democrat versus Republican. And, and in that regard it was a fairly unusual election in Missouri ’cause typically in, in primaries we
have a more fifty-fifty split, we certainly usually have a more fifty-fifty split in general elections.

Question [first questioner]:  But, but you had Democrats voting for Prop. C [inaudible].

Senator McCaskill: We had some Republicans voting against it [crosstalk], but…

Question [first questioner]:  Right, but you had lots [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: Absolutely, absolutely. This is an, let me state unequivocally this is an unpopular piece of legislation. Um, but it’s really hard to fix a hard problem in this country, uh, and, and, and make it be really popular, because if it’s really popular it doesn’t generally fix anything.

Question [second questioner]:  The handouts that were left, uh, on the chairs regarding the, the ten myths, I think, that’s so, uh, something that will be distributed at [inaudible] the other meetings today and tomorrow as well? [crosstalk]

Senator McCaskill: We’ve been distributing ’em for a while. We think that may be the easiest way to begin to get people focused that, realize some of the things they’ve heard aren’t true.

Aide: Sorry, we’re on a tight schedule. [crosstalk]

Questioner: Thank you, that’s all I need.

Senator McCaskill: Hey Michael, how are you? Nice to see you.

[….]

Question [first questioner]: ….instead of extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone we let them expire and then give everyone a credit to purchase it or has insurance because you want to incent them to do that. So the net effect is zero on the recipients, those who have insurance. The only people who are not incented are those who don’t have insurance, but they’re not penalized, they just don’t get a tax break.

Senator McCaskill: Well, [crosstalk] the problem is…

Question [first questioner]: And you could do the math really.

Senator McCaskill: …the vast majority of the people who don’t have insurance are not people who enjoyed any benefit under the Bush tax [crosstalk] cuts.

Question [first questioner]: But they don’t pay, yes they did,  as EITC recipients. And so what you do in essence, is say your EITC is gonna shrink unless you use some of that money to buy insurance, in which case your EITC goes back up, you’re made whole and by the way, you now have health insurance.  And it’s a backdoor way of paying for it. [crosstalk]

Senator McCaskill: Well, you know, I’m gonna get you the numbers on it [crosstalk] because they ran ’em.

Question [first questioner]: The math [crosstalk].

Senator McCaskill: They ran ’em [crosstalk].

Question [first questioner]: Well [crosstalk], but you.

Senator McCaskill: And I want you to see the numbers. But, you need to run, clearly, you’re itchin’.

Question [first questioner]: [inaudible]

The “Ten Myths” handout [pdf][Note: This is the online version. The printed version which we received at the town hall had additional information and citations] provided to each person in the audience by Senator McCaskill’s staff:

HEALTHCARE REFORM

TOP 10 MYTHS AND FACTS

Myth 1: The value of your health insurance will be added to your W-2 income and you’ll be taxed on it.

Reality: Most people do not know how much their insurance costs since employers often pay a large share of the premium. The new law requires employers to report the value of insurance on employees’ W-2s, but it is solely informational and is on a separate line that is not included in the taxable income.

Myth 2: When you sell your house you will be required to pay a 3.8% tax on the sales price.

Reality: The new law includes a 3.8% tax on unearned income for individuals who make over $200,000 or couples who make over $250,000. Unearned income includes making a profit on the sale of a home, but a couple can exempt the first $500,000 in profit from such a sale. That means that a couple would have to make over $250,000 per year AND make a PROFIT of over $500,000 on their home to be taxed. The median home sales price in MO is $149,900.

Myth 3: Congress is exempted from the healthcare law.

Reality: Like everyone else, members of congress and their personal staffs are required to maintain minimal essential coverage. Congress and their staff are the only people required by law to buy their insurance on the exchanges.

Myth 4: The exchanges are “Government-run” insurance.

Reality: The exchanges are shopping sites comparable to Expedia™ where private insurance companies like BlueCross sell their insurance. None of the choices will be government-run and individuals are not required to buy their insurance there, but rather can get their insurance through their employer or private broker. The exchanges make sure that state-specific laws are met, and by setting minimum standards they ensure that consumers won’t end up being sold bogus insurance.

Myth 5: Healthcare reform will cut benefits for military families.

Reality: Nothing in this law reduces any benefits to active military members or veterans. The president of the Military Officers Association of America, VADM Norb Ryan Jr. (Ret.), had this to say about the new healthcare law: “But if you were worried that national health reform legislation is somehow aimed at whacking military beneficiaries’ health coverage, that’s just not so.”

Myth 6: This law creates death panels that will order euthanasia for sick patients.

Reality: There are no panels to determine end of life care. The decisions about patient care rest in the hands of the patient and their family as was always the case. This false claim was a scare tactic fabricated by opponents and cannot be found anywhere in this law.

Myth 7: The healthcare reform law cuts Medicare benefits.

Reality: No guaranteed Medicare benefits are cut by this law. An experiment started in 1997 created Medicare Advantage, a privatized form of Medicare, with the hope of saving money. It turns out that the federal government pays 14% more for this private form of Medicare than for government provided Medicare so this new law cuts these subsidies. Seniors will still be able to choose between getting their benefits from traditional Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan, but the government will stop wasting billions of dollars by overpaying Medicare Advantage plans.

Myth 8: Extends government benefits to illegal aliens

Reality: Not only are government-sponsored benefits like Medicaid not extended to illegal aliens, but they are not even allowed to buy insurance even if they pay for it with their own money. Illegal immigrants cannot receive any benefits under the new law.

Myth 9: There are accounting gimmicks used to give the appearance that the law is paid for.

Reality: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is the official “scorekeeper” of Congress and they have determined that this bill is not only paid for, but reduces deficits over the next two decades by a trillion dollars. While CBO adjusted their estimates upward after the bill became law, even with that adjustment the bill is still paid for whether the bill is analyzed over 3, 5, 10 or 20 years, and reduces the long-term deficit. Benefits start immediately including $5 billion for high-risk pools, help for early retirees, and tax credits to small businesses that pay for health insurance.

Myth 10: The government will decide what care you can receive and will ration your care.

Reality: The law funds research to figure out which treatments are the best for curing diseases and makes that information available to your family doctor, but regardless of this research the law specifically states: “Nothing in section 1181 (the section funding research) shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary to deny coverage of items or services under such title solely on the basis of comparative clinical effectiveness research.”. In other words, this law makes sure that doctors and patients have
access to the best information in the world about healthcare options, but leaves those decisions between the doctor and patient.

Transcripts of the audience question and answer portion of the town hall will follow in subsequent posts.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium yesterday morning. Approximately sixty people attended.

Senator McCaskill stood in front of the stage for the entire event.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): ….Thank you all for being here. I appreciate it. We have an hour and I will try to get to everyone who has a question in that hour. Um, for those of you who have been to our town halls before, I know a number of you have, what we try to do is get all the questions that people have in a basket and we ask someone to draw the questions out, and we get to as many as many of them as we can in the hour. And we usually average between fifteen and twenty questions an hour. Um, so hopefully we’ll get, since this isn’t a very big crowd, hopefully we’ll get to everyone who has a question within the hour.

Um, I’m going to try and spend some time today talking about the budget. And the, as an auditor, the, the cash flow and the bottom line and the fiscal unsustainability of where we are right now in terms of this country and what our challenges are in the future. And, um, to begin that discussion I have a, we have a hand out that, that all of you will get that will have. Have we handed that out already? [voice:  “It just got here.”] Okay. Um, that has these two charts on them , but a number of other charts that talk about the debt and the deficit. Let me start with one fact, uh, and I told some of the folks upstairs, the regional planning commission, that we just had a meeting with, if we took out all of the government spending for foreign aid, education, highways, economic development, agriculture, all of that, and we just decided we were not going to spend any of that money, we still have a debt going forward because of two things. Medicare and Social Security. And the reason we have that debt going forward is because the demographics of our country.  First, we have health care costs that are going up by huge percentages over the last fifteen years. And that contributes to the problem of Medicare. But also, we have a lot more people that are gonna come into the demographic that are entitled to Medicare and to Social Security because the baby boomers are coming, which means we have a lot more people who are entitled to that money. So, obviously it’s important that we look at every single silo of spending in the federal budget…

Two large posters were on display on the stage next to the podium:

Senator McCaskill’s budget priorities?

Hey, we use that CBPP chart all the time!

This “fair taxer” is for you, RBH. I think he’s the same guy from Jefferson City last year. We had a pleasant conversation – he asked me if I’d read the Communist Manifesto. I replied that I had. It turns out that since I support the idea of a progressive income tax he considers me a communist. Go figure. He did give me a copy of his talking points.

…The discretionary spending, which while it’s not the crux of the problem, it’s a symptom of the problem- discretionary spending, both on the defense and the domestic side. Senator Jeff Sessions and I have worked very hard the last year to pass an amendment that would cap the growth of the federal government when it comes to discretionary spending. It exempts out the authorized conflicts we have – our wars that we have that have been authorized by Congress. But it includes the pentagon spending outside of the war and it includes discretionary domestic spending. And it would cap the growth for the next three years. I think that’s an important thing to do. All of the Republicans have voted for this and seventeen of us that are Democrats have voted for this. We are two votes short. I need to find two more Democrats that are willing to buck party leadership, like seventeen of us have, to vote for the cap on spending. I’m optimistic I’ll get two more. I spend part of every week going person to person, in to people’s offices and explaining to them why this is important and why we need to do this. That’s just one piece of it.

Obviously, we’re gonna have a fiscal commission that’s gonna report, this is a bipartisan commission. You have everybody from Paul Ryan and, and Irskine Bowles and everything in between on this fiscal commission that is meeting on a weekly basis right now. And it has to be a bipartisan recommendation because fourteen people have to agree to it. And I believe the breakup of the commission is eight and eight. So, the, the recommendation will have to be made by both Democrats and Republicans as to what we should do going forward as it relates to our entitlement programs in this country.

And I want everybody to remember one thing about the federal government and the way we’ve spent money over the last, well really, frankly, beginning back a long time ago. We have grown, we have grown what the federal government has done to the extent that we now have federal tax dollars going into every single segment of our economy. We have federal tax dollars checks being written in manufacturing, we have federal tax dollar checks being written in agriculture, we have federal tax dollar checks being written in oil and gas, we have federal tax dollars being written in energy, we have federal tax dollars that help support even things like the Internet. Because people who buy on the Internet don’t pay taxes, so unlike if you go down here to the store and you buy something and you’re gonna pay taxes on it, right? You’re gonna pay sales tax. You don’t pay them on the Internet. The government’s decided that we’re not gonna collect sales taxes on the Internet. So the government is trying to encourage that part of our economy by what they do or don’t do as it relates to federal involvement.

So, this notion that the problem with federal spending is all about unemployment insurance or all about food stamps or all about job training programs – that is a luxury we probably can’t afford. I think we need to, with very clear eyes, realize that we have been very, very generous in a lot of places with your money. And all of that needs a very hard look.

The best example I can think of is Medicare D. Do you remember when Medicare D passed?  It was in nineteen, it was two thousand three. Does everybody know what Medicare D is, the program that you get help with prescription drugs? It was passed in two thousand and three. And it was all put on the credit card. There was no attempt made whatsoever to pay for it. None, none. There was no income coming in whatsoever to displace any of the expenditures that were gonna happen under Medicare D. The other interesting thing about Medicare D, there was no means test. So, Warren Buffet, he gets his drugs cheaper with your tax dollars. Does that make sense right now? Should we be writing taxpayer checks to anybody in America regardless of who they are and how much money they have? Can we afford that? Can we afford to be helping people that are billionaires and millionaires and hundred millionaires? Can we afford to have taxpayers help buy their drugs? I don’t know that we can.  So, those are the kinds of things that we’re gonna
to have to take a very hard look at. Um, and I, I, uh, hope that you all have questions.

I think this one [poster on stage] is very interesting ’cause this gives you the deficit in trillions and it gives you the various categories of what is contributing to the increase of the deficit that we’re currently experiencing, beginning in two thousand nine and, and projecting out to two thousand nineteen. And the various colors give you the various things that have been spent. You can take a look at that and realize that some of it is spending and some of it is tax cuts that occurred back under President Bush, um, that has, that has, that is contributing to it.

So, why don’t, um…

Voice: Senator, can we just say something?

Senator McCaskill: No, we’re gonna do this very fairly. [crosstalk] We’re gonna let everybody have an opportunity to talk [crosstalk].

Voices: [crosstalk] Not everybody…   …Can I just say something?

Senator McCaskill: Okay [crosstalk], let me, let me [crosstalk], let…

Voice: Your Internet says that you want to hear us…[crosstalk]

Senator McCaskill:Let me, uh [crosstalk]…

Voice: …hearing us…

Senator McCaskill: [to an aide] Give me the basket. Let me [crosstalk]…

Voice: …on a piece of paper…

Senator McCaskill : I [crosstalk]…

Voice: Why do you feel the need to control us, we’re all adults?

Senator McCaskill: Here’s what we’re gonna do. [crosstalk] Let’s take a show of hands, okay? Let’s try to do this fairly. We [crosstalk], and first of all, [name redacted] I hear from you every day, at least four or five times a day. I hear from you constantly. I have met with you personally. You’ve probably had more input [crosstalk] into my office than anybody in this room times a hundred. And I think it’s fine. [crosstalk] And I welcome it. [crosstalk] But I’m not gonna let you [crosstalk], I am not going to let you [crosstalk] to the extent of other people in here [crosstalk]…

Voices: That was an out and out lie, not four or five times a day… …I don’t see… …Come on…

Senator McCaskill: Okay, all right, I, I will be happy [inaudible]. Go on my tweet page, she’s [redacted] , [redacted] opinions are on there, it’s a public document, you can go on, look at my Twitter page. Here opinions are there. A lot. And believe me, I respect them, I appreciate your opinion [crosstalk] Let me, I absolutely read them. How do you think I know you do it? I read all of them. Sometimes you repeat yourself, but most of the time I read them. I read all of the tweets to me.  Here’s what I’m really trying to do. I don’t want anybody to try and dominate this conversation today. That’s  why I think it’s fair to draw [applause] , to draw the questions out and if, if everyone, if anybody thinks it’s really unfair for us to draw the questions out and get to as many as we can, please raise your hand. If you think it’s unfair. Anybody else besides these three in the front, four, think it’s unfair? Okay, and the rest of you, you think it’s fair we draw as many questions as we can out of the basket during the period of time we’re here? [applause] Okay. We’ll go with that.

Voice: Why didn’t you listen to the majority when they asked you to vote no?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I’m sure that will be a question, I’ll be happy to get to it. Um, I’m gonna, what I do is I call the, the name and then you’re free to stand up and ask the question that you’d like to ask, or if you would like me to read the question or someone else to read the question we can do that also….

Heh. Claire McCaskill has a lot of experience dealing with difficult people at town halls. What was interesting about the exchange was that the vast majority of the crowd was not buying the interruption and the rudeness, nor were they very happy with it. The instigator(s) backed off.

You can’t incite a crowd if they don’t buy your arguments and they don’t like your tactics.

These charts (and the two above) were distributed in a handout to all in attendance.

“Insidious Doctrine” – that works for me, but hypocrisy will also do in a pinch.

Transcripts of the press availability after the event and audience questions during the event will follow.