Last week I journeyed up to New England to see what voters thought of the debate over Medicare, for another of our CJR Town Halls, which this political season have been focused on Medicare. Polls continue to show that most Americans are wary about the voucher plan advocated by the GOP ticket, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Some people I met in Gloucester, MA., didn’t know much about the debate, but had plenty to say about the economy and about the tight Senate race between the Republican incumbent, Scott Brown, and his challenger, Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren. Signs for both appeared on many of the well-trimmed lawns of Cape Ann, perhaps indicating the intensityof the race. What came through in my interviews with Democrats and Republicans was a reflection of an intensely divided state, and country.
Olivia Zewinski
At the Minglewood Tavern, some people were reluctant to chat, saying they were tired of hearing about politics and the election. Olivia Zewinski, age 24, was not voting: “I’m embarrassed. I’m not registered to vote,” she said. She had missed the registration deadline. In the past when she was registered in other cities, Zewinski said she voted Democratic, and she supported Obama last time. She is studying nursing at a community college and works part time as a hostess at the LAT 43 restaurant. She told me that Medicare had been discussed in class. “I know Medicare is a huge deal,” she said. “It’s scary. I know the upcoming people will need care. My mother talks about it. She’s part of the population who will need care.” Other than that, Zewinsky didn’t know too much about the candidates’ proposals. She did say she liked Elizabeth Warren.
John and Tom
Two burly men sat at the restaurant bar. John, who’s 47, wouldn’t give his last name but he had a lot to say. He is a project manager for a construction contractor, and he’s been doing that job for 25 years for three different employers. “I’m a Republican, shading toward the side of Independent,” he told me, “I used to be a staunch Republican, but my views have changed.”
John was clear, though, he would vote for Brown. “He’s the hands-down candidate for me. The other candidate is too far on the other side, and I don’t go around telling people I’m an Indian when I’m not.” That was a reference to Warren claiming she was of Cherokee heritage. “I’m happy with the type of person Scott Brown is,” John said. “He looks like a real workingman’s politician.”
John said he is ticked off in some way about Obama’s birth certificate, adding that the president “makes inferences he’s a Muslim. He really has Muslim preferences. He has clearly said his father is a Muslim.” Where did he get this information? John said it was from a clip put together by “Hannity and Colmes” of Fox News fame, presumably meaning Sean Hannity. He told me he didn’t watch a lot of political shows but reads the Boston Herald. Not, he points out, The Boston Globe, which he calls the “Boston Democratic.”
John explained he would vote for Romney “because the country needs a business presence, not a community-organizing presence. The guy he picked for vice president has straightened out Wisconsin pretty good.” How? I wanted to know since Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, has been in Congress, not the statehouse in Madison. Ryan went after the unions, John thought, and he likes that. “The unions are killing us right now.”
John’s friend, Tom age 46, said he was an undecided voter. “I can lean either way,” he said, especially in the Senate race. “I have to listen to one more debate.” Brown and Warren had debated the day before I talked to Tom. “Some believe she lost in the first 55 seconds. It’s one to nothing now for Scott Brown.” Brown brought up he Cherokee thing and with it more controversy about Warren’s candidacy. What did John think of he debate? “I don’t think she’s that articulate,” he said.
Jeannine Mitchell and Stephen Dylinski
Down the street I met Jeannine Mitchell, 64, and her husband, Stephen Dylinski, 62, retired high school teachers, dining The Pub at Cape Ann Brewing Co. They were from Doylestown, PA., and touring the Massachusetts coast. They were happy to chat. Both are disgusted with Romney and will vote for the president. “Romney is crazy. He’s a terrible, terrible candidate. He was wrong to say that 47 percent of the people are on the dole. He’s a hyper-elite guy and doesn’t understand real people, Mitchell said. Her husband interjected, “He’s never stepped into a Philadelphia high school.”
Dylinski was particularly disgusted with Pennsylvania’s voter ID law. “Republicans passed the law to disenfranchise people who would vote for Obama. Disenfranchising people from voting could be considered a terrorist attack. Please quote me on that.” Both had taught school for more than 30 years and had pensions from the school district, as well as Social Security. They knew how valuable those things are. “Everyone should have what we have,” Mitchell said. “But most Americans will never see a pension and a few years of well-deserved retirement at a decent standard of living. Everyone should be able to have that.”
Our conversation turned to Medicare. “We are worried about it,” Mitchell said. Right now they pay $1300 a month for health insurance from Blue Cross—the full cost of the policy, the same one they had when they were working, only now they pay the full cost. They look forward to going on Medicare, when that monthly outlay will drop.
Paul and Kelly
Paul and his wife Kelly were having a hearty breakfast at the Sugar Magnolia café when I stopped by their table. Paul, 47, works in commercial lending for a Boston bank. Kelly, also 47, is a nurse and works for one of the towns outside of Boston. Paul made his preferences clear right off the bat. “I’m a big Scott Brown supporter. He’s a new face, and I probably agree with him on 75 percent of his positions. Paul said he was a conservative, but most likely would not vote for Romney, and definitely not Obama. He may write in a candidate.
What did he have against Obama? “His rhetoric is too divisive,” Paul said. “I don’t believe in his class warfare. His message is not conducive to solving problems.” Kelly said she was going to vote for Romney but not any more. “His remark about 47 percent not paying taxes was a little harsh,” she said. Paul was particularly concerned about the economy. “Continuing government spending without tax increases or budget spending cuts is irresponsible,” he told me. “I think we’ll have to broaden the tax base and look at Social Security and Medicare.”
What did he have in mind for those programs? “I’d raise the retirement age, the cap on wages, and cut benefits.” I probed more on the benefit cuts and asked if he knew what the average Social Security benefit is. (It’s $1,230). Paul didn’t know, but said, “Whatever it is, we can’t afford it. I don’t think we should have our own kids continue paying for this.” What will people do if they don’t get Social Security, I asked? “I think they have to take more responsibility,” Paul replied.
I asked about the family’s retirement plans. Paul has a 401(k) plan from the bank. Kelly has one but is not contributing to it right now. They were eager to finish their breakfast, so I had to move on without asking about what they would do if Social Security were not around.
Jesse Moore
Seventeen-year-old Jesse Moore was walking down the street listening to music. He was happy to talk about who he would vote for if he could vote. He’s not eligible until next summer. “I’d vote for Obama,” he told me. “He likes to help the poor. Mitt Romney only likes the rich. My parents hate him so I do too.”
Moore told me he had been accepted into the acting program at Emerson College in Boston and would go there next year after he graduates from high school. He told me he was one of five siblings who had been in foster homes, but it was their dad, a home care worker, who raised them. “I’m really proud of him,” he said.
Related stories:
The word on the street: disillusioned
The word on the street: apprehensive
It really amazes me that the race is as close as it is between Brown and Princess Fauxcahontas.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 1 Oct 2012 at 04:00 PM
"It really amazes me that the race is as close as it is between Brown and Princess Fauxcahontas."
It amazes me too how a guy can put his people out in public to whoop it up like racist yahoos like this Fauxcahontas crap is something to be proud to run on.
It's sort of like his whole "well professor, I drive a truck" shtick. This is Massachusetts, as in the Institute of Technology, not 'rather vote for a white felon than the black guy' Virginia. Does he really believe this good ol' boy campaign appeals to these voters?
And is the vote really this close?
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 1 Oct 2012 at 04:41 PM
I don't see how even the good ol' boy vote respects him after getting in his truck and running from every debate until Harry Reid forced him to pull over.
I guess he was too busy with kings and queens to talk issues with the lady professor in glasses.
I mean he gives no reason for the people who don't like him to vote and he publicly acts like a chicken trying to puff itself up like a racy little rooster in front of the people who do. Nice guy to have a beer with, but I wouldn't want to vote for him.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 1 Oct 2012 at 04:53 PM
Just like Battle Axe, Hatchet Face, Eagle Nose, Like those Indians .... Elizabeth Warren is an Indian too.
In all fairness, maybe its her (alleged) genealogical roots that led her to believe she didn’t need a Massachusetts law license to practice there.
But I suppose you might have a point, this race is about the issues, not whether or not Warren’s ancient family recipe, “Pow Wow Chow” was any good. Warren’s brave stands against the 1% on behalf of the rights for the 99%, like when she represented Travelers Insurance when they were seeking immunity from asbestos claims or when she helped LTV Steel screw a coal mine it bought out of $140 million in pension liabilities.
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 1 Oct 2012 at 05:07 PM
"like when she represented Travelers Insurance when they were seeking immunity from asbestos claims"
You remember the deal that the Obama Admin struck with the banks to let them walk without the worry of prosecution over the robo-signing scandal? Or BP over the macando well cleanup? Travelers was setting up a similar sort of deal to protect itself from suits over asbestos claims so that victims could get half a billion dollars without having to war for it in the banks and Travellers could walk free from victim's lawsuits because the victims could get their money from the 500 million dollar pot. Ideally it was win win. That was the outcome Elizabeth Warren argued for.
Later another court ruled something similar to this, 'since the agreement BP signed compensated victims from a fund in exchange for a release in liability - and the liabilities have not stopped since folks like the hotels are suing about their business losses, BP is released from the obligation to pay into the fund.'
'Oh. So that means we're back at square one, individuals suing?'
'Oh no! BP would have met its obligation had I, the judge, not released it. Therefore, the immunity from individual liability stands.'
That's how the Traveller's Insurance scam worked. Elizabeth Warren played no part in the second case. This is evidence of a f*cked up system, not evidence that Elizabeth Warren went to screw asbestos people.
Who are you trying to kid?
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 2 Oct 2012 at 01:06 AM
As to the LTV case, if I am reading it correctly, LTV was a conglomerate (which was basically private equity without the benefits of the leveraged buyout debt incentives that came about in the 1980's - see the ITT corporation). The aquired units under conglomerates weren't performing any better under new management than the old version, no benefits from synergies were passing on, so conglomerates got beaten up by the markets for a while. And so LTV got out of coal and a bunch of other industries to focus on steel:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/09/24/warren-represented-coal-mining-company-bankruptcy-caseb/HTgZwpjNJBy8aL6geQ8jXI/story.html
"LTV got out of the coal business in the early 1980s and reorganized under bankruptcy laws in 1986."
And they weren't alone. Many companies were sheding their coal operations and George Bush I signed a law to create a fund to take care of legacy employee obligations. In 1992.
"In response, Congress passed the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act, known as the Coal Act, which President George H.W. Bush signed in 1992.
The act required LTV and other companies that had been in the coal business to pay the cost of benefits for their former employees, as well as for some employees who had been “orphaned” by other former coal companies, into a new fund. LTV, according to court documents, estimated its cost of paying into the fund at $12 million a year or more."
So the question on the table was, are entities on the hook for new obligations signed into law near a decade and a bankruptcy after they left the industry? And this is an important question because LTV was struggling to pay the pensions from the businesses they still had and not collapse.
"The case involved the question of whether LTV, which was emerging from bankruptcy when the Coal Act took effect in 1993, could be forced to pay out more money after its bankruptcy was completed. Warren argued that the company’s obligations under the Coal Act should have been addressed as part of the bankruptcy.
Warren worried that in the future, similar claims would also have to be put off until the bankruptcy procedure ended, her campaign said. That could imperil victims of companies that shut down completely instead of reorganizing as LTV did, her campaign said."
In the end, however, the courts ignored that position and:
"The failure of LTV Steel, for example, cost the [U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp] $1.9 billion."
Oh. Wait a second. Are you telling me the republicans want to talk about US Steel and the worker's pensions during this presidential election, again?
You guys are serious?
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 2 Oct 2012 at 02:47 AM
And Scott Brown really wants to talk about the way victims got screwed out of their funds when he killed the option for banks to fund their own oversight and failed institution unwinding putting the taxpayer on the hook AGAIN when the banks eventually collapse AGAIN?
http://mobile.boston.com/art/25//news/nation/washington/articles/2010/06/30/browns_threat_gets_bank_tax_removed/;jsessionid=673803648FEBCF64660A4B7CB8E07CC0?single=1
Plus he supports our banks mucking around with hedge funds and private equity:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/scott_brown.html
And you guys are serious? The race is this close? *facepalm* America, you can do better than this.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 2 Oct 2012 at 03:07 AM