Typical Farmers or Manure Spreaders?

On Sunday, the MJS published a story about a decision made by State Senator Kathleen Vinehout, and her husband, Doug Kane. According to the story, they faced a difficult decision. Should they pay for health insurance or keep up with the bills on the family farm? Vinehout and Kane chose to go without health insurance for two-years. Vinehout says, this choice, is common among rural families.

Then, their 10-year-old son needed an emergency appendectomy last September, which forced the couple to go into debt to pay for the surgery.

This personal experience, she tells us, propelled her to the senate and she pledges she will do “everything I can to make sure that every person in the state of Wisconsin has access to the same benefits that I have, as a legislator.”

As the reporter, Steve Walters, writes, “[w]hen Vinehout tells the story now, her face reddens in anger at a health care system that leaves so many of her western Wisconsin neighbors without affordable insurance.”

The story leads us through her emotional appeal intended to portraying Vinehout and Kane as typical farmers facing the same financial challenge that all farmers have as they justify taking over Wisconsin’s Health Care System.

As the article notes, they chose to become farmers in 1995. She had been a professor of health care in Springfield, Illinois, and she persuaded her husband, a former Illinois legislator, and economist to move to Wisconsin and buy a farm. A choice she made in order to follow a life-long dream.

He’s an economist, she’s a professor, of all things, health-care and somehow as they were making family choices, health insurance was the one thing they decided to cut from their family budget.

A skeptical Rick Esenberg, raises a good question about the story over at the Shark & Shepherd.

Rick looked at Vinehout’s campaign finance statement and discovered that this supposedly broke farm family, were forced to borrow money in September to pay for an emergency surgery managed to find $9,000 in November to loan to her campaign.

This story just became more curious to me. They are not your typical struggling farm family. Like an onion, every layer you peel back, has yet another layer, and more questions.

I went to the Vinehout campaign website and read her biography. She received a Masters Degree in Public Health in 1982, her Ph.D. in 1987, and was tenured in the area of health administration focusing on state health policy and the health problems facing rural communities. She also authored papers and research reports in health administration and health care reform. Of course, she even received a degree in farming.

With a background like this, her choice to forgo health insurance is not as much a poor decision, as it is willful negligence. Certainly, someone as well studied in the field of health care a Vinehout claims to be is fully aware of the potentially catastrophic consequences of such a decision.

Continuing with her biography, she tells how for two-years before she was elected, she worked with the Wisconsin Farmers Union, evaluating legislation and crafting policy on health care reform and “helped farmers learn the tools of civic involvement.”

For someone running a struggling farm, she sure seems to have had a lot of time to devote to things like civic volunteerism and crafting of health care policy. Keep in mind that these activities began in 2005, about the same time she chose to drop her own health insurance.

Again, not your typical farm family struggling to get by.

In her biography, she states that she is the primary operator of the farm, and the Journal Story tells us that her husband, Douglas Kane works as an economist and consultant. Now, I am not a farmer, but I do know a thing or two about farms. A 223 acre farm with a 50 cow dairy herd is a lot of work and you either do it yourself or you hire people to do the work for you. That cuts down on the profits. In fact, she had to sell the cows to become a state senator. Obviously it is difficult to be the primary operator of a farm and have a career too.

Once again, we have choices; the couple is active doing other things while living her dream. So if Kathleen Vinehout was busy working on the farm, what was Mr. Kane, or Dr. Kane doing as an economist and consultant? We do know that he has done some work for the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Wisconsin Farmers Union, but like every other part of this story, there is more.

Certainly one would think having a Ph.D. in economics would be a potentially lucrative endeavor. Kane’s biography says that he served four terms in the Illinois General Assembly and in 1992; he lost a bid for the Illinois State Senate (to a Republican). Dr. Kane has done market studies for private sector companies and consulted on management effectiveness. He taught Public Finance at Sangamon State University (now Springfield). Dr. Kane also served as the Deputy Auditor General for the State of Illinois.

Dr. Kane’s blography reveals just a little bit more of what he has been working on.

The Cook County, Illinois Assessor’s office had retained Dr. Kane at $100 per hour to develop a Gross Receipts Tax proposal. The plan failed in Cook County, but it was noticed by Illinois Gov. Blagojevich when Kane floated the GRT as a way for the governor to pay for his government-run health care plan (Illinois Covered).

Blagojevich retained his old friend for $125 an hour plus expenses (a contract worth up to $50,000) – apparently without health insurance.

Kane was no small bit player in the $7.6 billion dollar a year GRT plan; he was the architect and chief economic defender of the plan.

His efforts didn’t succeed, but they did draw national attention as Dr. Kane “scramb[led] to deflect the volley of criticism that comes from every corner of academia,” as the GRT was blasted by real economists as a very bad idea.

In May, the Illinois State House, controlled by Democrats, rejected the tax scheme 107-0, causing The Wall Street Journal to observe that the “Illinois tax implosion,” was a humiliating defeat for Blagojevich who promised that this tax plan to fund universal health care was one he would win and we was willing to wage the fight of the century for it.

Illinois is in full-fledged budget meltdown with a budget more than two-months overdue, Blagojevich has not backed down from his lofty budget plans despite opposition from both Democrat controlled legislative houses.

Dr. Kane and his plan have helped propel Blagojevich towards virtual political extinction. Legislators are publicly calling for Governor Robin Hood to be impeached, and a fellow Chicago Democrat told reporters this week that the governor is a “’madman’ and ‘insane.’”

Who knew that behind a seemingly innocuous, throw away line in Steven Walters’ Journal article, existed a whole political story that is rocking the foundations of our neighboring state.

The economist and consultant, turned farmer, had really never become a farmer. He was not hard at work milking cows on the dairy farm in Alma; instead he was busily working to milk the taxpayers of Illinois.

It is hard to believe that Kane has not been involved in Vinehout’s efforts to push “Healthy Wisconsin,” as a former lawmaker himself, and a well connected social and economic tinkerer, it becomes a logical question. Did Dr. Kane help draft this plan?

Certainly he helped his wife develop her campaign strategy and this impressive doctoral thesis on government-run health care.

The story of Vinehout and Kane turns out to be far different than the one they wanted to portray. The truth is they are not good, honest, hard-working farmers, they are liberal academics bent on changing social and economic policy – and not for the better.

I appreciate the challenges faced family farmers today, what I do not appreciate is a politically motivated couple who feel that they can masquerade as something they are not in a crusade to “save” health care by destroying it with a government scheme.

This couple is preying on the gullible hardworking families of Wisconsin, let us hope that Healthy Wisconsin goes the way of Illinois’s GRT.

UPDATE: Thanks to a reader for sending me this link of a debate on WPR between Vinehout and Brown before the general election.  Skip to about 20 minutes in and you can hear Vinehout accuse Brown of lying about her wanting to impose a 12% payroll tax for her health care plan and insisting that what she supports is NOT a tax.  Well, today we know that her plan does indeed imposes a huge payroll tax.  In fact, it’s a bit more than 12%.  I wonder if anyone in the media will follow-up and ask her if she intentionally misled the voters during her campaign or if she “misspoke.”

1. Hooboy.

   Wonder if Steve Walters will do the honorable thing and print a followup.

   Hmmmmmm.

   Nah.

   Posted by dad29 on July 19, 2007 at 2038 hrs




2. Great research, Owen.

   Posted by Tony Turner on July 19, 2007 at 2055 hrs




3. t is hard to believe that Kane has not been involved in Vinehout’s efforts to push “Healthy Wisconsin,” as a former lawmaker himself, and a well connected social and economic tinkerer, it becomes a logical question. Did Dr. Kane help draft this plan?
   i hope this last line was meant to be some kind jest, because if not it is painfully obvious behind this “great research” you have no idea of what is behind the plan, which is almost as lame (tough to do) as intellectual giant Kathy Carpenter’s question if the 18 senators who voted for the plan ever read it.

   If it is not a joke, then you should have taken your “great research” beyond the three Googles you used to put this ramble together.

   Whatever shakes out this session on the plan, Healthy Wisconsin might very well be the cure for wing-nut disease in the Wiscoinsin State legislature.

   Posted by on July 19, 2007 at 2134 hrs




4. "Great research, Owen.”

   lol

   Only one problem. The JS story never said Kane was a farmer, it said he was an economist and a consultant, and a former member of the Illinois legislature.

   None of this is news, at this point.

   So on what basis are you calling either Vinehout or Kane dishonest?

   That’s a pretty serious charge, and none of your so-called “great research” supports it.

   Posted by on July 19, 2007 at 2154 hrs




5. The point is that the news story portrayed Vinehout and her husband as simple farmers who were shocked into supporting socialized health care after their kid got sick without health insurance.  That portrayal was horribly misleading bordering on lying.  Whether that portrayal was advanced by Vinehout and her husband or the reporter, I don’t know.  But this kind of background is relevant to the story, don’t you think?

   Posted by Owen on July 19, 2007 at 2202 hrs




6. Simple farmers? Are you kidding? She is a former university professor, now a state senator, and her husband is as described in the JS story. They’re not exactly Ma and Pa Kettle.

   And if you admit that you don’t know whether this “portrayal” you’re imagining was advanced by Vinehout and Kane or the reporter, then why are you accusing Vinehout and Kane of dishonesty?

   Posted by on July 19, 2007 at 2322 hrs




7. To Owen & the other self envisioned and self annointed sophisticates who have the perception of “simple farmers” as being “Ma & Pa Kettle”.

   Owen,

   Now, I am not a farmer, but I do know a thing or two about farms.

   Like what?

   Your assumptions about this couples motives and how farming really works leads me to believe that what you know about farming was gleaned from years of research in grocery stores, the kitchen table and what ever restaurant your expense account or someone else’s pay’s for.

   With a few degrees and professional licenses and having farmed (both cropping and dairy) for a fair portion of my life, I am nearly speechless at how narrow, preconceived and quite frankly, backward, your perception of what it takes to make a farm work successfully.

   Ok, got that out of my system.

   Oh, by the way what does one legislator and her husband have to do with doing something about health care that “We can all agree that it’s a mess”.

   Ya know the nice thing about dairying is when the day is done you can wash the shit off, with this partisan political stuff even when you run it through the wash and set it on spin you really never get the stench off.

   Posted by on July 20, 2007 at 0025 hrs




8. with this partisan political stuff even when you run it through the wash and set it on spin you really never get the stench off

   Finally something on which I agree with pjr (although I suspect he didn’t really mean all of it)!

   C’mon guys, this was soooo obviously a political stunt it seriously hurts the case of those farmers in Wisconsin that are really struggling.

   Posted by on July 20, 2007 at 0738 hrs




9. What the hell - these people grow up watching too many “Green Acres” reruns?

   That being said, read the tea leaves.  This farming thing and legislative endeavor is just resume’ building.  WI produced two Secretary of Health & Human Services secretaries (Donna Shalala in the Clinton admin & Tommy Thompson in the Bush admin).  Imagine a candidate (and a woman, to boot) from WI, who is a ‘poor farmer” with a deep knowledge/professional experience of health care issues and was responsible for the most sweeping and comprehensive & innovative health care initiative in the nation. Tommy Thompson’s horse that he rode was welfare reform.

   I think if Obama or Hillary comes acallin’ for a Secretary, she would wipe the cowshit off her shoes, head for Washington, and leave her cows behind to starve (like a meth-addicted farmer).  Hell, let’s even think bigger - health care is such a big issue (which it needs to be), we will probably have a Health Care Czar, and Kathleen Vinehout be thy name.

   Posted by on July 20, 2007 at 0827 hrs




10. How could this hurt the case for farmers who are struggling in Wisconsin? To the best of my knowledge this “controversy” is swirling around our little blog world and that’s it, other than the puff it had on Charlie’s show/blog, and everyone else knows his listenership is essentially Jonestown.

    What the rest of the state does know is these farmers continue to struggle, and the GOP doesn’t care to do a damn about alleviating their health care problem other than bogus tax-shifting HSA’s and invectives against Vinehout who dared to attack the “best health care system in the world.”

    We too have our little swift boats sailing around.

    Posted by on July 20, 2007 at 0839 hrs




11. I don’t care if it was the paper or the pol that sold the BS about being poor struggling farmers but the emotioinal angle of that story basically said agree to gov’t healthcare or you will be killing poor farmers. 

    I am also gettng sick of the myth of the small rural farmer.  I was and by my estimation (at least in the part of the state I grew up in) they don’t exist anymore.  The vast majoiry of farmers in this state may still be family owed but they are run by businesses.  Most of the farms still running in my old “neck of the woods” set one or two of their sons to college to get agri-business degrees and run their farms like real businesses.

    Posted by on July 20, 2007 at 0847 hrs




12. Joe said:  “run their farms like real businesses.”

    When told the plan could bankrupt small businesses, Mrs. Clinton sighed, “I can’t be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America.”

    There’s the Vinehout’s problem - Hillary doesn’t give a shit that their farming business is undercapitalized.  And Joe raises a very good point - I’m sure every the state will mandate that every LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) be designated as a business endeavor subject to payroll taxes.  Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the Vinehouts operate as an “LLC”?

    Posted by on July 20, 2007 at 0912 hrs




13. Thank you Joe for a realistic assessment of the family farm of today.

    Posted by on July 20, 2007 at 0934 hrs