As Congressman Tim Walberg continues his "motorcycle tour," in which he rides across the 7th District on his Harley Davidson motorcycle (listening to constituents, but, of course, not campaigning for re-election-- despite the prominent sticker on his motorcycle), he'll be making stops in Jackson County tomorrow:

Stops will include:

• Brooklyn Village Hall, 121 Main St., 10 a.m.

• Parma Village Hall, 117 W. Main St., 1:30 p.m.

• Springport Village Hall, 137 W. Main St., 3:30 p.m.

The stops will be among 27 scheduled in the seven counties of the 7th District.

I have yet to find the full 27-stop schedule, but I'd encourage readers to visit Congressman Walberg at one of these stops. It's a great opportunity to ask him questions, like:

• Congressman Walberg, the motorcycle thing is all well and good, but many of us can't afford a $17,000 "Road King" from Harley Davidson. Why did you vote against Amtrak, public transportation, and releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all of which could help save energy or lower prices?
• You've mocked the "Use It or Lose It" plan put forward by the Democrats as a gimmick, and that it won't produce more oil. If oil companies can't produce on that land, why do you think they should be able to keep it?
• You've received $32,500 from electric utilities and the oil and gas industry this cycle alone. How much do those contributions influence the policies you support?
• Do you support any legislation that would bring short-term energy savings? Drilling for more oil doesn't count as "short-term."

If you get a chance to ask Congressman Walberg a question, I'd love to hear about it. Maybe he'll impress me with his thoughtful responses.

Labels: 2008 Election, Energy, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg

The Politico.com ran a story a few days ago that's interesting in the context of the debate over offshore drilling for oil. Without commenting on the merits of drilling offshore, they noted that a number of proponents of drilling like to make the claim that facilities in the Gulf of Mexico went through Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without any damage and without "one drop of oil spilt," according to Senator Trent Lott (R-MS).

So, if the oil rigs could survive hurricanes without any environmental damage, obviously offshore drilling is completely safe, and environmentalists who oppose it are being unreasonable.

The problem with these assertions? Well, they're wrong. As the Politico explains:

The U.S. Minerals Management Service, however, did a study of the damage Katrina and Rita did to offshore oil wells and came to a different conclusion. It found that the two storms caused a combined 124 spills with a volume of 17,700 barrels—or roughly 750,000 gallons. That's no Exxon Valdez -- in fact, the MMS had kind words for the rigs' performances -- but it's not nothing either.

The article also cites pieces by CBS News and Media Matters which debunk the claim.

Among the proponents of drilling that the Politico mentions? Congressman Tim Walberg:

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) said on Friday that the Gulf rigs went "through Katrina with no spills -- with derricks being washed up on shore and yet the environment has not been hurt and we've been benefited by it."

(Emphasis added.)

The problem here isn't the policy Walberg supports. There are a lot of reasons not to support his oil-company-give-away policy, but in this case, 750,000 gallons of oil spilled during Katrina and Rita aren't going to convince many voters.

Instead, the problem is what the story indicates about Tim Walberg as a person and as a politician. He's basing his policies and his rhetoric on what he wishes was true, not based on the actual facts. Rather than taking positions based on what's happening, he's following his rigid ideology and creating for himself a world that fits it. His hard line, conservative positions make perfect sense in the fantasy world he's constructed.

Offshore drilling is a lot easier to support if you pretend that there's no environmental risk and if you pretend the Chinese are drilling for oil off the coast of Florida.

Continuing the war in Iraq is a lot easier if you pretend that Iraq is as safe as Detroit.

Going to war to begin with makes more sense if you pretend that Iraq was behind September 11.

Environmental issues are a lot easier if you pretend that global climate change isn't real.

Unfortunately, Tim Walberg's facts don't quite match the ones the rest of us have to live with.

Labels: Energy, Global Warming, Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg

From my inbox last night:

Dear [---],

In case you missed it, Tim Walberg did an interview with WKHM in Jackson last week. When the topic of Iraq came up during the conversation, Walberg said, "There was clear connections in Iraq to Saddam Hussein to what went on on 9/11."

Apparently the Congressman didn't get the memo that President Bush admitted this wasn't true in 2003, or that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission de-bunked this myth more than four years ago.

This got me thinking about some of the other shocking comments Tim Walberg has made over the past year that show how out of touch he is with the 7^th district. We put this video together to highlight some of his extreme viewpoints:

And, here's the video, called "The Things People Say":



I'm more than a little embarrassed that I'm represented by this man...

Labels: 9/11 Commission, ANWR, Energy, Environment, Great Lakes, Health Care, Iraq, Issues, Mark Schauer, Oil, Tim Walberg

This afternoon, a little after 3:00pm, I received a phone call... from Freedom's Watch. It was a robocall, repeating the same talking points from the deceptive and largely false radio ad they've been running (minus the RAND study citation).

These things are annoying, and frankly, I hope that bring out the robocalls this early in the election backfires on them. Nobody I've talked to has said that they like or appreciate these kinds of calls. At least when it's a person and when it's a campaign, you can voice your displeasure and be taken off the call list. These invade your privacy and threaten to repeat with no possible recourse.

Then, I got this press release in my inbox:

SCHAUER INVITES WALBERG TO JOIN HIM IN PLEDGE AGAINST ROBOCALLS
Congressional candidate says it's time to hang up on divisive political tactics

BATTLE CREEK—Today Congressional candidate Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) sent a letter inviting Congressman Tim Walberg to join him in a pledge not to make political robocalls to voters in the 7th district for the remainder of the 2008 campaign. He also asked the Congressman to agree to publicly ask third party groups not to use robocalls for the rest of the race.

"People are tired of divisive political tactics, and out of respect for the democratic process, I think we should agree to offer voters something different by not bothering them with robocalls this year," said Schauer. "With all of the challenges facing our state, businesses and workers deserve an honest and open exchange of ideas between the two of us about our respective plans for turning Michigan's economy around. I hope the Congressman will accept my challenge and agree to hang up on robocalls."

Today the independent political group Freedom's Watch began making negative robocalls in the 7th district attacking Sen. Schauer's position on domestic drilling. The calls falsely claim that Schauer opposes drilling, even though he has offered public support for responsible drilling on numerous occasions.

"To set the record straight, I support responsible domestic drilling, both onshore and off," said Schauer. "Just this week I announced legislation that is specifically intended to spur oil production in Michigan. As I have said all along, what we need is a comprehensive energy strategy that includes protecting the Great Lakes, curbing speculation, temporarily releasing a portion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for short-term relief at the pump, exploring safe nuclear alternatives, ending tax breaks for Big Oil, and investing in renewable energy technology to create green collar jobs in Michigan."

# # #

Thank you, Senator Schauer, for rejecting these sorts of attacks and this waste of time.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Energy, Freedom's Watch, Issues, Mark Schauer, Robocalls

Subscribers to the Walberg Watch Weekly E-mail Updates list already know a little bit about this. Obviously, this is a reason why you should subscribe.

Suppose you're an undecided voter. You don't know a lot about Tim Walberg, but you've gotten his glossy flyers in the mail. You've seen Mark Schauer's name somewhere, but really, you don't know much about either of them. What do you do?

For many, you type "Tim Walberg" and "Mark Schauer" into Google. Focusing on Walberg, what do you get? The first five results are all either pro-Walberg or neutral-- Walberg's House website, Walberg's blog, Wikipedia, Walberg for Congress, and a National Journal profile. (The old Walberg Watch address comes in at number nine, while the new Walberg Watch is rapidly rising, now nearing the top of the second page).

Many people will probably stick to those five results, too. Of those results, only the Wikipedia article even comes close to offering different points of view, but only in the context of controversies that have arisen for Walberg. It doesn't keep up with current issues.

So how do we fix that? How do we make sure that Walberg's side of the story isn't the only one being seen? One way, of course, is for Walberg Watch to rise in the Google page ranking, and that's happening slowly on its own. But, oddly enough, Tim Walberg gave us another way of getting opposing viewpoints into the top Google rankings, albeit not directly.

I'm talking about Congressman Walberg's official House of Representatives blog. It's usually the second result in a Google search, and it's featured prominently on Walberg's House website. Often, it's not much more than just reposting of press releases, but it has a comments feature that, to Walberg's credit, is fairly accepting of progressive views. Does everyone read the comments? No. But some people do, and that means it's an avenue for reaching more people.

With all of this in mind, I’ve got a project for Walberg Watch readers and the Michigan blogosphere.

Purpose

Tim Walberg and his press office state their positions and policy proposals without being challenged. They ignore evidence that doesn’t fit their chosen positions and highlight columnists and editorials that fit their views only. Indeed, they sometimes posts assertions that are misleading at best and outright untruths at worst. That’s not necessarily a bad thing—this is politics, after all, and everyone is guilty of spin—but going unchallenged is unacceptable.

Let’s fix that. Whenever Walberg’s blog makes a misleading statement, let’s make sure the first comment calls them out on it. Whenever he cites Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to justify his economic policies, let’s counter with real, honest-to-God economists. We talk about holding our elected officials accountable. This is one more way to hold them to the fire.

Why?

Someone is bound to ask, “But, Fitzy, what’s the point?” After all, the number of people that actually read Congressman Walberg’s blog isn’t that high, and the number that follow through to the comments is even smaller. Is this a good way of using the resources of the progressive netroots?

I say, yes, it is. If done effectively, it shows the organizing strength of progressives in a place that Walberg and his staff will see it, and in a place where other observers also have an opportunity to see it. It gives us a chance to practice and refine our arguments and, maybe, be challenged ourselves with counterpoints that we haven’t considered, which will make us better at this when we’re canvassing or phone banking. There’s nothing wrong with some good, old-fashioned political discourse. And it doesn’t cost us anything more than a few minutes every week.

And hey, we might even reach a couple of undecided voters.

But, Wait...

Walberg’s staff will just delete our comments, right? That’s what you’re thinking, isn’t it? It’s true, the comment system is such that new comments have to be approved before they’re posted, but they’ve been fairly accepting of opposing viewpoints. I’ve even had comments make it on that have been critical (though civil) of his conduct. This is one of the few redeeming qualities of Congressman Walberg.

But, yeah, Walberg’s office might start deleting our comments, leaving this whole project dead. What happens then? Well, we complain about how Tim Walberg silences dissent and isn’t willing to listen to well-reasoned arguments. So what if we wasted a couple of hours? In the end, it’s not that big of a deal. And it’s worth trying, because 1.) we could actually reach a couple of voters and 2.) democracy is about direct feedback from those represented to the representative.

Procedure

Every Wednesday, I’ll choose three recent Tim Walberg blog posts, and post them on Walberg Watch, Michigan Liberal, and Blogging for Michigan. With each, I’ll point out a few potential flaws—places where the truth is stretched or conclusions reached are questionable—and, if I remember anything off the top of my head, I’ll throw in links to articles that I think might be helpful.

This is where you come in. Chances are, you’ve read something recently on a given issue that perfectly refutes what Walberg says. Share a link to the article, editorial, or blog post in the comments, and then go and comment on Walberg’s post. We can discuss the best arguments in the comments, and then a few people can fill Walberg’s post with their ideas. If you haven’t got time to comment on his post yourself, just give us the link, and someone else will do it. If you see someone complain about Walberg elsewhere in the blogosphere, tell them about the project.

The next week, I’ll post an update on the previous week’s projects and link to the new posts of the week. The process repeats.

Caveats

I want to make a few things clear before this goes forward. The purpose of this is not to harass Tim Walberg and fill his blog with inflammatory messages. Frankly, that’s just dumb. We want to convince undecided voters and prove that our arguments are better. I heard someone call Walberg a “fascist neocon ideologue” a few weeks ago, and that does nothing but alienate people.

In other words, don’t be an asshole about it. When Walberg says something that’s wrong, don’t respond with “How stupid do you think we are?” Instead, respond with, “But, Congressman, the Detroit Free Press recently ran a story saying that...” I know that progressives are capable of well-reasoned, well-articulated, insightful arguments. Imagine if the comments on Tim Walberg’s blog were filled with those. It would embarrass him and make us look great.

Also, I’ll add that this isn’t limited to just residents of Michigan’s 7th Congressional District. Walberg’s votes have the potential to hurt the entire country, and he’s constantly an embarrassment to the people of Michigan. If you think he’s wrong, make sure he knows it.

Obviously, if there’s no interest in this, I’ll drop the project. But the internet offers so many phenomenal ways to communicate directly with your representative and make your voice heard. Why not use as many of them as possible?

Walberg Blog Comments Project - Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Here are the posts for today:

1. South-Central Michigan Residents Speak Out On High Gas Prices, by Tim Walberg (Aug. 8, 2008)

This is a collection of quotes from 7th District residents talking about how high gas prices are impacting their daily lives. Some of the stories are touching and painful, and, of course, none of them would be helped by Walberg’s “Oil Company Give-Away” drilling plan. What would help? It wouldn’t solve all the problems, but releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (which Walberg opposed) would lower prices. There is already one dissenting comment, noting that domestically-produced oil will still be sold on the world market, and won’t help Americans all that much. This is a point which can be further emphasized.

2. Nationwide Editorials Decry Democrats’ Latest Speculator Gimmick, by Walberg Press Office (Jul. 31, 2008)

Walberg’s office offers a series of links to newspaper editorials criticizing the Democratic strategy on high gas prices. Surely we can find some editorials that label the Walberg/Republican plan as the pointless idea we all know it is, right?

3. Washington Post debunks myths about offshore drilling, by Walberg Press Office (Aug. 12, 2008)

This is a big one. They cite a Washington Post editorial that claims to refute progressive arguments against offshore drilling. It’s worth noting that the same editorial also says that drilling offshore would have no immediate impact on gas prices, and that it specifically states that they support protecting ANWR, where Walberg wants to drill there. Further, where the article notes the need for a long-term, comprehensive plan, Walberg has opposed Democratic bills that would invest in alternative energies (example here). And add in his opposition to conservation through public transportation and other areas. Oh, and how about Paul Krugman’s recent op-ed reminding us about global climate change—which Walberg doesn’t believe in.

So, let’s get to it. How do we refute these? And who wants to be the first to comment?

And, of course, for you Republican lurkers out there, if we fall short on any of these, I assure you, it’s not some failing of the progressive movement. Rather, it means that we’re just not trying hard enough... yet.

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, Energy, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Blog Comments Project

While Tim Walberg is staging a protest in Washington, D.C. and waving his energy plan around on television, Democratic challenger and state Senator Mark Schauer introduced a bill in the Michigan Senate to do what he can do to increase energy production and create jobs:

Highlights of Schauer’s “Drill Responsibly-Create New Energy Jobs” include:

• Demand responsible oil production in currently leased land
• If no production in five years, land goes back to state to be re-leased
• Financial penalties for stockpiling land to profit from reserves without producing
• No new leases unless current ones are used
• Modernize lease system to make sure taxpayers and consumers benefit from production
• Switch from the outdated 1/6 royalty system to a 50/50 "working interest" model - as the federal government and other countries are moving toward. Other states like Alaska, Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Louisiana all make more compensation for their taxpayers from production
• Create fund where additional revenue is used to transition to renewable energy projects and job creation

According to Legislative Service Bureau estimates, there are approximately 4,187 active leases in Michigan on which oil is not being produced, 1,667 pending leases on which oil is not being produced, and only 3,773 that are actually producing oil. This legislation would force companies to make use of the resources they have or allow them to go to companies who will.

As far as I can tell, the text of Schauer's bill isn't online yet. I'll add a link as soon as I can find it. We'll have to wait another day for more in-district media coverage, but the Chicago Tribune gives us this AP article:

LANSING, Mich. - Oil and gas companies would pay Michigan higher royalty fees when leasing government-owned land under a plan by a top Democrat who wants to spend the extra revenue on renewable energy projects.

[...]

The "use-it-or-lose-it" approach is needed because oil companies are claiming leases as assets but letting the land sit dormant, said the proposal's sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Mark Schauer of Battle Creek. There are more than 4,000 active leases in Michigan where oil or gas isn't being produced, he said.

"They're making money on Wall Street, but they're not generating oil and not increasing supplies to reduce the cost at the pump," Schauer said.

I don't know enough about the proposal yet to speak intelligently on it. Chris Gautz at the Citizen Patriot seems to think investing the money in environmentally-friendly energy research isn't allowed by the state constitution, but I'm not sure if that's true or not.

Even so, this is a good contrast to the Walberg energy plan, which is a "give everything to the oil companies" plan. It'll be interesting to see the coverage this gets moving forward.

Labels: 2008 Election, Energy, Issues, Mark Schauer, Michigan Senate, Oil, Tim Walberg

On the same day that "Freedom's Watch" released a radio ad attacking Mark Schauer on energy policy, Congressman Tim Walberg released a television ad touting his own energy "plan":



First, I think Tim Walberg is the first person I've ever seen wear an orange polo shirt while riding a motorcycle. I don't have anything against motorcycles, I just feel like if you're going to do it, especially on television, you should have a little style! It just looks as awkward as, say, John Kerry hunting.

Besides that silliness, it's an ad that plays to the base while trying to come across as moderate. It's pretty light on content, but hey, that's a television ad.

The big question is about timing. It's a logical time to release an ad-- right after the Democratic primary, to frame himself early before the general election coverage heats up. But it coincides exactly with the release of the "Freedom's Watch" ad and deals with the same subject. Energy is a big issue and the release of both ads makes sense. Even so, it's a little suspicious.

The Walberg for Congress campaign and the "Freedom's Watch" group are not allowed to coordinate their message and spending like that. It's illegal, and it's something that Walberg has been accused of in the past. Joe Schwarz filed an FEC complaint against Tim Walberg for doing exactly that with the Club for Growth in 2006:

The FEC complaint contends the Club for Growth coordinated expenditures from its political action committee and 527 organization, listing common political strategists and pollsters who were paid by the Club for Growth, Walberg and three other campaigns: Senate candidate Steve Laffey in Rhode Island, and congressional candidates Sharron Angle in Nevada and Bill Sali in Idaho.

And "Freedom's Watch" isn't exactly clear of such accusations, either. During a special election in Louisiana this year, the group aired an ad whose script appeared to be written by the NRCC. That was called an "innocent mistake," but, if actually written by the NRCC, is absolutely illegal.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that anyone has broken the law. I'm saying that this is something to watch closely as both Walberg and "Freedom's Watch" release more ads.

Labels: Advertising, Energy, Ethics, Freedom's Watch, Oil, Tim Walberg

That didn't take long...

"Freedom's Watch" is a 501(c)(4) group (website and DCCC counter-website) which has appeared this election year, mostly bashing Democrats and run by ex-Bush administration officials. Today, they released this radio ad:

"70% of Americans are in favor of exploring for off shore oil, but Mark Schauer says no. Mark Schauer is against a bill that would expand domestic oil exploration, build new refineries, and increase wind energy. And he's endorsed by a liberal special interest group in favor of high gas prices. Schauer said expanding the search for
domestic oil wont do anything to lower gas prices, but a RAND study said that the US has at least three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. Michigan is in a one state recession, we are losing jobs, families are struggling. As an elected official, Mark Schauer can do something, but he refuses to explore for oil here in the US. Call
Mark Schauer at (517) 373-2426 and tell him to support domestic oil exploration and support American jobs. Paid for by Freedom's Watch."

Audio file here.

Notice that they managed to work the word "liberal" in there. Will "JoeSchwarzIsALiberal.com" be replaced by "MarkSchauerIsALiberal.com"?

That sounds like a tough attack that might stick, except that we get this from Schauer in the Daily Telegram yesterday:

State Sen. Mark Schauer said Monday there needs to be compromise from both sides of the aisle on providing opportunities to assist Michigan’s economy.

“I support the efforts of Congress to break the logjam and work toward a bipartisan resolution toward the energy crisis,” Schauer said.

The state senator said the Republican from Tipton does not know how to reach a consensus in working toward energy solutions.

“Tim is there (protesting in Washington) apparently because they haven’t taken up his bill,” Schauer said. “He has voted against seven specific bills since February that would have provided real solutions to the energy crises we face. What Walberg is proposing will not bring relief to the economy in neither the short- or long-term.”

“I support offshore drilling,” Schauer said when asked about alternative actions to help relieve fuel prices. He said there is land available in both the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska that can be drilled, and that the option was in one of the bills Walberg voted against.

“What I will not support is drilling in the Great Lakes,” Schauer said. “We are one accident from devastating our natural resources.”

(Emphasis added.)

In other words, Schauer supports offshore drilling, just not opening up everything, everywhere, the way Walberg does. If Tim Walberg thought there was oil in the Grand Canyon, I'm sure he'd toss out the tourists and start drilling.

Unfortunately, in these sorts of debates, it's often the side that shouts the loudest that wins. Even so, Schauer has the much more reasonable position, and he's right when he says this isn't something we can drill our way out of.

UPDATE: In addition to fixing a couple of typos, I wanted to point something else out. The ad says:

As an elected official, Mark Schauer can do something, but he refuses to explore for oil here in the US.

So, wait a second... Schauer currently serves in the state Senate, which means that he can do something, but only in the state of Michigan. When we're talking about offshore drilling, we mean in the Atlantic or the Pacific, and, since Michigan doesn't have coastline on either of those (at least, the last time I checked), he can't do anything about drilling offshore in his current job.

That is, unless Freedom's Watch wants to drill in the Great Lakes. But everyone except for Tim Walberg agrees that drilling there is a horrible idea.

UPDATE II: Eric B. at Michigan Liberal also responds, doing the research that was next on my list of things to do:

Lies, plain and simple. Here is the RAND study citied. Please note that it's called "Oil shale development in the United States." That's because the the "proven reserves" the RAND study is talking about are all locked up in oil shale ... not lying about somewhere off shore or in Alaska.

You're probably wondering about oil shale, and why we haven't developed it. I mean, we have a lot of it. It's remained undeveloped since the 70s for the same reason why the United States has lost and not built refining capacity ... purely economic reasons. Processing oil shale into something usable is incredibly expensive, requires a great deal of energy (because it requires a great deal of heat), and because it's very water intensive (and most of the shale is where there isn't a great deal of water).

This is a deceptive ad. It cites a study that's not talking about offshore drilling to attack Schauer on offshore drilling, even though Schauer already supports reasonable offshore drilling.

Ahh! If this is what it'll be like until November, I might go a little crazy.

Someone, please, please, please, write a letter to the editor refuting this crap, before it goes unchallenged for too long.


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, Energy, Freedom's Watch, Issues, Mark Schauer, Oil, Tim Walberg

I don't have any comments on this one (at least, not yet).

From the Jackson Citizen Patriot:

He also talked up the No More Excuses Energy Act. I asked him about Sen. McCain's proposal to build 45 more nuclear power plants and Walberg said he agreed with the plan.

"I think it's the right way to go," Walberg said. "I wish we could do it sooner."

I asked him if he would support one of those new nuclear plants being built in his district and he said he "certainly would."

He also think his district would support it.

(Emphasis added.)

Thoughts, anyone?

(By the way, the rest of the original article is worth reading, if only for the amusing fact that no one showed up to see Congressman Walberg get an award from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.)

Labels: Energy, Issues, Nuclear Energy, Tim Walberg

Tim Walberg says we need to drill for more oil. That's the central theme of his energy plan. But he says he wants more than just drilling for oil. For instance, there's this press release from June 5th:

Congressman Walberg has co-sponsored legislation to provide incentives for solar, wind, cellulosic ethanol, bio-diesel and energy conservation. He also supports an increase in domestic energy production through carbon-free nuclear power and clean-coal technology. He has co-sponsored legislation that would encourage conservation with tax credits for green buildings and legislation that would spark a revolution in clean hydrogen technology.

(Emphasis added.)

Did you catch that? He didn't put too much emphasis on it, but it was there. Tim Walberg says he supports energy conservation, too.

And really, that makes sense. We can't conserve our way out of the energy crisis. We're pretty much always going to have increased energy needs. But if we could use a little less in certain areas of our lives, it would go a long way. What if we used energy-efficient appliances? What if we turned off the lights in a room when we weren't in it? What if, dare I say it, people drove a little less?

Many cities offer a way to drive less: public transportation. And as anyone who's visited Chicago or New York can tell you, it really can be convenient. Sure, it's not always clean or quick, but you can get from Kenosha, Wisconsin to South Bend, Indiana using Chicago's public transportation system for a relatively low cost, and certainly less than what it would cost in gasoline and without the rough Chicago traffic. (Chicago-native Tim Walberg should already know this.)

So one would think Congressman Tim Walberg-- a man who I once heard call himself an environmentalist, a representative who's pushing a new energy plan-- would be interested in encouraging this. As a nation, we could save a lot of money if the folks in cities just drove less. There would be more gasoline available for those of us who live in places where public transportation isn't practical. And in the places that really could benefit from public transportation-- say, Ann Arbor or Battle Creek-- maybe a little extra help from the federal government might be nice.

Today, June 26, 2008, the House of Representatives took up HR 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008. The bill (which notes that public transportation saves 11 million gallons of gasoline each day) would cost every American just one dollar every year for four years.

HR 6052 passed by a vote of 322 to 98. That's just 23 percent of the House of Representatives voting "no," with 91 Republicans joining a united Democratic majority.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

Congressman Walberg, I know that it's government spending and all, but... come on! This would save energy and it wouldn't cost much! This is an obvious complement to your "more drilling" strategy. You could do both. Maybe, if the public transportation part works, we won't even have to drill as much!

But then, Congressman Walberg never was interested in real solutions, was he?

Labels: 110th Congress, Energy, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg, Transportation, Walberg Voting Record

I haven't been doing a great job here lately, but hopefully that'll change in the near future. After a couple of stressful weeks, I took a bit of a blogging vacation. But I'm back.

I'll have plenty of Walberg Voting Record updates coming up, but for now, here's some stuff that should be posts on their own. Instead of giving all the topics the time they deserve, I'm going to try to run through them all in this post.

____
The DCCC has been kind enough to put me on their press release e-mail list. Here's some of what they've been sending me lately.

Representative Tim Walberg Puts Big Oil Ahead of Middle Class Americans

‘Gas Prices Hit a Record High’ is a headline Americans are all too familiar with these days. Rather than join the bipartisan solution to lower energy prices and end America’s dependence on foreign oil, Representative Tim Walberg voted yet again for Big Oil.

“Hardworking Americans are being squeezed by skyrocketing gas prices, high health care costs, and increasing college costs. Rather than relieve Americans’ pain at the pump, Representative Tim Walberg voted to keep spending our tax dollars on subsidies and tax breaks for Big Oil making billions of dollars in profits,” said Jennifer Crider, Communications Director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Representative Walberg opposed a common sense, bipartisan energy plan that reduces America's dependence on foreign oil, lowers gas prices, and creates jobs.”

Background

· The Energy Independence and Security Act (H.R. 6) will take groundbreaking steps toward ensuring America’s energy independence and national security, including the first increase in vehicle fuel efficiency in a generation [H.R. 6, #1140, 12/6/07].

· The measure will increase the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for new cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This is the first increase in the fuel economy standard by Congress since 1975 and will reduce American oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels per day (roughly half of our current oil imports from the Persian Gulf).

o According to the American Automobile Association, drivers in Michigan currently pay an average cost of $ 3.01 per gallon at the pump [http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/sbsavg.asp]. This increase to the fuel economy standard will and save America’s families between $700 and $1000 per year at the pump and reduce America’s output of greenhouse gases equal to taking 28 million of today's average cars and trucks off the road.

· The measure will repeal the Bush Administration’s tax breaks for Big Oil companies and invest those savings in renewable sources of energy.

· The bill is supported by a wide range of leading business, labor, and environmental advocacy groups including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, The United Auto Workers, the Sierra Club, and the League of Conservation Voters.

and

Representative Tim Walberg Opposes Middle Class Tax Relief for 23 Million Americans

Late last night, Representative Tim Walberg voted to raise taxes on more than 23 million middle class families across America, including 771,200 Michigan taxpayers who will be hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax in 2007.

“Representative Tim Walberg voted to raise taxes on 771,200 hard working middle class families in Michigan already squeezed by expensive mortgages, growing credit card bills, and skyrocketing gas prices,” said Jennifer Crider, Communications Director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “This holiday season, Representative Walberg has given middle class families a giant tax bill to look forward to. Clearly, Representative Walberg values rubber stamping President Bush more than the middle class families he represents.”

Background

* The Temporary Tax Relief Act (H.R. 3996) would cut taxes for 23 million middle-class Americans by providing them relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). [H R 4351, #1153, 12/12/07].

* According to Citizens for Tax Justice, an estimated 771,200 taxpayer’s in Michigan will be hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax in 2007.

* Additionally, the Temporary Tax Relief Act will expand the Child Tax Credit to provide tax relief to 12 million families with children

* Middle class tax relief is paid for in this measure, rather than the Republican plan that leaves it to future generations to pay for tax cuts.

and

Representative Tim Walberg Voted Against Community Policing

Despite the FBI reporting that violent crime has increased for the first time in a decade, Representative Tim Walberg opposed giving law enforcement in Michigan the resources they need to fight crime in our communities.

“Even with violent crime on the rise, Representative Tim Walberg voted against giving police and prosecutors the vital resources they need to keep Michigan’s communities safe,” said Jennifer Crider, Communications Director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Keeping Michigan’s communities safe should be Representative Walberg’s highest priority, not Rubber Stamping President Bush’s proposed cuts to state and local law enforcement.”

Background

* The Consolidated Appropriations Bill includes $2.7 Billion to help state and local law enforcement fight crime and keep communities safe [H R 2764; Roll Call Vote 1171]

* The measure also rejects the President’s proposed 94% cut to the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program and instead provides $587 million to fund COPS. This includes $20 million for the “COPS on the Beat” program, which hires more police officers and has not been funded since 2005.

· According to the FBI, violent crime in America increased in 2005 and 2006 for the first time in a decade. [LA Times; 12/19/06]

That's the DCCC's take on his votes. Perhaps biased? Maybe. But I am glad to see they're keeping the pressure on him as we approach November 2008.

____
Susan Demas has a column in a recent issue of the Battle Creek Enquirer that's kind of harsh on all fronts, criticizing both Congressman Tim Walberg and Michigan Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer. It's worth reading, even for those of us that might not agree with everything she says. Francis Pepper mentioned the column in a post below, but I wanted to point out something from the last couple of paragraphs:

Both candidates play the part of the principled politician to the hilt - Walberg as the über-conservative, anti-abortion warrior and Schauer as the bright-eyed, progressive reformer.

In reality, modest Mark takes his marching orders from the governor and the reverend's soul is the property of Club for Growth.

But wait, some of my liberal friends will yelp. You can't be saying Schauer would be as bad as the congressman.

Policy-wise, Schauer would certainly be a step up if he could manage to pen press releases without lying about snaring money for the Battle Creek airport that he voted against.

What I find revolting is that both men swim the sewage of politics and don't retch - they actually seem to feed off the stench.

It's still early enough for other candidates to jump in. Lord knows, we deserve better.

While acknowledging that Schauer would be a better congressman, it's more than obvious that Demas wants a third alternative. Is she talking about Sharon Renier? I can't speak for her, but I'm guessing probably not. Is there another candidate that Demas is hoping will jump into the race?

____
That question brings me to former Congressman Joe Schwarz. He had a fascinating interview with Jack Lessenberry on WGTE's "Deadline Now" program, and I've wanted to write about that for a while now. I even went so far as to get a copy of the interview from the very friendly folks at WGTE (Toledo, Ohio's public broadcasting station), though the interview is now available online (you've got to scroll down the page a bit to the October 19 broadcast).

The whole thing is worth watching, but I want to look at one exchange in particular. In the interview, Lessenberry asks Schwarz whether he'll run again, and Schwarz says:

I don't know yet, it's one of the things that I've decided not to decide. It is a purposeful choice, not to decide. What candidates do at this stage of the game is go out there and vie for name recognition. I don't perceive myself as having name recognition problems in the 7th Congressional District, first. And secondly, quite frankly, the mechanism by which the Congress operates is seniority and whether you're a junior member of either the majority or the minority in the U.S. Congress, you're not pulling a lot of strength. Decisions are made by committee chairs, ranking members, senior members, so the status of a junior member, especially a junior member of the minority party, whichever party that may be after 2008, isn't going to be much.

Schwarz then continues to talk about the things he would like to still work on in the committees he served on, but says that while it was a privilege to serve in the House, "it's not the be all and end all."

It's always dangerous to read too much into statements like this, because politicians can and do change their minds (as they should). But to me, I'd say that right now, I don't think Schwarz will run. If that's who Susan Demas and others are looking toward as a viable third option, it doesn't look like it'll happen.

It looks like Jack Lessenberry reached about the same conclusion I did. If you watch the end of the program, he offers his own commentary, in which he compares Joe Schwarz to Al Gore. Both, he explains, are politicians who lost close elections and then went on to do a great deal of good work outside of elected office.

As for me, I thought I'd throw in my own thoughts on Joe Schwarz. If Schwarz were to challenge Tim Walberg and win the Republican nomination, I would not vote for him, I would vote for the Democratic nominee. If Schwarz were to run as an independent against Walberg and a Democrat like Mark Schauer, I would not vote for him, I would vote for Schauer. If Schwarz were to run for the Democratic nomination, I probably would not vote for him in the primary.

Why? Because, despite the lies Walberg espoused, Joe Schwarz is a conservative man. He and I disagree on countless issues, and if he ran as a Democrat, he'd certainly not represent the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. But he's a thoughtful, honest conservative, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I have nothing but respect for him, even when we disagree, because hearing him speak, you can tell that he truly believes the things he says, and he's thought them through.

Of course, maybe I'm just easily fooled by politicians that look and sound genuine. After speaking with Mark Schauer, I was left with the impression that he was a genuine, hard-working progressive reformer, but according to Susan Demas, that's not true. Interesting.

____
And now, the last item is a challenge for all of you loyal Walberg Watch readers. About six months ago, I got a new computer, and discovered Windows Movie Maker was pre-installed on it. Now, it's not much compared to the high-quality video production software available, but to a novice like me, this is new and exciting.

After a while, I started making some videos related to Tim Walberg. Not so much attack ads as informative videos, showcasing some of Walberg's votes and finer moments (like, drilling for oil in the Great Lakes, or "Iraq is as safe as Detroit"). But they're a little dry... Before they can go on YouTube, they need background music!

That's where you come in. I can't just stick in music from my own collection because that runs into copyright violations. I may, in fact, be the only YouTube user that cares about that, but nevertheless, I want to avoid phone calls from lawyers. Does anyone know of a good resource where I can get high-quality, public domain audio recordings? MP3 files would be best.

I hope everyone's holiday season is off to a good start.

Labels: 2008 Speculation, Community Policing, DCCC, Energy, Issues, Joe Schwarz, Mark Schauer, Oil, Taxes, Tim Walberg

The House of Representatives recently addressed two related pieces of legislation. I'll cover them in one post.

First up is HR 3221, the "New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act." It wins the prize for having the longest title I've seen lately, but it looks like it does a lot of good things. It's self-description:

Moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure.

I'll admit, I haven't read the bill, but you can feel free to do so. It's 700 pages long. From a Washington Post editorial:

We've lauded the good things in this bill before. The investments in renewable energy, the incentives for manufacturers to make and for taxpayers to purchase appliances and vehicles that "push the boundaries of efficiency," and the federal government leading by example in the drive to cut carbon emissions are all good. What's especially good are the funds made available to demonstrate the commercial viability of carbon capture and sequestration. The United States sits atop the world's largest reserves of coal, a chief source of greenhouse gases. Finding a way to pump and lock the heat-trapping gas underground would not only be an enormous environmental breakthrough, but it would also be a technological advance that could then be sold overseas, particularly to China, which is overtaking the United States as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide.

The Post notes, however, that fuel efficiency standards are not increased, calling that omission the bill's major flaw.

HR 3221 passed, 241 to 172.

Now, will the self-proclaimed environmentalist Congressman Tim Walberg support this bill?

Well, no. Tim Walberg voted No. Michigan Republicans Vern Ehlers, Joe Knollenberg, and Fred Upton joined a united Democratic delegation in support of the bill.

With that bill passed, the House then addressed HR 2776, the "Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007." Having passed the first bill, this one will provide the funding.

Think Tim Walberg will support this one?

Democrats moved forward with their energy tax bill (HR 2776) despite concerns from oil-state Democrats upset about treatment of the oil and gas industry. The $16.1 billion package would raise taxes on the oil and gas industry and redirect the proceeds to tax breaks for renewable energy sources; no amendments to the tax portion will be considered Saturday.

The bill passed, 221 to 189.

Tim Walberg predictably voted No. All of Michigan's Republicans opposed the second bill, while all Michigan Democrats supported it (minus Congresswoman Kilpatrick, who did not vote).

Meanwhile, as is so often the case, the White House has threatened to veto the legislation.

Labels: 110th Congress, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Issues, Oil, Taxes, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Tim Walberg's support of drilling for oil in ANWR and the Great Lakes has been bothering me. So have his votes against protecting American consumers from gas price gouging. And so does his latest rhetoric complaining about increasing fuel efficiency. All this from a man that calls himself an environmentalist.

This has been bothering me, and I've been trying to think of a reason why he might do all of this. I mean, a reason that's more than just that he's a terrible representative.

Could the $2,000 he got from Exxon Mobile PAC in the first quarter have something to do with it? Is he hoping to get even more during the second quarter, thanks to his vocal support for the oil industry?

I'm just throwing that idea out there. It's amazing, the kinds of things you find on the FEC's website.

Just a short late-night thought, to finish off the week... Remember to go vote in both of Doug's polls, one on candidate preference and one on money. If voting isn't enough for you, feel free to actually contribute, too, either to a candidate or to the Democratic Nominee Fund up in the top corner of Walberg Watch.

Labels: Energy, Fundraising, Oil, Tim Walberg

I appreciate it when Congressman Tim Walberg talks about the need to develop alternative, renewable sources of energy. But this should not be a part of our energy policy.

LANSING – Today Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer criticized Republican Representative Tim Walberg for his comments supporting oil drilling in the Great Lakes. Walberg told a group of Lansing area constituents on Friday “ I don’t understand” why the United States does not drill the Great Lakes.

...

“I don’t know how many of you realize that here in this state in the United States, we do not allow even the slant directional drilling under the Great Lakes... Our environmental lobby has done so well in lobbying efforts from keeping us from doing that, that we don’t drill in ANWR, we don’t drill under the Great Lakes... I don’t understand that.” Listen>

“So I say let’s get away from being held by the markets so tightly on petroleum sources… unless we are willing to use what we have and provide competition to the world market because we can say to OPEC then ‘to hell with them’ we got our own Alaskan oil, we have our own Great Lakes oil and we got our own intercontinental shelf oil... That’s how I look at it.” Listen>

(Emphasis added.)

That's right. Tim Walberg wants to drill for oil under the Great Lakes. He wants to extract oil from beneath the world's largest fresh water supply-- our fresh water supply.

The MDP press release above also includes this:

According to Public Interest Research Group In Michigan, oil drilling in the Great Lakes “would have significant long-term and short-term negative impacts on the lake's watershed, regardless of the drilling method employed.” Their analysis demonstrates oil drilling in the Great Lakes has potential negative impacts on human health, the environment and Michigan’s economy.

If you listen to the audio linked with the quotes, you'll notice that within the ellipses of the Walberg quotes provided by the MDP are references to Canadian oil projects in the Great Lakes. Walberg's main argument is, basically, "The Canadians do it, so why can't we?" Well, the PIRGIM study looks at that. Walberg is wrong about that, too.

The Canadian experience of drilling for natural gas and oil on the Canadian side of Lake Erie serves as a cautionary example for Michigan. Spills associated with the petroleum industry are both widespread and highly significant environmental threats to the Canadian Great Lakes. Fifty-one natural gas spills directly associated with gas drilling in Canada's portion of Lake Erie were documented between 1997 and 2001 - an average of almost one spill a month. The volume of natural gas released and the full duration of the leaks were not reported to or by the Canadian government.

The Canadian side of Lake Erie was also impacted by 83 petroleum spills from all sectors between 1990 and 1995 (the last year for which data was made available for this report). The volume spilled was not known for at least one-third of the spills. In addition, only 45% of the contaminants were cleaned up, on average.

The routine, long-term discharge of drilling wastes from drilling in Canada's portion of Lake Erie represents a significant environmental hazard. These direct discharges into Lake Erie have subjected aquatic organisms to immediate and long-term health risks, ranging from localized fish kills to aquatic organism developmental impairment. These risks are exacerbated by the routine usage of toxic chemicals during oil and gas drilling.

Read the entire study. It's worth the time.

This is, quite simply, a bad idea. In 2002, Republican gubernatorial nominee Dick Posthumous even came out against drilling in the Great Lakes.

In a split from Engler's policy, the No. 2 man in his administration, Lt. Gov. Dick Posthumus, came out against drilling in July, telling Michigan reporters, "The risks [of drilling] are relatively few, but the benefits are even fewer."

(Emphasis added.)

And, from the same article, residents of Michigan haven't been too wild about the idea, either.

Oil and gas extraction from the Great Lakes does not poll well with Michigan voters. In a statewide survey conducted in February, opposition to drilling ran as high as 59 percent. Support was as low as 27 percent. Opposition was fairly consistent across the state and among all kinds of voters.

Congressman Walberg, listen to your colleague, Bart Stupak:

"There are just some places on Earth you shouldn't drill for oil and gas," said U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, who pushed for the permanent ban. "There's only about enough energy there to supply eight hours of energy for this country."

Contact Tim Walberg, and tell him to keep his hands off our Great Lakes.

UPDATE: I forgot to include this the first time around, but I thought I'd mention it.
Earlier this year, with Walberg's efforts on Great Lakes preservation, I wrote this:

If Walberg's work benefits the Great Lakes, I'll almost, for a moment, be proud to have him as my representative. Almost. But there's so much more that can and needs to be done to protect our environment, and I hope he'll consider doing more. There are plenty of issues he could get involved with.

(Emphasis added.)

I'd like to apologize to all of you. I should have never been fooled into thinking that Tim Walberg cares about the Great Lakes, and I should have seen through his empty political rhetoric.

For a politician that claims to be an environmentalist and claims to support renewable, alternative energy, he's looking more and more like a puppet of the oil companies.

Labels: Energy, Environment, Great Lakes, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg

I didn't catch this the other day, but others in the Michigan blogosphere certainly did.

Unless you've been sleeping under a rock, you know that the price of gas has passed $3 per gallon. Some worry it will eclipse $4 per gallon.

In response, US Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) introduced HR 1252, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. This bill would provide penalties for those who take unfair advantage of consumers at the pump. (Read more here.)

The bill passed 284-141 - a veto-proof majority - with 56 Republicans joining all but one Democrat in supporting the bill.

How did Michigan's members of Congress vote?

More specifically, can anyone guess how Congressman Tim Walberg voted? Anyone?

Well, I'll let Scott tell us:

YES:
Bart Stupak (D)
Dale Kildee (D)
Candice Miller (R)
Thaddeus McCotter (R)
Sander Levin (D)
John Conyers (D)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (D)
John Dingell (D)

NO:
Pete Hoekstra (R)
Vern Ehlers (R)
Dave Camp (R)
Fred Upton (R)
Tim Walberg (R)
Mike Rogers (R)
Joe Knollenberg (R)

(Emphasis added.)

Share your gas price horror stories in the comments. Better yet, share them with Tim Walberg.

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

Democratic Congressman John Conyers (MI-14) sponsored a bill, HR 2264, which would amend current law "to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal". The name Conyers came up with for it was "NOPEC"-- No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels. Here's the relevant text:

The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is amended by adding after section 7 the following:

7A. (a) It shall be illegal and a violation of this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality or agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in combination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality or agent of any other foreign state, or any other person, whether by cartel or any other association or form of cooperation or joint action--

`(1) to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product;

`(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product; or

`(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product;

when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, or other petroleum product in the United States.

(b) A foreign state engaged in conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not be immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United States in any action brought to enforce this section.

(c) No court of the United States shall decline, based on the act of state doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action brought under this section.

(d) The Attorney General of the United States may bring an action to enforce this section in any district court of the United States as provided under the antitrust laws.'.

In other words, this makes it illegal for a foreign government or its buddies in the United States to artificially inflate oil prices. As we see gas prices push higher and higher ($3.65/gallon in downtown Tecumseh today), this makes sense. We rely on foreign oil, and it would be best to close the avenues by which foreign governments could hold us hostage, figuratively and literally.

Sounds like a reasonable idea, right? Well, that's what most members of the House thought, because it passed, 345 to 72. In the vote, 125 Republicans-- a majority of the Republican caucus-- joined the Democrats in supporting the bill.

Tim Walberg voted No. He was joined by Michigan Republican Pete Hoekstra (MI-02). The rest of the Michigan delegation voted in favor of it.

So, Congressman Walberg, what were you trying to say there? Is it really a good idea to allow foreign governments to subvert the free market (favorite phrase of conservatives) and threaten our national energy security?

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

By now, I'm sure everyone has heard something about the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (news coverage here, for instance).

Global warming is a real, serious problem, and Al Gore isn't the only one saying it. The key item from the report:

The report is the panel’s fourth assessment since 1990 on the causes and consequences of climate change, but it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming in the past half century.

What does this have to do with Tim Walberg? After all, this is a political website, so it's not the place to debate the science of it, nor is it the place to discuss potential consequences. Frankly, I'm not qualifed for that sort of discussion, and I'm guessing most readers aren't either.

However, if the most serious consequences of global warming can be averted, it will take governmental action to change the human activities which have caused the build-up in greenhouse gases. Congressional Democratic leaders have promised to make the issue a priority. What will Republicans in Congress-- especially Tim Walberg-- do?

I wasn't able to find any statements by Walberg on the subject, but I read something today that was somewhat disturbing. It's a poll by National Journal, asking members of Congress the question, "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" What are the results?

Democrats: Yes - 95%. No - 2%
Republicans: Yes - 13%. No - 84%

(Thanks to Think Progress)

Comments offered by Republicans that took part in the poll ranged from bashing Al Gore to discussing the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt." Congressman Mike Rogers and Congressman Peter Hoekstra were both part of the sample group.

So what does Congressman Walberg think? Does he feel that 90 percent cconfidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt"? I've sent him an e-mail asking, and will post his response if and when I receive one. Feel free to ask him about it yourself (or about anything else, for that matter-- he works for us).

Though, this isn't an encouraging sign: Walberg's Issues page (a work-in-progress, so far with little substance) lists subjects like "Life" and "Second Amendment," but does not include "Environment." To his credit, "Energy" is listed.

UPDATE: 13 Feb. 2007-- I don't know if my little post here had anything to do with it, but it looks like Walberg's website has a few new issue pages, including one on the environment. Still no content, but it's a start.

Labels: 110th Congress, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Issues, Tim Walberg

In the final vote of the Democrats' 100 Hours promises prior to the election, the House of Representatives considered HR 6, the "CLEAN Energy Act of 2007" (as a side note-- I had previously complained about the national sales tax proposal being named the "FairTax," but it's not just Republican proposal names that bother me. "CLEAN" sounds great, but it should have a simple, descriptive, and neutral title. But, such is politics...) For a good explanation of what each portion of the bill would do, see the US House Digest description here, news coverage here, or the bill itself.

In short, the bill reduces oil industry subsidies (Steny Hoyer, D-MD says: "The oil industry doesn't need the taxpayers' help. ... There is not an American that goes to a gas pump that doesn't know that.") and seeks to fix an error that allowed oil companies to keep over $1 billion in royalties that would otherwise have gone to the government. It passed the House, 264-163.

Tim Walberg voted No. This time, 36 Republicans joined Democrats in voting in favor of the bill, while 4 Democrats voted against it. Among those joining the Democrats were Michigan Republicans Vern Ehlers (MI-03), Joe Knollenberg (MI-09), and Candice Miller (MI-10). Joining Walberg in opposition were the remaining Michigan Republicans, Peter Hoekstra (MI-02), Dave Camp (MI-04), Fred Upton (MI-06), Mike Rogers (MI-08), and Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11).

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