The MountainGoat Report

Befitting

If you've been reading MGR for awhile, you've heard about the "Republicans for Walt Minnick" site that once belonged to Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick's campaign.  Through the majik of the interwebs the site now belongs to some enterprising soul whose sole purpose, apparently, is to provide hilarity and nonsense on a regular basis--and they do not disappoint.

Witness:

 

Who could argue with "pick out the everyone that you over wishes make your loved in unison's mouth still water the most?"  Impossible, and one shouldn't even try.  Just accept the insanity and hilarity and move on.

Much like Idaho's 1st Congressional District.  

Today we learn that the Sarah Palin-endorsed Republican candidate, Vaughn Ward (denied endorsement by the GOP establishment arm of the tea-sipping movement, Tea Party Express, choosing instead to back the Democratic-labeled incumbent Walt Minnick) who has been railing against bailouts, and gu'mit in general, is supported by his wife who works for one of those gu'mit bailed out companies, Fannie Mae.

Just accept the insanity and hilarity that will be Idaho's 1st CD race and move on.

Remember, "almost any basket chosen with love choice  be a well-received gift."

Jumping Off the Ledge

Upon receiving their endorsement and becoming a Tea Party Hero, Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick said of the Tea Party Express, "They're just ordinary folks who think the government ought to balance this budget. There's nothing very radical about that so I'm pleased to have their endorsement."

Later that day, Minnick spokesman John Foster acknowledged to Boise Weekly, "You’ve got some fringe within the group, that’s for sure," but, he went on, "you've got to base your views on people based on your interactions with them."

Here is some of the tax day protest put on by the Tea Party Express:

Wow, that's enough to make Robert W. Welch, Jr. sit up and take notice.  Kudos if you made it through all eleven minutes.

How often is the fringe of a group given the podium?  Or maybe Minnick thinks this is just what "ordinary folks" believe.  Either way, how do Idaho Democrats justify this?

Either this is mainstream tea party thought and should be repudiated, not embraced, or Minnick believes these fringe-y accusations about communism in the White House are "ordinary."

What is a sane Democrat to do?

Minnick: Tea Party Hero (Update 2)

From Talking Points Memo:

Top Democratic leaders and Democrats in conservative districts are among the names the tea party movement hopes to defeat this year. At the last stop of its nationwide tour in Washington this morning, organizers of the Tea Party Express revealed their list of 2010 "Tea Party Targets," a list that includes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Alan Grayson.

[...]

The group also announced a list of Tea Party Heroes, which included tea party favorites like Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) as well as a single Democrat -- Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID).

You've come a long way Congressman Minnick.  It's quite an accomplishment to be named in the same company as Michele Bachmann.

Update:  Here's more from Huffington Post (you know, the blog that can't possibly "understand [Minnick's] position" because, well, they're librul and all; yes, the same blog he ran from last summer):

So, congratulations to Representative Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), because you are the King Of Tea Party Bipartisan Cover!

They're checking to see if he's accepted the endorsement.

Update 2:  The Huffington Post article linked in the first update was almost completely rewritten to reflect that Minnick did accept the Tea Party Express endorsement and to include statements from Minnick spokesman John Foster. (Why not write a whole new article then?  Don't ask me.)  Foster attempted to put the Tea Party Hero status in its best light, as any campaign spokesman would, but in doing so went the revisionist history route.

But Foster tried to make a compelling case that the Minnick endorsement wasn't just window dressing. While the congressman had only spoken to the Tea Party Express once, it was during the infamously contentious August recess. "They invied [sic] all four members of Idaho's delegation and Walt shocked everybody by being the only one who showed up in person and he stood his ground," said Foster. "He got a lot of support for his fiscal stance. But very little support for what he said about the president [for whom he reiterated his support]... By the end of the 90 minutes they gave him a standing ovation."

By most accounts--even the most gushing of the bunch written by a friend of Minnick's wife--there wasn't a "standing ovation" for Minnick, though some did give him credit for being there and a grudging respect for his apparent fiscal stance.  "He paid too much homage to his Republican colleagues to please some Democrats, but not enough to please the crowd. Liberals won’t like it that he thought it was a 'useful suggestion' when someone shouted 'close the borders!'  Republicans who crossed the party line to vote for him hated hearing of his support for President Obama," wrote the Minnicks' friend, Jill Kuraitis, at New West.

As to the accuracy of "standing his ground," it depends on what ground Walt envisions himself standing in the first place and, as Alan reported at IdaBlue, the "panderbear" wasn't standing with the Democrats who had been the largest contributors to his 2008 campaign.

In his opening remarks Walt emphasized how we must "pay for" any health care reform, drawing many approving hoots and much applause. Then he said, and this is a near quote: " I've met with lots of groups, (and he named some clubs and political groups) and North End Democrats, and I think that group is more likely to produce a Fox News moment than this group." Laughs and applause. Which kind of put me off, to be honest. See, he's saying that he thinks N.E. Dems are crazier, or more volatile, then tea baggers.

The blurriness surrounding the location of Minnick's "ground" preceded the townhall with questions about his voting record and why he bothers to call himself a Democrat when he clearly would like to be a bone fide conservative.  He has since voted to accuse the House Democratic leadership of willful deceit, deceptive behavior and willful abuse of power and became the darling of House Republican leadership during debate on financial regulation reform, making crystal clear which ground Minnick is claiming.

Finally, if Walt has such a "firm stance on fiscal accountability" as Foster asserts (and not to be confused with a wide stance), why did he vote against PayGo legislation after touting himself as a "vocal proponent" five days earlier?  Maybe because, like in most things, Minnick isn't always what he says he is.

The Chart

With news that 162,000 non-farm jobs were added in March, reporting "the best job growth since the nation entered a recession in December 2007," and news that "Idaho's jobless rate [fell] for the first time in 32 months," many are confident that the economy is beginning to turn the corner.

Given that, many are touting The Chart, and it is hard to argue with the positive visual.

Wherein . . . Redux

[Editor's Note:  For those recently tuning in to The MountainGoat Report and finding themselves shocked that a Democrat would be unsatisfied with Congressman Walt Minnick's performance,"Wherein MountainGoat Gets Frank With Walt," first published September 1, 2009, is required reading.  Here it is again in its entirety . . . enjoy.]

An open communiqué for Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick:

On Halloween day last year, in an interview with University of Idaho's KUOI radio in Moscow, you scolded your opponent for voting against expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, saying, incredulously, "Who could be opposed to providing health care to single moms who don't have jobs?"

Bill Sali said we couldn't afford it and voted against it—four times.

You said, "There are some places this country has to invest," and called the votes shortsighted.

You went on to describe your own traumatic health care experience with your young son and on finding yourself facing $600,000 in medical bills to save his life, said:

My company had excellent health insurance and my wife and I only had to pay a few thousand dollars of that, but if we hadn't had that insurance, even though I was running a company, I would have been personally bankrupt.

Every American should have comprehensive, affordable health insurance so that a medical disaster doesn't force them to lose their home, lose all of their retirement and lose everything they've built in their lifetime.

Congressman Minnick, I'd like to introduce you to Tom and Karen.  They are third-generation wheat farmers on the Palouse.  They are among the 138,000 living in your district who don't have health insurance.  Karen hasn't been to the doctor in 13 years; the last time Tom saw a doctor was when a cow stepped on his hand, eventually deciding as blood poured from his mangled finger that an infection from the bacteria-laden manure was something they couldn't treat at home.  Despite medical advice otherwise, he didn't stay overnight.  They couldn't afford it.  They have a young son who has never been to the dentist.

Well, let's let them finish telling their story:

Congressman Minnick, no one, including you, expected health care reform to be easy.  But as you and the KUOI host mused about just how difficult it would be, with an eerie prescience befitting the day, you hoped it could be achieved before it became a "political football."

Hard-working Idahoans like Tom and Karen sent you to Washington because you gave them hope.  Hope that you could and would convince their country to see them as an investment.  People of the 1st District had enough of the rigid ideology that told them they weren't worth the price and sent you to represent them instead.  They didn't expect to get a more finely honed rigid ideologist.  They didn't expect, nor did they deserve to get their lives turned into political footballs—least of all by you.

Yet that is exactly what you've done.  You joined the chorus of townhall crazies and fear mongering ideologues who turned Tom and Karen and every other Idahoan who can't afford medical care into political footballs.

Instead of coming home and working to convince Idahoans that they had nothing to fear and much to gain from health care reform (something many of us were prepared to help you do), you and your advisors (with their legendarily acute grasp of messaging) sent out misinformation-laden press-releases playing up the fears of Idahoans using triggers like "socialized medicine," "big government" and "raising taxes."

Instead of embracing a public option for what it is—an option that would reduce costs by pressuring private insurers to compete alongside government coverage; that would actually save $150 billion over the next ten years, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates—you ridiculed it as "socialized medicine," calling it a big government takeover that would kill private insurance.  Far from killing private insurance, according to CBO estimates the current House bill would actually increase the number of Americans covered under private employer-based policies by about 3 million.

Instead of reassuring Idahoans that to make these proposed reforms that, while imperfect, give 97 percent of Americans health insurance, only 6,000 of them (3,000 in the 1st District) would be asked to pay a little more in taxes (that's one percent for individuals making above $280,000 and married couples making more than $350,000), you resorted to fueling fears with the pavlovian specter of "raising taxes."  I suppose raising taxes on yourself and your well-heeled friends is counterintuitive but how else do you propose to pay for reform, Mr. Minnick, as you so often lament that the current bill estimates do not?

When you have anywhere from $220,000 to $650,000 personally invested in health related businesses (among those spending $1.4 million a day in lobbying so far this year); when you have taken over $126,000 in campaign contributions from health related industry (over $52,000 so far this cycle according to the Center for Responsive Politics and refuse to say no to more); and when you, until eight months ago sat on the board of Primary Health, Inc., can you blame Idahoans who are having to choose between medical care and food for wondering exactly whose interests you are representing?  Can you blame people for being skeptical that you are looking out for them—for even being angry at having become your political football?

You say, meekly, that you want health care reform but your actions belie your words.  The health care reform principles that you support look an awful lot like the status quo on steroids.  Forcing Idahoans to buy insurance but offering them only the crappy policies from your campaign donors and business interests feels an awful lot like mandating that everyone buy a Yugo and cheerfully offering taxpayer money to help any who can't afford it and pocketing the proceeds.  You say that increased government regulation will make these crappy policies palatable and affordable but the banking industry, the credit card industry and the mortgage industry were all supposed to be government regulated, too.  That didn't make them safe; when regulation got watered down, they did too.

As pointed out in Congressional Quarterly, over the last decade health insurance costs have increased at three times the rate of wages.  At these rates, even those who have insurance will soon no longer be able to afford the premiums.  A family of three making $55,000 a year (more than the average wage in Idaho) are spending nearly a quarter of their income on insurance premiums.  People can't wait.  In our unconscionable health care lottery system, those lucky enough to have insurance and those unlucky souls who don't were counting on you.  We were all counting on you to make the investment in us.

Four days after that Halloween interview you became Congressman-elect Walt Minnick . . . well, technically five if you count the late-night vote tallying that finally determined your slim victory.

On that fifth day, embattled but euphoric Idaho Democrats gathered on the steps of the Capitol Annex in Boise for a press conference celebrating a campaign season that produced victories large and small:  a stunningly large turnout on short notice to see then-candidate Obama, record numbers turning up at Democratic caucuses, a new Democratic president, state legislative wins and, the icing on the Democrat's cake, your victory over Bill Sali in the 1st Congressional District.

While Idaho Democrats publicly celebrated, you were conspicuously absent.  Your wife A.K. and your son were there.  It was said you were busy.

It wasn't the first time Idaho Democrats were left holding your purse while you careened off on your own Magoo-ian path.

Sadly, it wasn't your last.

Idaho Democrats didn't expect you to roar like a liberal lion but they and all Idahoans deserve more than this type of lion made famous while gracing the big screen in The Wizard of Oz.

[It should be noted that Congressman Minnick went on to vote against health care reform four times:   November 7 on the House bill, March 21 on the Senate bill and again on reconciliation, and March 25 on final reconciliation.]

Is Otter Twisted?

This is what Idaho Governor Butch Otter calls a "great session," praising legislators for their "efficiency, sensitivity and civic virtue?"

The Idaho Statesman's Colleen Lamay reports on the effects of budget cuts on the state's mentally ill:

"We have a lot of panicked people out there and a lot of disarray," said Dr. Larry Banta, a Caldwell psychiatrist who contracts with the Idaho Bureau of Mental Health and Substance Abuse to see state patients.

"We worry as providers that without sufficient funding of the mental health centers, we are going to have more tragic outcomes," Banta said.

Those outcomes could include suicide, homelessness or violence against other people, especially if patients stop taking prescribed medications, he said.

Tragic outcomes and potentially increasing a prison population that is already overcrowded, underfunded and stressed.  Many adjectives would seem appropriate--some would use "difficult"--great isn't one of them.

Is Governor Otter twisted or just out of touch?

Minnick, Obama, Smeed Mashup

This was then-candidate Walt Minnick fawningly groping for then-candidate Barack Obama in the Taco Bell Arena February 2, 2008.  Couldn't get close enough, soon enough, it appears.

 

This is what Caldwell's perennial "curmudgeon" (his word, others wouldn't be so kind) Ralph Smeed had to say about that event and this is what he thinks of President Obama (spoiler alert:  yes, he wants to see a birth certificate; more here):

This is what Congressman Walt Minnick thinks of his friend Ralph Smeed (and Rep. Ron Paul):

This is what Minnick told The New York Times about his reelection chances after voting against Democratic leaders on prominent issues ("hell no, you can't," if you weren't paying attention):

"I think I'll gain a lot more than I lost, to be honest," Mr. Minnick said, "and the president isn't on the ballot, so I feel pretty good."

Any questions?

Finally, here's a bit of trivia to dazzle your friends with:  What is one thing Ralph Smeed and Walt Minnick have in common, besides that they're apparently "best" friends?  They both attended the 1964 Republican National Convention in San Fransisco to participate in the nomination of  Barry "fanatics love me" Goldwater--Smeed as an Idaho State delegate; Minnick as assistant sergeant at arms from Washington State.

The Vietnam Service Lie (Update 2)

When does Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick plan to quit lying about his military service?  It's been a week since it was first pointed out that Walt had been misrepresenting his service on his campaign Facebook page and, as shown below, still no change.  Today that lie was repeated nationally by KIDO radio's Austin Hill.

Walt Minnick never served in Vietnam.  In fact as pointed out here, he tried desperately to avoid being drafted and did so by joining the Army Reserve.  He said so in his own words in The Native Home of Hope: People & the Northern Rockies, published in 1986.

“I went to law school during the Vietnam era when draft deferments were hard to get. I was admitted to Harvard Law school but my local draft board didn't want to let me go. My draft appeal finally worked its way up to the presidential appeals board. If I won, I would be able to finish my first year of law school and then get drafted. If the state of Washington won, I would have to go right away. I didn't mind going in the army, but I really wanted to finish law school first. So I joined the Reserve Officer Training Corps unit—that was a couple of years before ROTC got thrown off the Harvard campus.”

When called to fulfill his two-year active duty obligation, he was assigned to the Pentagon where he worked on economic aspects of Vietnamization.  He spent approximately 18 months of his two-year commitment there; the remainder was spent in the White House.

The Vietnam service lie is repeated at Boardroom Insiders, where they credit him with "a tour of duty in Vietnam," and at LivPAC.  "He served as a 1st Lieutenant in the Vietnam war.  He then returned home to serve in the White House," according to their biography.

And now the lie has been picked up by Austin Hill (on whose radio show Minnick appeared Thursday), published on his own blog and spread to the well-known conservative site, Townhall, where Hill calls Minnick a "veteran of the Viet Nam [sic] war."

Wonder how the family of Walla Walla Community College alumnus Daryl Meidinger, who actually did do a tour of duty in Vietnam but never returned, feels about Walt's avoiding the draft and the misrepresentations about his service?  Reports say that Meidinger was killed in action April 30, 1969, just a few days before Minnick received his JD from Harvard.  Bet he would have "really wanted to finish" something, too.

Update:  John Foster, campaign spokesman for Congressman Minnick, has responded:

Please correct your post and title immediately. Walt has never lied or misled anyone about his military service. While not permanently stationed in Vietnam, he did travel, work and serve there as part of his work in the Pentagon to improve the country's economy. (He also spent time in Afghanistan while working on drug issues.) Attacking someone's military service is the worst kind of attack, particularly when it is done by a fellow veteran.

Supporting and assisting veterans is an issue of top importance to Walt. During my time in his Congressional office, I watched our casework team help more than 700 Idaho vets get the benefits they were owed. I watched out Idaho staffers help honor vets and get them the commendations they had earned. And I watched our DC staff craft legislation to make it easier for rural vets to get the care they deserve. All because Walt makes this issue a priority for his offices.

As evidenced by the two biographies quoted in the post above, "serving his country in Vietnam" is not generally perceived to mean traveling there on occasion; it's generally perceived to mean in combat.  Veterans of all generations understand that embellishing or misleading others about one's military service is inexcusable.  It should also be noted that Minnick's Congressional biographies do not include the same misleading phrase.

Update 2:  Minnick's spokesman has advised that they consider the Facebook page referenced above "inactive" and their new official campaign page can be found here, with the first visible entry being made February 14.  The controversial phrase on the old page has been edited to avoid further confusion.

Minnick Votes Against Small Business Jobs Bill

Wednesday the U.S. House of Representatives passed a small business jobs bill giving small businesses $3.6 billion in tax breaks and which included a jobs-creation package giving local governments financing assistance for infrastructure improvements through programs like "Build America Bonds."  The measure passed on a 246 to 178 vote with neither of the Idaho delegation in support.  Congressman Walt Minnick was one of just seven Democrats voting against the bill while four Republicans joined the majority of Democrats on final passage, however Congressman Mike Simpson was not among them.

What did Walt Minnick vote against?  In part, the bill would:

• Increase the exclusion from capital-gains tax on small-business stock — normally 50 percent but raised by the Recovery Act to 75 percent for equity acquired in 2009 and 2010 — to 100 percent for stock acquired through 2011.
• Allow taxpayers to treat venture-capital loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration as “at-risk” financing, which would increase the amount of deductions a business could take.
• Temporarily increase, for 2010 and 2011, the deduction for small-business start-up expenses from $5,000 to $20,000, and raise the upper limit for deductible expenses (above which the deductible begins to phase out) from $50,000 to $75,000. 
• Limit the penalty for failing to report on a tax return a “listed transaction” — that is, a transaction that the Internal Revenue Service has formally identified as a scheme to avoid taxes.

Because of budgeting rules requiring legislation to be paid for (something Minnick also inexplicably voted against in February), The New York Times explained how the House would do that.

[T]he bill pays for these outlays by raising revenue from other sources, and what the House giveth small business, it taketh from large corporations, particularly multinationals. One provision would raise nearly $8 billion over 10 years by taking aim at complex global money movements that reduce taxes. The bill would prevent companies in offshore havens from funneling income earned in the U.S. through tax-deductible payments to subsidiaries in third countries.

The bill must also pass the Senate which, as the Times reports, is contemplating its own version of the legislation.

Why Minnick would vote against small businesses and job creation and in favor of allowing large multinationals to avoid taxes through "offshore havens" is unclear (that's not unusual these days), after all, earlier this month he was touting his vote in favor of a small business jobs bill (after initially abstaining and voting against it).

'Stop This Insanity,' Indeed

It appears that once again the Idaho Legislature, Governor Otter and Attorney General Wasden are a little premature--this time in spouting off about "states rights" and "unconstitutional mandates."  While Idaho's already bare-bones budget is being systematically dismembered due to lack of revenue (some would say, the lack of will to raise revenue), the Legislature passed the Idaho Health FreeDumb Act.

Then Governor Otter proudly declared "a high priority on sovereignty," publicly making a show of signing it into law and curiously becoming semi-notorious for doing so.  (Contrast that with his "cloak and dagger" swearing in... what was that all about?)

Not to be outdone, then AG Wasden (cheered on by "stop this insanity" Otter) announces that he's joined 12 other states in a lawsuit against the federal government and "it will not be inexpensive" to "protect" Idahoans from health care.

Now, it seems all of that is moot . . . or the political grandstanding it appeared to be.

From Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) discussing a provision of the legislation he authored saying, "You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan." 

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

Governor Otter, AG Wasden, Idaho Legislature:  Stop this insanity.  We don't have the money to waste on political grandstanding, your 15 minutes of shame or to refurbish your anti-gumment credentials. 

The Walt Minnick You Don't Know

[Editor's note:  Cross-posted at The Political Game.  This collaboration with the editor of The Political Game comes as a result of Congressman Walt Minnick's vote on health care reform legislation and from the opinion that his self-serving leadership is not beneficial to Idaho Democrats.]

It's not by accident that among the first lines in nearly every current biography of Idaho Congressman Walter Clifford Minnick is a phrase about growing up on a wheat farm in Walla Walla, Washington. It makes for a nice narrative and effective imagery—small town boy, hard work, conservative values—things a guy running for political office in a rural western district would want to highlight, especially one running as a reluctant Democrat.

Like anyone would, there are things in Walt Minnick's past that he frequently highlights, things he would rather forget and things he just doesn't talk about. Depending on the audience, those things vary. However, some of those things he highlights have been distorted or are downright false and most of what you think you know about Walt Minnick, you don't. Somewhere beneath Walt's glossy, airbrushed, postcard version of the past is the grainy, less glamorous, washed-out truth.

In the airbrushed version, Walt spent two years in the Army and even, as his campaign Facebook page reads, “serving his country in Vietnam.” This assertion is repeated in other biographies, including the executive search site “Boardroom Insiders” and The Committee for a Liveable Future (LivPAC), the political action committee founded by Congressman Earl Blumenaur (D-OR). Actually a young Walter Minnick was desperately looking for a way to avoid the draft, and did so successfully. While scores of men his age, most with less means, spent their tours of duty in the jungles of Southeast Asia, Walt spent his time as an analyst in the Pentagon, with at least the last six months of his two-year obligation spent in the White House.

In the glossy version, Walt worked in the Nixon White House on drug policy and he did—with a budget that, under his watch, ballooned to over 13 times what it was when he began. But even though he requested and received a letter from the Watergate Special Prosecutor confirming he was never a target of the investigation, multiple sources place Minnick, at least temporarily, in the Special Investigations Unit. Known as the “Plumbers,” this brainchild of Nixon was tasked with preventing leaks of classified information and carrying out covert operations against his political enemies. Led by Minnick's boss, Egil Krogh, who would eventually plead guilty and spend time in prison, the Plumbers were the nucleus of illegal activity that would ultimately lead to the downfall of the administration.

In the postcard version, Walt “resigned in protest” after the Saturday Night Massacre (when Nixon fired Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox). It's not clear when Minnick actually decided to resign, let alone whether he “resigned in protest,” but if he was protesting, it wasn't very loudly. He stuck around for at least three months after that October Saturday of 1973.

The truth doesn't fit as nicely on an airbrushed postcard but to understand Walt Minnick's grainy past you have to start at the beginning.

Map of the Uninsured

What does Idaho's 1st District have to gain from health care reform and what will our esteemed Congressman Walt Minnick be voting against today?  Turns out a lot.

Walt Minnick Accuses Democrats of 'Willful Abuse'

If anyone was still holding out hope that Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick would have a last minute change of heart and cast a vote for health care reform this weekend, those hopes can be permanently laid to rest today.

U.S. House Republicans, in a last-ditch effort to derail reform, attempted to scold the Democratic leadership with a resolution condemning the rumored "deem and pass" procedure they dubbed the "Slaughter Solution."  The resolution failed on a 232 to 181 procedural vote with ten Democrats, including Walt Minnick, joining 171 Republicans against a motion to table the resolution.

In part, the resolution reads:

Whereas the Democratic leadership of the House has conducted a calculated and coordinated attempt to willfully deceive the American people by embracing the “Slaughter Solution”; 

Whereas resorting to the “Slaughter Solution” in this circumstance, is being done to intentionally hide from the American people a future vote that Members of Congress may take on the Senate-passed health care legislation;

Whereas the deceptive behavior demonstrated by the Democratic Leadership has brought discredit upon the House of Representatives; and

Whereas the Democratic leadership has willfully abused its power to chart a legislative course for the Senate health care bill that is deliberately calculated to obfuscate what the House will vote on, in an illegitimate effort to confuse the public and thereby fraudulently insulate certain Representatives from accountability for their conduct of their offices.

Walt Minnick joined Republicans in accusing the Democratic leadership of willful deceit, deceptive behavior, willful abuse of power and a whole host of other strongly worded, imagined offenses.

Yes, it's safe to say that Walt Minnick is not changing his vote.  

That's despite news from the Congressional Budget Office today that the reconciliation bill would cover an additional 32 million people and reduce the deficit by $130 billion in ten years.  Ezra Klein at the Washington Post distilled the merits of the reform bill and the CBO score for conservative Democrats.

If you're a conservative House Democrat, then probably you support many of those policies, too. But you also get the single most ambitious effort the government has ever made to control costs in the health-care sector. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill cuts deficits by $130 billion in the first 10 years, and up to $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. The excise tax is now indexed to inflation, rather than inflation plus one percentage point, and the subsidies grow more slowly over time. So one of the strongest cost controls just got stronger, and the automatic spending growth slowed. And then there are all the other cost controls in the bill: The Medicare Commission, which makes entitlement reform much more possible. The programs to begin paying doctors and hospitals for care rather than volume. The competitive insurance market.

Thirty-two million additional people covered; reducing the deficit by trillions--which core principle is it that Walt's standing on again?  Or maybe there's still not enough "bi" in the partisanship to suit him.  But ooh boy, accusing your own party of willful deceit and abuse of power--that's the sort of bipartisan solution Idahoans are looking for?  There may be more than just a few more Idaho Democrats hoping for the spotted weasel after that.

Senator Smyser Not Registered? (Updated)

Update:  Turns out there is a very logical explanation.  This just in from Betsie Kimbrough at the Secretary of State's Office:  "[Sen. Smyser] is currently registered in Canyon County and has been for many years. One of the main requirements for holding either a State Senate or State Representative position is that the individual is a registered voter as required by the Idaho Constitution. The reason her name did not come up on the Idaho Votes website is that she is registered as Melinda Sloviaczek-Smyser. You must enter her full last name on that website for it to appear."

----------

Keep government out of our lives.  That is the political philosophy embraced by Senator Melinda Smyser (R-Parma), except it seems Senator Smyser has taken that philosophy to the extreme.  Apparently, despite a long resume in Republican Party politics, Senator Smyser isn't even a registered voter.

Senator Smyser, appointed by Governor Butch Otter last year to the Senate seat formerly held by Lt. Gov. Brad Little, raised eyebrows earlier this legislative session when she switched her vote in committee, killing a bill banning tobacco candy, to the benefit of her tobacco-lobbyist husband, Skip Smyser.

This year Senator Smyser will stand before voters for the first time as the incumbent from District 11, eagerly filing on opening day.  However, unless she registers between now and the May 25 primary, she won't be able to cast a vote for herself, or for anyone else for that matter.

The Idaho Secretary of State maintains a voter information website called Idaho Votes.  On the site voters have access to information such as how to register to vote, locate a polling place or obtain an absentee ballot.  Voters can also verify whether they are registered to vote.  Plug in "Smyser" and "Canyon County" into the Election Information System there and get this:  A few Smysers, several with the street address listed for Senator Smyser on the Idaho Legislature website, but as of this posting, none for Melinda.

Why would a sitting State Senator not bother to have registered to vote in the State of Idaho or to have kept that registration current?  Who knows.  Maybe there's a logical explanation but without one, the better question is:  With such an aversion and apathy toward government, why would the voters of District 11 send her back to the Legislature?

H/T goes to a reader.

Uninsured Story Project: Dear Mr. Minnick

How could someone say no to health care reform?  "I think they never had to make the choice between seeing a doctor and putting food on the table," replies Margaret in McCall, Idaho, just one of the scores of uninsured Idahoans living in Congressman Walt Minnick's district and across the state.

Hear the rest of her story via Bill Thomas at Uninsured Story Project:

While Margaret and millions like her are making these unimaginably difficult decisions every day, Congressman Minnick has indicated he would have no trouble being the vote that kills health care reform.

Call Congressman Minnick now; tell him Margaret and millions like her can't wait.

Bryan Fischer: No Longer Master of His Domain

Before fleeing Idaho for more fertile ground in the national spotlight, Bryan Fischer, formerly of Idaho Values Alliance infamy, was more than than happy to hijack the tea party movement.  In fact, there he was last April in his blue puffy sweater and maroon turtleneck  running the show at the inaugural tax day rally in Boise.

Boise Weekly's Nathaniel Hoffman was on scene and gave us the visual and lyric.

Led by Boise theocrat Bryan Fischer, an accomplished emcee and master of Astroturf manipulation, the crowd cheered lines about "legalized plunder" and government assistance weakening the character of those who receive it.

And there Fischer was on his website (puffy sweater and turtleneck again) promoting the ideals of the tea party and the "renewed emphasis on individual freedom and responsibility."

Only now that the teabaggers seem to have taken a turn for the secular, Fischer is frightened.

"There's a libertarian streak in the tea party movement that concerns me as a cultural conservative,” said Bryan Fischer, director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association. “The tea party movement needs to insist that candidates believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage."

Not content with letting a good rebellion slip away, Fischer insists that the rebels include his social agenda.  Hoffman, master of the word picture, called it:  "master of Astroturf manipulation."  Only now it seems Fischer has lost his grip on the rebels and their souls.

Frankly, that's hilarious.

Ravings of a Lunatic

Apparently, in the nether regions of Glennbeckistan there's a commie or Nazi hiding under every bushel and churches who do good works, you know helping the poor, the afflicted, the downtrodden, well, they're probably using, gasp, "code words" to trick you into, I don't know, taking away the freedom of the poor to be poor or something.

Apparently, in Glennbeckistan "sieg heil" is synonymous with "inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these..." and religion is just a haven for commie sympathizers.

Apparently, in Glenn Beck's commie hunting zeal he has officially gone completely stark raving mad.

Get a complete rundown of the latest from the lunatic fringer and his attempt to "enlighten" others with his hysterical findings.

Do They Endorse Violence?

Who could vote against condemning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil?  Two U.S. Congressmen did.  One is coming to Idaho in three weeks.

Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on a resolution condemning the terror attack by suicide plane on the IRS employees in Austin, Texas and rejecting statements that would encourage or express sympathy for such actions.  This after the elevation of the terrorist to hero status by white supremacists and others on the radical fringe, as reported by Southern Poverty Law Center in their Hatewatch blog.

Stack bitterly railed against a wide variety of targets — big business, corporate executives, unions, the Catholic Church, the recent bailouts of various industries, and more — but he kept coming back to the alleged evils of American government in general and, more specifically, the Internal Revenue Service and tax law. That made him a hero in the eyes of many on the radical right — so-called tax protesters — who have long believed that federal taxes were illegal or simply voluntary. Although many tax protesters who call themselves “sovereign citizens” subscribe to a racist ideology, there was no indication that Stack entertained racist ideas.

The final vote on the resolution was 408 to 2, with Representatives Ron Paul of Texas and Don Young of Alaska the two opposed.

Congressman Paul often votes no on what he considers "unconstitutional legislation."  Just yesterday he voted against recognizing the importance of the Census.  But a congressman refusing to condemn an act of violence--in one's own state, even--could be seen as tacitly endorsing it.

With an explosion in the number of violent anti-government groups recently, it is especially troubling when that congressman has become the champion for many of those anti-government types and even more so, when supporters of that congressman sympathize with and have accused the government of prior knowledge of that attack.

That congressman, whose supporters have infiltrated and are attempting a coup of the Idaho GOP, is scheduled to make an appearance in Idaho, March 27.  Hosted by Idahoans for Liberty, Conservative Student Coalition, Idaho Rights Foundation, Idaho College Republicans, Idaho Freedom Foundation and others, Ron Paul will speak at the Morrison Center in Boise that night.

Idaho Republicans should distance themselves from the Ron Paul, radical fringe, and the groups who give them cover, or Idaho's version of Joe Stack, or the latest, John Patrick Bedell, will not be an aberration.  Given the climate lately, that version may already be set in motion.

The Vote That Kills

Today the Idaho Statesman reports that Congressman Walt Minnick "would have no trouble being the vote that kills President Barack Obama's health care plan — if it still doesn't include the aspects he'd like to see."  So what exactly are the aspects of health care reform that Minnick would like to see?

Last July, Congressman Walt Minnick crafted what he called " five core principles" that he "would use to evaluate proposals for reforms of our nation’s health care system."  They were:

• First, reforms must be fully funded.
• Second, comprehensive, affordable health insurance must be made available to all Americans.
• Third, no "socialized medicine.” The health care system of insurance must be private – not run by the government.
• Fourth, insurance companies must be required to make insurance available to everyone regardless of age, employment status or preconditions.
• And fifth, reforms must reduce costs, not just expand coverage.

Except, apparently there really wasn't very much "core" in those principles and they've been modified somewhat.

Minnick's spokesman John Foster told the Statesman Wednesday that as Minnick has said in the past, he would like to see tort reform and a better way to control costs throughout the country. He also wants to make sure there is no public option, and that whatever is passed doesn't add to the overall cost of the deficit.

So according to John Foster (who strangely enough was commenting on a policy issue despite having taken a leave of absence to work on the reelection campaign), Minnick's health care reform "core principles" now look more like this:

• First Fourth, reforms must be fully funded.
• First, tort reform.
• Second, comprehensive, affordable health insurance must be made available to all Americans.
• Third, no "socialized medicine.” The health care system of insurance must be private – not run by the government.
• Fourth, insurance companies must be required to make insurance available to everyone regardless of age, employment status or preconditions.
• And fifth, Second, reforms must reduce costs, not just expand coverage.

Notice what's now missing from Minnick's list?  That would be the actual reform--the things that help the uninsured get access to health care.  Not only that, but everything else on Minnick's list, including the latest addition—tort reform, is now included in President Obama's current proposal.

Nearly 45,000 people die each year from lack of health care and Walt Minnick wouldn't mind being the vote that kills health care reform.  Apparently he does not have a conscience.

Update:  This is how Foster responded yesterday evening to The Huffington Post:

"Like his constituents in Idaho, Walt continues to hold out hope that the president will propose a bill that will actually reduce their costs of insurance and be something that they will support. It's not surprising that the liberal Huffington Post wouldn't understand his position," said Minnick's campaign spokesman John Foster.

He Googled It!

As others have pointed out, in a week full of hilarity at the Idaho Statehouse, this has to be one of the most hilarious statements made by an Idaho Legislator.  This week, that's saying something.

It comes courtesy of the Idaho Press-Tribune and features Rep. Bob Schaefer (R-Nampa) who seems to know that voter fraud is taking place because, well, he googled it.  

Before speaking in support of the voter identification bill, IdahoReporter.com reported, Schaefer said he entered the phrase “voter fraud” into an Internet search engine and received more than 900,000 results, which he cited as proof that voter fraud is occurring.

Seriously?

The Press-Tribune goes on to report that the voter ID bill that's making its way through the Legislature this week "could slow the election process" or "force the county to hire more poll workers."

Nice.

Some days you don't know whether to laugh or cry.  This is one of those days.

IdaBlue has more discussion here.

Minnick Still Says 'No'

News came yesterday that Idaho Blue Dog Congressman Walt Minnick has not changed his mind on health care reform and will vote against it regardless what iteration of the legislation comes before the U.S. House again.  This after months of posturing that turns out to be just that.

Since first voting no on the legislation in November, Minnick indicated in town halls across the 1st District that he hadn't made up his mind how he would vote on a reconciliation package, saying he would have to see what was in the final draft.  He even touted his own "leaner, meaner" proposal that he admitted didn't do much but hey, on the bright side, didn't cost much either and looked remarkably similar to the House Republican plan.

Must be that allegiance to big business thing again.

In other Minnick news, word came Friday that spokesman John Foster was taking a leave of absence from the congressional office to work on the Minnick reelection campaign.  He made sure to emphasize that this was an unpaid leave of absence, which should be noted, is not to say that he's not being paid, just not by the taxpayers.  This is a bit of a change from his predecessor, Wayne Hoffman, lately of FreeDumb Foundation notoriety, who continued to work in both the campaign and the congressional offices of Bill Sali during the 2008 cycle.

Foster did not make clear whether he would continue receiving federal benefits, including health insurance, while on leave, however.   If not and the Minnick campaign operates as it did in the previous cycle, he won't be receiving health insurance through the campaign and his young family would join the hundreds of thousands of Idahoans without employer sponsored coverage or just going without.

My guess is he's keeping his federal benefits. 

Too bad his boss thinks 30 million people without health insurance is acceptable in the richest country on earth.

Pining For the 19th Century

For members of a religious institution whose history includes persecution by tar and feather-wielding angry mobs to now be part of an angry mob calling for the persecution of others by tar and feathering, requires a special sort of malevolence.

Read all about it.

Caught In the Idaho GOP 'Wonderland'

Miffed that they don't have supreme authority over every state government employee salary or retiree pension, Idaho Republican legislators are proving once again that local control is best, 'cept when it's not.

Seems some public school districts had the gall to give teachers and administrators raises this year.  Never mind that many districts were under contract to do so or had so frugally managed their funds allowing for it, Rep. Cliff Bayer (R-Boise) and others believe that decision should be left to the ax-wielding Idaho Legislature.

From the Idaho Statesman:

Teacher salaries are not set by the state, but by negotiations between districts and employees. The state provides some discretionary funding to districts, which also receive money from local and federal sources.

Bayer, a member of JFAC, wants limits on that discretion.

"I'd like to see those state-appropriated dollars not be used for raises," Bayer said. "I don't want to see a situation in this climate where we fall short of classroom needs, maybe more than we needed to, because of displacement with increased salaries."

With a compulsion against raising revenue or even for collecting revenue owed (bizarrely 10 to 12 percent tuition hikes not withstanding) and petrified by a teabag-wielding minority (apparently students aren't very scary), state Republicans have resolved to balance the budget on the backs of the young, the elderly and the infirm and are incensed that any have escaped the ax.

"Off with their heads," omnipotence-craving Idaho GOP legislators screech, as if stuck in some nonsensical rabbit hole.

Can't a Guy Get a Little Compassion?

Idaho Governor Butch Otter says his job isn't any fun.  He says it's tough making cuts to state government and he deserves some compassion for doing it.  Really.  He said so to reporters this morning.

He said that's what he was hoping for when he released a scathing opinion attacking the press for criticizing some of those budget decisions last week--some compassion--all the while curiously insisting that he has a thick skin.

Here's how Boise Weekly reported the governor's comment:

"Otter doesn't want to cut," Otter said. "I would like to see some compassion. This is a tough tough position to be in and I've got to pick and I've got to choose."

Third-person Otter aside, it's hard to feel compassion for a guy who reported a net worth of between $8.9 and $31.7 million in 2006 and whose toughest day would probably seem quite utopic to many.

If Otter wants to know what tough is, he should ask that young man who appeared recently in a Nampa courtroom charged with stealing a bag of chicken.

Or maybe he should ask that young college student who couldn't afford the prescription the doctor ordered last month.  It wasn't really optional.

Or maybe that family over on 15th Avenue who lost their home to foreclosure a few months ago.

Or that elderly Nampa woman who couldn't afford insurance for her car or to pay the citation for not having it.

I bet there are tens of thousands of Idahoans who could describe a tough day to Butch Otter.

No, can't say as there is much compassion for Butch Otter and his "tough job" here.

Cowboy up, Butch.

Governor Otter, Stubborn Facts and Petard Hoisting

Yesterday Idaho Governor Butch Otter released a scathing opinion accusing the press of a lack of civility and glossing over the facts when reporting on his proposed budget cuts this year.  Quoting John Adams saying "facts are stubborn things," the opinon disputes claims that he wanted to cut funding for public schools and shut down seven state agencies.

But Governor Otter is trying to have it both ways.

In January, in an election year and facing "breathtaking" budget shortfalls, Otter attempted to veer back to his libertarian, government-shaking roots by proposing weaning some agencies off government funding.  When those agencies turned out to be popular and his ideas widely criticized, even by traditionally very conservative editorial boards, he now says he really didn't mean it.

Otter's recently penned opinion lambastes media criticism of his budget plans, essentially claiming that he had no choice but to propose cutting public education budgets and denying that it was his intention to "shut down State parks and the Department of Parks and Recreation, Idaho Public Television, the Idaho Human Rights Commission, the Idaho Commission on Hispanic Affairs, the Idaho Council for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the Idaho Council on Developmental Disabilities, and the State Independent Living Council."

He says that zeroing out these agency budgets over four years was an "effort to nudge those agencies toward the greater efficiency we need, or give them the chance to find alternative funding methods."

He continues:

It was not an artful process. That’s a fair criticism. However, I did not propose closing any parks or eliminating any agencies. I did not propose “a batch of half-baked plans to zero out small but politically popular state services.” [Idaho Statesman] I did not ignore “hidden costs.” [Spokesman-Review] My approach was not, “If it brings joy to people, government has no business doing it.” [Boise Weekly] And I am not trying “to run parks or public TV on the cheap.” [Idaho Statesman]

Facts are stubborn things.

The governor would like to believe that criticism of his budget plan, including eliminating general fund revenue for popular state agencies, is unfounded but what did the governor expect people to believe when he said in his 2010 State of the State and Budget Address that his proposals for "sweeping changes" in State government were "meant to be permanent?"

Here is what he said then:

With that in mind, let me say again that the budget recommendations I bring you today are based on the fact that it is not State government’s money. It is the people’s money.

As a result, these recommendations are responsibly conservative.

They were developed with great care, deliberation and a full understanding of their consequences – real and perceived.

And they provide for a balanced budget, as our Idaho Constitution so wisely requires.

My recommendations include some sweeping changes to the way we do business in State government.

Those changes are meant to be permanent – based on a philosophy of government that recognizes our responsibility to individual Idahoans rather than to government itself.

I believe they represent what can and must be achieved within the realities we face, and to more closely align our government with its properly limited role.

He didn't say anything about "nudging" state agencies toward efficiencies as he now claims was his intention.

No.  In fact he made his intentions quite clear.

There Otter is saying that some functions of current state government don't fit within his limited-government philosophy and should be realigned.  Although he didn't explicitly state what agencies he believes fall outside that philosophy, he made it perfectly clear in his budget proposal—by phasing out their general fund revenue.

And he said that the decision to do so was "developed with great care, deliberation and a full understanding of their consequences."  Only after being widely criticized for that decision does he concede that it was "not an artful process."

Facts are stubborn things.

Here is what the governor wrote in his fiscal year 2011 budget highlights:

The Governor’s recommendation fully integrates several legislative priorities that his office plans to advance during the 2010 legislative session, including the beginning of a four-year phase out of General Fund support for:

• Human Rights Commission
• State Independent Living Council
• Developmental Disabilities Council
• Deaf and Hard of Hearing Commission
• Hispanic Commission
• Idaho Public Television

The Governor’s recommendation includes the elimination of the Department of Parks and Recreation, with park maintenance being transferred to the Department of Lands and the fees portion being transferred to the Department of Fish and Game. The combination will result in fiscal year savings of $10 million with ongoing savings of $7 million annual. The goal is to ensure the continued operation of Idaho parks for residence [sic] and visitors.

Governor Otter can state that he "did not propose ... eliminating any agencies" but it wouldn't be true.  He did--explicitly when he recommended eliminating Parks and Rec and implicitly when he said those other six agencies weren't worthy of taxpayer funding by eliminating general fund support for them.

Governor Otter can be the ax-wielding, limited government budget cutter or he can be the amiable, efficiency seeking budget nudger.  He can't be both.

Governor Otter can criticize the critics but facts are stubborn things and his criticism embarrassingly epitomizes "hoist with his own petard."

Jorgenson Bill Drafted By Nativist

You had to know this was coming.

The man that Idaho State Senator Mike Jorgenson (R-Hayden Lake) relied on for legal help in drafting his controversial anti-immigration bill has been profiled as a leader in the anti-immigration Nativist movement by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Here's a bit from the SPLC profile of Kris Kobach:

The man behind many of the deeply flawed anti-illegal immigrant laws passed recently is Kris Kobach, the "national expert on constitutional law" who works for the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI). IRLI is the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), recently listed as a nativist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. At IRLI, Kobach has been a prime mover behind ordinances in Farmer's Branch, Texas, and Hazelton, Pa., among other places, that seek to punish those who aid and abet "illegal aliens."

The laws have not done well. The Hazelton ordinance, crafted by Kobach and fellow IRLI attorney Michael Hethmon, was struck down last year by a federal judge who also charged the city for all legal fees. "Everything he does has been a failure," Mira Mdivani, a Kansas immigration lawyer, told The Pitch in January 2007.

[...]

Kobach also has taught constitutional and immigration law since 2003 at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, but has come under attack there for anti-immigrant bias. In January 2007, for instance, fliers appeared on campus accusing Kobach of inflating his credentials and crafting bad law.

Jorgenson has also indicated that Kobach would appear to testify (at Jorgenson's expense) should his bill get a full hearing.  Yeah, imagine that.  

Since when did Idaho need to import racist ideology?

Thursday Health Care Roundup

As if a more compelling reason were needed, today it becomes increasingly clear that doing nothing about health care reform is not an option, reports Talking Points Memo in, "Anthem Rate Hikes Just Tip Of Iceberg - Premiums Going Way Up In Six More States."

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today will release a new report showing more dramatic health insurance premium increases are proposed in Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington.

[...]

The report quotes National Association of Insurance Commissioners officials predicting the nation will "see rate increases of 20, 25, 30 percent."

[...]

"Last year, as working families struggled with rising health care costs and a recession, the five largest health insurance companies - WellPoint, UnitedHealth Group, Cigna, Aetna, and Humana - took in combined profits of $12.2 billion, up 56 percent over 2008.

"These health insurance companies' profits grew even as nominal GDP decreased by 1 percent over this same time period.

"And recent data show that the CEOs of America's five largest insurers were each compensated up to $24 million in 2008."

If Idaho Republicans have a plan, they better come with it, since the Legislature has declared "sovereignty" over health care reform in Idaho.

---

Ezra Klein at the Washington Post explains why the "selling insurance across state lines" piece of the Republican health care reform plan (touted recently by Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson) will "not change the number of insured Americans or save much money, but it would make insurance more expensive for the sick and cheaper for the healthy" in "Selling insurance across state lines: A terrible, no good, very bad health-care idea."

They want insurers to be able to cluster in one state, follow that state's regulations and sell the product to everyone in the country. In practice, that means we will have a single national insurance standard. But that standard will be decided by South Dakota. Or, if South Dakota doesn't give the insurers the freedom they want, it'll be decided by Wyoming. Or whoever.

This is exactly what happened in the credit card industry, which is regulated in accordance with conservative wishes. In 1980, Bill Janklow, the governor of South Dakota, made a deal with Citibank: If Citibank would move its credit card business to South Dakota, the governor would literally let Citibank write South Dakota's credit card regulations. You can read Janklow's recollections of the pact here.

Citibank wrote an absurdly pro-credit card law, the legislature passed it, and soon all the credit card companies were heading to South Dakota. And that's exactly what would happen with health-care insurance. The industry would put its money into buying the legislature of a small, conservative, economically depressed state. The deal would be simple: Let us write the regulations and we'll bring thousands of jobs and lots of tax dollars to you. Someone will take it. The result will be an uncommonly tiny legislature in an uncommonly small state that answers to an uncommonly conservative electorate that will decide what insurance will look like for the rest of the nation.

Ooh boy... who reads that and doesn't think:  Idaho?  Be sure to read that whole piece to understand why that's a very bad thing.

---

And finally, both sides of the health care reform debate essentially agree that community health centers are a good way to provide care for the uninsured.  Kaiser Health News reports that, infused with cash from stimulus funds, these centers are paying off in multiple ways, in "Community Health Centers Providing Return On Investment."

A hefty infusion of cash for community health centers in last year's federal stimulus package may be paying off.

A new study, released Tuesday, just before the first anniversary of the stimulus package becoming law, found that $1.85 billion the federal government gave to clinics under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has generated $3.2 billion in economic activity.

[...]

The National Association of Community Health Centers says the stimulus money has funded care for 1.6 million more people, including 900,000 uninsured, at 1,100 centers around the country. Visits by the uninsured to health centers rose 21 percent last year, NACHC says. Centers in California alone are expected to serve more than 380,000 new patients through 2011, according to Capital Link, which provided modeling for the study.

It pays to be stimulated?  Stimulus pays?  Insert your own corny slogan here.

Skills Matter

This report came out a couple of weeks ago but it's worth noting here, especially given the legacy of assertion, distortion and misinformation foisted upon Idahoans with fetish-like frequency.

From Live Science:

Children raised by lesbian parents fare as well as they would in heterosexual households, new research suggests.

The finding, which comes from a review of essentially all studies on the topic of same-sex parents and the health of their children, helps to tease out politics and science on this highly divisive issue. In general, kids in both heterosexual and lesbian households had similar levels of academic achievement, number of friends and overall well-being.

[...]

At the end of the day, what matters to kids is far deeper than parents' gender or sexual orientation, the research suggests.

"The family type that is best for children is one that has responsible, committed, stable parenting," said study researcher Judith Stacey of New York University. "Two parents are, on average, better than one, but one really good parent is better than two not-so-good ones."

Imagine that.   It's about parenting skills, not gender.

Economic Insecurity

From a great read today at The Treatment:

Health care reform is not solely, or even primarily, about improving health. It's also about making sure that medical expenses don't ruin individuals and families financially, whether because of a truly catastrophic event that requires intensive hospitalization or a chronic disease that demands ongoing treatment. In other words, it's not just health security that Americans lack. It's economic security. And the one thing we know health care reform will do, even in the heavily compromised version that passed the U.S. Senate, is provide a lot of economic security.

Too bad the Idaho Legislature is busily tying a noose around economic security by obstructing federal health care reform (should it ever actually happen) and gleefully dismembering even the skeleton of what once was the bare-bones Idaho government (see the Mike Moyle quote in the right sidebar).

Just one question for Idaho Republicans:  Where's your plan?

Maybe you could start by getting off the phone.

Narcissus In Winter

Now with an overabundance of snow, the Vancouver Winter Olympics are well into their first week.  Over the weekend, Dick Cheney surfaced again, coolly admitting to criminal activity.  Yesterday, Senator Evan Bayh announced retirement, just the latest to leave Democrats feeling numb.

But here in Nampa, Idaho the narcissus are budding.

Despite the February chill, spring cannot be far.