John Shimkus

A Shimkus Flashback

Josh Kalven — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:56:17 -0700

We had to chuckle yesterday as we read this tweet from GOP Rep. John Shimkus:

According to The Hill, around the time Shimkus was complaining about being "stuck" on Capitol Hill, Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Michael Arcuri (D-NY) were introducing a "legislative branch appropriations bill and a rules committee report respectively."

So why is Shimkus' tweet chuckle-worthy? Because a little over a year ago, he used that same Twitter account to complain that Democrats were eschewing their responsibilities by leaving D.C. for August recess:

Of course, when the House reconvened in September 2008 and Speaker Pelosi held a vote on a compromise energy bill that expanded offshore oil drilling (the issue Republicans had been pushing in August), Shimkus twice tried to adjourn the chamber before the vote could be taken.

What a piece of work.

"Shamekus"

Progress Illinois — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:03:36 -0700

We've written repeatedly in recent days about GOP Rep. John Shimkus' ridiculous behavior at President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress. The downstate congressman walked out of the House chambers before the address had ended, citing "frustration" with Obama's purported lack of bipartisanship. Yesterday, the State Journal-Register's Bernard Schoenburg noted that Shimkus had put forth a "code of conduct" during his first run for Congress in 1996, adding:

“I will lead by example,” one part of that code said, “always building up my fellow citizens, and not tearing them down.”

Some might question the example he set last week.

Today, the Journal-Register's Chris Britt published a new cartoon lampooning "Shamekus." Take a look.

Shimkus' "Code Of Conduct"

Angela Caputo — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:24:00 -0700

Since walking out of a joint session of Congress last week in a huff because he didn't like President Obama's speech, GOP Rep. John Shimkus' child-like behavior has generated plenty of headlines around the country. Over the weekend, the State Journal-Register's Bernard Schoenburg dug deep into the vault and provided some useful historical context:

It’s times like these when I think of Shimkus’ first winning race for Congress in 1996 — when he touted the “citizens’ code of conduct” he had fashioned for himself .

“I will lead by example,” one part of that code said, “always building up my fellow citizens, and not tearing them down.”

Some might question the example he set last week.

We unearthed more of that pledge, which indeed raises more questions over whether Shimkus -- who has defended the Bush administration's use of torture, fudged the facts about the health care crisis and climate change threat, and protected big polluters at the expense of the nation's health -- is measuring up to his own standards.

From a July 26, 1996 Journal-Register article:

-"I will not allow the corrosive elements of cynicism, distrust and hatred to destroy my feelings for my country. I will . . . promote the good and welfare of the state and her citizens [...]

-"I will play this game of life by the rules. I will not lie, cheat or steal, nor will I tolerate those who do. I will lead by example, always building up my fellow citizens, and not tearing them down."

Perhaps we're mistaken, but Shimkus' recent "Just say no" pledge during Republican Day at the State Fair seemed pretty darn cynical.

Finally, NBC5's Steve Rhodes notes that in walking out on the president's health care speech last week, Shimkus "might have walked into an actual re-election fight," referring to Democratic challenger Tim Bagwell's efforts to gain a foothold in the 19th Congressional District. We'll have to wait and see.

Shimkus The 2nd Grader

Josh Kalven — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:17:31 -0700

Yesterday afternoon, amid all the hubbub over Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-SC) outburst, the Tribune's Marc Silva pointed out that Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) had actually walked out of the House chambers during President Obama's Wednesday speech to a joint session of Congress.

Family emergency? Bathroom break? Nope. He just didn't want to listen anymore:

"Congressman Shimkus was frustrated that the president was not offering any new ground and left with just minutes remaining in the speech,'' spokesman Steven Tomaszewski said.

Yesterday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Jamie Riley wrote in response: "Wilson offered an apology to President Barack Obama today. Now it’s Shimkus’ turn to apologize." Sounds right to us. It's fine to disagree with the president. But at least have the decency to hear him out in full.

The incident also caught the attention of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who briefly discussed the matter with Lawrence O'Donnell last night. Watch it:

Meanwhile, Philosophe Forum -- a blog based in Shimkus' 19th District -- notes that the congressman has a Democratic challenger in 2010, Tim Bagwell.

Shimkus Cites NYT Editorial - But Did He Read It?

Adam Doster — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:52:01 -0700

When it comes to the health care refom debate, GOP Rep. John Shimkus thinks liberals are using disingenuous figures to describe the size of the nation's uninsured population. "Forty-five million [people] sounds worse than than 15 million," he said on Springfield talk radio station WMAY yesterday morning. When asked where he got the 15 million figure, he cited a recent New York Times editorial that attempts to break down the unemployed population. Unfortunately, Shimkus didn't read the paper too carefully.

Here's his first oversimplication:

Internal mp3

SHIMKUS: One-third [of the 46 million uninsured] are people as you say that are either young adults in the job market they feel they are never going to get sick so they’re not purchasing. And the other part of that third are folks who make on average $75,000 a year or $88,000 for a family of four who could afford the private insurance market but they are making the decision not to do it. That’s one-third.

The Times cites census data showing that 9 million (19 percent of the uninsured) come from households with incomes of $75,000 or more. But the paper also recognizes that "many of these people live in 'households; that are groups of low-wage roommates or extended families living together." In other words, despite their aggregate household income, many lack the resources to purchase insurance on the open market. Only 4.7 million (10 percent) live in families that earn $88,000 for a family of four, which experts consider the threshold of affordability.

Of the 13 million people (28 percent) in their 20s living without insurance, the Kaiser Foundation also found that just 10 percent are college graduates and 5 percent have incomes above $60,000 a year. "Many of these younger people," the Times writes, "would be helped by reform bills that would provide subsidized coverage for the poor and an exchange where individuals can buy cheaper insurance than is now available."

But you probably won't hear Shimkus citing that conclusion any time soon.

Here's his subsequent embellishment:

Internal mp3

SHIMKUS: One-third are folks that will qualify for current federal programs, okay? So they could be on Medicaid and they usually will get enrolled when they go in but they are not enrolled right now. So that’s another third.

Shimkus is correct that many Americans do qualify for existing federal programs but are not enrolled. Yet the Times says that figure is just about 11 million, making up 24 percent of the total uninsured population. The editorial also notes the following:

When such people arrive at an emergency room, they are usually enrolled in Medicaid, but meanwhile they have lost out on routine care that could have kept them out of the emergency room. They will presumably be scooped up by the mandate under reform bills that everyone obtain health insurance.

And here's point three:

Internal mp3

SHIMKUS: So the final third – 15 million – who are they? Ten are probably the working poor -- minimum wage, couple bucks over that, the employer can’t cover. We can help those. The other portion of those – maybe 8 to 10 million -- are illegal immigrants and we have to address that debate.

Let's deal with undocumented immigrants, first. Both Shimkus and Rep. Mark Kirk claim between 8 and 10 million illegal immigrants are uninsured. While it's true that some 9.7 million "non-citizens" lack coverage, only 5.6 million (PDF) entered the country illegally. The rest, according to the National Institute for Health Care Management, are refugees, legal permanent residents (e.g., green card holders), or legal temporary residents. The Times makes a similar distinction.

Shimkus also mischaracterizes the size of the public option towards the end of the interview. "If the issue is getting insurance to the individuals who do not have insurance," he asks rhetorically, "then why does it have to be a government-run option? And we give them private insurance."

In fact, the public option would be housed in the Health Insurance Exchange, which will likely only be open to the unemployed, the self-employed, and businesses with 10 or fewer employees (the size of business could be expanded in the future). At most, 30 million people would be eligible to enroll in the government-run plan when it's first implemented. Undoubtedly, portions of that population will choose not to. But under the Democratic proposals, people earning between between 133 and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level would be provided government subsidies to purchase insurance on the private market. In fact, expanding Medicaid and providing subsides to the working poor and middle class are the bill's primary mechanisms for providing affordable access to the vast majority of Americans.

If approved by Congress, the public option will be one (valuable) choice available to individuals. But it's not the sole component of the reform effort, as Nicholas Beaudrot's great flowchart shows.

Shimkus: "Just Say No" Will Be The GOP Chant

Josh Kalven — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:39:46 -0700

During his remarks at the state fair yesterday, Rep. John Shimkus fully embraced the Republicans' growing image as the "party of no," declaring that "Just say no" is going to be the GOP's "chant from now until Election Day, because we've been saying no for a long time."

Well, good luck with that, congressman.

SHIMKUS: You know there's a chant going on in America right now. And you know, it's really not a Republican chant yet. But it's a Republican chant by the grassroots America that are attending thousands of townhall meetings. And as congressmen enter these townhall meetings, what is the public saying to them? They are saying, "Just say no. Just say no. Just say no."

Now, Republicans -- that is going to be our chant from now until Election Day, because we've been saying no for a long time.

As an aside, notice how Shimkus -- after bringing up "control of the House of Representatives in D.C." -- kind of dances around the issue of the Senate race. He doesn't even say the word "Senate," let alone mention Mark Kirk's name.

Spilling Ink: The Health Care Debate

Angela Caputo — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:39:08 -0700

As Adam highlighted in his round-up earlier today, the health care debate has really been picking up in Illinois. Numerous editorial boards chimed this week and, with the exception of the Tribune, were largely on the same page in urging the congressional delegation to hold more public forums on this issue, and quickly. We've plucked out some choice excerpts:

The Peoria Journal-Star urges Rep. Aaron Schock and Sen. Dick Durbin to jump into the fray:

[C]ongressmen and senators ought to hear passionate discussion and be able to see just how divided America is on this. They ought to understand just how many unanswered questions there are. And they also ought to hear both sides of things clearly - and so should the people who are going to be affected by whatever final product comes out of Congress. Who knows, a few minds might even be changed.

The Belleview News-Democrat reminds Reps. John Shimkus and Jerry Costello that their job is to subject themselves to even the most contentious meetings:

They are not just a chance for the congressmen to learn, but for the public to hear and help make informed opinions.

The Sun-Times, meanwhile, pushes back against some of the fearmongering coming from the right:

The indisputable truth is this: The Democrats' health-care overhaul would not interfere with anybody's decisions about end-of-life care -- if and when and how to pull the plug [...]

Health-care reform would not put government in the position of rationing care ... In truth, private insurance companies already ration medical care in America by setting strict limits on what they will pay for every pill, every doctor's visit, every test [...]

It's time to stop scaring people. It's time to talk substance.

In the lone voice of dissent, the generally conservative Tribune board says the conversation on overhauling health care has gone too far, too quickly:

[W]e think health-care reform is better achieved one step at a time.

The White House and congressional leaders should step back from their mega-approach and let incremental successes build. We suggest focusing first on improving quality of care. Cut preventable errors. Curb hospital-borne infections.

Finally as the debate ramps up, the Southern offers the golden rule:

Regardless of anyone's position on health care reform, it is time to remember the responsibilities of good citizenship. We all have a role in democracy.

Health Care Round-Up: Biggert Promotes Euthanasia Lie, Costello And Halvorson Waffle

Adam Doster — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:44:15 -0700

Here is our latest round-up of health care news:

Biggert Promotes Euthanasia Lie

Last night in Naperville, Reps. Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk entertained questions about health care reform at a town hall forum. No violence or rowdiness was reported -- after all, both are strongly opposed to the Democratic proposals -- but Kirk, who's now a U.S. Senate candidate, continued to suggest that health care reform would harm people with life-threatening illnesses and would cost the government too much money. Biggert, on the other hand, took her criticism one step farther. According to the Daily Herald's editorial board, the Hinsdale Republican joined the Palin brigade, passing around literature claiming that the bills working through Congress would lead to end-of-life euthanasia:

Misinformation will continue to abound. At a forum Wednesday in Naperville, guest speaker U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert, a Hinsdale Republican, distributed a flier stating the Democrats' proposal will require counseling of seniors that might encourage those who are seriously ill to "give up." Later, she admitted to Politics & Projects Editor Joseph Ryan "that was a little inflammatory."

This is a tendentious myth that has been widely debunked. The language in multiple bills actually says that physicians will be paid through Medicare to counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical interventions they would prefer near the end of life. The sessions would take place once every five years and would be completely voluntary. As Jonathan Cohn writes, health care opponents are "swiftboating health reform." Sadly, Biggert knows that this criticism is ridiculous. So why is she distributing such an obvious lie?

Costello: Health Care Reform Too Complex

Rep. Jerry Costello has made quite clear that he would oppose any health care reform package if it didn't include language to prevent federal funds from being used for abortions. But he has other objections, as well, according to the AP:

In southwestern Illinois, Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Belleville, and Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, have opted not to host town hall meetings about health care, preferring to hear from constituents by appointment or in small groups.

Both lawmakers opposed the health-care reform measures that have been voted out of the Democrat-led committees. Costello doesn't like the bills' complexities, while Shimkus objects to the absence of market-based solutions, including tax breaks, to soaring health-care costs.

Costello opposses the bill because it has too many complexities? Democrats are hoping to implement a massive overhaul of the American health insurance system, which accounts for 15 percent of the nation's GDP. It should be complex!

After voting against Obama's climate change bill, it's worth asking if Costello realizes he has a "D" next to his name.

Halvorson Backtracking?

Rep. Debbie Halvorson is feeling pressure from all sides on health care reform and she's yet to take a conclusive policy stance. But this indecision stands in direct opposition to her campaign rhetoric, in which she repeatedly hit opponent Marty Ozinga for being "out of touch" on the issue. After we flagged a CAN-TV interview in which Ozinga stated that "there are very few people nowadays that have no health service at all" because the uninsured can "go to the hospital and you get taken care of," Halvorson and the DCCC even unveiled a series of campaign ads noting health care reform was one of Halvorson's top priorities. Backtracking on that promise is a bad political move, writes SouthtownStar columnist Kristen McQueary:

If Halvorson votes against whatever plan emerges, she will add fuel to the criticism often directed at her that she's a vapid flip-flopper.

Before running for Congress, she was Senate President Emil Jones' right hand in the state Senate, nurturing proposals for state-funded health care expansions. She was lead sponsor on legislation mandating cervical screenings and crafted a bill to lower prescription drug costs for senior citizens.

She is on record, over and over, lamenting the health care status quo.

Big Oil Thanks Shimkus For His Support

Josh Kalven — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:17:07 -0700

Kansas-based Koch Industries is the "largest private company in the United States" and, as Wonk Room's Lee Fang recently explained, a prolific patron of right-wing lobbying efforts in D.C.:

Koch Industries, the oil and gas behemoth, bankrolls the astroturf groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks. These groups were instrumental in orchestrating the anti-Obama tea party protests, where thousands gathered to display racist signs directed at the President, absurd calls for an impeachment, and more recently, protesters hanging Democratic leaders in effigy. In addition to the anti-Obama protests, these groups provide a useful front for industries as they hire dozens of field staff to spread misinformation about clean energy and bus people around the country to create the guise of public distrust of global warming. Koch has funneled its money not only to these astroturf efforts, but has been a prolific leader in all the aforementioned strategies that industries pursue (Charles Koch even founded the Cato Institute, a leader of global warming skepticism and has spent nearly $4 million in lobbying this year alone).

Here in Illinois, one particular Republican congressman has benefited from Koch's deep pockets: hardcore climate change skeptic John Shimkus.

During the 2008 election cycle, the downstate representative received $10,000 from the company's PAC. And according to the committee's most recent FEC filings, Shimkus has so far received $3,500 this year, despite no evidence of a strong Democratic challenge to his seat (this includes a $1,000 check on February 27 and a $2,500 donation on July 27). Apparently, when it comes to making friends in the oil industry, it pays to put on this sort of display:

Shimkus Echoes Kirk, Downplays Number Of Uninsured

Adam Doster — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:36:49 -0700

Republican congressional leaders seem to have distributed some talking points to GOP congressmen before leaving Washington, D.C. for the August recess.

Yesterday, Rep. Mark Kirk made the baseless claim that the uninsured population is not as large as the Democrats claim it to be. His figures are almost identical to the Heritage Foundation's unsourced "Liberal Myth" primer on health care. On KTRS Radio today, Rep. John Shimkus repeated a similar line. Listen here:

Internal mp3

SHIMKUS: If there are 45 million uninsured Americans, how does that break down? It breaks down into about a one-third being young adults who probably could pay for some health insurance coverage but they're super-human and they don’t want to. One-third are citizens who have access to government plans but they're not taking advantage of them -- either they don’t know about them or they're just not accessing them. So the bottom third are the ones we really have to be concerned about, who are in essence the working poor who cant afford it. Half of those might be illegal immigrants. The other half -- 8 to 10 [million] -- could be those. How do we address that problem?

For our rejoinder to this flawed breakdown of the uninsured population, check out this post from earlier today.

In dismissing a large chunk of the uninsured as individuals who can afford health insurance but "don't want to" pay for it, Shimkus and Kirk ignore one of the most outrageous side-effects of our private insurance system: the numerous Americans denied coverage due to preexisting health issues. A recent Commonwealth Fund survey found that in the past three years, "nearly three-quarters of people who tried to buy coverage in an individual market never actually purchased a plan, either because they could not find one that fit their needs or that they could afford, or because they were turned down due to a preexisting condition." By assuming that many of these folks -- due to their income level -- are voluntarily forgoing health coverage, Shimkus and Kirk show how out of touch they really are.

Meanwhile, as unemployment rises, so does the number of people in danger of losing their employer-based coverage. And let's not forget the 20,000 Americans previously insured by the nation's three largest insurance companies who lost their coverage between 2003 and 2007 because of the practice known as rescission. Many of these folks would be provided coverage on the public plan Shimkus equates with "socialism." Without it, insecurity, bankruptcy, and serious medical problems are much more likely.