PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Mankato, MN) – First District Congressional Candidate, Allen Quist, is calling for an end to what he calls, “the unethical practice of using earmarks to spend taxpayer money.” Quist explained that for this current fiscal year alone, members of both parties have obtained 9,499 earmarks worth $15.9 billion.*

Quist says that earmarks are an abuse of the legislative process because they spend taxpayer money without taxpayers having a genuine say on how that money is spent. “There are no open public hearings on earmarks,” Quist said.

Quist said he is outraged by Congressman Tim Walz’s encouragement of citizens and other groups to bring him earmark requests. “This comes about as close to buying votes as you can get,” Quist stated.

Quist said that asking citizens to participate in an  abuse of governmental process, as Mr. Walz is now doing, is reason enough to look elsewhere for a First District Congressman.

In addition, explained Quist, the federal government is now spending $3 for every $2 it is taking in as revenue. “Balancing the budget obviously doesn’t mean much to legislators who use earmarks,” Quist said.

Quist added that Walz’ comments that “Congressional earmarks do not add to the federal deficit” is complete nonsense and is typical of the fantasy-world that too many legislators live in. Quist echoed the words of Ronald Reagan who said the problem with liberal lawmakers is, “they know so much that isn’t so.”

*Roll Call, March 8, 2010, by Tory Newmyer, Roll Call Staff

* * *

Contact:  Brad Biers 651-261-2182

It’s ba-ack! Health-care plan redoubles ‘marriage penalty’

Congressional proposals could penalize couples $10,000 for saying ‘I do’

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Bills pending in Congress that would nationalize health care by setting up mandatory insurance purchases and fines for not complying could penalize married couples $10,000 annually and are a direct attack on marriage, families and the church because of their discriminatory provisions, according to a congressional candidate.

“This is as awful, I will say evil … this is as evil as it gets,” Allen Quist, who is running to unseat Democrat Tim Walz in Minnesota’s 1st congressional district, told WND.

Quist said the fine print of provisions still alive in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives deliberately create enormous pressure for couples to live together without marriage – or even get divorced – by charging married couples thousands of dollars more in premiums and fees.

“And it’s deliberate,” Quist added, “This is clearly not accidental.”

Continue reading at WorldNetDaily.com

From The Heritage Foundation:

The New Federal Wedding Tax: How Obamacare Would Dramatically Penalize Marriage

Robert Rector

One bizarre feature of the Senate-passed health care bill is its pervasive bias against marriage. Under the bill, couples would face massive financial penalties if they marry or remain married. Conversely, couples who cohabit without marriage are given highly preferential financial treatment. If the Senate bill becomes law, saying “I do” would cost some couples over $10,000 per year.

Most people feel that marriage is a healthful institution that society should encourage and strengthen. Inexplicably, the Senate health care bill takes the opposite approach.  At nearly all age and income levels, the bill profoundly discriminates against married couples, providing far less support to a husband and wife than to a cohabiting couple with the same income. If the bill is enacted, married couples across America will be taxed to provide discriminatory benefits to couples who cohabit, divorce, or never marry.

Continue reading Rector’s article.

Bachmann to join Quist in Rochester Town Hall

Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann heads to Rochester on Monday in a big show of support for 1st Congressional District Candidate Allen Quist.

Bachmann will join Quist at a health care town hall from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. at the Ramada Inn in Rochester. Also joining in the forum is GOP Congressman Michael Burgess of Texas, a doctor originally from Rochester. Quist is among four Republicans vying for the chance to take on Democratic Congressman Tim Walz.

This could prove to be a big boost for Quist among the Conservative wing of the party given Bachmann’s support among the Tea Party Movement and her ability to draw media attention. The visit comes at a critical time — one day before the state caucuses, a key step in determining the delegates for the state GOP convention.

Quist does have a personal connection with Bachmann. His wife, Julie, heads Bachmann’s Minnesota office.

Prior to the town hall forum, there will be a fundraising luncheon in Quist’s honor. Burgess will be the keynote speaker for that event.

At the town hall, Bachmann is expected to discuss a “Declaration of Health Care Independence.” Those principles include her call that the process of health care reform be transparent and that it not add to costs.

Fundraiser Luncheon and Town Hall Meeting with Congressman Michael Burgess in Rochester February 1, 2010. UPDATE: Congresswoman Michele Bachmann will also be speaking at the Town Hall Meeting.

Sponsors of the events are:

• Congressman Gil Gutknecht
• Drs. Brian and Lori Davis
• Drs. Bernie and Suzanna Kuipers
• Dr. Michael and Jane Van Norstrand
• Dr. William and Elise Wood

The Luncheon is a fundraiser on behalf of First Congressional District Candidate Allen Quist.

Dr. Burgess will speak to a noon buffet luncheon at the Rochester Ramada Inn (11:30 to 1:00, cost of $50) and at a town hall meeting also at the Ramada (1:30 to 2:30, no charge and open to the public).

U.S. Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D., is a five term Congressman from the 26th District in Texas. The luncheon is a fundraiser on behalf of Allen Quist for Congress.

The topic addressed by Dr. Burgess will be “Real Health Care Reform.”

RSVP for the luncheon to Lori Davis at 507-281-3024.

U.S. Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D.

After spending nearly three decades practicing medicine as an Ob/Gyn in North Texas, Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D., was first elected to Congress in 2002, and re-elected in 2004, 2006, and most recently in 2008.  During his time on Capitol Hill he has earned a reputation as a problem-solver who seeks sensible solutions to the challenges Americans face.

Dr. Burgess serves on the prestigious House Energy and Commerce Committee and three of its subcommittees: Health Care, Energy & Environment, and Oversight & Investigations.  He is also a member of the bicameral Joint Economic Committee, and Dr. Burgess recently founded and is Chairman of the Congressional Health Care Caucus.  During his six years in Congress, Dr. Burgess has been a strong advocate for health care legislation aimed at reducing health care costs, improving choices, reforming liability laws to put the needs of patients first, and ensuring there are enough doctors in the public and private sector to care for America’s patients, and played an important role in bipartisan efforts to ensure the safety of food, drugs, and consumer products.

As a Member of Congress representing one of the fastest growing areas of the country, transportation is also a top priority for Dr. Burgess. He successfully amended the 2005 Highway Bill to include development credits, design-build, and environmental streamlining. During his time on Capitol Hill, he also has worked to build, maintain, and improve the safety of our roads, bridges, air service and transit in the North Texas region.

While in the House of Representatives, Dr. Burgess has received several awards, including the 2008 House Legislator of the Year from the Multiple Sclerosis Society; 2005 Legislator of the Year by the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners; Guardian of Small Business by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB); and the Spirit of Enterprise award by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among others.

Today Dr. Burgess represents parts of suburban Dallas and Fort Worth.  He was raised in Denton, Texas and attended The Selwyn School, graduating in 1968 as valedictorian.  He graduated with both an undergraduate and a Masters degree from North Texas State University, now the University of North Texas. He received his M.D. from the University of Texas Medical School in Houston and completed his residency programs at Parkland Hospital in Dallas.  Dr. Burgess also received a Masters degree in Medical Management from the University of Texas at Dallas, and in May of 2009 was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Public Service from the University of North Texas Health Sciences Center.  Dr. Burgess has been married to his wife, Laura, for 35 years, and they have three children and a grandson.

 507-281-3024

… what is even worse is that the subsidies are suddenly and completely cut off once somebody reaches 400 percent of the official poverty-level income ($63,360 in 2016). The arithmetic is complicated, but what it means is that two unmarried persons earning $32,000 each ($64,000 total) would pay a maximum combined $5,684 in premiums, but if they got married, they would pay about $15,000. That is an astonishing penalty of 164 percent. It is almost impossible to imagine a policy that could be any more anti-family than that.

Again, that was for middle-income earners receiving government subsidies in lieu of employer tax breaks for insurance. Now consider a high-earning couple. The Senate bill imposes a payroll tax increase on individuals who make more than $200,000. For married couples, though, the tax increase kicks in at $250,000. So, if you live together without matrimony, you can earn up to $400,000 combined without the higher tax – $150,000 more than you can earn together if you are married. At a maximum of $1,350, this marriage penalty through taxation isn’t anywhere near as damaging as the $9,316 knockout punch via lost subsidies for the $64,000 couple described above, but it’s still nothing to take lightly.

Read the full editorial here. You can also read Quist’s original research publication here.

As I have pointed out, however, the marriage penalty becomes far more serious for individuals making over 400% of the Poverty Level. For two married people, that is expected to be $64,000 per year in combined income, $32.000 each. Two married people at that income level should be ready to pay over $9,000 more in health insurance premiums than they would if they were unmarried.*

This huge marriage penalty occurs because the bills cap premiums and provide subsidies only for those making less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. Two married people will leave this subsidized system when their combined income reaches approximately $64.000 by 2016. The same couple, however, if unmarried, won’t be off the subsidized system until their combined income approaches $100,000—a window of over $35,000 where people will pay more than $9,000 additional for their health insurance if they marry.

This discriminatory system will have a big impact on people at lower income levels, too. They will realize that if they marry and improve their earnings, they may reach a point where their health insurance premiums will skyrocket, increasing by over $9,000 a year. Only half of those insurance premiums will be tax deductible. This huge added cost, real or potential, will provide a powerful incentive to not marry.

The marriage penalty will also be devastating for married persons now receiving health insurance from their employer, should that insurance be discontinued. Once such persons are on the individual insurance market, they will receive a portion of their former health insurance benefits only if their combined income is below 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. For this reason millions of couples are likely to see their insurance costs go up by that same $9,000 plus figure—if they stay married—a cost many of them will avoid if they divorce.

Under the new system, whether people are single or married, it will additionally be difficult to rise above 400% of the Poverty Level because of the major increases in health insurance premiums people will then be required to pay.

____________________
*(Analysis by Congressman Dave Camp, House Ways & Means Committee, The Prescription Pad, 12-17-09). This added premium cost of over $9,000 for couples who marry is based on the cheapest insurance available.

(Mankato, MN) – First Congressional District Candidate Allen Quist said Representative Tim Walz should vote “No” on any health care reform bill that comes back to the House for a vote. “On numerous occasions Rep. Walz promised to represent the people of the First District,” said Quist. “The voters are overwhelmingly opposed to what the Washington politicians are putting together on health care,” Quist added, “and they deserve to have their voices heard,” he said.

Quist said he rejects Walz’s argument that we have to something, and this means we should pass the current proposals up for consideration. “The ‘do something even if it’s wrong’ philosophy has been rejected by the people here,” said Quist.

A major concern of former Minnesota House member Quist is the huge marriage penalty contained in both the House and Senate versions. “There is no way Mr. Walz can justify discrimination against married people,” Quist said. He added that Rep. Walz has an obligation to inform the public of the shocking marriage penalty hidden in the bill he voted for previously.

“Middle class married persons will bear the brunt of the huge financial burden of this health care legislation,” Quist said.

“Real health care reform,” said Quist,” includes solving the malpractice litigation problem along with more competition and flexibility for insurance companies. People’s free choices, along with genuine competition, will be central features of real reform,” he added.

Quist said that if he is elected this coming November, and if the current health care bill has passed, replacing it with real health care reform will be one of his top legislative priorities.

###

It’s been well-documented how PelosiCare would harm seniors and taxpayers. But what has not been discussed is how the bill would punish married couples. Consider this:

The House Democrats’ health bill (H.R. 3962) would set the maximum health insurance premium amounts that low and moderate income individuals and married couples could pay each year. These families and individuals would be eligible to receive so-called “affordability credits,” which would cover the difference between the actual cost of health coverage and the cap on premiums. Sounds good, right?

Well, not if you are a married couple.

House Committee on Ways & Means Republicans