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."
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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 toldThe 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.
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.
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.
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).
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Five days ago, Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick chastised President Obama for his "disturbing" budget proposal, advocating for more strict deficit reduction measures while encouraging reinstating statutory pay-as-you-go rules. In fact Minnick's press release described himself as a "vocal proponent of PAYGO," a spending control measure adopted in the 1990s which helped lead to budget surpluses.
Today Congressman Minnick had a chance to vote on a statutory pay-as-you-go rule and, inexplicably, he voted against it.
On a 233 to 187 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to reimpose statutory pay-as-you-go rules without a single Republican voting in favor and Minnick joining just 14 Democrats opposed. The PayGo act passed the Senate last week as an amendment to a bill raising the debt ceiling to roughly $14.3 trillion and in today's vote, the House considered the PayGo portion of the bill separately.
PayGo had the support of most fiscally conservative Democrats—The Hill reported that Blue Dog Democrats broke out in applause when the measure passed—making this an incredibly curious vote for Minnick.
“You hear a lot from the other side about how this Congress is spending money excessively, but they offer no real solutions to get us back on a pathway to fiscal responsibility," said Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), a senior Blue Dog. "This is the proven method to get us back on that path."
Minnick isn't alone, though. While railingagainst the President's budget proposal as fiscally irresponsible, the entire Idaho Congressional Delegation—Senators Crapo and Risch last week and today Reps. Simpson and Minnick—has now gone on record in opposition to adopting rules that would help keep spending under control.
Since taking office in January 2009, Minnick has attempted to posture himself as a fiscal conservative, frequently labeling fiscal accountability his "core issue." Apparently that core is rather hollow.
This week in a dramatic hearing on Capitol Hill, top U.S. military officials voiced support for removing the policy that for nearly 17 years banned gay people from serving openly in the military. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday that it was time to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
Despite this from top military officials and overwhelming support from Northwest Congressional Democrats, Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick has yet to reveal his position on the policy.
Admiral Mullen's testimony so remarkably diverged from his predecessors' that Dana Milbank wrote at the Washington Post, "If they awarded decorations for congressional testimony, Mullen would have himself a Medal of Honor."
"Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," the nation's top military officer told the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."
General Colin Powell, sitting in Mullen's seat advocating for institution of DADT in the 1990s, now says he "fully supports" its repeal.
A bill to do just that, now led by Iraq veteran Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-PA), has 187 co-sponsors in the U.S. House. These include every Northwest House Democrat, except one. Oregon Democrats, Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio, and David Wu and Washington Democrats Jay Inslee, Rick Larsen, Brian Baird, Norman Dicks, Jim McDermott and Adam Smith have all signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. The only exception being Idaho's Walt Minnick.
Seems now would be a good time for Minnick to prove to his constituents that he's not just pandering to the fringe with his strident anti-Democrat-ism, but that he really is that "social moderate" he claimed to be when running for office in 2008.
Time to take a stand and sign on to H.R. 1283, Congressman Minnick. Gen. Powell has even given you cover now.
Friday, Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick held a town hall meeting in Sandpoint, the Bonner County Daily Bee reported, taking questions on a variety of topics, including health care reform.
Minnick is part of a bipartisan group that is meeting to restore a leaner, meaner reform bill that he thinks will pass.
He even predicted that his Idaho GOP counterparts could sign on.
Included in the bill is insurance reform, antitrust protection, insurance competition across state lines and malpractice reform.
“This doesn’t solve the problem of 30 million people being uninsured but it also doesn’t cost nearly what the current bill does,” Minnick said.
This would be hilarious if it wasn't so heartbreaking.
To start with, it's absurd to think that Minnick is part of any serious bipartisan health reform effort, unless he is simply talking about himself and House Republicans. It's hard to imagine Speaker Pelosi or the Democratic Caucus relying on Minnick to negotiate anything on their behalf, especially after spending the last six months trying to discredit her and other Democrats in appearance after appearanceacross the state.
Next, the four things Minnick mentioned as part of his "reform package"—insurance reform, antitrust protection, insurance competition across state lines and malpractice reform—are lifted virtually straight from the GOP proposal. It doesn't take a Pentagon economist to predict that Minnick's GOP counterparts would sign on to this idea; it's theirs! But the GOP proposal, in even the most generous terms, can hardly be called reform and, even by his own admission, Minnick's idea leaves tens of millions uninsured.
Perhaps Minnick should have joined the Republican Caucus at their issues conference where claims of reform were largely dismantled by President Obama in his Friday visit. Others, including the Congressional Budget Office, have looked at the proposal and come to the same conclusion. An easy to understand, point by point analysis of the GOP proposal can be read here which, in part, found this [emphasis added]:
The CBO found that the [Republican] bill would result in 3 million Americans gaining health insurance by 2019, leaving 52 million Americans uninsured, 17 percent of the population excluding unauthorized immigrants. By contrast, the Senate bill would reduce the number of uninsured by 31 million, leaving only 6 percent uninsured. The Republican bill neither expands Medicaid nor offers help to lower- or middle-income Americans who cannot afford health insurance, and thus fails to cover the uninsured. It also does less to reduce the deficit than either the House or Senate bill. The Republican bill would, according to the CBO, reduce the deficit by $68 billion over the 2010 to 2019 period. The Senate bill would reduce the federal deficit by $132 billion.
The CBO projected that the Republican bill would, by 2016, decrease premiums in the small group market by 7 to 10 percent and by 5 to 8 percent in the individual market. But these reductions would largely be the result of a decay in health benefits--the plans would have lower "actuarial value," which means fewer benefits and higher cost-sharing. And the mix of the insured would change, too: The market might become more accessible to people with lower medical risks, but only because it was becoming less accessible for people with higher medical risks.
Finally, it is highly unlikely that there is another soul in this country looking for "meaner" health care reform. The current health care system is already mean enough for millions. What Americans need is a health care system that works and Mr. Minnick, the only thing "meaner" about your "bipartisan" proposal is that it doesn't, actually, and leaves millions behind.
They need to talk about the elephants in the room, including the de facto zero sales tax on sales of goods on the Internet and taxes on gasoline that haven't been increased since 1996.
The first is grossly unfair to bricks-and-mortar retailers who must charge sales taxes on goods while Internet merchants gain the advantage of being able to charge less.
The second is stupidly shortsighted.
State departments and commissions on the chopping block have quickly found ways to stave off their demise for now.
But nothing will save education and the services needed by Idaho's weakest citizens unless Otter and legislators take off the political blinders, roll up their sleeves and do what businesses and families do every day: Figure out palatable ways to bring more money through the door.
Won't happen. Won't happen because stupidly shortsighted is apparently a sacred mantra for Idaho leaders. As we speak, the governor and legislators are hoarding money on the off chance they'll need to tell the federal government to shove its health care reform. And not to shove health care reform for them. They've already got theirs. They want to tell the federal government to shove health care reform on behalf of every other Idaho citizen.
What they don't like—what they are stockpiling our money to fight—is a mandate that everyone buy insurance, never mind that they are already enforcing their own insurance mandates on Idahoans. (Apparently they don't like the feds creepin' on their corner.)
In very simple terms the problem is this: if you don't require that everyone buy insurance but you do require that companies insure everyone with preexisting conditions and not drop anyone when they get sick, the price of health insurance will go through the roof. Companies simply will not take on the cost of paying millions of claims for the less healthy without increasing premiums, co-pays or deductibles for everyone. There has to be a larger pool of generally healthy people in the mix.
And that is why those who understood it were demanding that a public option be included in any health care reform package. If you are going to require that everyone buy a policy, you have to give them a choice. A choice that includes something besides the crappy policies currently offered by the insurance company monopoly. A choice of buying into a not-for-profit pool if it meets their needs.
It would be like having a freeway system alongside a toll road system. One built and maintained by the government and one built and maintained by private companies. Those who like the private route and find that it gets them where they want to go, can take that road. For those who don't, there is an alternative route.
A requirement that everyone take the toll road would be insane, yet that is exactly what a mandate without a public option does. On the other hand, if the toll road is going to be the only route available, without a mandate very few will be able to afford even getting on the road. But yet, it was the public "freeway system" that was demonized as "socialism" by those trying to scare people and score political points.
Stupidly shortsighted.
Idaho, those are your "leaders"—your Congressional Delegation, your Governor and your Legislature—advocating a toll road-only option for you, because they obviously know best. And on your behalf, hoarding money so they can tell the federal government where to shove your health care reform.
Thanks to transparency measures instituted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) last summer, constituents now have online access to the Statements of Disbursements, a "quarterly public report of all receipts and expenditures for Members of Congress, Committees, Leadership, House Officers and Offices of the House of Representatives." This publication includes each representative's Member Representation Allowance which is the individual budget each Member is given to run their D.C. and District offices. The SOD fact sheet says, for most Members, these budgets ranged from $1.3 to $1.9 million for 2009.
The most current report is published in three volumes totaling over 3,000 pages and includes the period from July 1 to September 30 of 2009. The online version can be accessed as a single pdf or three separate files corresponding to the three published volumes. The report includes details of each expenditure which is processed and evaluated by the House's Office of Financial Counseling, handling over 4,000 of these per week.
The office expenditures for Idaho 1st District Congressman Walt Minnick are included in the second volume and a snip of the summary is shown below. The quarterly amount is shown in the column on the right and the left column contains the year-to-date totals.
One interesting expenditure during this period was a printing and reproduction expense of $30,800 made to Erwin and Muir Public Affairs for work done on August 11, followed ten days later by a franked mail expense of $24,327.
Erwin & Muir is a public affairs and political consulting agency located in Oakland, California. They
... know how to untangle a complex issue or political situation, and create a solution through solid analysis, strategy and management. Whether you are a political candidate or committee, or an organization with an issue to resolve, we can design a program for you that will deliver the right message to the right audience. We know how to deliver wins.
Their services include:
General consulting for campaigns
Grassroots organizing
Direct mail
According to the website, the agency portfolio includes "direct mail and vote-by-mail pieces on behalf of candidates for president, senate, congress, assembly, supervisor and city council" which also claims to provide "eye-catching mail that provides voters with the information they need to make an informed choice on Election Day."
Apparently Walt Minnick used his taxpayer-funded office budget to hire a political consulting agency to create a slick direct mail piece that was then mailed at taxpayer expense to residents of Idaho's 1st District, or at least some portion of them. And apparently all legitimately, according to the office which handles tens of thousands of expenditures per quarter.
Not having received the mailing, although residing in the 1st District, it'll take some speculation as to the "complex issue or political situation" Minnick needed help "untangling" at that time—but not much. Who could forget the summer health care reform fight and the August teabagger recess?
Walt Minnick needed a campaign consultant to design an "eye-catching" piece of direct mail convincing voters of the 1st District that they didn't want any of the dangerous, big-government, socialized medicine health care reform plans that he would later tell Politico his constituents just didn't understand? And we paid for that?
Idaho's most conservative congressman made a point of congratulating his Republican counterpart yesterday for penning an op-ed on what the Massachusetts Senate election "really" meant. Congressman Walt Minnick, posing as the Democratic representative from Idaho, praised Congressman Mike Simpson for his "common-sense steps" that will help the country "more productively sort through difficult issues."
Well, okay then... let's have a look-see.
Simpson's "simple measures" which are, apparently, "long overdue" include this:
New rules in the House and Senate that require the final text of legislation to be posted online one week before a vote and ensure bills go through the committee process before being brought to the floor.
How in thē hell did this country ever survive for more than two hundred and thirty years without every...single...American citizen having the opportunity to read every...single...written word of legislation being proposed in Congress? Remind me again how it was the Founding Fathers ever got anything accomplished what with that requiring every citizen in colonial America read and approve every single document thing. I'm all for transparency but isn't this just a phony solution to a phony problem and exactly the kind of "government bureaucracy" and "red-tape" that clogs the sewers of Congress--the very things that guys like Minnick have pinky-promised to roto-root from Washington? And besides that, don't we elect people to do this kind of thing--read the bills--for us? But, oh, that's right, "we surround them."
But this one is just ridiculous:
The creation of toll-free phone lines that allow constituents to contact congressional offices for free.
Really? Okay, that might sound wonderful but who exactly is going to be paying for the "free" phone lines to D.C.? Each member's office budget? Taxpayer money. An appropriation (gasp) of funds? Taxpayer money. Not exactly free, then, is it. And anyway, aren't there already congressional offices situated within the local calling area of most constituents? Or maybe (she says cynically) this is just a ploy to enable Idahoans to drown, say, Speaker Pelosi's office in a flood of toll-free phone calls. Another solution looking for a problem; quick, someone call a plumber.
If this is what passes for common sense, I'm not sure I want any.
Congressman Walt Minnick joined the rest of the Idaho delegation Tuesday, asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture to bail out potato growers in the state.
We are writing to request that you give favorable consideration to a pending request for purchase of fresh potatoes under your authority to remove surplus products under the Section 32 program.
The growing conditions for the 2009 Idaho potato crop were almost perfect resulting in record yields and excellent quality. Therefore, the percentage of saleable potatoes is above average this year, and currently Idaho potato stocks on hand are nearly 13.5 percent more than last year’s stocks, despite Idaho shipping 4.5 percent more than 2008 volumes. This situation has caused prices to drop, and prices have continued to be low for quite some time.
Not many in Idaho would begrudge potato growers asking for help, even for being extremely adept at growing potatoes, but contrast that with the "tough love" Minnick had for the auto industry a year ago.
Bailouts to prop up bloated, inefficient big companies are what other countries do. It's what caused socialist systems to fail. We must do better.
They have not yet proven that they are willing to change, and they should not receive one nickel of taxpayer dollars until we know the taxpayers will get some of that money back.
Most Idahoans can spot duplicity and political calculation from across the pasture.
Late today Politico took a look at what health care reform will mean for Democrats in 2010 and had this to say about our 1st District Congressman:
Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho) said he did four town halls over the holiday recess. "That was the consistent theme, strong opposition based on talk radio talking points,” said Minnick, who voted no on the bill. He took straw polls in each event and "all of my audiences have been opposed to the president's proposal, save one."
"Most of my audiences are strongly opposed to it. The administration simply didn’t get through, certainly in more rural areas, the message just didn’t get through because there’s neither an understanding or support for it in vast swaths of my district. Heck, there’s no support for it in any place."
The administration didn't get through? Sure, Walt, throw up your hands and say, "Gee, my constituents didn't understand it therefore they didn't want it," as if you weren't complicit in their misunderstanding of it. You were spouting those "talk radio talking points" yourself.
What... did you expect your constituents to believe you were lying to them when you frightened them with "expensive government bureaucracies," "socialized medicine" and "big government" takeovers? Even after the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the House bill would reduce the deficit, the thing you claim was your raison d'être, you couldn't bring yourself to vote for it.
There were other issues that had some Idaho Democrats questioning, but the position you took early on in the health care reform debate will have been your undoing.
"The main job of the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency is to set up basic rules so no one gets tricked or trapped again." That's the essence of the CFPA, simply distilled back in July by Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel. In June, Warren described the fundamental shift (she called it a "sea change") in regulation that would take place under the proposed CFPA.
The CFPA is the portion of financial regulatory reform that Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick tried to gut last month in favor of a council of existing regulators, a proposal he's been floating since last fall. Listen as a finance lobbyist tried to explain how this marriage between consumer protection and safety and soundness regulation would work.
Sound like the "tough, new consumer regulation" Minnick claims his proposal delivers? Or does that sound a lot like more of the same kind of ineffective regulation the financial industry used to exploit taxpayers and consumers over the past decade. Sitting around talking about doing something to protect consumers is very different from actually protecting them.
Last week, Warren told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that had the provision Minnick attempted to kill with his council been in place five years ago it "would have prevented a huge part of this crisis."
Minnick's proposal was narrowly defeated in the House of Representatives last month but in debate, to the glee of Republicans, an outraged Minnick railed against the CFPA as a "massive new federal bureaucracy." He touted the cost of his proposal as less than $50 million compared with the $4.6 billion he claimed the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost to create the CFPA.
That claim is disingenuous at best, though. The $4.5 billion estimate provided by the CBO was for the cost of enacting the entire legislation; the estimate for just the CFPA portion was $1.1 billion over ten years.
With the economy buried under financial industry collapse and having already spent billions of taxpayer money, including $700 billion in TARP funds, trying to dig out of this hole, $110 million a year seems like a wise investment for consumers. Much better than tossing a $50 million bone to the financial industry so existing regulators (who already had the power to protect consumers but failed to do so) can "sit around and talk" about best practices.
A marriage between consumer protection and prudential regulation would be very convenient for a "failed" industry already raking in billions. . . and Walt Minnick knows that.
I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.
— Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho)
When Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick sat in as guest host for KBOI's Nate Shelman on December 22, he responded to three hours of questions on a variety of topics but largely focused on health care reform. His answer, or lack of one, when Chuck insisted, in his grossly misinformed opinion, that people with preexisting medical conditions didn't deserve health care wasn't the only disturbing comment Minnick left unchallenged.
In the third hour of the program, Loretta called in from Boise.
I am one of the millions of people in the groundswell that has risen up, lately, in just horror at what's happening in the Beltway. And so I did hear your comment about the constitutionality of what's going on with health care from a previous caller, but here's my understanding and then I have a challenge for you.
We, Idaho, were kinda put on the map many, many years ago with the Frank Church situation and the disaster, in my opinion, that that caused in our security environment. So I'd like to see Idaho get put back on the map in a positive way.
She went on to state why she believes health care reform legislation is unconstitutional and urged Walt to stand up and challenge its constitutionality.
Walt responded by saying he believes that the legislation is constitutional and that there is plenty of precedent for it, citing Medicare and Medicaid programs as examples, and welcomed her to challenge it in court if she believes otherwise.
What was left hanging there in the air was that reference to former Idaho Democratic Senator Frank Church. The only thing she could have possibly been referring to was the Church Committee, the U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Church that in 1975 investigated illegal activity of the CIA, FBI and other agencies uncovered during the Watergate investigations. Widely accepted as necessarily reining in the constitutional abuses of the government and its agencies against American citizens, the Church Committee helped pour disinfecting sunlight on an ugly, dark wound.
You've got to be in a really, really strange place to believe that was anything but positive. Even stranger to believe the Constitution would allow the government to conduct clandestine operations against it's own citizens but prohibit it from providing health care for them.
And what sort of Idaho Democrat would leave unchallenged the implication that Senator Frank Church was anything but positive for Idaho? Must be a whole different animal indeed.
Over the holidays, a friend and I spent three hours listening to KBOI's Nate Shelman show, recorded December 22, with Idaho Rep. Walt Minnick sitting in as guest host. About midway through the show, Chuck called in from Boise insisting, his voice quivering with a rage that he admitted having difficulty controlling, that people with preexisting medical conditions didn't deserve health insurance because they didn't have the foresight to obtain insurance beforehand. Seriously. He equated it to someone wrecking their car and then trying to buy car insurance to cover the damage. He was angry at the prospect of losing his insurance and being "forced on a government plan" and vowed to do everything in his power to ensure that Minnick never serve another day in Congress if he voted with Speaker Nancy Pelosi one more time. I'm pretty sure he wasn't threatening any physical harm but he was pretty worked up.
Minnick's response? Up against a news break, Minnick used his thirty seconds to cite a Washington Post article that labeled him the congressman with the most independent voting record in either party. Maybe to him, Walt's voting record is more important than whether or not people with preexisting conditions can get health care, but it's unconscionable that when given the opportunity to correct this gross misconception to an audience so desperately and obviously in need of it, Walt used the time to grovel for votes and tout his "independent" voting record.
Over last summer and into the fall Minnick made no secret of his distaste for the health care reform bill eventually passed by the House. In fact much like Gov. Butch Otter's unfounded, recent threats to sue the federal government upon enactment of any reform, Minnick attempted to beef up his anti-govm'nt credentials by scaring Idahoans with co-opted buzz words like "big government takeover" and "socialized medicine." Walt even appeared at a TEA Party-hosted town hall where he took the opportunity to skewer Boise's North End Democrats (who had generously given time and money to his campaign), implying they were more extreme than this tea party fringe.
Even then we knew of the fringe-y ideas held by this tea party crowd
These are people who believe that they need to "take their government back" by holding constitutional conventions, who are encouraged to quit paying taxes until "their grievances are redressed," that the President isn't President and that the U.S. is on the verge of Fascism.
but since those heady days of summer, it seems the whole GOP rug has unraveled leaving nothing but fringe. When a U.S. Senator tells Americans from the floor of the Senate that they ought to be praying for the demise of a fellow Senator—and Americans do it—something has gone terribly awry.
Crazy North End Democrats indeed.
Gone are the days when Walt Minnick could speak movingly about his experiences with a health care system badly in need of reform or call Bill Sali extreme with a straight face.
No one expected that Walt would be the embodiment of a liberal lion once in Congress, but most Democrats hoped he would at least occasionally emit a cub's mew. Unfortunately he can't even do that. Walt's turned out to be a completely different species.
Remember this? In the 2008 campaign to unseat Bill Sali, Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick heavily courted Republican votes, even launching a website complete with a roster of well-known GOP defectors.
Seems someone by the name Artem Zakharov bought the domain, republicansforminnick.com, in October and the site has changed dramatically. It now features the top story, "10 Perfect Places to Foregather Women" and a top tag, "Russian Brides."
Walt Minnick, a magnet for Russian Brides? Who knew?!
Lest there be any doubt that Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick has deep ties to agriculture, the millionaire Blue Dog demanding the federal budget be balanced has even taken farm subsidies. Yes, your tax dollars and mine have gone to supplement the income of this gentleman farmer growing up on the "wheat farm in Walla Walla."
Minnick has an interest in these two entities which, according to the Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database, have received USDA subsidy payments from 1995-2006.
Foundation Farm, Inc. — $48,119
Minnick Harvesters, Inc. through a 29% stake in Dewitt Ag Associates — $1,705,336
The EWG also has an updated database which attributes direct and pass-through USDA subsidies for program years 2003-2005 totaling $13,683 for Minnick.
Never mind that roughly three-quarters of Washington and Idaho farmers don't find it necessary to take government handouts and never mind that roughly 150,000 people in his district are living without the health insurance he says is too expensive, that hasn't kept millionaire Minnick from putting a hand out for his.
This video of Idaho Blue Dog Congressman Walt Minnick appears on the official YouTube channel of Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican Whip. It has scored over 2,000 views, in six days vaulting to rank 36 of over 330 videos Cantor has uploaded in the last two years.
Minnick is railing against the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This is the agency whose job it will be to watchdog over the financial industry, to protect consumers from fraud and unfair lending practices and prevent the kinds of excessive risk-taking that led to last year's taxpayer-funded bailouts.
Backed by the power of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce multimillion dollar lobbying effort, Minnick sponsored an amendment attempting to kill the creation of the agency in favor of a council of existing regulators without the enforcement teeth of the CFPA. Commercial banks and finance companies also fiercely opposed creation of the CFPA and, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, "aggressively fought to water down Democrats’ plans for new regulations and oversight" and have "long lined the pockets of lawmakers who voted against the bill." Leading the fight against the CFPA, Minnick was funded by over $566,000 in campaign contributions from the financial sector.
Minnick's amendment failed narrowly 208-223 and he ended up voting for the bill on final passage, the banking industry winning sufficient concessions (read: weakening the legislation) to make the vote palatable. Now the banking industry is gearing up for an all-out battle in the Senate. They really, really don't want to be regulated by the CFPA.
Here's where Walt Minnick has completely lost my respect and my vote and it started sometime in mid-July. There's a difference in being a proud Democrat with an independent voting record and being a reluctant Democrat who uses Republican talking points to skewer other Democrats.
Many on the other side have called Rep. Mike Simpson a RINO. They've demonized him at TEA parties and are delighted to have a "true" conservative running against him. All this even though you don't hear him using Democratic talking points in press releases, editorials or debate. Can you imagine Simpson calling his fellow Republicans the party of "no?"
Yet that is exactly what Walt Minnick has done, time after time, and this is just one more example. How many times is the Idaho Democratic Party going to allow Walt to skewer other Democrats? If Walt wants to be a Democrat, then be a Democrat. We are a big tent and we can disagree on issues, but don't use messaging designed to appeal to the teabagger wing, trampling over Democrats in the process and then expect them to embrace you.
Walt Minnick has deep ties to agriculture, at least he's been saying so to anyone who would listen since his successful quest to become Idaho's 1st District Congressman began in 2007. "Growing up on a wheat farm in Walla Walla . . ." became the refrain in ads and bios. And then there are those ubiquitous plaid shirts.
It was no surprise, then, to hear his insistence that he was protecting Idaho farm families from onerous tax increases when he voted to preserve a $7 million dollar per couple estate tax exemption this month. No matter that the average family farm isn't worth anywhere near that amount.
Protecting multimillion dollar estates—like his—meanwhile clucking that health care reform is too expensive. Guess that's really no surprise either.
It was a surprise to find conflicts between his financial disclosure statements and state records regarding that "wheat farm in Walla Walla."
According to the Washington Secretary of State website, Minnick holds governing positions in these four businesses in Washington state, all of which list as the registered agent his sister, Laura, in Walla Walla:
Vice President — Foundation Farm, Inc, an active for-profit incorporated in 1965
Vice President — Minnick Harvesters, Inc, an active for-profit incorporated in 1987
Manager — Minnick Hills Vineyard, LLC, an active for-profit incorporated in 2000
Member — Minnck Land Company, LLC, an active for-profit incorporated in 2002
On his 2008 financial disclosure statement filed May 15, 2009 and found at the Center for Responsive Politics, Minnick disclosed his asset value and income for just three of those businesses—but listing one twice—and only disclosed the positions he holds in one.
Director and Vice President — Foundation Farm, Inc — disclosed value $250,001 to $500,000
Position not disclosed — Minnick Harvesters, Inc — value not disclosed
Position not disclosed — Minnick Hills Vineyard, LLC — disclosed value $100,001 to $250,000
Position not disclosed — Minnck Land Company, LLC — disclosed value $500,001 to $1,000,000 (listed twice with different capital gains income amounts and without indication that the asset may be held by a dependent child)
As he disclosed them (including Minnick Land Company twice), Minnick's value in these assets falls somewhere between $1.35 million and $2.75 million but it is unclear why one asset and three governing positions are omitted from the disclosure.
Certainly Walt must have a logical explanation for this discrepancy. Certainly this isn't simply a filing error, after making the filing of accurate reports an issue in the 2008 campaign. And certainly there isn't anything else Walt has failed to disclose.
It has become nearly impossible to determine what is driving Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick these days. Is Minnick really being driven by what's "Right for Idaho" as he claims? Or is it just whatever's right for Walt Minnick?
The bluest of the Blue Dogs, Minnick bills himself as a "true fiscal conservative," vowing to vote at every opportunity to strip earmarks from spending bills and "demanding that Congress balance the budget." Last week Minnick voted for a measure that, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, will cost $609 billion over ten years. In a press release, he touted the vote as a guarantee for Idaho family farmers who would otherwise be burdened with onerous tax increases.
The measure, which passed the House on a 225 to 200 vote, permanently extends the current estate tax exemption of $7 million per couple and keeps the tax rate at 45 percent. Without this legislation the exemption would have dropped to $2 million per couple in 2011. Minnick also supported Republican procedural attempts to eliminate the tax for two years and has supported excluding farm land from the tax completely.
Being a businessman for 30 years, as he is fond of saying, Minnick is acutely aware that a decrease in revenue has the same effect on a balance sheet as an increase in costs—not what you'd want to see in a budget, especially one you were demanding be balanced. Evidently a vote against spending roughly $900 billion on health care reform is sexier than telling those inheriting multimillion dollar estates to pay a little more for the services they receive. That, or it just sounds better to teabagging voters. Or maybe Walt Minnick is just a convenient "true fiscal conservative."
Whatever the case, it is unclear who Minnick thinks he is protecting from "onerous" taxes. In his press release he conceded to estimates that only 100 people in the entire United States would be affected by estate taxes under this recent legislation. But how many Idaho family farms would actually be "saved" from this onerous tax if the legislation is enacted?
Lucky for us, the U.S. Department of Agriculture takes an annual survey of just such things. The balance sheet for the average operator household, or family farm, from the most recent Agricultural Resource Management Survey, is shown below. [The assets and liabilities are broken out further in this chart and access to all the data and tables can be found here.]
According to the survey, the average family farm in the West is currently worth just over $1 million—far below the $7 million exemption that Minnick felt it vital to preserve and even well below the $2 million exemption that would have been "onerous" to family farms. The average Idaho farm family would have been exempt from estate taxes in either case.
It is crystal clear that it is not the average family farm Minnick is protecting. In fact, it doesn't take a survey to see that there is nothing average about a $7 million estate and that Walt Minnick is just fiscally conservative when it's convenient for him to be so.
Protecting multimillion dollar estates is more important to Walt Minnick than providing health insurance to average Idahoans. That may be right for Walt Minnick but it's not right for Idaho.
The miserable have no other medicine but only hope — Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
Claudio was in prison hoping for a pardon to spare his life, but he could just as well have been foretelling of the lottery that passes for a U.S. health care system when Shakespeare penned those words for him. With the House of Representatives set to vote this weekend on landmark health care legislation, giving those without health insurance, or prospects for getting it, something besides hope, Idaho Blue Dog Congressman Walt Minnick and staff were penning an editorial on, what else but, financial regulation reform?
The editorial was followed by a brief notice today that, as he has indicated since July, he would in fact be voting against health care legislation tomorrow. Meanwhile, nearly 20 percent in his district are uninsured, ranking 304 among 436 congressional districts (including D.C.) and he is apparently doing nothing to ensure that his own campaign staff aren't among the uninsured.
Reforming financial regulation is crucial and although Minnick voted against the legislation in committee that he's now touting having written portions of, with a landmark vote on health care looming, perhaps his priorities are a little skewed. Although purely incidental, his regulation editorial did contain this one mention of health insurance:
That's why my managers would share motel rooms, rent economy cars and get the same health insurance as the newest file clerk. That's why when times got tough I cut my salary first and most before I asked anyone else to sacrifice.
We've heard this from Minnick before. In an interview for KUOI radio in Moscow while on the campaign trail last year, when asked how his company could afford to provide the same health insurance to all his employees Minnick responded:
We took that as a real priority in my company and whether you were a receptionist or drove a forklift in one of our plants you had the same insurance and we just thought it was important if you're going to keep employees long term. We [were able to afford it] because our employees worked harder, worked smarter and provided better customer service. ... Businesses are just people and if the people don't enjoy what they're doing and work hard and want to make the business successful there's no way management can make it successful, so we thought [providing health insurance] was a real priority.
Apparently, Minnick thought more of his business employees than his campaign staff. According to his finance reports, the campaign provided none of them with health insurance. In 2008, while enjoying his employer-sponsored insurance and traveling around the state advocating universal access to comprehensive, affordable coverage, unless they had means to obtain their own, Minnick's campaign staff went without.
During the 2008 election cycle, of Minnick's paid campaign staff, the eleven who were on the payroll for six months or longer were paid (excluding bonuses) on average an amount equivalent to an annual wage of just over $29,000, assuming they worked the entire year and at the same rate. These prorated salaries ranged from $11,000 for the communications assistant to $63,000 for the campaign manager brought on for the final months of the campaign.
This means that not only was health insurance not provided for his paid staff, interestingly enough, at the salary the campaign was paying, every one of them would fall below the income limit making a family of four eligible for affordability credits under the current House proposal. The proposal provides affordability credits on a sliding scale for those who can't get coverage through an employer or other means and who cannot afford to purchase a policy on their own. The credits are phased out for incomes above 400 percent of the poverty level, or $43,320 per year for an individual and $88,200 for a family of four.
No one on Minnick's 2008 campaign staff made anywhere near the limit for a family of four and only his campaign manager was making more than the individual limit, meaning that had this legislation been in effect then and they met the other requirements, they would have been eligible for financial assistance to purchase their own policies.
Minnick's records show that his campaign staff for the current election cycle who don't also work on his congressional staff are not provided health insurance either. While the campaign recently touted going over the $1 million mark in fundraising for the 2010 election cycle and reported close to $650,000 in cash on hand, he apparently can't afford heath insurance for his employees. But he adamantly opposes the legislation that would keep them from numbering among the uninsured.
Most campaign workers, paid or otherwise, aren't in it for the money. Most put in the long hours because they believe in a cause and are trying to make a difference. It's hard to imagine that any of those working tirelessly for little compensation and no benefits to put Walt Minnick over the edge last year did so believing he would be the most conservative member of the Northwest delegation. In fact at least some of them most assuredly did not.
After ensuring that he was reimbursed for every nickle of his own money spent while campaigning—down to each last soda pop (seriously)—the least Walt could do, if he's going to vote against health care reform, is to make sure those he employs have insurance. They don't deserve anything less than the person driving a forklift at SummerWinds.
All Idahoans deserve a health care plan that includes more than hope. Unfortunately Walt has other priorities.
"The main thing is to keep everybody going down that road as we try to find the answers and solutions to all these problems. It'll be fun! We'll get it done." — Majority Leader Mike Moyle (R-Star) when asked in an Idaho Reports broadcast how the State House will handle making tough budget decisions this year, 1.29.10.
Quotes For 2009
"[Some politicians] wouldn't recognize the Constitution if it fell in their laps and called them Daddy." — Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett (R-Challis) at a tea party tax protest.
"Just, you know, putting beans on the table." — former Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID-01) when asked by Nate Shelman (670 KBOI) what he's doing these days.
"I said yesterday we hope and pray things will get better before they get worse. It's obvious to me some of you need to do a better job of praying." — Sen. Dean Cameron (R-Rupert), Joint Finance-Appropriation Committee co-chair on the grim economic forecast facing the committee.
“We’ve been called a lot of things but we’ve never been called sneaks before.” — Rep. Maxine Bell (R-Jerome) in a budget dispute with the governor's staff over legislators' computer funding.
"I’m not wearing rose-tinted glasses. But I am a glass-half-full kind of guy." — Gov. C. L. "Butch" Otter attempting to remain optimistic while delivering tough economic news in his State of the State/Budget message.
Quotes For 2008
"I am not ashamed that we use a lot of energy in this country. It has made us the most prosperous Nation on the face of the planet. ... Using energy makes us prosperous." — Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID-01) during debate on an energy bill that, among other things, invested in alternative and renewable energy sources and repealed tax subsidies for large oil companies. (H.R.6899)
"If [Oversight Committee Chairman] Henry Waxman was interested in doing more than just showboat, we'd be there in a heartbeat. It's political grandstanding." — spokesman Wayne Hoffman explaining why Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID-01) was absent from congressional oversight hearings into the financial crisis where, among other things, it was learned that AIG executives indulged in a lavish retreat a week after the bailout.
"You know what, campaigns are fast and furious, I accept responsibility that we don't have the right citation there, but the facts I stand by - we are correct about that." — Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID-01) reacting to a campaign commercial fact-checking report.
"There are people out there without health care, and we need to address that, but it's not as big of a problem as some people would make it out to be" — Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID-01) in a Lewiston, ID debate
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." — President Bill Clinton in a speech at the 2008 DNC
"To my supporters, to my champions, to my sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits, from the bottom of my heart, thank you." — Senator Hillary Clinton in a speech at the 2008 DNC
"The America that we know, that the founding fathers envisioned, will cease to exist." — Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID-01) speaking at the state GOP convention about the possibility of a Democratically controlled White House and Congress.
"Sometimes the problems have to get larger before you can solve them. We can still drive around the potholes, so they must not be big enough." — House Speaker Lawerence Denney (R-Midvale), explaining that lawmakers still need to be convinced about the extent of road maintenance problems before they'll agree to tax or fee increases.
"Those people that believe in shooting animals through the fences . . . ought to turn the rifle the other way." — Former Governor Cecil Andrus, at sportsmen's rally, decked out in full camouflage, urging opposition to "shooter bull" operations on domestic elk farms.
"GARVEE is like swallowing a raw egg - it seems to be one of those things that's really hard to stop in the middle of." — Rep. Marv Hagedorn (R-Meridian), in comments on a package of transportation bills introduced by House GOP leaders at an emergency committee meeting.
"I'm a professional dairyman. I have milked and milked everything I can possibly milk." — State Police Maj. Ralph Powell, arguing that the state crime lab's bare-bones operation has reached its limit and now costs the state money as testing is sent to private labs.
"Idaho is ranked last in the nation in protecting the safety of children in day care centers." — Sen. Kate Kelly (D-Boise), in support of an unsuccessful move by Senate Democrats to force a daycare standards bill out of committee.
"This [anti-discrimination bill] is something we will propose every year until it passes." — Rep. Nicole LeFavour (D-Boise), responding to the latest BSU Public Policy survey in which 63 percent of Idahoans think it ought to be illegal to fire someone for being gay or seeming to be gay.
"I assumed it would be a bunch of radical college students, so to fit the part, I grew a goatee, got a revolutionary T-shirt and put on some ratty jeans." — Rep. Curtis Bowers (R-Caldwell) in an Idaho Press-Tribune opinion explaining how he disguised himself to uncover alleged communist plots.
Quotes For 2007
"Divorce is just terrible. It's one of Satan's best tools to kill America." — Rep. Dick Harwood (R-St. Maries) describing the work of the Idaho Legislature's Family Task Force.
"I am not gay; I never have been gay." Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) in a statement responding to news of his arrest and subsequent guilty plea to disorderly conduct after an incident in an airport men's room.
“Most of the hospitals in this country have Christian names. If you think Hindu prayer is great, where are the Hindu hospitals in this country? Go down the list. Where are the atheist hospitals in this country? They’re not equal.” — Rep. Bill Sali (R-ID-01) to the Idaho Press-Tribune editorial board in response to criticism of his views regarding Hindu prayer in the Senate.
"We are all Nintendo warriors today. Remember that game, that electronic game, a few years ago, push buttons zim, zam, boom and it was all over with? That is not the way you fight war, although we as a society have grown to believe that." — Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) during debate on an amendment to a bill providing for defense authorization.
"While we are Democrats and Republicans, in our hearts we are all Idahoans." — Sen. Clint Stennett (D-Ketchum), reaching out to Republicans while outlining the Democratic agenda for the 2007 legislative session.
"One of the hardest things we've had to do here is taking off our party hats." — Rep. Marv Hagedorn (R-Meridian) on a proposal to restrict Idaho's primary elections.
"This is outrageous. The people of Idaho are entitled to have their representatives base their votes on the merits of a bill, not on who backed the loser in a speaker's contest." — Former GOP Gov. Phil Batt responding to accusations of political retribution taken by House Speaker Denney (R-Midvale) on other members.
“There was one of those six projects that was removed altogether. Why? Because the senator and the representatives from that district were from the wrong political party. We need to take a step back" — Sen. Dean Cameron (R-Rupert) to the Senate when debating the GARVEE bill.
"I'm prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself." — Gov. Butch Otter, speaking to a hunters' rally at the Statehouse.
"To get a kick out of smoking industrial hemp, it would take a cigar the size of a telephone pole." — Rep. Tom Trail (R-Moscow), downplaying the relation between hemp and its cousin marijuana
"I guess I would just make a plea saying we need the money. You know we need the money on roads." — Rep. JoAn Wood (R-Rigby), on proposed bill to collect gas tax from sales on Indian reservations.
"No one wants to carry the canoe bill." — Rep. Eric Anderson (R-Priest River), agreeing with Gov. Otter that non-motorized boats should also pay registration fees, but noting any such proposal will be a tough sell.
"I don't think we should let the threat of a lawsuit force us to implement something that's not well thought out." — Abbie Mace, Fremont County Clerk, testifying against a "modified-closed primary" bill being pushed by GOP leaders.
"There's a lot of things that I pointed out in my State of the State (address) that haven't passed. Unfortunately, I can't think of one that has." — Gov. Butch Otter, addressing reporters on the legislative session so far.
"I say let's have a hearing and take our clothes off and go after it." — Rep. Jim Clark, R-Hayden Lake, trying to get lawmakers to print his bill.