Rep. Tim Walz (DFL) doesn't get much coverage here at MPP because Bluestem Prairie does an awesome job. However, I think it's time for an update.
Tim Walz for US Congress announced it raised more than $1.4 million in the 2010 Election, $381,000 coming in the last three months alone. The campaign has $856,000 in reserves and will report zero debt as of June 30, 2010.
This is more than enough to run some ads on Rochester, Albert Lea and Mankato TV as well as mail a bunch to every household. Plus, Walz has a dedicated cadre of volunteers who work tirelessly for him.
So how's his opponent doing?
Republican Randy Demmer raised $304,000 in the second quarter, his campaign announced to supporters on Facebook, Twitter and via his website today.
That leaves Demmer, a Republican state representative from Hayfield, with a little more than $271,000 cash-on-hand. The Demmer camp emphasized that 90 percent of their donations came in the second half of the quarter, after the legislative session ended on May 17.
Sally Jo at BSP kept a close eye on the FEC reports and reports that Demmer carried as much as $133,000 in debt at points during the 2nd quarter.
And how's everything else going? It appears that Walz couldn't have a better opponent. Demmer has a full blown case of teabagging...
This is the third part of a series on Minnesota's congressional delegation, the first part can be found here and the second here.
Tim Walz and Eric Paulsen represent the two swing districts in Minnesota according to PVI, the 1st and the 3rd. They are both young for congress persons, Walz is 46 and Paulsen is 45, they are both relatively new to the house and while Paulsen has yet to face reelection, Walz breezed to victory in '08 with over 62% of the vote. What Walz has done in his district is what Paulsen appears to be trying to do in his, moderating himself from the parties activist base.
name
PVI
PVI v Ave
DW-N
DW-N v Ave
SILVER
WALZ
1
10
-0.278
0.07
-0.15
PAULSEN
0
-11
0.543
-0.09
0.14
In case you missed the post last week, DW-Nominate is a partisan scoring system ranging from (-1) to 1, with (-1) being very liberal and 1 being very conservative. PVI, partisan voting index is a measure of the partisan nature of a congressional district that I've formatted the same way as the DW-Nominate score, positive for a conservative leaning district, negative for liberal.
What you see when comparing Walz to Paulsen is just how similar they are among their respective party caucuses. They are both from districts that have almost no partisan tilt, far from the average of their party. Their DW-Nominate scores however are very close to the average member of their party, suggesting that they are more valuable to their party than the average legislator, which you can see by looking at their SILVER scores.
While taking out Eric Paulsen would be nice, if Tim Walz's success in the 1st is any indication he will be hard to unseat, especially in a cycle that looks to be favorable to GOP candidates. In addition Paulsen got elected in a three way race with almost 50% in his first go and hasn't really done anything to change voters' perception of him since that time. Based on PVI however, the 3rd is the most favorable district for democratic takeover of the three GOP held districts.
This brings up the question of who the easier target is for Democrats this November, Eric Paulsen or Michelle Bachmann. While Bachmann's district has a much more daunting +7 PVI, Bachmann herself only won reelection by 3 points against a candidate who was underfunded most of the race and only started gaining ground after Bachmann imploded on Hardball. Since that time Bachmann has further defined herself as the nuttiest of wing nuts, capable of saying just about anything.
So, we have a favorable district with a savvy candidate versus an unfavorable district with a loon, which race would you put resources into if you could only choose one?
Reps. Tim Walz (D) and Erik Paulsen (R) penned an editorial in today's Star Tribune (surf there at your own risk of malware and other cooties). In it they argue that the moratorium on building new nuclear plants needs to be lifted. I couldn't disagree more strenuously.
I really don't want to do this as I'm a big fan of Tim's and I personally like him a lot, but I have to point out a few things. Despite what I'm about to say, I still think he's a great Representative.
What Tim is doing is validating their tired, old and debunked arguments.
For decades, the debate over nuclear energy has been stalled, largely along ideological lines. During that time, our nation's primary energy sources have drastically narrowed. Our emissions have increased. High and volatile energy prices have become standard. As a result, our nation is heavily reliant on energy sources that come from countries and regions often hostile to our interests.
Stalled along ideological lines, eh? What about stalled because enough politicians have listened to reason? Paulsen and Walz oversimplify by claiming that we either have coal or nuclear power as options. This is the argument that the polluters, the nuclear lobby and politicians like Erik Paulsen have been advancing to prevent any serious investment in green energy technology. And Tim is playing right into it.
You wouldn't know from this op-ed that Tim has worked hard on green energy solutions. You'd think he was a corporate Dem more concerned about his corporate donors interests than the needs of Minnesotans. The opposite is true.
Essentially, Paulsen and Walz argue that we must consider nuclear power because we have to reduce our carbon output. The problem is it's not just about the carbon. The fact that Paulsen oversimplifies the issue is not surprising -- he's bought and paid for by Corporate America. But the fact that Walz agrees with him is not good.
If it's so safe, let's build it upriver from Mankato on the Minnesota river. Then let's build the storage facility in Tim's neighborhood. Oh ... don't like the idea so much now? It's going to have to go upriver from somebody and we'll have to store the spent fuel rods and other toxic by-products next door to somebody.
Next consider that a nuke plant uses more water than any other kind of energy source. Typically around 390 billion gallons per year for your average nuke plant. In addition, the water exiting the plant is often toxic. This water would have to go into a river somewhere and I don't think Tim's neighbors would want it in the Minnesota.
Furthermore, Paulsen and Walz flippantly dismiss wind and solar with "Unlike with some renewable sources, we can count on it (nuclear power) for consistent power -- come rain, snow, sun or clouds." Walz should know that the wind blows pretty much all the time out in western MN and it's plenty sunny.
Paulsen and Walz also fail to recognize the impact that energy savings measures might accomplish. Think of all the people we could employ making existing homes more energy efficient. They fail to recognize the unrealized potential of the combination of wind, solar, geothermal and energy conservation. Paulsen has never wanted it, but Walz? Shame.
Building a new nuke plant will raise everyone's rates. Even if you don't get any of your electricity from the plant. Nuke plants require massive government subsidies to make profits for their owners. Fundamentally, taxpayers subsidize the profits the owners -- nuclear plants are always a bad deal for taxpayers.
Paulsen and Walz want us all to ignore the lifecycle cost of a nuclear plant. Mining uranium is incredibly destructive and expensive. Enriching uranium takes massive amounts of energy plus most enriching facilities are coal powered. Finally, we have no solution to dealing with the waste. We have to store this waste for many, many millions of years.
Paulsen and Walz fail to recognize the true cost and impact of nuclear power plants and want us to ignore the voice of reason on this issue. While this is typical behavior for Erik Paulsen, I am truly saddened that Tim Walz is siding with the polluters, the nuclear lobby and those like Paulsen who oppose green energy solutions.
We've been talking about Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and how little she's done for the people in her district. Compare and contrast with Senators Al Franken (D-MN), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Representatives Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and Tim Walz (D-MN). The email announcement came out on Friday, but I figured why bury this on a late Friday afternoon news dump when nobody's paying attention?
Today [last Friday] U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken and Representatives Jim Oberstar and Tim Walz announced that Minnesota will receive $18.7 million to create jobs and train unemployed workers in industries that are being transformed by technology and innovation. The grants are funded through the Department of Labor (DOL) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act).
When you consider that obstructionist conservatives like Bachmann and Rep. John Kline (R-MN) incessantly talk about eliminating pork, I wonder what they'd say about this grant to help the people suffering the most from the Republican economic policies of the Bush era?
One of the remaining options for the health insurance reform effort is for the House of Representatives to pass the Senate version of the bill verbatim, thus avoiding having to send a modified bill back to the Senate for debate, where it would likely die thanks to 41 votes being stronger than 59.
Thus, we need to figure out where House members stand -- several have said various things about whether they would vote for the Senate bill, and TPM is making a list -- and Minnesota's Tim Walz looks like he falls into the "maybe" category.
I got the following statement from Walz's spokesperson:
Congressman Walz has not taken an official stand on whether he would vote for the Senate health care reform bill verbatim if it were put before the House. However, the pay-for-value Medicare reimbursement provisions that currently exist in both bills are an extremely important consideration.
So the absence of a public option in the Senate bill doesn't sound like a deal-breaker for Walz -- but unless it looks like there could be 218 votes for the Senate bill, members are likely to be very skittish about making public pronouncements one way or the other.
Using some straightforward statistical techniques, Nate Silver has analyzed, based on the PVI of Members' districts, who is most (and least) valuable to the Democratic caucus.
This is pretty simple, really. Note that the method does not account directly for a congressman's party. This is deliberate. It's not proper, for instance, to compare Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, the moderate congresswoman from South Dakota, to a typical Democrat, or even a typical Democrat in a conservative district, because if she were to retire, we can't take for granted that a Democrat would replace her. In fact, in South Dakota, she would probably be replaced by a Republican. Is Herseth-Sandlin -- even though she breaks with her party somewhat frequently -- more valuable to the Democrats than a typical congressman from South Dakota would be? That's what we're trying to get at.
Really fascinating stuff -- Minnesota's Tim Walz just makes the list at #25, with an R+1 PVI in his district, but sticking with his Democratic colleagues on all the important votes in the analysis. As so many times before, Walz deserves kudos and support for his continuing good work in Washington and at home in his district.
If it's surprising not to see Collin Peterson on the Least Valuable list, remember that his district's PVI is pretty strongly Republican -- the point is to identify members whose districts are much bluer than their votes on important issues have been. Peterson has opposed his colleagues on some pretty important stuff, but he has a much better argument than Artur Davis or Parker Griffith that his votes match his district.
The other interesting thing to note here is the spread of Blue Dogs across both lists -- as with any group of political individuals, there are those who provide value, and those who subtract it. It's this kind of value analysis that, really, the DCCC could be doing to establish some under-the-radar defense targets. Simply put, the D-trip should not be asking for donations to defend members like the recently party-switched Griffith or Alabama's Bobby Bright, when they oppose every one of the party's priorities.
Tim Walz addresses the Netroots MN. Tweet hash tag is #nmn09walz
TW: Thanks for coming, this matters.
Talking about how everyone thought MN-01 was unwinningable, but he never thought so. His campaign was really tech-savvy. Mentioned Sally Jo Sorenson's research work at Bluestem prairie during his race.
Public option was easiest vote he's ever taken in Congress.
There is a lot to get excited about at Netroots Minnesota. With two days of engaging panels and workshops, there is sure to be something for every progressive looking to learn how to grow our movement in Minnesota. In addition to all of the panels and trainings, attendees of the conference this weekend are going to have a unique opportunity to spend their lunch hour Saturday with Minnesota's 1st District--The Fightin' First!--Congressional Representative, Tim Walz.
Walz's dedication to people powered politics has been especially visible this summer. When John Kline turned down his offer for a bipartisan town hall and was still hiding from his own constituents, Representative Walz was out hearing what the people of his district had to say, even the ones who disagreed with him. Both on health care and the war in Afghanistan, Walz has impressed his constituents with his command of the issues. From a letter to the Winona Daily News:
"I am proud to say Walz represents me in Washington, D.C. His vast knowledge about the subject and his willingness to hear the questions and concerns from his constituency are admirable.Walz wrote copious notes while numerous speakers spoke for and against the current policy toward Afghanistan. If these thoughtful conversations took place before invading Iraq, a rigorous policy solution could have been drafted...We need to have a serious conversation about U.S. involvement, and Tim Walz is the right person to lead the discussion."
Now you have your chance to hear from Tim Walz. On Saturday, folks at Netroots Minnesota will get the inside scoop on events in Washington from Representative Walz. He will be taking questions via twitter, facebook and in person, making this one of the most interactive Congressional briefings around. You only have two days left to reserve your spot to hear Representative Walz and attend Netroots Minnesota, so head on over and sign up right away.
In a health care forum last night, representative Tim Walz said that "not doing anything is a choice, not doing anything will have consequences!" He added "There will be a personal cost, there will be a business cost and there will be a detrimental cost in doing nothing about health care." Since 2001, average family insurance premiums are going up in Minnesota by 74%, while average family incomes are only up 17%. Rep. Tim Walz referred to a chart that I don't have. However, here is a similar chart based on national data:
Rep. Tim Walz described the devastating impact that health care issues has on people.
Then Rep. Tim Walz told a story of a local company that choose continuing health care coverage instead of expanding the business. I, as a reporter, have heard the story of health care insurance costs affecting business decisions all the time.
Rep. Tim Walz then described that in addition to affecting people and the economy, health care costs are affecting the government as well. The country is spending 1 in 5 dollars on health care, twice as much as any other country. Even with increased health care spending, still more and more people are not covered. In the next 25 years, if we do nothing then 1 in 3 dollars is going to be spent on health care. All federal government tax dollars will be spent on defense and health care.
Representative Tim Walz said if the status quo is unsustainable, then how do we do reform? This forum is meant for listening. How do we do 1) cost containment 2) choice for you 3) affordability and 4) support for the entrepreneurial spirit.
For further clarification, here is quote from a published opinion written by Rep. Tim Walz:
As I consider my vote, I am guided by the following principles: (1) if you like the coverage you have, you should be able to keep it; (2) we should pay doctors for good outcomes, not the quantity of care they provide; (3) reform should lower costs and streamline the system; and (4) reform should not increase our budget deficit.
The House legislation creates a public health insurance option that would introduce competition and allow the free market to lower insurance costs for families. The bill would also prevent insurance providers from denying coverage to someone based on a pre-existing condition and would close the "donut hole" in prescription drug coverage for seniors.
While I think giving Americans a public insurance option they can never lose is a good start, one of the problems in our current system is that existing government health care programs are too focused on quantity rather than quality of care. This problem is often cited as the Medicare reimbursement rate issue and what it means for southern Minnesota is that states like California and Texas receive more reimbursement money because they offer less efficient care.
Is the situation at town hall events starting to turn in favor of health insurance reform?
According to a release from Health Care for America Now!, it may just be. At an event in Mankato tonight with Rep. Tim Walz,
Many in attendance Thursday came to show their support for H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act, which includes the public health insurance option as a centerpiece. The plan would provide guaranteed access to individuals and employers who cannot obtain or continue health care coverage through the private insurance market. The cost of health care reform under the legislation is fully paid for: half through making the Medicare and Medicaid program more efficient and half through a surcharge on the income of the richest Americans, those with annual family incomes above $350,000. Supporters say the plan would provide affordability, access and quality.
Paul Marquardt, President of the Mankato Area Labor Assembly said that the majority of those disrupting town hall meetings have been right-wing activists intent on stopping debate and rattling members of Congress through media spectacles. "The reality is, most people are productively engaged on health care this year and they want to see something done to fix it. That's why we voted for Obama last November. With more people losing their jobs, they are also losing their health coverage. We may not agree on the solution yet, but we do agree that we need at least one plan NOT run by the insurance companies. The time for real health care reform is now."
Mankato is juuust too far away for an evening trip, especially in the rain. However, I'm trying to get some first-hand accounts of the event to see exactly what it was like inside. Sources indicated earlier this week that at least a bus of teabaggers was expected to show up, courtesy of a local Republican Party unit, but organizations like HCAN have been getting organized in response as well.
Any readers from the Mankato area in attendance tonight?
Insurers, drug makers, doctors' associations and hospitals are spending more than $1 million each day on lobbying. Most of these groups oppose the idea of government-provided health care.
There is no doubt that the health sector is trying to buy influence:
Federal lawmakers collected about half a million dollars more from the health sector between April and June of this year than they did in the first quarter of the year -- a total of $15.3 million for 2009. This slight boost is likely the result of the increased intensity of the health care reform debate.
So how much influence is that money buying and specifically how much is our Minnesota senators and representatives being affected?
One way to look at financial influence is by selecting out the health care industry for both individual and PAC contributions. From being at health care forums, I can tell you that Al Franken, Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum are supported by many health care professionals who want the public option in health care. Note the John Kline gets most of his funding in health care from health care insurance and pharma, the "private wealth creation" focused industries. James Oberstar can not be said to be financially influenced by health care industries in any way!
Please help the public option health care option by calling the highlighted light gold contacts! A minute phone call helps. All detail contact below the fold!
Senator Al Franken, DFL Representative Keith Ellison and DFL Representative Betty McCollum are truly heroes in supporting a robust public option for health care. Please call them and thank them. They need cheering on!
Senator Amy Klobuchar is fence sitting as usual, she will have a tele-townhall on Sunday. Of all people, she is most susceptible to numbers, so contact her often. Representative Tim Walz did wonders with the health care issue, he seems favorable to the public option, however he is reserving support until the final bill. Representative Collin Peterson is running town hall meetings. Representative James Oberstar wants the public option with Minnesota medicare price fixes and no abortion funding, so he almost could be in the "supports public option" column.
The Republicans are totally supportive of maintaining the profit and the total control by health care insurance companies. Republican Representative Michelle Bachmann calls this support of "Private wealth creation". And Michelle Bachmann will give more tax credits for health care insurance payments, that of course does not help if you cannot get nor afford private health care insurance. Republican Representative Eric Paulson is for greater health savings accounts, which only supports more "private wealth creation" for health insurance companies. Republican John Kline is all about demonizing the government, while ignoring the fact that health care insurance companies already do all the bad things that he is accusing government of doing. So Republicans are all about the rich get to have good health care and the rest of us can just go bankrupt or just quietly die or both. Republicans will support the "private wealth creation" for health insurance companies, even when it is death by spreadsheet for the rest of us.
Both locally and nationally, John Kline's refusal to stand side by side with a Democratic colleague and discuss important issues is getting noticed. From the Plum Line:
GOP Rep. Kline didn't see the idea's appeal. He wrote back to Walz saying No Dice. The reason? He wants to spend all his time listening to his own constituents, not Walz's.
"Because it is critical for me to hear from the men and women I represent, I will be focusing my time and attention over this district work period on hearing from my constituents and will be unable to attend your meeting," Kline wrote.
The kicker: Dems point out that Kline, as of now, has no scheduled town hall events in his own district, either.
Kline's office questions the real reason for the Walz invitation for a joint public meeting.
"That we received his invitation on the same day it was released to the press leads me to question if there was ever a good faith intent on Mr. Walz's behalf," Kline spokesman Troy Young said. "Frankly, it sounds like a publicity stunt."
But Walz Press Secretary Sara Severs said the southern Minnesota congressman truly wanted the joint meetings.
"Frankly, the congressman was sincere in his offer to do a town hall in our district and Congressman Kline's district and we wouldn't characterize meeting with constituents as a publicity stunt," said Severs, who added that her office had not heard from Kline.
Does John Kline understand that it's about democracy, not just scoring political points?
Kline is in a tough spot with this proposal. On one hand, it's a good-faith proposal from a popular colleague in a neighboring district. On the other, he's a more senior member and has been one of the leading disparagers of President Obama's health insurance reform plan in the House, and appearing with a --gasp!-- Democrat to discuss such important issues with constituents could look really bad to his base and his party's leadership. If teabaggers, birthers, or deathers were to show up at this Thursday's upcoming town hall event and disrupt Walz while Kline is there...it could just be bad.
Of course, one might take issue with the state Republican Party's leadership for attacking the congressional delegation's Democrats for not holding town halls when Kline and third district Republican Erik Paulsen haven't done any open town hall events at all. One might also note their responsibility as elected officials to hold public events where even constituents who disagree with their positions are able to attend and air their opinions without organized disruption.
One's notations might be lost on John Kline and Erik Paulsen, though.
So Walz's (solo) appearance on Thursday in Mankato should be interesting.
