Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Walt Minnick”

Your money or your life

August 7, 2009

Political speech on health care, quite a bit of it, doesn't match up well with reality on the ground.

Some of the most critical votes in Congress when time comes, presumably some weeks hence, to vote on health care, will be those of the more skeptical Democrats. One of the Democrats most reluctant to accept the various health plans pushed in recent weeks through committees has been Idaho's Walt Minnick.

He's made a number of statements on health care; one (arriving in email) that seemed to need clarification was this: "Third, no 'socialized medicine.' The health care system of insurance must be private – not run by the government." In Minnick's use of the term (exact definitions can vary by person), what does socialized medicine mean? His press secretary responded:

He is firmly opposed to a public option. We of course have Medicare and Medicaid, and while people who use those services like having the benefits of some healthcare, most people very clearly do not like the process associated with those programs. So that partially informs his thinking.

The other key thing to understand is the reasoning by most proponents of a public option. The proposed plan and its proponents on Capitol Hill very much want a single-payer, single-provider system of health insurance – that is a poorly kept secret in Washington, D.C. They view the public option as a way to not just compete with insurance companies, but drive them out of business. The public option would so effectively kill competition in the marketplace, that the proponents would likely be successful in that endeavor.

For Walt, competition is at the heart of this part of the healthcare discussion. A public company would not have to pay taxes, it could bond without restriction, it could go into debt without being beholden to banks or shareholders and would not have to worry about losses. It could just add those losses to the national debt. Most importantly, it would not have any real incentive to drive down costs, because it would quickly become the dominant, overwhelming force in the marketplace. It would be the largest insurance company in the country, run by the federal government and subsidized by taxpayers at enormous cost. That is socialized medicine.

Walt said something interesting the other day as an off-the-cuff way to oversimplify and explain this. Let’s say you sell bikes. And the bike industry is an absolute mess due to poor standards, a lack of accountability, out-of-control costs which are due to a wide variety of complex factors, and wide spectrum of regulations differing from state to state, etc. The government decides it is critical that the industry be reformed so the cost of bikes stops spiraling out of control. Is the way forward for the government to start its own bike company?

Fairly clear as explanation of philosophy. Now, an explanation of how the matter looks as a matter of governing philosophy, from here:

We have laws, generally accepted across the philosophical spectrum, that prohibit someone from walking into your house (or your convenience store), pointing a gun at your head and demanding "your money or your life."

That is what our health care system is doing to us, right now, and on an immense scale. It is extortion at the least, robbery at the most. Governmental activism is needed to stop it.

That may sound harsh or extreme. It isn't. That way of looking at American health care today could be backed up by any number of statistics or studies, but, as Minnick drew on his experience to inform his take on health care, let me draw on some personal events that occurred about 13 months ago. Individual experiences differ widely, of course, but here's some of what informs my thinking on this: (more…)

Digging in

April 13, 2009
symms

Steve Symms

Idaho Representative Walt Minnick - the Democrat elected last year in one of the most Republican House districts in America - just keeps on strengthening his position.

This latest had to be mind-bender for a lot of people: A fundraiser for Minnick, in Washington, headlined by none other than former Senator Steve Symms (1981-93), now a lobbyist in DC.

Symms is in no conceivable sense a liberal or moderate Republican, and as if to underline that, he was the guy who ousted veteran Democratic Senator Frank Church back in 1980. He campaigned alongside Ronald Reagan and was very much of a piece with the big Reagan win that year. He has never suggested, never indicated, any kind of philosophical mind change.

For whatever reason - could the realities of lobbying in Washington in 2009 have something to do with it? or maybe Minnick's own philosophical demeanor - he is fundraising for Minnick. This may be (someone offer a correction if needed) the first ever Democrat that Symms has publicly supported in any significant way.

There may be a reason Republican opposition to Minnick isn't coalescing very quickly yet.

A demarcation line

March 30, 2009

Huffington Post has out a list of the members of the congressional Blue Dog - conservative - Democrats, who have their own organization and evidently a concrete membership list.

Although a fifth of the House Democrats overall are Blue Dogs, just one of the 11 Northwest House Democrats is a member. No surprise: Walt Minnick of Idaho's 1st district.

An odd couple, and an idea

February 13, 2009

Two Northwest House Democrats turned thumbs down on the conference committee stimulus package. Idaho's Walt Minnick, coming from the Blue Dog conservative side, wasn't hard to understand; like most of the other critics, he thought there was too much spending and too little likelihood the bill would get the job done. And he had the credibility of having developed an alternative of his own: “My bill was a high-powered rifle. This bill is a shotgun, and it will add nearly $1 trillion we do not have to a debt already out of control.” So, siding with the Republicans.

But then there too was the nay from Oregon's Peter DeFazio - for almost exactly the opposite reasons. Too many cuts from the bill for spending proposals, in DeFazio's view.

Of course, no one knows exactly what will work best to pump some adrenaline into the economy.

Some further attention ought to go, though, to one suggestion DeFazio had - a procedural one applying to the Senate.

The idea in the Senate is that to pass controversial legislation, you have to have not just a simple majority (50 senators and the vice president, if all are present and voting) but 60 votes to override a filibuster. The Senate rule basically is that you can't stop a senator from speaking on the floor - for hours or days - unless you round up 60 votes for "cloture." In recent years, we haven't seen many real filibusters, instead abbreviating to the idea that you need 60 votes to force a bill to the floor if the minority says it even might try to filibuster.

DeFazio's suggestion (according to the Bend Bulletin): Eliminate the niceties. If the Republicans, or anyone else, wants to filibuster, let 'em filibuster. Make 'em work for it. Let it all out there. For that matter, entertain us - and point up what's at stake at the same time.

Here's a case where some bread and circuses could actually result in better lawmaking . . .

Sali II: The return?

January 29, 2009
Bill Sali

Bill Sali

There's probably a sense among a lot of organization Republicans in Idaho that the state's congressional delegation would be all-Republican again this year were it not for the Republican House member who lost his seat two years ago - Bill Sali. After all, the other two Republicans running for Congress in Idaho last year, Jim Risch and Mike Simpson, won their seats with great big margins. A Republican running in the first district who was closer to their model than the highly controversial Sali, they might reasonably figure, would have won. As it was, Democrat Walt Minnick narrowly won the seat, and doesn't seemed to have made any political mistakes so far.

With Sali's filing for another run at the seat, all this becomes pertinent fodder again.

Often, a candidate for a major office who either is ousted from it or only narrowly loses it will at least win his party's nomination for another run, if he (or she) wants it. In the two other House seats seriously contested in the Northwest last year, in Washington's 8th and Oregon's 5th, the outside party (Democratic and Republican respectively) each nominated for another go their candidate from 2006; both, it might be noted, lost. In the run for Washington governor last year, Republican Dino Rossi - who just barely lost in 2004 - had the Republican nomination for the asking; and he proceeded to lose as well.

But could Sali get the nomination? You can't rule it out. He has a known name and organized support. But he also has a big campaign debt (about $120,000 at last count), and several prospectively solid Republican candidates (Attorney General Lawrence Wasden and state Senator John McGee have expressed interest) could in the field. Sali won in 2006 in a deeply fragmented field that advantaged him almost perfectly. There'd be strong pressure in the Republican hierarchy to avoid a repeat of that scenario.

He would at least, though, have the opportunity to get a lot of that debt paid off . . .

NOTE: Edited to correct reference to Mike Simpson, from Crapo.

UPDATE: Sali is quoted as saying that he hasn't actually decided yet whether he will run. That's worth bearing in mind; the filing of paperwork is prerequisite, but not the same thing as a declaration of candidacy. He also says his campaign debt is all the way down to $117,000.

Cooperative hardball politics

January 16, 2009

All those who think Idaho Democratic Representative Walt Minnick is a dead man walking for the election in 2010, and all those who think the (Republican) rest of the Idaho congressional delegation is SOL what with the decisive Democratic takeover of Congress, listen up.

You need to pay attention to a string of three recent press releases. They carry a weight of meaning.

Here's the lead paragraph from one, dated January 6, from the of office of Republican Representative (2nd district) Mike Simpson, with co-contact information from Minnick's office: "Idaho Congressmen Mike Simpson and Walt Minnick today introduced the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA). The bill settles ongoing disputes over how to manage public land in Central Idaho by creating wilderness, releasing wilderness study areas, allowing for federal land transfers and providing for economic relief to residents in Custer and Blaine counties."

The Republican and Democratic representatives jointly introducing a wilderness bill (which Simpson had been pushing, over the opposition of Minnick's Republican predecessor, for some years). Hmm.

Here's another one, also jointly released from the offices on Wednesday: "Idaho Congressmen Mike Simpson and Walt Minnick today voted to pass a measure that will ease financial burdens on thousands of Idaho families. The State Children Health Insurance program was reauthorized today by the U.S. House of Representatives. Children from hardworking, low- to middle-income Idaho families who do not qualify for Medicare would have access to health care under the S-CHIP bill."

Working together on a health/welfare issue. Hmm.

Now the third, out today, from the office of new Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho, countering a lawsuit by environmental groups against a roadless area plan Risch worked on as governor. The third paragraph says this: "'Over the last several years, Idaho has been at the forefront of the collaborative, local-focused approach to management of public lands. The west needs more of that, and fewer lawsuits,' Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick said. 'Senator Risch’s carefully crafted roadless plan is yet another fine example of what can be done when leaders bring people to the table in an effort to find common ground, and I hope today’s news does not hamper future collaboration between sportsmen, business, leaders such as Governor Otter, Senator Risch, the rest of our delegation, and the many other people who care about Idaho’s public lands.'”

Here we have Minnick appearing favorably in a Risch press release, and Minnick offering some support for Risch on an environmental issue.

Hey, wait a minute: Where's all the partisan bashing? Didn't these guys go to D.C.? Don't they know how this stuff works?

Actually, they seem to have figured out, quickly, some significant things. (more…)

Broder on Minnick

January 7, 2009

Washington Post columnist David Broder's latest column is on new Idaho Representative Walt Minnick, who (he points out) has a back story more unusual than that of most incoming members of Congress.

Nothing especially new of note, but it does put Minnick into some perspective. And Minnick says he will be back in his district weekly - and why.