MN-03 : Paulsen Joins Minority to Oppose Workers

Country First !
That was the message at the Republican National Convention held in Erik Paulsen’s back yard … yet, he seems to have rejected that idea.
The concept was simply expressed as putting the good of the Country ahead of personal ideology, state, or partisan interests.

No doubt that there many stark difference between the political parties and those differences are on display when roll call votes reflect party line votes.
But it’s the measure of “Country First” when a majority of both parties approve legislation.
But what stands out is when somebody stays in the minority to their party.
Increasingly, that is where voters will find Erik Paulsen.

Case in point … on Roll Call Vote 722 : Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009 a majority of Republicans (104) voted in favor of the legislation while sitting in the minority was Erik Paulsen.
A year earlier, when similar legislation was being considered (Roll Call 683 :Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008) , Minnesota’s Third District was represented by someone else … Republican Jim Ramstad … who joined with 141 other Republicans to approve it.

Representative Paulsen is well aware of the national employment situation as he wrote on his 10/2/09 blog entry : “U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report of an increase in the unemployment rate to 9.8 percent – a 26-year high – is bad news for American workers and their families. The U.S. lost another 263,000 jobs in September and 5.4 million workers have now been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer.”

Looking at our state, about 120,300 Minnesotans lost jobs and went on unemployment from Jan. 1 to Aug. 31 while an estimated 1,000 people currently exhaust unemployment benefits each week, said Dan McElroy, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). State figures show that for every job vacancy, there are 7.7 people looking for work.

Representative Paulsen knows the problem exists.
Representative Paulsen believes that jobs must be created.
Representative Paulsen misses the point that to create jobs, demand … customer demand must be there … but too many people are curtailing demands because they are working less hours, are in fear of losing their jobs, or do not have jobs. The simple fact is that businesses want customers ... and after they get customers, then they will rehire.
The need is now … people want to work … but if there is an oversupply of workers, does the Country want to encourage more foreclosures, more people scrimping on healthcare needs, and draining food shelves ?


When the question of extended unemployment benefits was being voted on in 2008, it was cited that “Extending unemployment benefits has the potential to help the entire American economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy because the money is spent quickly. For every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.64 in new economic demand.”
Denying extension of benefits actually hurts the country.
At that time, the complaint was about Republicans John Kline (MN-02) and Michelle Bachmann (MN-06)] and their failure to support this increase … now Erik Paulsen has joined the minority.
As pointed out in that commentary, the Federal Unemployment Tax Trust Fund is over-funded … these funds were saved for this rainy day. Business paid into the fund, so that if there would be a downturn, that their workers could get some money to pay for basic needs … and keep local businesses going.

In the past, Representative John Kline has said federal unemployment benefits are needed only when there are desperate economic conditions … well, Represenative Kline acknowledged on February 13, 2009 that “our nation facing economic distress” as evident by Le Sueur County unemployment rising to 10.1 percent. Yep, in case you were wondering, Representatives Kline and Bachmann voted again against this extension.

Why ?

Let’s look at what Country First is supposed to preclude : personal ideology, state, or partisan interests.

First, Representative Paulsen voices a personal ideology of government spending needs to be curtailed … okay, but these funds are coming from an overfunded FUT Trust Fund. Representative Paulson can fall on the old line that “such assistance threatens to stem the economic upturn” if businesses have to pay higher taxes, but since the monies are already in the FUT Trust Fund, that argument is invalid. Representative Paulsen’s opposition may please a segment of the Republican faithful, thus his opposition may be more to ensure that he does not have a primary challenger from within his party.
Representative Paulsen fails on this test putting his personal ideology (and self-interest) over Country First.

Second, it is true that “today”, only 22 states will benefit from this extension and Minnesota is not one. And that is why this is good legislation … there is a high threshold … helping only those states that really need it now … but the forecast is that Minnesota will soon be in that group. Also, when Federal benefits cease, there is an impact on state resources.
Representative Paulsen fails on this test putting his state over Country First.

Third, partisan interests does not apply as a majority of Republicans supported these extensions.
Representative Paulsen fails on this test.


In my view, Representative Paulsen is not putting Country First … much less his constituents and makes me appreciate more how great a Congressman Jim Ramstad was.

Walz graduates from NBL to Statesman

Today’s Congress seems to be composed of mostly of ideologists and party loyalists with a few Natural Born Leaders (NBL) and definitely a shortage of Statesmen.
On particular issues, some members of Congress break party instructions and vote based on District or State needs, but too often, the Roll Call votes are dictated by party managers. Vision is based on the next election … not what is best for the nation’s long-term future.

Statesmen are those that think outside of party ideology. They generally don’t become Statesmen until the end of their political career or as a result of some political loss. For example, after losing to George Bush the Republican Presidential endorsement, Senator John McCain became a Statesman – enacting Campaign Finance Reform , brokering the Gang of 14 resolution to the Judicial Appointment dispute, and offering Immigration legislation – but now Candidate McCain has reverted to embrace the Bush economic ideology and other ideology favored by his Party. This week, the Senate is debating a Cap-and-Trade bill that is authored by retiring Republican John Warner and Independent Joe Lieberman. Consider them to be examples of Statesmen. In Minnesota, I would call Republican Jim Ramstad a Statesman … check out his votes and note how many times he bucks the party managers and votes in the Country’s best interest. Conversely, look at Republican John Kline’s voting record and he not only votes with the party most of the time, his Conservative ideology has him voting against the Party majority on many issues.
Jim Ramstad will be missed in the next Congress, but Minnesotans should be glad that Congressman Tim Walz is demonstrating Statesman vision.

On Monday, June 2nd, Congressman Walz arranged an economic summit consisting of five panels related to consumer issues, health care, education, workforce requirements, etc. Bluestem Prairie performed yeoman’s service by live-blogging the events of the day. It’s a great read, as you can virtually see the presentation of ideas and the exchanges from some of the audience. Walz described the conference as an idea-generator- “gathering from the people and forming that into legislation or initiatives back in D.C." with the intended results to make "a huge difference on the impact felt by the average person."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently said “There’s no end to the drive of members to get good, cheap publicity,” so one might question the motives when a member of Congress schedules a public event just months before re-election. But Walz, has had numerous similar events – the first economic summit was last July in Austin. Getting citizen involvement is not unusual for Walz who has at least six summits on Veterans issues this year.

When Walz started his Congressional term, I labeled him a NBL and a few summits does not earn some Statesman status, but what he said as Keynote Speaker does.
Once again, read Bluestem Prairie’s summation.

Walz has moved beyond party politics and into public policy.
He talks of his own real world experiences and those offered by the presenters and audience.
He sees what needs to be done … not for Tim Walz, nor for Tim Walz’s re-election, but for the nation … that’s Statesmanship !

As voters consider who to cast their votes for, ask “Am I voting for a Statesman or an Ideologist ?”
I will vote for a Statesman every time --- regardless of political party --- but never an Ideologist.

Bachmann Offers Selective Analysis During Mental Health Debate

Minnesota’s Congressional delegation was front and center on March 5th during the debate concerning the PAUL WELLSTONE MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION EQUITY ACT OF 2007.

Speaking on behalf of the legislation was Jim Ramstad who participated in fourteen listening sessions around the country … and opposing it was Michele Bachmann who cited her life experiences as a "wife of a clinical therapist.” For the record, John Kline expressed his dissatisfaction by offering an amendment to scrap the entire bill. With two Republicans attacking their fellow Republican, Tim Walz spoke in support of Mr. Ramstad’s legislation.

To anyone who saw the event via CSPAN, it was evident that health care reform will not happen while Bachmann and Kline are in Congress.

Bachman argued that the bill would cost too much and Kline argued for the Senate version. As it was pointed out during the debate "scare tactics or offer red herrings to distract from the underlying issues, but one thing is clear, the bill is better for patients than the Senate bill, yet the cost is almost exactly the same.”
Republican Senator Norm Coleman said “that he considers the House bill to be the stronger version between the two chambers.”

Bachmann cited the CBO estimate "that the cost of these mandates in the private insurance market will total $3 billion annually by 2012.”

As a point of reference, the financial cost for the activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the war on terrorism, another CBO reports “If the Administration’s request for 2008 is funded in full, appropriations for those purposes will rise to $188 billion this year and to a cumulative total of $752 billion since 2001. (An additional $40 billion has been appropriated for diplomatic activities and foreign aid over that period.)”
Essentially, then the cost of less than one week would cover this legislation that would potentially be impose on the private sector.
And another sidenote, that was pointed out in the debate : "This bill will also help our servicemembers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as they transition to civilian life because national barriers to mental health care ripple out to everyone. Post-traumatic stress disorder and other combat-related conditions can take months, if not years, to develop after discharge. Many of these veterans will not have access to VA health facilities and will rely upon private health insurance to obtain treatment.”

That aside, while Bachmann elected to site the $3 billion price, she did not put it in perspective of the impact to existing premiums. The CBO report also stated : "We estimate that the direct costs of the additional services that would be newly covered by insurance because of the mandate would equal about 0.4 percent of employer-sponsored health insurance premiums compared to having no mandate at all.”
Since Bachmann stated that ”the average premium families' paid last year $12,106” then the potential would be $48.06 per year. In reality, we know that the cost of most employer-sponsored plans are actually borne by the consumer, the employee may not even pay that.

The CBO also states some potential offsets, such that the .4 percent may actually be closer to .2 percent.

Bachmann’s points were disputed by Jim Ramstad who cited a Wall Street Journal report :” If you don't believe the Wall Street Journal, certainly those on our side of the aisle, what do you believe? Cost businesses $70 billion, just depression, untreated depression alone.
Mr. Speaker, all the empirical data, including all the actuarial studies, show that equity for mental health and addiction treatment will save literally billions of dollars nationally. At the same time, it will not raise premiums more than two-tenths of 1 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's our own CBO numbers. So, I don't know where these people are getting these numbers, these inflated cost figures. Pulling them out of thin air is the only thing I can surmise.
The CBO says it will not raise premiums more than two-tenths of 1percent. In other words, for the price of a cheap cup of coffee per month, several million Americans in health plans can receive treatment for chemical addiction and mental illness. And it's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that some opponents of this legislation have misrepresented the costs of enacting parity.”

Jim Ramstad’s voice will be sorely missed in the next congress.

The first sixteen minutes of the Clinton-Obama debate at Cleveland State concerned health care. Akin to debating whether a cake should have cream cheese or butter cream frosting when you haven’t even acquired the cake ingredients, it is preposterous to debate the finite details of health care policy when House Republicans proved in the Mental Health legislation that they are unwilling to support anything.

Will Kline ultimately support Ramstad and Wellstone’s Legacy ?

To Jim Ramstad (R-MN-03) "It's not just a policy issue, it's a matter of life and death for a lot of people." Meanwhile, fellow Minnesota Republican John Kline (R-MN-02) describes Ramstad's legislation as "overreaching".

The legislation, H.R. 1424 - Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, has 25 Republican co-sponsors and additionally the complete Democratic side of the Minnesota delegation -- Ellison, McCollum, Oberstar, Peterson, and Walz.

Now, it would be wrong to imply that this is good legislation because it has Paul Wellstone's name on it, or because Jim Ramstad is the primary Republican sponsor, but instead it should be based on Ramstad’s comment … "it's a matter of life and death for a lot of people."

Mental health is just as relevant (and potentially damaging) as physical ailments. Addiction comes in many forms and can impact not only the individual but family, friends and co-workers.

The House bill would establish a federal parity as a minimum and not pre-empt states that have stricter parity provisions in place (46 states currently have laws regulating mental health coverage.) Parity equalizes care between mental health and medical benefits which are important since many people are still left without sufficient mental health coverage. The legislation does not force mental-health insurance upon private carriers. Rather, insurers who offer any treatment for mental illness must use the same basic rules that they apply to the treatment of cancer or broken bones or other physical ailments. For example, a managed health-care company cannot impose a higher co-payment for a session with a clinical psychologist than it charges the same patient for a visit to the internist.
There are reasons to be disappointed with this bill … but more so because it does not go far enough. Small Business (less than 50 employees) are exempt … that makes no sense … if mental health is a problem, it needs to be addressed … should physical ailments also be discriminated based upon the ailment?

But overall, this legislation – like most legislation – is a compromise.
As usual, some will exaggerate what may be covered … would jet lag and caffeine addiction be covered? Those are just two of the reasons that some will use to vote down this legislation.

Much like the SCHIP debate, I suspect that the real concern is that some do not want to engage in health care coverage legislation for fears of where it may lead.

This legislation is needed. Anyone who has fought with an insurance company over benefit coverage will attest, or has seen the movie SICKO knows, having insurance is not the question … the question is what is covered by the insurance policy. Every day people ignore mental health and addiction problems because of fear … fear of admitting that there is a problem and fear that the treatment will not be covered.

Insurance companies denying coverage is wrong.

If you are in John Kline's or Michele Bachmann's districts, please call them to express your support for this legislation ... the vote may happen on Wednesday.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome, Jim Ramstad should be congratulated for his efforts.

FOOTNOTE : Since John Kline is on a "Pork-free diet", it should be noted that this legislation has NO EARMARKS.

Is a Liberal Minnesota Congressman Electable?

Dick Day has described current First District Congressman Tim Walz as “the most liberal" while Minnesota GOP Party chairman Ron Carey issued a press release stating : "Walz's out-of-touch, left-wing agenda is wrong for the First District."

That got me thinking.

Assuming that Democrats would vote for their party’s nominee, would Independents and for that matter Republicans embrace a candidate who voted :

- FOR : Implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations including creating an independent civil liberties watchdog group within the executive branch Roll Call Vote #15
- FOR : Increasing the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over two years 18
- FOR : Allowing the government to negotiate directly with drug makers for lower prescription drug prices for individuals using Medicare. 23
- FOR : Assist in the provision of affordable housing to low-income families affected by Hurricane Katrina. 172
- FOR : A resolution to improve the management of medical care, personnel actions, and quality of life issues for members of the Armed Forces who are receiving medical care in an outpatient status.(aka the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act ) 204
- FOR : Ensuring the independence of United States attorneys 397
- FOR : Protecting consumers from price-gouging of gasoline (aka Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act) 404
- FOR : College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 link
- FOR : Approving funding for Transportation projects 715
- FOR : Moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure (aka New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act) 832
- FOR : Expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program 906
- FOR : To restore the financial solvency of the national flood insurance program and to provide for such program to make available multiperil coverage for damage resulting from windstorms and floods, etc. (aka Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007) 921
- FOR : To establish the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States to provide for the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of decent, safe, and affordable housing for low-income families 958

I should mention that all these roll call votes were opposed by a majority of Republicans (although many did have a significant number of supporters.)
Therefore, I would presume that these votes would indicate that rank-and-file Republicans would not support this Congressman for re-election.
As an Independent voter, I would support this Congressman after all he has been called “a true giant on behalf of all Minnesotans.”
The votes cited are the votes of Jim Ramstad – Minnesota’s Congressman for the Third District.

Are these the votes of a Liberal?
And For Dick Day and Ron Carey’s Information, Ramstad's votes were joined in the affirmative with First District Congressman Tim Walz.

When politicians, like Day, use the term Liberal it really is to denigrate their opponent … its childish characterization and illustrates the weakness of their own inability to articulate their own positions. Name calling may excite the Republican base, but it does not tell Independent voters the positions that the candidate would embrace. Looking at the Roll Call votes, it is pretty easy to see that MN-03 voters can look at the issues and know where Ramstad stands ... and the results is 65% of the voters embracing Ramstad.

Regarding Congressman Ramstad, who has announced that he will not seek reelection, he may be reconsidering that decision.
That would be welcome news not only for MN-03 but for the country.
Ramstad is currently the fourth ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee (which I consider to be the most powerful committee in Congress.) Jim McCrery, the ranking Republican, announced that he will not seek re-election.

Considering the need to address the exploding national debt and inequity of the current tax system, Congress will need to level-headed leaders like Jim Ramstad.