The MountainGoat Report

Give It Back

As Idaho legislators grappled with state budget issues and how to meet current revenue shortfalls yesterday, Betsy Russell transmitted headlines like these from the interim budget meetings:  "Huge Medicaid shortfall is possible…" and "One in 5 Idaho school districts have declared financial emergency" and "‘Significant’ state budget cuts ahead…."  Bleak could actually be an understatement.  Legislators are talking about "toughing it out," warning Idahoans to "be prepared to sacrifice" and describing the budget news as "breathtaking." 

Just who legislators expect will do most of the sacrificing they haven't said yet.  So far it doesn't appear that it will be any of them, although good leadership demands that they do.  Perhaps they could start by cutting their own salaries or maybe it would be a nice gesture to give back the millions in taxpayer-funded subsidies they've received over the last decade.

No matter that the state has already extracted its pound of flesh from the most disadvantaged among us—mental health facilities closing their doors, more single mothers living in poverty, programs for the elderly being cut, to name a few—all while keeping $200 million in reserve funds, now there's talk that Medicaid programs for the poor and disabled may face additional cuts of as much as 23 percent and the possibility remains that whole state programs could disappear.  Even the Promise Scholarship has turned bitterly Swiftian.

However severe, these "flesh extractions" for the few could have been much worse if not for federal stimulus money filling in some of the gaps.  Even so, some legislators are still sniveling about the money being there at all.  Still.

It wasn't that long ago legislators were talking about turning away federal stimulus money altogether, claiming that the stimulus bill was packed full of bogeymen like new "entitlement programs" that would require the state to pony up cash it didn't have once the federal government money ran out.  Rep. Scott Bedke (R-Oakley) even lamented in a February 19 appearance on "Zeb at the Ranch" that the stimulus money would prevent the legislature from "pairing back government services" and making the "good government changes" that they were contemplating.  Yes, too bad someone stepped in to feed the peasants, keeping you from dismantling their shacks.

The general feeling among Republicans at the Capitol Annex at the time could be best summed up in these words from former Congressman Bill Sali's spokesman Wayne Hoffman in his new role as Idaho's self-proclaimed freedom watchdog.

There's a certain "get-your-free-puppies-here" quality to this latest stimulus plan; every city, county and state in the country wants something for nothing, and everyone is turning up on the steps of the nation's Capitol looking to take home a prized pup. [...] In America, happiness will never be a bailout or stimulus or earmark away. If you want to keep America free, you need to avoid getting sucked in by the federal government's latest euphoric promise of happiness in the form of debt-financed trinkets and delights.

Shortly after the stimulus brouhaha, in a sharply-worded joint memorial, legislators were declaring Idaho's sovereignty and, curiously, demanding that the federal government "cease and desist" from making mandates and compulsory legislation a condition of receiving federal funding.  The only Republican House member who had the temerity to vote no was Jim Patrick of Twin Falls; it passed the Senate on a voice vote.

Days later, many of those same legislators showed up on tax day to party with those who have decided that they've been Taxed Enough Already, have had enough of bailouts and stimulus and were "taking their country back."  Here are Reps. Loertscher (R-Iona), Andrus (R-Lava Hot Springs) and Harwood (R-St. Maries) joining the fun in an Idaho Reports interview.

Petulant children in a sandbox full of 'em and just kicking sand everywhere.

Not one single legislator asserting state sovereignty and demanding the U.S. government "cease and desist" or crying about being overly stimulated by federal money has mentioned the taypayer dollars many of them have been raking in by the bucket-loads.

Currently serving Idaho legislators—those making the decisions about which state programs to cut and by how much—have taken millions of taxpayer dollars in the form of farm subsidies from 1995 to 2006.  If they hate federal government "interference" so much, why are they taking taxpayer-funded handouts from it?  Why are they showing up at TEA parties grumbling about the trampling of constitutional rights and then elbowing for their place at the trough.  Criticism of farm subsidies is verboten in this state, but if we're really going to talk about Taxed Enough Already, we should get serious about them.

To paraphrase the "freedom watchdog," it's time for legislators to give up their debt-financed trinkets and delights.  Keep America free and give those farm subsidies back.

Find tables with all the data below the fold.

President Gives Walt a Shout Out?

Not billed as a scolding, though it couldn't have felt like anything but to Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick seated in the second row between Representative Steve Driehaus of Ohio and Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii listening as President Obama spoke on financial reform Friday.  Having emerged on the front lines of the opposition to the President's plan to protect consumers and repair regulation through a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, it must have been uncomfortable for the Harvard Business School graduate to listen as the President first acknowledged his presence, along with a dozen or so other officials, and then repudiated efforts of those trying to kill or weaken the proposed agency legislation.

Obama singled out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for their million dollar ad campaign against the CFPA and their decade-long, half a billion dollar lobbying effort to maintain the industry-favoring status quo of ineffective financial regulation.  Just two weeks earlier, Minnick was on the other side of the lectern, urging members of the Chamber to use their "dispropor-tionate opportunity to influence" debate on the legislation and reassuring them that he would work to "get a bill that is as accommodating and sensible for the financial community as we can."

Minnick sits on the House Financial Services Committee which is expected to consider draft legislation for the CFPA this week and favors instead a council composed of existing regulators and lacking the proposed agency's enforcement power.  Curiously though, despite his public opposition to the President's plan and being among those trying to kill or weaken it, Minnick's staff viewed the White House invitation and remarks as a "shout out," noting so on his Facebook page.

Here's an excerpt from the President's speech; find the full text here and the video here.

In a financial system that's never been more complicated, it has never been more important to have a watchdog function like the one we've proposed. And yet, predictably, a lot of the banks and big financial firms don't like the idea of a consumer agency very much. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending millions on an ad campaign to kill it. You might have seen some of these ads -- the ones that claim that local butchers and other small businesses somehow will be harmed by this agency. This is, of course, completely false -- and we've made clear that only businesses that offer financial services would be affected by this agency. I don't know how many of your butchers are offering financial services. (Laughter.)

Contrary to what some have argued, this agency would not restrict consumer choice and innovation. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the past, a lack of clear rules led to innovation of the wrong kind: The firms that did best were the ones who did the best job of hiding the real cost to consumers. We don't want them competing by figuring out how much they can fool ordinary Americans. By contrast, the consumer agency we're proposing would set ground rules so that firms don't have to compete to confuse families, but they have to compete to give them better choices. This will also help small business entrepreneurs who often rely on credit cards and home equity loans to finance their start-up businesses.

All this hasn't stopped the big financial firms and their lobbyists from mobilizing against change. They're doing what they always do -- descending on Congress, using every bit of influence they have to maintain the status quo that has maximized their profits at the expense of American consumers, despite the fact that recently a whole bunch of those same American consumers bailed them out as a consequence of the bad decisions that they made. And since they're worried they may not be able to kill this agency, they're trying their hardest to weaken it -- by asking for exemptions from this agency's rules and enforcement; by fighting to keep every gap and loophole they can find.

They're very good at this, because that's how business has been done in Washington for a very long time. In fact, over the last 10 years, the Chamber alone spent nearly half a billion dollars on lobbying -- half a billion dollars

Holding Minnick To His High Standards

Monday, Idaho Blue Dog Congressman Walt Minnick announced in a press release that he and fellow Blue Dog Congresswoman Betsy Markey of Colorado, "sent a letter calling on House leaders to prohibit the group ACORN from being eligible for federal funds."  If you haven't heard yet, among other problems, ACORN came under scrutiny recently when embarrassing undercover videos surfaced showing employees allegedly advising a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute on getting around federal tax laws.

Both Markey and Minnick had already put their anti-ACORN credentials on the record last month by voting for defunding ACORN in the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, so this letter might seem a bit like piling on.  However, the two may have something else in mind.  Bob Moore at The Coloradoan has the scoop and here's a hint:  it includes something about a prophylactic.

In the press release, Minnick also goes on the record with what he thinks should be the standard for those receiving taxpayer money.

"Organizations receiving taxpayer funding should be held to the highest standards and those that do not should not receive federal dollars," Minnick said. "This Congress must show fiscal responsibility and transparency with the use of taxpayer dollars."

Seems pretty straightforward.  The letter goes even further including "highest ethical and legal standards."

Here's a suggestion for the Congressman.

Federal prosecutors have charged five employees of Xe, formerly Blackwater Worldwide, with manslaughter; another admitted to killing an Iraqi in a plea deal.  They've also been found to have overcharged the government for security contracts.  The Iraqi government doesn't want them in their country.  Certainly that falls outside Minnick's "highest standards" benchmark for receiving taxpayer funding.

Blackwater subsidiary U.S. Training Center, Inc currently has $243,443,805 in federal contracts for 2009.  Chenega Corporation, including subsidiary Chenega Blackwater Solutions, a joint venture with Blackwater, has $304,197,600 in federal contracts for 2009.

Defunding Blackwater legislation would save around half a billion in taxpayer dollars just from these two Blackwater affiliations' 2009 contracts.  That's not even including the $1.3 billion they received 2000 to 2008 and quite a bit more than the "tiny" (yes, he said that) $2.2 million Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute, hardly a liberal think tank, reports was ACORN’s share of federal subsidies for 2009.

We'll be expecting Rep. Minnick's press release entitled "Remove funding for Blackwater" soon.

Update:  Corrected to reflect that Rep. Markey is not a member of the Blue Dog Coalition.

Minnick: Still In The Caucus

It was already evident after the first nine months in office that Congressman Walt Minnick favors corporate interests over people, along the way alienating much of his Democratic constituency in Idaho.  Recent news of his opposition to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency doesn't help.

Now Minnick also appears to be alienating national Democrats and the Obama Administration, perhaps sinking his chances of securing support for his 2010 re-election campaign.  Monday, Politico reported:

Since mid-August, [Vice President Joe] Biden already has appeared at fundraisers for close to a dozen junior House Democrats—almost exclusively first-termers—helping them rake in more than $1 million, according to party officials.

[...]

Biden foreshadowed his potential fall itinerary when he told donors at a fundraiser for second-term Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who represents a Republican-leaning seat in Arizona, that the future of the Obama administration’s agenda depends on 35 Democrats who represent districts Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won last November. Those are the seats Biden said the GOP will target in the midterm elections.

Even though Minnick is considered among the most vulnerable House Democrats, he has not been among those receiving fundraising support from the Vice President.

Last month, the highly-respected Rothenberg Political Report moved Minnick's chances of holding his seat in 2010 from Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic to Pure Toss-Up.  Moving to the extreme political right apparently isn't helping Minnick's prospects of being anything but a one-term wonder.

In his speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on September 24, Minnick joked about his "independent" voting record, saying about House Democrats, "so far they still allow me to come to caucus."

Good one.

 [h/t The Political Game]

Walt Minnick: Taking Protection Out Of The CFPA

On September 30, the U. S. House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing on the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, the Obama Administration's plan to repair the failed, jerry-rigged financial regulatory system by creating a robust consumer watchdog agency to oversee the industry in hopes of preventing future economic collapse.  The hearing is one of several held in preparation for the committee's consideration of draft legislation incorporating this plan next week.

Idaho Blue Dog Congressman Walt Minnick sits on the committee and made headlines last month for publicly opposing the CFPA, floating instead his own proposal for a weaker council composed of existing financial regulators and lacking the enforcement teeth of the proposed agency, but during the hearing was strangely quiet.

As Greg Kaufmann at The Nation describes it, under the new agency:

No longer would financial institutions be able to choose their federal regulator--if they have one at all--shopping for the one that is most accommodating to their interests.

No longer would the regulators depend on the very firms they are supposedly monitoring as a major source of funding.

And no longer would consumer protection be an afterthought--understaffed, under-funded, and absolutely underwhelming.

The financial services industry and trade associations, led by the U. S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Banking Association, are strenuously opposing the CFPA, backing up their opposition by flooding Capitol Hill with money and lobbyists.  The Chamber announced a well-funded campaign to combat increased regulation in June.  In August, Public Citizen reported that between election day and the end of June, trade association and industry PACs and lobbyists representing top TARP fund recipients contributed $6 million to and hosted 70 congressional campaign fundraisers, including for Minnick and Idaho Senator Mike Crapo who sits on the Senate's banking and finance committees.

Although not among those benefiting from their 35 scheduled campaign fundraisers, the U. S. Chamber of Commerce has become quite fond of Minnick.  September 24, in a keynote speech to the group about the CFPA, it was evident that he is focused on the impact the new agency would have on the financial industry, stating that he hopes to work within the Financial Services Committee "to get a bill that is as accommodating and sensible from the standpoint of the financial community as we can."

It was also apparent that he is not as focused on the consumer protection aspect of the CFPA, continually referring to the proposed agency as the "consumer financial product agency."  A name is just a name and one could argue that this slip doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things but it is notable that he did so throughout the entire thirty minutes he spent with the group, even as the host and questioners referred to it correctly.  It also gives some insight as to his thinking—it's not on protection.

After making his opposition public and becoming the point man for industry efforts to eliminate the CFPA, oddly, in last week's hearing on the proposed agency, Minnick gave no statement, asked no questions of either witness panel and appeared to leave the three and a half hour hearing within the first thirty minutes (check the video here).

To be fair, not every member of a committee is expected to attend every minute of a hearing; even the committee chairmen frequently leave during testimony.  Also Minnick's resolution calling for the release of Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo was scheduled for full House consideration the same day, although according to the Clerk of the House, debate on that began at 1:35 and it was adopted by 1:51, while the CFPA committee hearing was scheduled to begin at 10:00.  Apparently Congressman Minnick already knew everything he needed to know about the CFPA or had more important things to do.

Had Minnick stayed long enough he would have heard this testimony from witnesses, reported again by Kaufmann in The Nation:

Janis Bowdler, a deputy director at the National Council of La Raza, said, "Deficient oversight failed Latinos, other communities of color, and those of modest means...Despite clear evidence that minority borrowers were paying more for credit and being steered into subprime credit when they qualified for prime, the trends went unnoticed by federal regulators...[We need] a new agency dedicated to consumer protection, product innovation, and equal access to financial markets."

The CFPA "would support if not require regulators to become more protective of consumers," said Hilary Shelton, director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "And it would make civil rights protections more of a key element in the regulation and oversight of financial services...We need [an] agency whose primary function is to provide some protection to consumers."

Michael Calhoun, president and chief operating officer at the Center for Responsible Lending, asked simply, "Who does the Congress want to trust with carrying out this authority? For me, a telling statistic... if you look from 2002 to 2008, the [Office of the Comptroller] did not make a single--a single--referral to the Department of Justice for equal credit violations. Now do you want to trust the authority back to them? Or do you want to try a different approach?"

"Even those financial institutions that were regulated had regulators who were looking at them from the perspective of what was good for the institutions, not what was good for the consumers," [Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union,] agreed. "It would be good to have an agency that actually looks at the interests of the consumer first, as opposed to last."

Evidently Walt Minnick doesn't see it that way.  He sees the interests of the financial industry first and is working to accommodate those interests.  The same corporate interests that are largely responsible for bringing the U.S. economy to its knees, pocketing billions in bailout funds and driving thousands of Idahoans below poverty.  Yes, that financial industry.  Is this really what Walt means when he says he's doing what's right for Idaho?

Soshalizm Sweeping Main Street

I heard it coming.  That thing is loud and even inside my cozy home on a frigid morning in Nampa, I could hear it coming from blocks away.  It was louder than the trains that rarely but occasionally rattle the windows at night.  Okay, it's an old home with single-pane windows so it doesn't take much to rattle them.  Still. . .

The street sweeper was coming.

It was early but as the monstrosity inched closer, street by street, humming along with shaving brush writ giant bristles whirring in frantic circles, I waited for it.  I waited for them.

They didn't come.

Where were they?  Where were the hordes of we the people flooding the somewhat dingy streets littered with post-weekend yard sale announcement debris to take their community back from this blatantly flagrant display of big government soshalizm?  Where were the hand-lettered signs and the flag-defiling attire?  Where were the swastikas?

Clean streets are not a right.  Street sweeping isn't a proper role of government.  Litter removal was not enumerated in the divinely inspired founding documents.  We the people have a right to choose dirty streets and we damn well shouldn't have to pay to keep the streets of others clean. . . or something equally fist-shaking-ish.

It never happened.  The hordes never came.  I guess they like big government deciding when to clean the streets and when to leave debris fluttering like confetti against the curb.  I guess they can tell their children what it once was like in America when men were free.  I guess they like soshalizm.