by bfealk

Tim Walberg was featured on August 31 on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g2nEu8MlCg

Labels: Countdown, Education, Faith and Politics, Head Start, Issues, Keith Olbermann, Tim Walberg

... I remain unimpressed. From the Jackson Citizen Patriot's Chris Gautz:

Tuesday morning I sat in with our paper's editorial board on a wide-ranging interview with Walberg and along with rising gas prices, the economy and healthcare, we got his take on this much-maligned vote.

His only concern was that it didn't exempt communities of faith from the hiring restrictions that other groups with Head Start classrooms must adhere to.

"It didn't allow communities of faith to hire who they wanted to hire," Walberg said. "I was called a racist several times, a bigot."

[...]

In other words, say a Baptist or a Catholic church wanted to continue to offer its Head Start program and a Muslim or "a Wiccan from a coven in Ann Arbor" wanted to apply for a job to teach there, now it couldn't discriminate based on religious grounds anymore, or vice versa.

He said he offered an amendment that would have made that change, but it didn't get any traction.

He said he doesn't oppose Head Start, but by keeping that provision in the bill, he said religious organizations might decide it's better to get rid of Head Start.

Walberg said he didn't initiate the efforts, but was contacted by people in his district that were concerned about this provision.

It would also open all of them to lawsuits, because the Wiccan, or the Catholic or the Muslim who wasn't hired, could say it was because of their religious beliefs, he said.

"You will take away programs potentially," he said. "That's a chilling effect."

First, I'd like to apologize to Chris Gautz for the amount of his post I'm quoting. I've probably exceeded "fair use" standards, but I think Walberg's full explanation is worth including here.

Next, I'd like to apologize to Congressman Walberg. Assuming that you presented your argument in the same way it is presented here, you didn't deserve to be called a bigot. That's a harsh word for what is just a political disagreement. Besides, there are better reasons for calling you a bigot than this.

But in the end, Congressman Walberg, you're absolutely wrong.

The bill to reauthorize Head Start was HR 1429, and the House floor debate can be found here. It's an interesting read, though it's worth noting that Congressman Walberg never once speaks to state his reasons for opposing the bill. After reading this, I encourage you to read the floor debate.

The problem with the explanation presented by Chris Gautz is here:

In other words, say a Baptist or a Catholic church wanted to continue to offer its Head Start program and a Muslim or "a Wiccan from a coven in Ann Arbor" wanted to apply for a job to teach there, now it couldn't discriminate based on religious grounds anymore, or vice versa.

(Emphasis added.)

Except, there is no "now" involved. Religious groups have never been allowed to discriminate the way Walberg wants to let them discriminate-- at least, not since 1972. From CivilRights.org:

Since 1972, agencies that receive government funding for Head Start â€" including religious organizations and houses of worship that host Head Start programs â€" have been prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion when hiring or firing staff for positions within the federally-funded program. These existing non-discrimination requirements have a history of bipartisan support, and were originally signed into law by President Richard Nixon. The current anti-discrimination language was included in the 1981 Head Start reauthorization bill, signed into law by President Ronal Reagan. These same civil rights protections have been included in every Head Start reauthorization since then â€" in 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994, and 1998. For 33 years, these fundamental non-discrimination protections have worked well, allowing thousands of Head Start programs in communities throughout the country to flourish while maintaining constitutional and civil rights safeguards against religious tests for employment in federally-funded programs.

(Emphasis added.)

That came from 2005, the last time someone tried to change the rules and allow discrimination. That attempt passed the House of Representatives, but failed to gain traction in the Senate and did not become law.

So, this isn't something new. Religious groups that run Head Start programs already operate under the nondiscrimination rules to which Walberg objects so strongly. There are already 86 faith-based Head Start programs in existence and following these rules. Walberg says:

He said he doesn't oppose Head Start, but by keeping that provision in the bill, he said religious organizations might decide it's better to get rid of Head Start.

[...]

"You will take away programs potentially," he said. "That's a chilling effect."

If there are already 86 faith-based programs that don't discriminate, do you really think they'll be so upset by the fact that they can't start discriminating that they'll get rid of Head Start?

If there are any religious groups who refuse to run Head Start programs because they can't discriminate, then they probably haven't been running Head Start programs any time in the last 36 years.

Let's be absolutely clear about this. The House majority decided to keep the same rules that have worked for decades. Even religious organizations were comfortable operating within those rules. Tim Walberg wanted to change the rules to allow discrimination.

Now, he's trying to protect himself by claiming that religious groups won't run Head Start programs anymore. Frankly, that's a pretty dumb argument.

UPDATE: See also the coverage to this given by James L. at Swing State Project.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 110th Congress, Education, Head Start, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Big news today:

Patriot Majority, an independent progressive organization, will run a "multi-million dollar" television campaign against Republican congressmen and senators in the coming months -- an effort that begins today in Michigan's 7th district.

Craig Varoga, who managed former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's failed presidential bid earlier this cycle and is the president of Patriot Majority, called the ad against Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) the "first wave" of television ads that would be "airing ... over an extended period of time."

The group's first foray into the 2008 campaign, which is entirely funded by the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, comes in the southern Michigan seat that Walberg, a conservative former state representative, won in 2006 by ousting Rep. Joe Schwarz in the Republican primary. Walberg faces a stiff challenge in the fall from highly regarded state Sen. Mark Schauer (D).

The ad, which you can watch below, attacks Walberg for voting against the reauthorization of Head Start -- the only member of the House Education and Labor Committee to do so.

This is, of course, something I've covered before, and I even dedicated a Walberg Watch Video of the Week to the subject. But it's always great to see a legitimate group go after Walberg on this issue. Here's the ad:


And, for my own ego, here's the Walberg Watch video:


Obviously, theirs is much, much better.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Education, Head Start, Tim Walberg

The Walberg Watch Video of the Week:


This is one of the most troubling votes cast by Congressman Tim Walberg, in my opinion. It's certainly more serious than last week's video. Thank you to Congressman Dale Kildee for his leadership on this issue.

The video is a little choppy in a few places. I'll work on fixing that later today.

Walberg Watch coverage of his vote

Journalist Jack Lessenberry on the importance of Head Start

Office of Head Start

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 110th Congress, Dale Kildee, Education, Head Start, Issues, Tim Walberg, Video, Walberg Voting Record

Once again, I'm going through old votes that I didn't write about before. Frankly, I'm amazed that I missed this one. I could have sworn I wrote about it. Even so, this one deserves a LOT of attention.

As a member of the House Committee on Education and Labor, Congressman Tim Walberg gets an opportunity every now and then to demonstrate just how far out of the mainstream he is. He showed us this once last year as the sole member of the committee to vote against collective bargaining rights for firefighters.

On March 14, 2007, the Committee on Education and Labor examined HR 1429, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act. The bill authorized funds for the Head Start program through 2012, including provisions for increasing the number of students enrolled and increasing training for the teachers in Head Start programs. The committee approved the bill, by a vote of 42 to 1.

Can you guess who that lonely "no" vote was?

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

When the bill was brought to the full House on May 2, 2007, it was passed by a vote of 365 to 48.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

When the bill went to the Senate, it was passed with unanimous consent.

Then the House and Senate met in conference to resolve differences between the bills.

The Senate approved the conference report by a vote of 95 to 0. The only five senators (Biden, Clinton, Dodd, McCain, Obama) not voting probably would have supported it, but they were busy running for president.

The House approved the conference report by a vote of 381 to 36.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

Let's review this. Head Start is a program dedicated to helping low-income children get a little extra help prior to beginning school. Almost everyone supports the program.

But not Tim Walberg.

For a brief essay about why Head Start is a good thing, read this essay by Jack Lessenberry.

Labels: 110th Congress, Education, Head Start, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Update: Oops. As pointed out in a comment, the decision was already made, a couple of days before I posted this. See, when I see an interesting article, I bookmark it to come back to later. This one (as with many lately) I came back to a couple of weeks later, and failed to check my facts before hand.

Congressman Schwarz was not selected. Still, everything nice I say below still stands, and I wish Schwarz luck in any future pursuits.

----

Don't worry, "Schwarz Watch" doesn't mean I'm planning on starting another blog. However, while not necessarily connected with Congressman Tim Walberg's adventures in Washington (and the need to end them this November), I thought this was worth mentioning. Susan Demas brought us this earlier this month:

President Joe Schwarz?

Could be, if Wayne State University taps him to take the reins from outgoing President Irvin Reid. Schwarz, a former Battle Creek congressman, confirmed today he is a finalist for the top job at Michigan's third-largest university.

A former Senator, WSU School of Medicine graduate and mediator in the ongoing feud between the med school and Detroit Medical Center (DMC), Schwarz is considered by legislators and insiders to be a nontraditional but formidable candidate.

[...]

Given the fact that Wayne State has gone to the Legislature for financial assistance, the university may be in the hunt for an experienced legislator to help, which could give Schwarz a leg up.

"He is the only person in the candidate pool being considered with the breadth of experience to fulfill the job," said Democratic former Sen. John Kelly, also a former WSU regent. "The No. 1 issue for Wayne State with its ever-reliance on government funding . . . is getting a respectful hearing from the Legislature and only Sen. Schwarz can provide that."

But the Democratic WSU Board of Governors reportedly has reservations about Schwarz, who was elected in the Legislature and Congress as a Republican but who is now an independent.

However, Liz Boyd, spokeswoman for Gov. Jennifer Granholm said, "the Governor has always spoken very highly of Sen. Schwarz." Granholm appointed Schwarz to the 2007 Emergency Financial Advisory Panel on the state's budget crisis.

Rep. Paul Condino, D-Southfield, chair of the WSU Warrior Caucus, said Schwarz would be a "tremendous" president.

"Having Dr. Schwarz in any room is helpful," Condino said today. "He has an ability to break down an issue. Both he and I share the sentiment to passionately support Wayne State."

[...]

Schwarz said he was "honored to be considered," describing himself as a "loyal and proud graduate" of the medical school in 1964.

"Higher education was my passion and forte all my years in the Legislature," said Schwarz, the former Senate Appropriations Higher Education Subcommittee Chair and a member of the Department of Defense's blue-ribbon panel on the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. "I have been intimately involved in a multiplicity of activities in Michigan. But higher education was the most important reason for my time in the Legislature for many, many years."

Regardless of the outcome of the search, Schwarz said Wayne State and his other alma mater, the University of Michigan, "will always have my time."

Schwarz also confirmed DMC had asked him to be president of Harper Hospital, but he felt he "wasn't exceptionally qualified to be president of a large urban hospital." The WSU presidency is a much better fit, he said.

(Emphasis added.)

I've mentioned it before, but it's worth repeating that I have an enormous amount of respect for Congressman Schwarz. I never voted for him, as I'm a progressive Democrat and he's a right-leaning moderate Republican-turned-independent, but he's more than qualified for just about any job he would want. More than that he is (or at least comes across as) a genuinely decent person. I started Walberg Watch in part out of disgust for the way Walberg and his friends at the Club for Growth treated an honorable public servant.

Of course, Demas brings politics into the article at the very end. It makes sense, and is also my justification for posting this story here.

Although Democrats don't think Schwarz will run as an independent in the 7th Congressional district this year, some see that as a possibility. If Schwarz were to get the WSU job, a 7th Congressional District run would be taken off the table, which would arguably benefit Democratic challenger Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek.

Schwarz was quoted by Tim Skubick as saying he wouldn't run, but I'm sure there's that tiny little piece of him that wants to get back into the race. So, yeah, there is the partisan Democrat piece of me that hopes he gets the Wayne State University job to prevent him from making an independent run and splitting the anti-Walberg vote.

But mostly, I hope he gets the job because he deserves it, and, while I don't know much about these things, I think he'd be good at it.

Goodluck, Congressman Schwarz, regardless of what you choose to do.

Labels: 2008 Speculation, Education, Joe Schwarz, Republican Party

Here's the quote:

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich) agreed, adding: "I think the freedom-minded, common sense-minded citizens of Maine should rise up against it."

(Emphasis added.)

That's all I saw of the article when I did a Google News search on Congressman Walberg, and, needless to say, I was confused. Why does our representative want to start a revolt in Maine?

Sadly, it's not as exciting as it sounds, but it's still worth mentioning.

Remember the sudden controversy about the middle school in Portland, Maine that decided to add the birth control pill to the items which could be dispensed at the school health center? It sparked a debate over when it's appropriate to give birth control to minors, whether parents should be notified, and whether students engaging in consensual, under-age sex should be prosecuted.

The controversy seems to have died down a bit, though it's interesting to see that 67 percent of Americans polled support the concept of schools providing birth control, with differences among that 67 percent over parental notification. Still, this isn't a national issue, it was one school board in Maine, and, for the most part, it seems to have faded from the headlines.

That hasn't stopped the conservative CNSNews.com from trying to keep the issue alive, however, with their latest article about the controversy being published today. That's where I saw the Walberg quote, though the quote actually came from a previous article, published on October 19.

So, why, exactly, did Congressman Walberg say that Maine ought to "rise up against" birth control?

CNSNews.com asked several federal lawmakers (seven members of the Senate and one member of the House, Walberg) what they thought of the issue. Those that answered said, basically, "I don't know, why are you asking me? It's a local issue!" and some didn't bother to respond. Here are the other responses that they got:

Sen. Tom Coburn: (R-Okla.): "I think all of that should be decided in the states." (Listen to audio)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.): "I'll need to take a look at that one. I'm not aware of that circumstance. I think I'll worry about Maryland right now." (Listen to audio)

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.): "I haven't studied this very much ... generally probably no." (Listen to audio)

Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.): "We certainly shouldn't support that kind of program at the federal level." (Listen to audio)

Needless to say, Congressman Walberg had more to say. Here's the full quote that the "rise up against it" bit came from:

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich): "I hate to comment on other states, but the issue, I think it's inappropriate. I think that it steps in the way of parental responsibility and I think it also gives up - gives up in the sense that we've lost the battle for kids, following a plan that won't affect their lives in a negative way. And when you say you're going to be this way, so we're going to give you birth control and condoms and we're not going to talk about abstinence, it just doesn't work, we've given up. I think the freedom-minded, common sense-minded citizens of Maine, should rise up against it." (Listen to audio)

So, he hates to comment on local issues which are really out of his control, but... he'll do it anyway.

I had a little trouble at first figuring out exactly what he was trying to say, but I think I've got it now. To Congressman Walberg, giving sexually-active teenagers birth control and condoms is "giving up" on them. We should be telling them that abstinence is the only way, rather than giving them the things that could make the lifestyle they've already chosen safer.

Really, from what I can get out of Walberg's comments, it's a moral issue, not a public health issue. It's a battle between morally superior men like Walberg and heathens like myself, who recognize that abstinence-only education doesn't work (here, here, and here, to give you a few of the many articles available).

When forming public health policy, who should we be listening to-- Tim Walberg, or doctors and people who actually know what they're talking about?

Of course, on another level, all of this is beside the point. Should Tim Walberg really be telling the people of Maine anything, let alone to "rise up against" smarter health policies? He's always reminding us about how terrible things are in Michigan, thanks to that "Democrat Governor" and the state legislature. You'd think he'd be spending less time worrying about Maine, and more time working for us.

But that's just me.

(UPDATE: Oops. I made a misquoted Walberg in the title at first, but have now fixed it.)

Labels: Education, Faith and Politics, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

After taking a couple of days off from blogging, I'd like to catch up on the Walberg Voting Record.

Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm's life was an American success story. She was the first African-American woman elected to Congress, and she was a presidential candidate at a time when having either a woman or an African-American nominee was a shocking proposition to the country. And she brought with her the unique perspective of having spent much of her childhood in Barbados.

Among the many that Congresswoman Chisholm inspired was Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who introduced the Shirley A. Chisholm United States-Caribbean Educational Exchange Act of 2007. The bill would create an educational exchange program for citizens of Caribbean nations to come to the United States for secondary, undergraduate, and graduate education. This would help our Caribbean neighbors strengthen their economies with educated citizens, spread a favorable image of America abroad, and enrich our own culture. It's a win-win for everyone involved.

The bill passed the House of Representatives, 371 to 55.

Tim Walberg voted No. Joining Walberg was Michigan Republican Peter Hoekstra, but the rest of the Michigan delegation favored the bill.

Does anyone have any idea why he might vote against this?

Labels: 110th Congress, Education, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

I always enjoy seeing new uses for video on the internet, especially in politics. But while we all might enjoy the "Obama Girl" video or the various JibJab productions, what matters more is when political leaders use video to talk directly to us about real issues and policy.

The Democrats on the House Committee on Education and Labor did that recently to talk about the College Cost Reduction Act. The video's introduction is a little lame, I think, but the rest has some good information. Here's the video:

Tim Walberg is also a member of the Committee on Education and Labor. He voted No on the College Cost Reduction Act, which passed 273 to 149.

Congressman Walberg, why did you vote against this bill? I've been searching your website for a statement, but I can't find one.

If you'd like to respond with a video, I'd love to post it here!

Labels: 110th Congress, Education, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

It's fun to watch the fundraising race as we have been for the last few days, but sometimes it's easy to forget just how enormous the sums being raised actually are. $50,000 and $160,000 are a lot of money, and they seem pretty absurd to someone that doesn't have a lot of extra cash to spare right now.

And especially to college students. The next generation of America is trying to find it's way, but it's being held back by painful economic realities and ever-increasing costs.

Thankfully, Democrats in Congress want to do something about it. Today, the House voted on HR 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. As explained by Speaker Pelosi's blog:

The legislation invests about $18 billion dollars over the next five years in reducing college costs, helping millions of students and families. It comes at no new cost to taxpayers, and is funded by cutting excess subsidies paid by the federal government to lenders in the student loan industry.

They even have a nifty graph to show it. Check it out.

The College Cost Reduction Act passed, 273 to 149. In total, 47 Republicans joined a united Democratic caucus in supporting the bill.

Needless to say, Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

Any college students reading out there? Ask Congressman Walberg why he doesn't think you need any help.

Labels: 110th Congress, Education, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

The Citizen Patriot reports today that Congressman Walberg will not be voting to reauthorize President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education legislation when it comes up, instead favoring the "A-PLUS Act" ("Academic Partnerships Leads Us to Success Act"). The Citizen Patriot promises more in tomorrow's issue.

First, I'll take a moment to say that I hate the name "A-PLUS". Seriously, when did laws have to get cute little names just to be able to pass? Next, someone will write a bill with an acronym of "AMERICA," because no one will want to be on record voting against America! This is ridiculous.

Anyway, "A-PLUS" can be found here. It was initially sponsored by Michigan Republican Peter Hoekstra, and has been cosponsored by Walberg and 54 others-- all Republicans, and 32 of them are members of the Republican Study Committee (the far-right conservatives within the Republican caucus).

"No Child Left Behind" is certainly a flawed law, but I'm afraid I don't know enough about the details yet to take a serious stance on it or the bill Walberg supports. Are there any educators out there (or others with knowledge on the issue) who could provide some more information? I'd love to hear what you all think as I begin to educate myself on education.

Comments, anyone?

By the way, in case you're wondering who your representative has been hanging out with, watch this hilarious interview Stephen Colbert did with fellow cosponsor of "A-PLUS" and fellow member of the RSC, Congressman Lynn Westmoreland.

Labels: 110th Congress, Education, Republican Party, RSC, Tim Walberg

Today, the House continued the 100 Hours agenda with the "College Student Relief Act of 2007," a bill which would reduce the interest rates on college loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over five years. The bill passed, 356-71. (News coverage here and here.)

Tim Walberg voted Yes! Breaking his pattern (and surprising me), Congressman Walberg joined his Democratic colleagues and 123 other Republicans in voting for the bill. In fact, only one member of the Michigan House delegation-- Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra-- voted against the bill. This is the first piece of major legislation on which Congressman Walberg has voted in favor.

With so much of the future dependent on a solid education, we ought to be opening as many opportunities for higher education as possible. I commend Congressman Walberg for finally supporting something other than tax cuts and gay bashing.

UPDATE: Oops! I've been so used to writing "Walberg Votes No" that I accidentally made that the title of the post. It's now corrected.

Labels: 110th Congress, Education, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record