Congressional candidate Allen Quist is calling on Congressman Tim Walz to stop mailing what Quist calls “campaign advertisements” at taxpayer expense. Quist said Walz is mailing fliers to thousands of First District constituents that are primarily political. He cited as examples a piece from last fall with a large, bold headline stating: “HOW CONGRESSMAN TIM WALZ IS HELPING CREATE JOBS,” and a more recent flier with the headline, “HOW CONGRESSMAN WALZ IS HELPING MINNESOTA’S VETERANS.”

Quist said that House rules require that Congressional mailings be informational-and not “partisan or political in fact or tone.” Quist said the Walz mailings are obviously more political than informational. “The real message of the fliers,” said Quist, is: “Why you should re-elect Tim Walz.”

To illustrate, Quist said the last two pieces mailed by Walz used his name a total of 31 times, while the word “Congress” was only used once in one flier and was never used at all in the other. “Clearly these taxpayer-funded mailings are all about Tim Walz, not Congress,” Quist concluded.

Quist stated that such mailings are an abuse of the franking privilege (sending out mailings or other materials at taxpayer expense). He said the Walz fliers, in small print, say: “This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.”

“It is difficult to find any concern for taxpayer expense in these mailings,” Quist said. He noted that the mailings are four-color, on high quality glossy paper and printed in union shops. “No expense is spared in these mailings,” Quist stated. He also said this wrongful use of taxpayer money is especially outrageous when huge federal deficits are the order of the day.

According to Quist, Members of Congress hide behind two excuses in this improper use of taxpayer money. The first, he said, is to say that Members of Congress from both parties engage in the practice. Quist’s response is: “Even if ‘everybody is doing it,’ that doesn’t make it right.”

The second excuse, according to Quist, is that Members of Congress say the Franking Commission approves the mailings. Quist’s response is that the Franking Commission needs to be reformed as well.

Quist said the abuse of the franking privilege typifies what is wrong with Washington. The Congressional franking procedures are structured to give the appearance of propriety, while the real issue of whether a piece is informational or political is overlooked, he stated.

Quist said that if he is elected to Congress, he will refuse to send out political mailings at taxpayer expense, and he will also work to reform the system so the abusive practice is stopped.

Quist to Oppose Walz for First District Congress

Former State Representative Allen Quist has announced that he will challenge Tim Walz for the First District Congressional Seat.  Quist also said he will seek the endorsement of the First District Republicans for the office.

Quist said he has made this decision for two reasons: “The first is that Washington is broken.” Quist said, “Congressman Tim Walz is part of the problem; I intend to be part of the solution.” Quist also said, “Our national debt has doubled in the last 7 years and is now more than $15 trillion—greater than our annual Gross Domestic Product. “Obviously, this cannot continue,” Quist explained, “but the Washington political establishment appears unable to effectively deal with the problem.”

Quist said that because of this huge debt, our economy is struggling to grow and create jobs. Interest on the debt is now the 5^th largest federal expense, standing at $454 billion for 2011, he stated.

“The second reason is our nation desperately needs the strong leadership I can provide,” Quist said. He emphasized that he was the person who uncovered and made an issue of the up to $10,000 annual marriage penalty hidden in the health care bill. Quist noted that his ground-breaking analysis of the health care bill has been verified by the Heritage Foundation, by Americans for Tax Reform, and by the research analysis of the Republican Conference in the House Ways and Means Committee.* “The Democrats have not denied my analysis,” Quist said.

Quist additionally takes credit for revealing the income transfer system in the same bill, for taking the lead against the failed Profile of Learning in the Minnesota education system and for being the Minnesotan who exposed the $5,000 per year marriage penalty in the federal and Minnesota income tax codes. This penalty will be reinstated if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, he said.

“I will take issue with Congressman Walz’s vote in favor of the health care marriage penalty and the entire health care law,” Quist said. “I don’t see how he can defend discrimination against married people—especially when I called it to his attention before he voted for it,” he stated.

Quist clarified that his decision to run is the result of strong encouragement he has received from grass roots Minnesotans. “My allegiance will be to the citizens of the First District and to our Constitution, which I will swear to defend, and nothing else,” he said.

Quist’s top legislative priorities will be to balance the budget without raising taxes, to help create jobs by major reform of the nation’s business climate and to repeal Obama Care while replacing it with real health care reform.

“With the right leadership, our best days can be ahead of us,” he said.

*Web Memo of Heritage Foundation 1-20-10; statement from Americans for Tax Reform 12-7-09; House Ways and Means Republican Conference Report 12-17-09 [See also http://www.quistforcongress.com/]

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

Marriage Penalty in the U.S. House and Senate Health Care Bills

(Mankato, MN) – “The House and Senate Health Care bills contain a huge marriage penalty for the American middle class.” Allen Quist said today.

Following is the complete statement by Allen Quist on the marriage penalty:

“There is a huge middle class marriage penalty hidden in the House and Senate health care bills. The penalty becomes evident by evaluating questions like the following: How much would two single people, each making $30,000 per year, pay for private health insurance if the Pelosi bill was in effect now? The answer is $1,320 per year for both individuals combined (based on the premium limits and subsidies outlined on the charts below). But how much would they pay for the same level of insurance under the Pelosi bill if they were to marry? Their combined cost would then be about $12,000 a year (the estimated cost for private insurance).

“Health insurance premium costs for two adults with equal incomes if the Pelosi bill was in effect now:

“Once the income of Americans exceeds 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, there are no limits on the premiums they can be charged, and their premiums are no longer subsidized. The poverty level is much higher for two people living unmarried as compared to the same two people being married. That is why citizens in many cases will pay far more for insurance if they are married. Why should married people be subjected to financial discrimination?

“This extraordinary penalty people will pay, should they marry, extends all the way from a two-person combined income of $58,280 to $86,640, a spread of $28,360. A large number of people fall within this spread. As premiums for private insurance escalate, as expected, the marriage penalty will become substantially larger.

“The Senate bill also creates a marriage penalty, in this case by imposing a new tax on individuals who make $200,000 annually but it also applies to married couples making $250,000 each year. This marriage tax on the affluent, however, is just the tip of the marriage penalty iceberg in the Senate bill.

“The Senate bill stipulates that two unmarried people, 52 years of age, with private insurance and a combined income of $60,000, $30,000 each, will pay a combined cost of $2,483 for medical insurance. Should they marry, however, they will pay a combined cost of $11,666 for insurance—a penalty of $9,183 for getting married (based on tables available here).

“This substantial marriage penalty applies to persons on individual insurance, but, as the Heritage Foundation’s Bob Moffit said: ‘if an employer has a health care benefits package that is 12 to 13 percent of payroll, and they can solve their problem by paying an 8 percent payroll tax [into the Exchange], I think they’re going to do it,’ (New York Times, 9-30-09). And Howard Dean said that, ‘small business won’t need to buy health care for its employees any more’ (Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, 11-29-09).

“Businesses will shed their employees and health care dollars into the Exchange, but the dollars that are paid back out will be directed only to those who make less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. Those above the Poverty Level will receive none of their previous insurance benefits from businesses. For that reason the new system is income redistribution on steroids.

“ ‘Household’ is defined in both bills as including those who can be claimed as dependents for federal income tax purposes thereby clarifying that adults can avoid the marriage penalty by living together unmarried. The new system provides a huge incentive for doing so.

“The bills additionally contain De Facto salary caps. How much would a married couple pay for private insurance under the House bill if their income was $58,000 per year?  The answer is $2,088. But what if their income increased by $1,000? Their annual premium would then be about $12,000. The economic penalty for going off the subsidized system is so severe that it will be difficult for people to increase their earnings beyond 400% of Poverty Level. The Senate bill works essentially the same way.

“Senior citizens and small businesses have already been identified as big losers in the health care bills. Married citizens in the middle class need to be added to the list.”

Official summary of premium limits and subsidy levels in the House bill*

Federal Poverty Levels now in use:

• Single person = $10,830
• Two person household = $14,570
• Three person household = $18,310
• Family of four = $22,050

400% of Federal Poverty Level:

• Single person = $43,320
• Two person household = $58,280
• Three person household = $73,240
• Family of four = $88,200

*  Chart provided by The House Committees on Ways & Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor, October 29, 2009.

Media advisory: Allen Quist bio and high resolution photograph available on the About Allen page.