Selective listening | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    Do you suppose anyone in the mainstream press really listens when people speak. Or does their listening tend to be somewhat "selective"?? Here's several examples. You be the judge..

    First there's the anointed one. The anointed one goes out to the hinterlands (in a bus built in Canada, yet) to see what the mood of the public is. It is billed as a "town hall" style listening trip. (Nothing at all to do with running for reelection, so it's on the taxpayer's dime. Of course..). He gets challenged by a taxpayer and in the exchange he says something to the effect of: "You aren't listening." Is that really how listening tours work?? Short answer: It seems to be when it is the anointed one's "listening tour", but the mainstream media doesn't seem to pick up on it...

    Then there's Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett is quoted as supporting increased taxes for "rich people". The context of "rich" in the community organizer's vernacular is $200 - 250K. The context of Mr. Buffett's comment was the uber-rich (well above the $200K threshold). The thrust of his comments were to the effect that the income of investment bankers, money managers, traders, and people like him (people whose income is normally in the million dollar range and more) make a ton of money that is taxed at capital gains rates which are conspicuously lower than if it was taxed as "earned income" or not taxed at all (as when he pours a bucket of money into the Bill gates Foundation - thus avoiding paying any taxes on it).. He didn't mention it, but the reason the investment bankers get the favored treatment is that a few years ago their lobbyists were able to get the "treat our income as capital gains loophole" inserted into the tax code. Instead of treating their income as earned income which is taxed at the earned income rates, it is called "capital gains" and taxed at the significantly lower capital gains rates which results in the inequalities about which Mr. Buffett complains. He is right. This loophole needs to be closed!!

    When Mr. Buffett exposes this inequity, his comments are treated as though they applied to all income earned by the rich. But if they do, you can bet that he isn't talking about $200 - 250K incomes. He is talking about $1M (and up) incomes. It seems unlikely that there are many folks (outside of those who are the recipients of this taxpayer largesse) who would complain about correcting this gross inequity. And it doesn't need to be part of a "comprehensive" tax reform package. After all, when politicians use the term "comprehensive", what they mean is "Lets get as many miles of rhetoric out of this subject as we can without ever having to do anything to fix the problem." (or is it "issue"??). This one needs to be fixed.

    Then there's Rick Perry. Gov. Perry doesn't seem to like the idea of the Federal Reserve simply "printing" money and he says so. He then suggests that if the Fed does that in the future for a political reason (yes, that's what he said!!), the fed Chairman may be guilty of a rather serious felony (treason). The main stream media takes great umbrage at the Gov's comment. They simply ignore the caveat "for a political reason", which then makes the comment appear unseemly. That allows them to take great umbrage at it. It was interesting that Karl Rove did the same thing which would seem to add credence to the allegations that there is "bad blood" between the Perry and Bush camps, even though Rove in an interview denied the allegation. Hmmm.....

    Then there's Paul Ryan. Representative Paul Ryan takes on Medicare and Social Security. He proposes that medicare and Social Security for anyone 55 and older will not be impacted at all. The benefits they currently enjoy will not be changed. He says clearly and without equivocation that the changes he proposes will apply only to those who have not yet reached 55. That leaves a 10 year window (or more - depending on whether the age of eligibility changes of not) during which those "youngsters" should have plenty of time to adjust their retirement plans. Yet the press and Dem. talking points charge that Social Security and Medicare recipients are about to have their "safety net" cut out from under them. Not a word about the grandfathering of those 55 and older. You would think that everyone will be impacted. In this case, perhaps more than in the others outlined above, the misinformation may not be so clearly the result of the failure to listen as it is an overt attempt (that has worked for years) to scare seniors into believing they will be negatively impacted which, of course, turns them against the proposal. No conversation; no discussion; no negotiations, no nothing; just plain and simple scare tactics. The fact that it still seems to work is certainly no testament to how well informed the American public is; especially the seniors. Surely we can do better than that.

    D'ya think??