Bumped. It's Election Day. - Fitzy

From WILX, via YouTube user SeventhDem:



That's the scripted message each candidate wanted to put forward. For a more complete and unfiltered discussion of the issues, you can listen to, watch, or read coverage of three debates from the last month. Many thanks to WKHM 970 AM, which brings us .mp3 audio files of three debates.

• October 06, 2008 - Siena Heights University, with WLEN and the Daily Telegram (Part 1; Part 2)
  
• October 25, 2008 - Jackson High School, with WLNS (Video; Audio: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3)
• October 28, 2008 - Jackson Community College, with WILX and the Jackson Citizen Patriot (Video; Audio)

They aren't perfect audio files, but they're pretty good. Some time (probably after Election Day), I'll try to get transcripts up. Better late than never, as they say, and I'd like to keep certain resources available, regardless of who wins tomorrow.

In addition, Senator Schauer has been crossing the district for his closing "Everywhere, Everyday, Every Job Counts" tour. If you need a last opportunity to meet Mark Schauer, here's your chance for tomorrow:

Meeting with workers at the Post Plant Gate in Battle Creek

250 Cliff Street, Battle Creek, 6:30 a.m.

Voting at his home precinct in Battle Creek

22116 Bedford Rd. North, Battle Creek, 8:00 a.m.

Meeting with voters at bake sale in Jackson

801 W. Michigan Ave., Jackson, 9:45 a.m.

Visiting campaign HQ and door-to-door canvassing in Grand Ledge

512 S. Clinton, Grand Ledge, 11:00 a.m.

Talking with workers at construction site in Jackson (across from hospital)

205 N. East Ave, Jackson, 12:40 p.m.

Greeting voters outside of a polling location in Jackson

1107 Adrian St., Jackson, 1:00 p.m.

Visit with workers at a plant gate and volunteers at a phone bank in Battle Creek

1006 Raymond Rd. N, Battle Creek, 2:30 p.m.

Greeting voters outside of a polling place in Battle Creek

3142 Capital Ave. SW., Battle Creek, 3:30 p.m.

Greeting voters outside of a polling place in Delta Twp.

5211 W. St. Joseph, Lansing, 5:00 p.m.

Visiting campaign HQ and door-to-door canvassing in Jackson

218 Mechanic St., Jackson, 6:30 p.m.

I've met both men, heard them both speak on the issues, and watched or listened to all three debates. My vote goes to Mark Schauer.

Labels: 2008 Election, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

Here's my Election Eve prediction: Jackson County is going to decide the outcome of the 7th Congressional District race. As predictions go, that's not too controversial. It's the county with the most people and it's the county that's basically evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. When the county's main daily endorses, it has the potential to be a big deal.

This weekend, the Jackson Citizen Patriot made its decision. You can tell they were a little torn over the decision, in the birthplace of the Republican Party. Nevertheless, I agree with the conclusion they reached. In their Sunday, November 2, 2008 issue, the Citizen Patriot endorsed Mark Schauer:

Voters in the 7th Congressional District might express relief more than anything else at the end of the $6 million-plus campaign between Mark Schauer and Rep. Tim Walberg. Their scorched-earth battle of misinformation and even outright lies has not been worthy of two honorable men or the district they want to represent.

[...]

Ideology may well shape many voters' decisions in this high-decibel race, but we offer our endorsement using another standard: Who can better serve this district in Washington? In that respect, Mark Schauer is the better choice.

We do not suggest that voters choose the person they believe can bring home the pork. Whoever is elected goes to a Capitol that needs a fresh start, to cut back on gluttonous Bridges to Nowhere and pet projects that benefit nothing but politicians' chances of re-election.

Even so, this congressional district — and every district — deserves an advocate. It needs someone who can identify priorities and fight to see they are met.

The Jackson area needs money to modernize I-94. Michigan's automakers (and, by extension, their local suppliers) need federal assistance. Economic development projects involving government contracts or regulations need attention from a local lawmaker.

Walberg's record in this regard has been spotty. Schauer's has been exceptional.

[...]

Schauer is nothing if not effective, however. He has shown throughout his political career — as a Battle Creek city councilman and spending six years in the state House and six years in the Senate — that he cares about improving people's lives in a personal, tangible way.

He and Walberg share a priority of creating jobs. Schauer has been relentless in delivering results, even if they are compromises. Walberg would sacrifice what his constituents need at the cost of a principled defeat.

Much as we respect Tim Walberg and his two years in Washington, we endorse a better candidate for his seat: Mark Schauer.

The Citizen Patriot has always struck me as a moderate-to-conservative paper, though they've had some very good reporting this election cycle and last time. As Eric B. at Michigan Liberal notes, so close to Election Day, most people have probably made a decision. Even so, it doesn't hurt to add one more newspaper that says Mark Schauer is the right man for the job.

Labels: 2008 Election, Endorsements, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

Um... Congressman Walberg?



Transcript

Walberg: Did not Saddam Hussein have the weapons of mass destruction?

Schauer: No!

Walberg: You disagree with even the...

Schauer: Do you contend that he did?

Walberg: Oh absolutely he did. In fact...

Moderator: What evidence has the government found of WMDs in Iraq since we went in?

Walberg: Oh, they didn't find it once they went in, but there's clear evidence that they were shipped other places or maybe still buried in the desert. The Hamilton Commission found that out...

[Moderator?]: Did we find them?

Walberg: No, we didn't find 'em.

Hm. So, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction, it's just that they're hidden so well that even after five years, we haven't found any. The Iraqi government was able to hide them quickly, in the midst of preparations for an invasion, without leaving any traces or having any witnesses that were able to give credible accounts to the Americans searching for the weapons.

Right.

I'm not an expert on this, but thankfully, there are some people that have spent a lot of time on this. For instance, the Iraq Survey Group, which was convened by coalition governments specifically to search for stockpiles or evidence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, had this to say:

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

and this:

ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability. Several senior officers asserted that if Saddam had WMD available when the 2003 war began, he would have used them to avoid being overrun by Coalition forces.

[...]

Senior military officers and former Regime officials were uncertain about the existence of WMD during the sanctions period and the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom because Saddam sent mixed messages. Early on, Saddam sought to foster the impression with his generals that Iraq could resist a Coalition ground attack using WMD. Then, in a series of meetings in late 2002, Saddam appears to have reversed course and advised various groups of senior officers and officials that Iraq in fact did not have WMD. His admissions persuaded top commanders that they really would have to fight the United States without recourse to WMD. In March 2003, Saddam created further confusion when he implied to his ministers and senior officers that he had some kind of secret weapon.

In other words, Saddam Hussein really, really wanted weapons of mass destruction, liked to brag about them, but didn't actually have any. He was a deluded, aging dictator, not a serious threat.

And what about Tim Walberg's idea that the weapons might have been moved or buried? In an addendum to the final report, it was concluded that it was possible, but very unlikely.

Again, I have to ask, if there were these massive stockpiles, how is it that no one witnessed their movements across the border? I don't know, Congressman Walberg, this is straying into conspiracy-theory land. Next you're going to tell me that black helicopters from the UN are out to get you.

But wait, Congressman Walberg said that the "Hamilton Commission" found out that the weapons were buried in the desert. So he's right... right?

No. He's referring to the Iraq Study Group (not to be confused with the Iraq Survey Group above), which was a bipartisan panel, chaired by Lee Hamilton (a Democrat) and James Baker (a Republican), and which released its final report in December of 2006. Except, they weren't tasked with investigating weapons of mass destruction. They were instead asked to find a path out of the mess we had created in Iraq.

In fact, in their final report, the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" only appears once, in the biography of one of the commission members. As far as I can tell, the report never discusses the truth behind claims about weapons stockpiles, nor does it address what might have happened to those stockpiles, if they had existed.

Frankly, I haven't got any idea what Walberg is referring to. If anyone can enlighten me, I'll gladly post an update.

It's possible-- possible-- that Tim Walberg could be right, and a couple of dozen of Iraqi nuclear bombs are hidden in the desert, or in Syria, or something like that. Maybe, in some crazy, unbelievable way, that all managed to happen without us ever finding any evidence. Hey, anything can happen.

But that's not what Tim Walberg said. He didn't say, "Well, who knows, maybe it's possible that they were there!" No. He was sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He mocked Mark Schauer for denying that known fact. It was ridiculous to suggest that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and everyone knows that they're just hidden really well.

And yet, there's absolutely no evidence to support that. It's all conjecture and wishful thinking. When presented with evidence that the weapons of mass destruction weren't there, he continues on, living in his fantasy world.

We should be used to that by now. It's the same Walberg fantasy world where Iraq is as safe as Detroit, the Chinese are drilling off of the coast of Florida, Hurricane Katrina didn't cause any damage, Iraq was behind September 11, and global climate change isn't real.

This isn't funny anymore.

Labels: 2008 Election, Debates, Iraq, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

Here's Mark Schauer's "closing argument," as articulated via television advertisement:



They released the ad on October 27, 2008, meaning it'll end up running for at most a week, and will probably be the last Schauer ad they see. I think it accomplishes a lot of things.

First, starting off by panning across a large group of unemployed workers has a certain populist element in a year that I think populism is a catchy message. There's a sense that these people losing their jobs was an injustice, and that Mark Schauer is on their side-- and on your side, if the same thing happens to you.

Second, it repeats the same message Schauer has stuck to for the entire campaign: he'll fight unfair trade agreements and fight for your jobs, while Tim Walberg thinks outsourcing is okay and won't fight for you. He's not trying some last-minute stunt or desperately changing messages. The Schauer campaign is comfortable with where they're at and think that it's working.

Third, everything about the ad, from the phrasing of Schauer's script to the music in the background implies "hope," which, as Barack Obama has shown, is popular this year. Schauer won't just fight the special interests or whatever. He'll "get up every day and work hard to get people back to work." That's a nice message.

And even so, it's couched in a certain degree of pragmatism-- the "I can't promise you that I can turn our economy around overnight" part. This is still a lean-conservative and lean-Republican district, and people won't vote for a Democrat they think is making ridiculously liberal assertions and promising to fix the world. Mark Schauer is promising to work hard, and will help make things better. Not perfect, but better.

I think this is his strongest ad. But then again, I'm a biased observer. What did you think?

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Issues, Mark Schauer

Although it's not on Tim Walberg's rarely-updated YouTube page, on October 20, Chris Gautz brought us one of the Walberg campaign's latest television ads:



Or, the short version: "Mark Schauer is lying!"

I don't know how effective this will be. Rather than countering with actual rebuttals to Schauer's attacks, he's just issuing a blanket "He's lying!" as if that's enough. I don't know if it is.

Of course, Chris Gautz, who's quoted in the ad, notes:

At the end of the short ad, it says Walberg opposes privatizing Social Security, though he told our paper last month he supports giving future workers the option of saving part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

At a recent debate in Adrian, Walberg said "I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

I guess he decided to take a position-- though, it's not the position he's held before.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Issues, Mark Schauer, Social Security, Tim Walberg

On October 9th, 2008, the Walberg campaign released this television ad:



Contrasting it to their latest ad on the economy, the Schauer campaign had this to say:

It's an interesting contrast. Schauer is focusing on the economy and how the incumbent's policies and supporters are making things worse, whereas Walberg's ad focuses on... Michael Moore.

With the Congressman trailing by 10-points in our latest internal poll, it now appears that Tim Walberg has officially jumped the shark.

More seriously, though, what about the substance of the ad?

Yes, Michael Moore does support Mark Schauer, and has contributed to him. Lots of people support Schauer, and that in and of itself shouldn't be a bad thing. It's not like Schauer's been flaunting Moore's endorsement.

The tax increase attacks have been common throughout the campaign, and don't need to be addressed in this post. But the thing about giving drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants has been used less. Is there substance to that attack?

Well, it turns out, yes and no. Yes, because Senator Schauer was against a provision that would prevent illegal immigrants from getting drivers' licenses, and no, because on the substance of the issue, Mark Schauer was right.

Chris Gautz brings us the statement of then-state Representative Schauer when he cast his vote:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
While I strongly support efforts to protect Michigan and the United States, I voted no on HB 5497 (H-1) because in a rush to pass necessary anti-terrorism legislation, there will be unintended consequences that could have been avoided by taking more time with this bill. This is a package of 60 bills. This bill represents only a small piece of the overall package and is unlikely to make any positive change to our current licensing system. Furthermore, if passed with the current language, HB 5497 would place a burden on the office of the Secretary of State that they are ill-equipped to handle. In considering my vote on HB 5497, I am compelled by the testimony of the Michigan Catholic Conference and the Diocese of Kalamazoo. They say that this bill will not accomplish its intended purpose. It will not drive undocumented persons out of Michigan. They are persons with homes, jobs, and families and are making substantial contributions to our communities. Depriving them of a drivers license will just make their lives and their children's lives more difficult. It will also result in an increased threat to the safety of all our people and increased auto insurance costs. This bill will also have negative consequences for Michigan's agriculture industry. In the Diocese of Kalamazoo, there are 20,000 migrants working each year in area fields and orchards. Many of these are undocumented immigrants."

In other words, complicated problems require thoughtful solutions, not panicked moves without considering the consequences. It's easy to make bold pronouncements like, "Illegal immigrants shouldn't get drivers' licenses!" It's much harder to think through the tough situation that would create for everyone.

Mark Schauer brings with him a thoughtful point of view. Tim Walberg brings only a rigid, out-of-touch ideology.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Illegal Immigration, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

YouTube user SeventhDem uploaded this advertisement on October 10, 2008. It's from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME.



I'm not going to lie, I was cringing all the way through this. It would have been fine if it wasn't for the cartoon Wall Street executives popping up all the time. Seriously, that's as bad as "Sour for Schauer." Come on, guys, you're embarrassing our side!

I think it's got the potential to be a fairly effective attack ad-- Wall Street isn't popular right now-- but it loses everything with the cartoons. Sorry, I just don't think it works.

That's my shallow take on it. What did you think?

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, AFSCME, Issues, Taxes, Tim Walberg

YouTube user SeventhDem (a phenomenal resource) uploaded this advertisement from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on October 22, 2008:



Ouch. We've talked about the sales tax thing before (though it's good to see them hitting him on it again), but I think this is probably one of the most pointed ads the DCCC has released. Notably, you come away from it remembering two parts.

First, there's the man with the line, "What nut would support that?" I think the DCCC is hiring better writers-- it's certainly more memorable than "Sour on Schauer," and they only had to say it once.

But the part that really leaves a mark is the end. While they phrase it as a question, it's clear what they want you to think: Tim Walberg both doesn't get it AND doesn't care. It paints him as out-of-touch with everyday needs and unconcerned with what you're going through.

And, frankly, while the ad doesn't tell a balanced story on Walberg's sales tax, the closing of the ad is very accurate. Walberg didn't go to Washington to represent us, he went there to push a rigid, ideological agenda. The far-right conservatism he's embraced is one that doesn't have room for compassion or helping those in need-- at least, not when it comes to the federal government. Walberg doesn't realize that people are hurting, and when government is one of the tools in your toolbox, it's irresponsible not to use it.

Use it carefully, sure. But you've got to use it.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Issues, National Sales Tax, Tim Walberg

Do you remember this ad from Health Care America NOW?



On October 20, the Jackson Citizen Patriot reported:

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg's campaign is demanding that a television advertisement, which they called ``blatantly false,'' be pulled from the airwaves.

The advertisement was sponsored by Health Care for America Now!, an advocacy group that is made up of nonprofit and political organizations.

[...]

Walberg's campaign disseminated its attorney's letter Thursday that calls on the group to retract or correct the ad, and threatens potential legal action.

Legal action? I knew it was an effective ad, but apparently it hit a really sour note with the Walberg people.

The short version of their argument is that Walberg doesn't support letting insurance companies make the rules, but instead supports letting inter-state competition. As I said before, this doesn't let the insurance companies make the rules, but it does give them a bunch of options for which they want to follow, including giving them the option of rejecting coverage of pre-existing conditions.

As far as legal action, I'm not quite sure what action they could take and actually expect anyone to take them seriously. But they did get a response out of Health Care for America NOW. From a press release:

LANSING, MI -- Today, Health Care for America Now (HCAN) responded to Congressman Tim Walberg's threat to sue over a television ad by extending its television ad buy in Michigan and running a new print advertisement in the local weekly. HCAN is putting its hard-hitting ad – "Fighter" - back on the air in Congressman Walberg's district for three additional days and has taken out a full-page ad in the Tecumseh Herald asking "What Is Walberg Hiding?"

Last week, the Walberg campaign issued a press release announcing it intended legal action against Health Care for America Now for a television ad running in Michigan's 7^th congressional district. The ad points out Congressman Walberg's record on health care – a record that indicates he clearly stands on the side of the insurance industry, rather than on the side of quality, affordable health care for all. The Walberg campaign then released a second notice demanding a retraction.

Contrary to Rep. Walberg's allegations, the television ad is 100% true, and HCAN's new print advertisement running in the October 23^rd edition of the Tecumseh Herald spells out the proof once again.

You can see the ad they put in the Tecumseh Herald here.

I'm glad to see that Health Care for America NOW isn't letting up on this. On the substance of issues, Tim Walberg is wrong, and it has the added benefit of being bad politics.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

(Thanks to the reader who e-mailed me about this.)

Some regular readers of this blog and of Chris Gautz's work at the Jackson Citizen Patriot website remember this advertisement put out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:



Right from the start, the ad cites an article in the Daily Telegram from 2004 in which Walberg calls Social Security "socialism." It's certainly not a good quote for Walberg-- as the ad notes, a lot of people rely on Social Security, and the negative connotation "socialism" carries is likely to offend a lot of people.

Chris Gautz was doubtful about the accuracy of the quote, mainly because, as a former employee of the Telegram, he had thought he would remember a quote that explosive. Although I probably would have read that article in 2004, my memory for these sorts of things is awful, so I deferred judgment to a later date.

But thanks to the magic of the internet and the wonders of active readers, Chris brought us the answer: Walberg did call Social Security "socialism"!

After reading for myself the full context of the quote, it would seem to lend credibility to what the DCCC was trying to say. But click below to see the portion of the article that was referenced and judge for yourself.

Here's the text of the article:

ADRIAN -- Tuesday's debate between Republicans and Democrats running for the 7th District Congressional seat allowed candidates to inform the public about their views, but led to little debate.

When a panelist asked the candidates about their views regarding Social Security reform and privatization, Republican Tim Walberg and Democrat Drew Walker openly debated the subject briefly.

Walker said the privatization of Social Security in the wake of corporate scandals and unstable stock prices could lead to individuals putting their retirement savings at risk in uninsured private accounts.

"What an incredible scandal; I would certainly never take part in that," Walker said. "Social Security is one of the foundations of our society for getting older."

The question then turned to Walberg, who began by expressing his feelings about Walker's statement.

"Wow, I just heard socialism at its finest," said Walberg, a former state representative. "Oh come on, that's offensive," Walker replied.

"That's defined as socialism when the government is required to take care of all of us," said Walberg, followed by audience laughter.

So, yes, now-Congressman Tim Walberg called Social Security "socialism" in 2004.

Labels: 2004 Election, 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Drew Walker, Issues, Social Security, Tim Walberg

At last night's debate in Adrian, Congressman Tim Walberg and state Senator Mark Schauer talked about privatizing Social Security. Here's what happened, via the Jackson Citizen Patriot's Chris Gautz:

They also clashed over Social Security, with Schauer saying Walberg supports privatization.

"No I don't," Walberg said.

Schauer then offered to read Walberg his statement to CitPat reporter Holly Klaft in expressing his support for private accounts.

Schauer said Walberg's plan is dangerous and that "Social Security is not in crisis."

and Holly Klaft:

Schauer said the first-term congressman's plan to fix the nation's Social Security system by creating private accounts would be ``devastating.''

Walberg said there is no effort at this time to privatize Social Security.

He has said he would support giving future workers the option of putting part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

And, finally, the Schauer campaign has this quote:

"I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

Now, I haven't gotten my hands on any audio from the debate (yet), so I can't give you the unfiltered exchange. But let's suppose that this is all that happened.

For starters, when it says:

He has said he would support giving future workers the option of putting part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

Well, Congressman Walberg, that is privatization of Social Security. At least, that's the sort of plan generally accepted as privatizing Social Security. People get into trouble by relying on Wikipedia too much, but the article on this debate, while not the best, has a decent explanation of what "personal accounts" means-- namely, that individuals could take money they pay into the Social Security system and invest it in stocks and bonds.

So, Congressman Walberg, when this happened:

They also clashed over Social Security, with Schauer saying Walberg supports privatization.

"No I don't," Walberg said.

And this:

"I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

Well, you weren't exactly being honest. And then this:

Walberg said there is no effort at this time to privatize Social Security.

That's basically true. No one's really been pushing that idea lately. It basically died in 2005, due to lack of support and a lack of political capital for President Bush. But that didn't stop Tim Walberg from supporting it in 2006, so much so that he put it on his website:

Tim supports President Bush’s efforts to expand our ownership society by allowing younger workers to voluntarily invest a portion of their payroll taxes and allowing the money to be secured in personal investment accounts.

And in 2004, he also put on his website:

Tim Walberg believes Social Security benefits must be protected and younger workers should have the option of investing a portion of their payroll taxes in stocks, bonds, or money market funds. Under this reform, younger workers will earn a higher rate of return and likely retire with far more funds than under the current system.

Those claims are a little dubious, but that's beside the point-- in 2004 and 2006, Walberg was clearly on the record as supporting privatizing Social Security.

And then, in September, from the Detroit News:

Walberg, R-Tipton, supports changing the program so younger workers could choose to invest a portion of their Social Security money in private investment accounts.

And this from the Citizen Patriot the next day:

Kennelly, who is president of the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare, which endorsed Schauer in his bid for Congress, said lawmakers should avoid looking to privatization as a solution.

Privatization would put Social Security money seniors rely on into private accounts that are at the mercy of the market, she said.

She said many Social Security recipients get a little more than $1,000 per month.

Schauer said Social Security is an efficient system that must be preserved. He has said he would oppose any efforts to privatize it and would work to make sure Social Security is available for the long term.

Walberg said he supports giving future workers the option of saving part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

My point, of course, is to say that yes, Congressman Walberg, you do support privatizing Social Security. You didn't call it that, but Holly Klaft equated your plan with privatization, and we didn't hear any calls for a retraction. And just a few days ago, Chris Gautz made the same connection between "privatization" and the Walberg plan:

Also in the ad, it points out Walberg's support of "privatization," which is another way of saying he supports giving future workers the option of saving part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts. Of course those accounts could be subject to the whims of the market, and especially this week, might not be the most popular idea.

So, Congressman, when you said:

"I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

well, that was just a lie. You have taken a position in favor of privatizing Social Security. The only thing you haven't done is used the magical word "privatize."

Needless to say, the Schauer campaign is jumping on this (and rightly so):
Come on, Congressman Walberg. If you really, honestly, truly believe that privatizing Social Security is the right thing to do, then say so and do it honestly. Defend your ideas for what they are. Right now, you're trying to have it both ways, and when people call you out on it, you lie. That's not acceptable.

Labels: 2008 Election, Debates, Issues, Mark Schauer, Social Security, Tim Walberg

The fun part about living in a district with lots of national attention is that you get to learn all about political groups you'd never heard of before.

The Hill reports:

Healthcare for America Now, a union-backed liberal health reform advocacy group, is making a $4.3 million ad buy in support of Barack Obama and other Democratic candidates.

Over the next two weeks, the organization will run ads on TV and radio attacking Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and seven GOP congressional candidates for their views on healthcare.

[...]

Echoing talking points used by Obama and his campaign, the ads claim that McCain’s health reform plan would cause 20 million people to lose employer-sponsored health insurance because of changes he would make to how those benefits are taxed.

[...]

Similar ads will air in the states and districts of four incumbent Republican lawmakers: Sen. John Sununu (N.H.) and Reps. Ric Keller (Fla.), Randy Kuhl (N.Y.) and Tim Walberg (Mich.).

[...]

On top of the multimillion-dollar advertising buy, Healthcare for America Now will spend $500,000 on direct mail and telephone campaigning.

It will be interesting to see the kind of impact they might have on the campaign. Personally, I'd like to see all candidates talk about health care more, and, to his credit, it's something Mark Schauer rarely fails to mention.

With Health Care for America NOW, all I can hope is that the "telephone campaigning" doesn't include robocalls. Please, nobody likes those.

Here's the television ad they're running against Tim Walberg:



Ouch. Maybe I'm just a receptive audience, but I'd say that it's a pretty effective ad.

The bill they mention is HR 4460, the "Health Care Choice Act of 2007," of which Tim Walberg is a cosponsor. It was introduced but never made it out of committee, and for a good reason. The bill would allow health insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines, potentially opening you up to cheaper options, should you decide to purchase health insurance on your own.

However, by allowing health insurance companies to designate a "primary" state and making them exempt from the laws of all other "secondary" states in which they sell, that would mean insurers could choose as a "primary" state somewhere that, say, doesn't have a law requiring that they cover pre-existing conditions.

The ad says it would let the insurance companies "make the rules," and that's not quite true. It's more that it would let the insurance companies pick and choose which combination of rules they want to follow. (Thanks to Wikipedia and this blog for guiding me in the right direction.)

Anyway, that's the policy behind the ad. Now, back to the politics.

In addition to the television ad, Congressman Walberg is featured on a website they launched, WhichSideAreTheyOn.com. Walberg's page, with a side-by-side comparison to Mark Schauer, leaves the reader with one clear conclusion-- Tim Walberg's not on your side. They also include a .pdf file with a good summary of Walberg's record on health care. It's certainly a must-read for anyone planning to talk with friends or relatives, and should be added to the talking points for Schauer volunteers going door-to-door.

Labels: 110th Congress, 2008 Election, Advertising, Health Care, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

Not content to just fund Tim Walberg's attack ads, on October 7, 2008, the National Republican Congressional Committee released an attack ad of its own against Mark Schauer:



As the always-observant Chris Gautz points out, there's more than one side to the kicked-off-committee story:

More specifically than the ad states, Schauer was kicked off the Senate Campaign and Election Oversight Committee allegedly because he missed four meetings, all of which took place at locations around the state, where no voting was going to occur.

The Republican chairwoman, Sen. Michelle McManus booted Schauer, but not fellow Republican members of the committee who also missed a number of hearings.

The Democrats, and Schauer said this was a clearly partisan move, and retribution for action on the service tax.

Maybe I'm just a partisan Democrat, but I remember thinking at the time that it seemed like Senator McManus had other motives than just encouraging good attendance. But really, that line of attack strikes me as too inside-baseball to resonate with voters. When people are worried about jobs and losing their homes, "Mark Schauer is a troublemaker who got kicked off his committee" doesn't seem like it'll matter all that much to me.

You know, I can even see it going further the other way, too-- John McCain's popularity was partly from his "maverick" image, and getting kicked off your committee is one way to show your independence from the status quo. Maybe Tim Walberg should have tried harder to get kicked off of a committee...

But now I'm just getting silly. It's a creative ad, but I don't think it'll do anything other than reinforce the "largest tax increase" narrative. But if Mark Schauer's internal polling is to be believed, that's a narrative that's just not working. Schauer's taking the lead and is more trusted on taxes than Tim Walberg.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Issues, Mark Schauer, NRCC, Taxes, Tim Walberg

Social Security is an issue that people haven't been talking about much since about 2005 or so. With President Bush's failed attempt to push through a privatization plan, the system so many depend on has been left basically untouched by politicians.

When the Club for Growth attacked Mark Schauer earlier this week, they claimed he wanted to raise Social Security taxes-- which is a little misleading. However, aside from a few mentions every now and then by either Senator Schauer or Congressman Walberg, I haven't really seen or heard the issue brought up besides in that ad.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee changed that with a new ad, directly attacking Walberg on his support of privatizing Social Security:



Ouch.

Chris Gautz, who wrote about the ad this morning, says he doesn't remember the "socialism" quote, but I'm sure someone will come out with an article either confirming or explaining that.

But even if Walberg didn't actually say Social Security was "socialism," this ad could hurt him a lot. What Walberg supports is allowing younger workers to invest a portion of what they would get in benefits after retirement in the stock market-- ideally, to make more money. I was never exactly sure how that fit into the current system, where younger workers are paying for the benefits of retirees now... but that's policy. Right now, I want to talk about politics.

When privatization plans for Social Security were polled in 2005, most polls found that Americans were either split or slightly to moderately against the idea. When the headlines are things like "Dow Plunges 700," I suspect that the plan hasn't gotten any more popular recently. It's not an issue Republicans are eager to talk about right now.

But that's not even where it hurts Walberg. The conventional wisdom is that senior citizens are the most reliable voting bloc, and that they tend to be slightly more conservative-- slim advantage Walberg. But many of them rely on Social Security, as either a significant part or all of their income. Anything seen as potentially threatening that is going to play badly.

Will it cost Walberg the election? I doubt it. But it certainly won't help.

Labels: DCCC, Issues, Social Security, Tim Walberg

By PerfectStormer

January 16, 2004: Electrolux Group, one of the largest household appliance manufacturers in the world, announces it will idle its refrigerator assembly operations in Greenville, MI. Nearly three thousand jobs will be eliminated.

November 21, 2005: GM announces a massive restructuring plan which will result in nine plant closures and the loss of nearly 30,000 jobs, almost ten percent of its American workforce of 325,000.

April 11, 2006: Automotive supplier Federal Mogul announces it will idle its operations in St. Johns, Michigan. Four hundred and twenty jobs will be lost.

2007: Faced with years of declining Medicare reimbursements and the astronomical rise in the ranks of the uninsured, Hackley Hospital, once the largest healthcare provider in Muskegon County, completes two rounds of layoffs. Eventually Hackley agrees to be swallowed by its competitor, Mercy Hospital, resulting in Mercy Health Partners. Hackley Hospital, opened on November 17, 1904 as Muskegon's hometown healthcare provider, is no more. Hackley's Lakeshore Cancer Center closes.

You've heard the story a hundred times before. A manufacturer or other business hits hard times, finds a cheaper way to do things, finds a cheaper place to do things, and locks the door on the American worker.

Mark Schauer's heard the story a hundred times before, too*. He's heard it in his own family as his son-in-law, a journeyman electrician, struggles to find work in Washington state. He's heard it before with several nurses in his family (although their dilemma is rather reversed--forced to work overtime to compensate their brethren in the healthcare industry who have retired and not been replaced, been laid off, been or just plain been burned out by deplorable working conditions.)

He heard it again this morning. He heard from a representative from the Electrolux union in Greenville. He heard from a representative from the Federal-Mogul union in St. John's. He heard from a rep for the ironworkers' union, whose ranks are fleeing Michigan for greener pastures elsewhere. He heard from a maintenance worker at the Potterville school district, which has privatized its maintenance operations.

Mark Schauer was the guest of honor at a roundtable on economic issues hosted by the Michigan AFL-CIO this morning in Delta Township, moderated by Michigan AFL-CIO president Mark Gaffney. He heard these stories this morning, and among the stories, one fact emerged: Mark Schauer gets it.

He gets that these workers aren't statistics--they're real people. He understands the dilemma of the worker forced to leave his family behind in Michigan as he seeks work in Wyoming, or Massachusetts, or Washington. Most importantly, he understands that our entire economy is a giant, tangled web, and that if one strand in the web collapses, the whole web is in jeopardy.

He understands that we're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, enough money to fund the vetoed SCHIP program for five years. He understands that his great-nephew Aidan goes without health insurance because his parents make just a little too much money for SCHIP.

He understands that we're about to spend $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, money that (to use our new favorite frame) could be used to bail out Main Street. He understands that when the government buys back a bad mortgage from a bank, it's still a bad mortgage: the family living in the house the mortgage purchased is now forced out on the street.

He understands that our economic hell (at least here in Michigan) was created by NAFTA, fueled by CAFTA, and blown to epic proportions by the pro-business, anti-worker policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party.

He understands that when NAFTA was passed, as he put it, "somebody got lied to."

Mark Schauer gets it.

Labels: Economy, Issues, Mark Schauer

Major candidates for two offices are expected Oct. 7 for a broadcast debate
in Adrian, and the public is invited to attend the 7:30 p.m. event at Siena
Heights University’s Francoeur Theater.

The debate includes the Democratic and Republican candidates for both the
Michigan 57th House District and the U.S. House of Representatives
7th Congressional District, according to Anne Jameson, president of the local
American Association of University Women. The group is sponsoring the debate
along with WLEN radio and The Daily Telegram.

From 8:30 to 9:15 p.m., the U.S. House candidates will discuss issues. They are
incumbent Tim Walberg, R-Tipton; and challenger Mark Schauer, a Democrat from
Bedford Township in Calhoun County.

(Emphasis added.)

This is the first debate I've heard about so far, though it's possible that I missed others. This looks like the same debate I attended in 2006, though I won't be able to attend this year (unfortunately).

A notable change-- only Congressman Walberg and Senator Schauer will be present. The minor party candidates included last time will not be included. It'll make the debate a little less exciting, but it will also allow for a clearer contrast between Walberg and Schauer, and should have a quicker pace than the one in 2006.

Unfortunately, WLEN doesn't stream audio over their website, and I'm eager to get more than just the Telegram's article on it after the fact. If you think you can attend and would be able to provide either video or audio of the event, please contact me.

Labels: Debates, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

A lot of people don't know much about a man named Homer Stryker, but they should. Raised in Athens, Michigan, he was a teacher, a World War I soldier, a doctor, and an inventor. As an orthopedic surgeon in Kalamazoo, he began building devices that improved the comfort of the patients he was treating. The company he founded-- Stryker Corp.-- has grown into a Fortune 500 company and a leader in medical technologies.

But best of all, they're still in Kalamazoo, Michigan. With nearly 19,000 employees worldwide, the world headquarters and much of the manufacturing is still in Michigan.

This is the perfect Michigan success story. It shows that Michigan businesses can thrive and be successful and stay in Michigan. It shows that hard work and creativity can lead to great results. This is the sort of success story politicians should be talking about all the time.

So what does Tim Walberg say about it while touring a hospital?

Matt Davis, a Marshall Realtor and Walberg supporter, noted the room contained a bed made by Stryker Corp. of Kalamazoo.

Walberg said he'd had surgery in 2007 at the Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland.

"I looked at the bed and it said 'Stryker,'" Walberg said. "Bummer."

(Emphasis added.)

"Bummer." That's his reaction to a Michigan success story. Why?

Jon Stryker, one of three billionaire grandchildren of Stryker's founder, has in recent years funded numerous liberal causes, and his Coalition for Progress has contributed to Schauer's 2008 campaign.

Yup. Tim Walberg doesn't like Stryker because one of the grandchildren of the founder is a Democrat. And it's true-- Jon Stryker has spent a lot of money on his political activities. It's much like the many members of the Club for Growth, who funded the congressman's 2006 campaign.

To his credit, Walberg eventually acknowledged that he was wrong:

In the end, Walberg noted that the company is a separate entity and said, "If Stryker makes the best hospital bed, that's the one I want to be in."

But an initial reaction says a lot. In the comments on the Battle Creek Enquirer article, user DSMi59 wrote:

His comment about Stryker and it's politics is a good guage of how he values Michigan businesses. It isn't the business he appreciates, one who chooses staying in Michigan and making local employment possible, it's that Stryker supports the wrong political party. He resents being in a hospital bed manufactured in his own state. Bummer, indeed!

And Michigan Liberal's Eric B. wrote:

He could have said that he was proud to have been in a bed made by the nation's best workers, right here in Michigan, in one of the nation's best hospitals. He could have said that. Didn't.

Congressman Walberg, perceptions mean a lot, and as a public figure, you're in a position that attracts a lot of attention. "Bummer" doesn't convince businesses to stay in Michigan. It's possible that we're all being a little too sensitive, but seriously, "bummer"? That's the most intelligent thing you can think of?

For the record, I've got no problem buying cabinetry from Merillat, despite the numerous times that the Merillat name shows up in Walberg's FEC filing. For that matter, Battle Creek Unlimited still does plenty of great things for that city, so don't judge them harshly just because their CEO contributed $500 to Tim Walberg's re-election campaign.

Business is business, and politics is politics. In a state like Michigan, I don't care who you vote for, as long as you're providing jobs and helping your community. It's too bad Tim Walberg doesn't feel the same way.

Labels: 2008 Election, Economy, Fundraising, Issues, Jon Stryker, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

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

As officials in Jackson discuss a high-speed rail system to Ann Arbor and Detroit, it's important to remember Congressman Tim Walberg's previous positions on funding public transportation. After voting against a public transportation investment bill and a bill to reauthorize and fund Amtrak, can Jackson County expect his support for a commuter rail system?

With all of this in mind, the Lansing State Journal took Walberg and Republican Congressman Mike Rogers (MI-08) to task today for their anti-Amtrak votes.

More people in Michigan are taking to Amtrak trains to get around. Ridership increases from October 2007 to July 2008 ranged between 5.9 percent and 7.2 percent on the three lines in the Great Lakes State.

But Michigan wouldn't have three Amtrak routes had state government not struck a deal with Amtrak to subsidize those routes a few years back. For the coming fiscal year starting Oct. 1, Michigan again plans to pump $7.9 million into Amtrak service to mid-Michigan, among other places.

Yet mid-Michigan Congressmen Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, and Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, voted against a federal Amtrak funding bill in June.

Talk about working at cross purposes.

and

Rogers, Walberg and the rest of Congress should continue to seek rail reform. But it does not serve Michigan's interests to be voting against Amtrak in the meantime.

The editorial (rightly) points out some of Amtrak's flaws, but they make a strong case that voting "no" on Amtrak without a viable alternative in mind makes no sense. Since Tim Walberg has yet to offer anything besides an oil company give-away energy plan, I very much doubt that he had reform on his mind when he voted against Amtrak.

Labels: Amtrak, Issues, Tim Walberg, Transportation, Walberg Voting Record

I'm trying to find out when this interview aired, but it was on the Bart Hawley Show on JTV:



Many thanks to YouTube user SeventhDem for the video.

As I said, I'm not sure when this aired, but this is at least twice now that Congressman Tim Walberg has linked the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq to the tragedy of September 11th, 2001. This time, he specifically states that Saddam Hussein funded terrorist operations. This is, in fact, not true. This claim was debunked four years ago by the 9/11 Commission. Indeed, the former director of the CIA says that the claim never made sense:

"It never made any sense. We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America. Period."

Let me repeat this. The terrorist group Al Qaeda planned and carried out the attacks of September 11, 2001. The government of Iraq and then-President Saddam Hussein had no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

Setting aside the "fantasy world" explanation I offered yesterday, it's clear that Tim Walberg is deliberately trying to distort the facts to justify his support of the war in Iraq.

Earlier today, the Battle Creek Enquirer carried an article titled "Walberg Clarifies His Comment," in which the congressman is supposed to have explained what he meant when he said that Iraq and September 11 were linked. Except, here's the only "clarification" they offered:

When asked about the comment, Walberg said:

"The fact is I strongly believe that terrorism must be defeated here and abroad. Al-Qaida was and is a threat to our family's security — they have proven that."

Lacking in any other explanation, I'm forced to conclude that Congressman Walberg stands by his claim that Saddam Hussein helped carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In other news, someone who attended one of Congressman Walberg's campaign events informed me that Walberg flip-flopped-- he now supports a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. This is a dramatically different position than he had taken before, voting against such timetables throughout last year.

If this policy switch turns out to be true (I'll have to wait until I see media reports), I'll be eager to see how he explains to his supporters why he supports "timetables for defeat."

UPDATE: I'm told that this video clip was from Tuesday, August 19, 2008. That was four days after he made similar false statements on WKHM's Greg O'Connor Show and was the subject of a Schauer for Congress press release and a post by Chris Gautz of the Jackson Citizen Patriot on his blog.

Labels: 9/11 Commission, Iraq, Issues, 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

... Sigh. Today, on WKHM:

Greg O'Connor: Tim, give me a little history lesson because somebody asked me this question earlier in the week. What's the difference – Russia invading Georgia and us invading Iraq?

Tim Walberg: Well, the difference is that there was clear connections in Iraq to Saddam Hussein to what went on on 9/11.

Audio here.

Okay. Tim Walberg isn't stupid. Really, he's not. But apparently he thinks you are.

Iraq and the regime of Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Nothing. But Walberg thinks you're stupid enough to fall for it.

Labels: 9/11 Commission, Iraq, Issues, 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

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

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

Bumped to the top, because this is more important than polling. -- Fitzy

Congressman Tim Walberg says this on his blog:

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to meet with patients at Jackson Dialysis in Jackson, Michigan and discuss transportation issues. I heard from patient after patient about how high gas prices are negatively affecting their pocketbooks.

[...]

With situations like these becoming more and more common across the country, it is important to ask: how much longer can America afford Speaker Pelosi’s energy plan? We need an energy policy that will use existing American energy sources to create more prosperity and security for the American people.

(Emphasis added.)

From that, we get the impression that the patients Walberg spoke with mainly complained about having to pay for gas to get into the clinic. That's a frustrating problem, and perhaps increasing energy production could help.

There's just one problem: that's not what the patients were complaining about!

Covering the meeting, the Jackson Citizen Patriot brought us this:

Imagine having a four-hour dialysis appointment, then waiting up to three hours in the lobby, nauseated, for your ride home.

It can get tiring, especially for someone like Josephine Young of Summit Township, who has done it three times a week for nearly six years.

Young, 69, was one of a handful of patients at Jackson Dialysis, 234 W. Louis Glick Highway, who talked to U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, on Tuesday about public transportation issues and the soaring price of gasoline.

Young, who uses either a wheelchair or walker, relies on Jackson Transportation Authority's Reserve-A-Ride.

[...]

``We have more than our share of transportation issues,'' Diane French, regional operations director, told Walberg.

``I don't care if it is cardiac, cancer, whatever chronic disease, public transportation is our biggest obstacle. If a patient's children tries to bring them, they may lose their job so that doesn't work either,'' said French, who oversees 15 dialysis centers between Ann Arbor and Ludington.

Jackson Transportation Authority only travels into more rural areas of the county on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, where an estimated 30 percent of Jackson Dialysis Center clients live. So those people must be scheduled those days for dialysis.

(Emphasis added.)

In other words, high gas prices aren't the problem. The problem is that patients without transportation are facing scheduling problems which are threatening proper treatment. These are patients who aren't looking for cheap gas and more oil. They're looking for more transportation options.

These are transportation options, of course, that Tim Walberg opposes.

Here's what Tim Walberg got from the meeting:

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to meet with patients at Jackson Dialysis in Jackson, Michigan and discuss transportation issues. I heard from patient after patient about how high gas prices are negatively affecting their pocketbooks.

[...]

With situations like these becoming more and more common across the country, it is important to ask: how much longer can America afford Speaker Pelosi’s energy plan? We need an energy policy that will use existing American energy sources to create more prosperity and security for the American people.

...

Uh, Congressman? How will drilling for more oil help this problem?

Did you even bother to listen to what they had to say?

UPDATE: I got an e-mail reminding me about this from the Citizen Patriot last summer:

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg's office sent out a press release this week that touted his work toward securing $350,000 in federal funding for the Jackson Transportation Authority.
However, the statement made no mention that Walberg actually voted against the transportation appropriations bill that included the JTA funding. The bill passed the House and will now go on to the Senate for consideration.

(Emphasis added.)

So... Congressman Walberg takes credit for helping JTA, while actually voting against it. Then, he visits people who say they want more help from JTA, only to ignore them and their needs and use them as a political tool.

Classy, Congressman.

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.

NOTE: This disclaimer was added a few days late... I keep forgetting to add it at the end.

Labels: Health Care, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg, Transportation

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

The Walberg Watch Video of the Week:



On this Independence Day, what better way to show your patriotism than to demand better representation from your government? That's what it's all about!

For the original Walberg Watch coverage of the incident, click here. For an incident in which Mr. Motta actually had a good response from Congressman Walberg's office, click here.

For more information on the bills mentioned in the video:

HR 1415 (Restoring the Constitution Act)

HR 1070 (Stamp Out Gang Violence Act - 110th Congress)

HR 1070 (Constitution Restoration Act - 109th Congress)

HR 69 (Disability Benefit Fairness Act)

HR 699 (Pledge Protection Act)

Happy Independence Day, everyone!

United States Declaration of Independence (text)
United States Declaration of Independence (history)
Lee Resolution on Independence
1776 by David McCullough

Labels: 110th Congress, Constituent Services, Issues, Tim Walberg

Between now and the August 5 primary, I'll be looking at several important issues facing our country and Michigan's 7th District, and I'll be trying to give you some idea of where each of the candidates stands on the issue. I'm going to do my best to be unbiased, but I hope you'll forgive me if a little bias creeps in.

The War in Iraq

There's less media coverage and slightly less violence, though it's worth noting that 29 American soldiers died in Iraq during June (up from May), and 712 Iraqi civilians died in the same period. Although less that in other periods, Iraq is far from peaceful-- certainly not as safe as Detroit. The decline in violence is largely due to the "surge," or increased troop levels proposed and enacted by President Bush in 2007. That policy was intended to give the new Iraqi government a chance to enact much-needed legislation and bring together its own country... something which has not happened. Of the 18 benchmarks for measuring progress in Iraq, the Iraqi government had accomplished only three of them as of January of this year.

Meanwhile, as the Detroit Free Press reported last month, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are fleeing their country in what is rapidly becoming one of the largest humanitarian crises in the world.

WASHINGTON -- A half-million Iraqis fled their embattled country in 2007, the third consecutive year more Iraqis were displaced than any other nationality, a survey of the world's refugees reported Thursday.

[...]

It said the Iraqi exodus "from the violence and instability of their homeland" constituted "the largest refugee crisis of 2007."

"While the Bush administration and the United Kingdom are busy trying to win the war, they have provided no leadership toward ensuring the rights and well-being of the victims of this war," the report said. "Europe, which for the most part warned of the dire humanitarian consequences of the war, has also done nothing to help the people they were so concerned about."

In the United States, meanwhile, media coverage of the war has declined. From a March 24, 2008 article:

Media attention on Iraq began to wane after the first months of fighting, but as recently as the middle of last year, it was still the most-covered topic. Since then, Iraq coverage by major American news sources has plummeted, to about one-fifth of what it was last summer, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

[...]

Experts offer many other explanations for the declining media focus, like the danger and expense in covering Iraq, and shrinking newsroom budgets. In the last year, a flagging economy and the most competitive presidential campaign in memory have diverted attention and resources.

Yet despite this, the war in Iraq remains one of the issues considered "very important" in public opinion polls. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted from June 26 to June 29, 2008, found that 84 percent of Americans labeled "the situation in Iraq" as either "very important" or "extremely important," making it the second most important issue, after the economy (94 percent) and above gas prices (77 percent) and health care (76 percent).

When asked to choose the issue that should be the top priority of the federal government in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (June 6 to June 9, 2008), 24 percent chose the war in Iraq, second only to "job creation and economic growth," at 27 percent.

The same CNN poll cited above found that 30 percent of Americans favor the war in Iraq and 68 percent oppose it. As far as future policy in Iraq, those polled were asked:

"If you had to choose, would you rather see the next president keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are currently stationed there, or would you rather see the next president remove most U.S. troops in Iraq within a few months of taking office?"

To that question, 33 percent said they would rather see the troop levels stay the same, while 64 percent said that they would rather see most troops removed from Iraq.

It's important to keep in mind that these are national numbers, and that the 7th District itself is likely somewhat different.

Tim Walberg (R)

On his campaign website, Congressman Tim Walberg says this under the header "Safe & Secure America":

Tim believes energy independence is essential to our national security. That’s why he supports expanding the use of alternative energies, and exploring for energy in Alaska to reduce gas prices and our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Tim supports our troops and intelligence officials as they combat terrorism. Tim also knows the importance of securing the border, and opposing amnesty and drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants.

This is all he has to say on anything even remotely resembling the war in Iraq. His official House website gets a little closer to taking a position, under the header "War on Terror":

As Americans we are reluctant warriors, but throughout our rich history, whenever our troops have been in harm’s way, America has supported the men and women in uniform and made certain our troops have the necessary resources to accomplish their mission.

My wife and I pray for all men and women in uniform, and grieve for the loss of lives and injuries inflicted on these heroes who proudly serve our nation. I, as much as anyone else, want this war to be over.

I cannot support any resolution that says America has already lost and the leaders of our country no longer believe our troops can come home victoriously. It tells other nations that we are an unreliable ally, and they can no longer count on us in times of distress.

Without a doubt, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results.

Read about my January 2008 trip to Iraq here.

In 2006, his campaign website read:

Tim wholeheartedly supports President Bush in the War on Terror. He supports Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and our troops as they finish the mission in Iraq to assure the victory of freedom over tyranny.

When Secretary Rumsfeld resigned in November of 2006 and Robert Gates was appointed to replace him, Walberg's website was changed to read:

Tim wholeheartedly supports President Bush in the War on Terror. He supports Secretary of Defense Gates and our troops as they finish the mission in Iraq to assure the victory of freedom over tyranny.

Also in 2006, from my coverage of the Siena Heights University congressional debate:

"Do you support a withdrawal from Iraq? If not, what future course do you see?"

Walberg
- "We too easily forget 9/11" [Audience begins booing], "We too easily forget the bombing of the USS Cole"
- Terrorism still an important issue
- No cut and run, must stay in Iraq
- The Iraqi army is working

And, in an article published in today's Dexter Leader, Walberg says:

As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq reach their sixth year, Walberg said he is committed to keeping high levels of U.S. troops in both countries.

"Sept. 11, 2001, fundamentally changed our world and placed America in a global war against terrorists, which we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "While our commitment in these countries is not endless, we cannot allow Iraq and Afghanistan to once again become training grounds from which terrorist groups can plot and launch attacks around the globe. Additionally, the free world can not allow a terrorist-sponsored regime to control Iraq.

"America's soldiers are making progress and our troops are returning home as security is turned over to the forces of Iraq and Afghanistan."

In his response, Congressman Walberg repeats a common misconception about Iraq prior to the war, saying that "we cannot allow Iraq and Afghanistan to once again become training grounds from which terrorist groups can plot and launch attacks around the globe." Although Afghanistan's Taliban government did provide a safe haven for al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden (here and here, for example), there is overwhelming evidence that the same is not true of Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

For instance, from the Washington Post:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

and, on "60 Minutes," former CIA Director George Tenet said:

"It never made any sense. We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America. Period."

In Congress, Walberg has voted in support of President Bush's troop "surge," against a responsible redeployment from Iraq, and against funding for troops in Iraq that includes a timetable for withdrawal. Walberg also voted against mandating longer periods of rest and recovery for servicemembers between tours of duty in Iraq.

Speaking in support of the "surge," Walberg said the following on the floor of the House of Representatives:

“I rise today to honor America’s brave men and women currently serving in the name of freedom and oppose this resolution of retreat.

“As Abraham Lincoln said famously in his Second Inaugural Address, ‘Fervently do we pray — that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.’

“As Americans we are reluctant warriors, but throughout our rich history, whenever our troops have been in harm’s way, America has supported the men and women in uniform and made certain our troops have the necessary resources to accomplish their mission.

“Without a doubt, mistakes have been made, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results. We must not retreat.

“At this critical time, the American people long for true leadership and resolve, and I urge my colleagues to put aside political posturing and partisanship and ensure our troops have the resources and support needed to complete their mission. Victory is the only option.”

Note that when Congressman Walberg says:

Without a doubt, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results.

... he was apparently satisfied with meeting only three of the 18 benchmarks noted above.

Note also that, while Congressman Walberg says:

"Well in fact in many places it's as safe and cared for as Detroit or Harvey, Illinois or some other places that have trouble with armed violence that takes place on occasion."

... that level of safety and security is apparently not sufficient to bring home the 154,000 American military personnel currently in that country.

Mark Schauer (D)

On his campaign website, state Senator Mark Schauer has this to say, under the header "The War in Iraq":

America needs a strong national defense, but, I don't believe that requires blindly following the Bush-Cheney Administration and its failed policy and flawed execution. More than four years after the President declared "Mission Accomplished", nearly 4,000 American lives have been lost and more than 28,000 have been wounded. Still the President and his allies have no plan and no exit strategy--but continue to spend $400 million on this war each day.

One of my first official acts as a state Senator in 2003 was to vote against a resolution in support of President Bush's strategy in Iraq. Sadly, my fears and doubts about Bush's so-called 'strategy' were well-founded – and now our country continues to pay the price. Congress must work to find a new course that ensures our security here at home and honors the lives of the brave men and women who defend our freedom.

Schauer is, in fact, incorrect in his assertion above. He says that "nearly 4,000 American lives have been lost and more than 28,000 have been wounded," when in fact, as of today, 4,112 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and well over 30,000 American soldiers have been injured.

Like Walberg, Schauer is asked by the Dexter Leader to share his preferred policy for the war in Iraq:

Addressing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Schauer said if elected, he would begin drafting legislation to bring U.S. troops home.

"Capturing Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban leaders who were responsible for attacking us should have been our No. 1 priority after Sept. 11, 2001," Schauer said. "The war in Iraq has been a tragic distraction, which I opposed from the beginning. I believe the time has come to safely and responsibly bring our troops home."

Schauer said he would like to see combat brigade withdrawals within 16 to 18 months.

"Of course, I also believe the plan must allow for a certain degree of flexibility based on ground conditions, and we should maintain a troop presence to protect our embassies and diplomats."

When I spoke with Senator Schauer last year, he said:

The Bush Administration has created a mess in Iraq. We need to be clear that by changing policy and beginning to withdraw troops, that doesn’t mean that it’s gonna be easy going in Iraq. It’s gonna be very difficult. But what I know is that a policy of staying the course and further long-term involvement of our troops in Iraq is not the answer, and I think will make things worse over a longer period of time. I would expect to be part of a Congress that will change policy, begin to reduce our military involvement in Iraq. I’m not going to commit to a specific timetable, but clearly we need to begin to reduce our military presence in Iraq and allow that to country to rebuild itself…

As a legislator in the Michigan Senate for the entire duration of the war in Iraq, Schauer has not had the opportunity to vote on funding or withdrawal bills as Walberg has. However, in 2003, shortly after being sworn into the Michigan Senate, he voted against this resolution:

Senators Cropsey, Garcia, Patterson, Gilbert, Van Woerkom, Stamas, Hammerstrom, Goschka, Cassis, Kuipers, Bishop, Birkholz, Jelinek, George, Brown, Allen, Sikkema, Hardiman, McManus, Toy, Barcia, Sanborn and Olshove offered the following resolution:

Senate Resolution No. 37.

A resolution to express support for the President's strategy for protecting the security of the United States through our efforts in Iraq and to express support for our men and women in uniform and their families.

Whereas, While our nation has faced a wide range of threats to our freedom over the years, the unique war on terrorism in which we now find ourselves engaged demands an exceptional commitment. From our leaders and our military to our citizens and state and local governments, we all must work together to increase the security of our homeland. In the aftermath of September 11th, our country must deal with the entire range of terrorist threats before us; and

Whereas, The ongoing preparations for a military action to deal with threats from Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction are a direct and necessary response for the United States and our allies. As the world learns more about the links between the reign of hatred of Saddam Hussein and international terrorist organizations, including those affiliated with Osama bin Laden, the gravity of the world's situation has become increasingly clear. The smokescreen of misinformation that has hampered United Nations efforts in Iraq must not be permitted to jeopardize the homeland security of our nation or the stability of other parts of the world; and

Whereas, A number of Michigan citizen soldiers are engaged in the noble effort to defend our liberties. In addition to those already serving in the military, several reserve units have been called into duty. It is important to voice our support for all of them, as their courage and steadfastness in the face of war represents the highest standard of citizenship. For the families with loved ones in the military, the world's tensions take on much more intensity. Once again, we are reminded that the true cost of freedom is clearly beyond measure; and

Whereas, Unity in the face of adversity is essential for success in any grave battle. The people of this state, well aware of the high stakes of any military action, stand behind our President in his work to protect peace in our troubled world; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate, That we express support for the President's strategy for protecting the security of the United States through our efforts in Iraq and to express support for the men and women of our military and their families; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

Sharon Renier (D)

On her campaign website, Sharon Renier has a great deal to say-- more than can be quoted in this post. To get a complete picture of her thoughts on the subject, read her entire position, under the header "War and War Powers of Congress." I'd like to provide you with a few excerpts from that essay:

The war in Iraq is wrong. I've been saying so since it began. I was saying so when it wasn't fashionable to do so, which is why I bravely stood up and ran for US Congress in 2004 and 2006. I also have a way to get our troops out. One way is to bring Iraqi troops here to be trained. Currently, if you are an Iraqi troop, you get to go home at night to your family. Bring them here and let's get them trained in 8 weeks like we do our troops. The second part of the equation is covert, a secret, and I'll keep that to myself. In case we ever get to use my idea, I want to make sure that our troops remain safe.

[...]

And that, friends, is what we have here. Our government has gotten us into an endless war with an enemy with no face and taken away our basic rights and freedoms afforded us under the US Constutition. First, the face of terror and fear was Osama bin Laden; then it was the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. Actually, the reason we dragged Iraq into the whole thing is because you can't declare war on a person, so you have to have a sovereign country to invade. Well, Sadam Hussein is dead, but we still have all of this terrorism out there, and frankly it doesn't seem like anyone in Washington is too concerned with Mr. bin Laden these days. So, darn it, just how can we protect ourselves from all of this terror?

In the issue of the Dexter Leader cited above, Renier is also asked about the war in Iraq:

Renier said some of her other top priorities would include placing a limit on federal deficit spending and finding a way out of the war in Iraq. Renier also said she has plans to restructure campaign finance reform laws, an area that separates her from most candidates.

"I don't support war, period. I support diplomacy. I can't go out and slug my neighbor without going to jail, so why is it OK to kill?" she said. "To bring our troops home, we need someone like me in office with moral courage and backbone to pull the purse strings on the war in Iraq. No money, no war."

In 2006, as the Democratic nominee for the 7th Congressional District, Renier had this to say at the Siena Heights University debate:

"Do you support a withdrawal from Iraq? If not, what future course do you see?"

Renier
- Get Iraqis off American welfare
- Not a "cut-and-run Democrat" despite what opponent might say.
- Best thing to do is to get the American face out of Iraq-- we're polarizing figures in the region
- Bring in an international peacekeeping force
- Iraqis won't protect themselves because they know that we're there for them; they'll only take responsibility if they know we're leaving.

Labels: 110th Congress, Iraq, Issues, Walberg Voting Record

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

The Walberg Watch Video of the Week:



For those that don't remember this episode (or want to relive it), the comments were initially covered here. Stephen Colbert's take on the situation is available here.

If you have subjects you'd like to see in future videos, feel free to mention them in the comments. And if you think you can make a better video than me, by all means, please do so!

Labels: Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg, Video

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

"Politicians are all corrupt." It's a common complaint, and, sadly, often true. And, even more sadly, the final check on that corruption-- elections-- isn't always enough, because the voters won't know what their representative is up to if he or she hasn't been investigated.

When you have people like Congressman Don Young (under investigation for bribery), Congressman Rick Renzi (indicted on 35 counts), and the unfortunately-named Congressman John Doolittle (under investigation, as is his wife), let alone Congressman William Jefferson (who, infamously, was caught with $90,000 in a freezer), it's pretty clear that scrutiny is necessary to make sure these folks work for the public interest.

Wouldn't it be great if there were some impartial office watching all of them? Say, a board of six people, none of whom are members of Congress and none of whom are lobbyists or work for the government. Three could be appointed by the Speaker of the House and three could be appointed by the Minority Leader.

But, you don't want to give them too much power, or else you end up with people like Special Prosecutor Ken Starr, who was charged with investigating one thing and, finding nothing, led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton on something entirely different. So, what if this hypothetical ethics office were limited to a 30-day investigation, at the end of which they have a choice: drop the investigation, or take it to the next level, which will eventually lead to a recommendation of subpoenas.

This was not Fitzy merely musing on the type of government oversight I wish we had. Instead, it was the essence of H. Res. 1031, which the House of Representatives considered on March 10, 2008. The bill would create an Office of Congressional Ethics, which I have described above.

H. Res. 1031 passed, by a vote of 229 to 182.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

You know, to me, this one seemed like a no-brainer. Apparently some members of Congress don't like the idea of accountability. Apparently Tim Walberg is one of them.

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

Much has already been written on this by many others, and the issue was largely covered on this blog in April. Still, it's worth bringing it up again, in light of recent developments. The Washington Post has a good summary of what's been happening.

Today, the House of Representatives voted on what is likely the last in a series of attempts to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Although Congress had more or less come to an agreement over the powers the executive branch ought to have, the remaining disagreement centered around whether telecommunications companies which cooperated with the Bush Administration's illegal wiretapping should receive immunity from privacy lawsuits, or whether courts should be allowed to decide if they did engage in wrong-doing.

The bill passed by the House today includes a provision to give retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. It passed by a vote of 293 to 129.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted yes.

Back in April, state Senator Mark Schauer released this video on his thoughts about the controversy:

Labels: 110th Congress, FISA, Intelligence, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record, Warrantless Wiretapping

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

Bumped to the top. This one matters to me for a lot of reasons, and I want to highlight the update at the bottom. -- Fitzy

Today, I'll be going back through the last few months and writing about some votes that I missed when they happened. I'd like to start with one that's incredibly important to me. (Thank you to the anonymous comments on this back when it happened.)

From my point of view, one of the greatest men to serve in the United States Senate was a man named Paul Wellstone. Wellstone was a political science professor at Carlson College who was elected as a Democrat in 1990 to represent Minnesota in the Senate, where he proudly articulated the progressive point of view. He's the one who popularized the line, "I represent the democratic wing of the Democratic Party," not Howard Dean, and his book The Conscience of a Liberal is a must-read for anyone of any political orientation.

In 2002, Paul Wellstone, his wife, Sheila, his daughter, Marcia, three campaign staffers, the pilot, and the copilot died in a plane crash just a few days before Election Day. Wellstone, despite his leftward lean, is fondly remembered by his Senate colleagues.

Prior to his death, Senator Wellstone had made mental health legislation one of his top priorities, as a result of his own experience with his brother, who suffered from mental illness. A leading ally in his efforts was Republican Senator Pete Domenici, whose daughter suffers from schizophrenia. Wellstone crafted a bill which would end discrimination against mental illness in health care coverage. As the New York Times explains:

Federal law now allows insurers to discriminate, and most do so, by setting higher co-payments or stricter limits on mental health benefits.

“Illness of the brain must be treated just like illness anywhere else in the body,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. Supporters of the House bill, including consumer groups and the American Psychiatric Association, said it would be a boon to many of the 35 million Americans who experience disabling symptoms of mental disorders each year.

[...]

Typical annual limits include 30 visits to a doctor or 30 days of hospital care for treatment of a mental disorder. Such limits would no longer be allowed if the insurer had no limits on treatment of conditions like cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

[...]

Three factors contributed to support for the legislation. First, researchers have found biological causes and effective treatments for numerous mental illnesses. Second, a number of companies now specialize in managing mental health benefits, making the costs to insurers and employers more affordable.

Finally, some doctors say that the stigma of mental illness has faded as people see members of the armed forces returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with mental disorders.

Supporters of mental health parity see it as a civil rights issue, and the debate Wednesday was filled with poignant moments.

“I have a mental illness, and I am fortunately getting the best care this country has to offer because I am a member of Congress,” said Representative Patrick J. Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island and chief sponsor of the House bill. Mr. Kennedy has been treated for depression and drug dependence.

The main Republican sponsor, Representative Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, a recovering alcoholic, said, “I am living proof that treatment works and recovery is real.”

Wellstone's legislation has been reintroduced by his colleagues since his death, notably Congressmen Patrick Kennedy and Jim Ramstad in the House. When it finally came to the House floor for a vote in 2008 as HR 1424, it had the alternate title "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act," but it is still often referred to as the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act.

I can't emphasize enough how important this legislation is and how much it just makes sense. Mental health deserves the same attention and care as physical health, and those who suffer from mental illness don't deserve the discrimination they often receive from our society.

For more information on the bill, click here. Text of HR 1424 is available here.

On March 5, 2008, the House of Representatives finally voted on HR 1424, following a decade-long struggle. It passed, by a vote of 268 to 148, with 13 not voting.

Congressman Tim Walberg... didn't vote.

Oh, he was there that day. The vote for HR 1424 was at 8:03pm, but Walberg did vote immediately before that (7:56pm, to try to send the bill back to committee) and immediately after (8:11pm, to name a post office after someone). But for some reason, Congressman Walberg didn't even bother to take a position on ending discrimination against mental illness.

Congressman, do you not support the bill?

Do you think there's something wrong with it, and you just lack the spine to oppose it?

Do you think those with mental illness deserve to pay more and get less service?

Did you have something more important to do for 15 minutes?

Did you really need to use the bathroom?

Is there any legitimate explanation, Congressman Walberg? It was a straight, yes-or-no vote. If there was something you didn't like about the bill, you could have at least explained why you didn't want to vote for it. The only news item on your website from March 5th has nothing to do with health care.

Were you just hoping no one would notice?

Congressman Walberg, do you think mental illness should be discriminated against?

Michigan's 7th District deserves better than this.

_____
UPDATE: I did a little more looking today, out of curiosity. The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act was recommended to the House of Representatives by the House Committee on Education and Labor, and Congressman Walberg serves on that committee.

On July 18, 2007, the committee voted 33 to 9 to send the bill the full House.

Congressman Tim Walberg... didn't vote. For some reason, even in committee, where Walberg could have fixed any problems he saw, he just couldn't be bothered to take a stand.

Labels: Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

This is actually from quite a while ago-- November of 2007. I missed it then, but I think it's absolutely worth pointing out today.

On November 7, 2007, the House of Representatives examined HR 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The bill would prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. In other words, you can't be fired for being gay and you can't be passed up for a promotion because the boss thinks you're gay. Note that if you find yourself in the (very unlikely) situation where you're being discriminated against because you're straight, that's prohibited, too.

In a compromise to conservatives, the bill does not apply to religious organizations, and the bill goes out of its way to state that it does not require or permit preferential treatment (affirmative action) based on sexual orientation, nor does it require employers to provide benefits to unmarried couples that are given to married couples. Indeed, in Section 8 of the bill, it says:

(c) Definition of Marriage- As used in this Act, the term `married' or `marry' refer to marriage as such term is defined in section 7 of title I, United States Code (referred to as the Defense of Marriage Act).

The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

In this bill, there was no horrible advancement of the so-called "homosexual agenda." No one was trying to redefine anything, and no one was trying to advance homosexuals at the expense of others.

Instead, this bill was advanced under a principle I hope most of us can agree on-- that one's performance at work ought to be judged separately from what one does in the privacy of his or her home. I find it hard to believe that sexual orientation impacts job performance in any way.

From the Education and Labor Committee press release on the bill:

At the September hearing, the subcommittee heard testimony from workers who had experienced job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Brooke Waits was fired from her Texas telecommunications job after her employer discovered that she is a lesbian. Since the state of Texas allows employers to fire workers based on sexual orientation, Ms. Waits had no recourse to get her job back. “In a single afternoon, I went from being a highly praised employee, to out of a job,” she testified at the hearing.

“It is hard to believe that otherwise fully qualified, bright and capable individuals are being denied employment or fired from their jobs for these completely non-work related reasons,” said Miller today. “This is profoundly unfair and, indeed, un-American.”

The September hearing also highlighted the fact that many businesses have enacted nondiscrimination policies – both for civil rights reasons and to benefit their own competitiveness. “Perhaps the best evidence that nondiscrimination policies are good for business comes from the fact that many companies have voluntarily adopted such a policy,” testified Lee Badgett, the research director at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, at the September hearing. Badgett testified that 88 percent of Fortune 500 companies have adopted nondiscrimination policies for sexual orientation.

(Emphasis added.)

The House Committee on Education and Labor, of which Congressman Tim Walberg is a member, voted 27 to 21 to support HR 3685.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No. In the hearing on the bill, Walberg expressed concerns that the language of the bill was a little ambiguous regarding religiously-affiliated organizations-- namely, schools and publishers-- and whether they would be required to abide by the non-discrimination rules. Besides that, no explanation for opposition was given.

When the bill came to the full House in November, it was passed, by a vote of 235 to 184.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

Congressman Walberg, do you really think that someone's sexual orientation really has an impact on their job performance? Is it that important to you that a religious school be allowed to fire a science teacher because the school administration thinks he's gay? Or do you just not like gay people?

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

Today is the first day of summer, which means it's a great time to introduce a new series on Walberg Watch. Every Friday, I'll be releasing a new video highlighting one of Congressman Tim Walberg's finer moments. Today, I start with how he "doesn't understand" why we don't drill for oil under the Great Lakes.



I actually added this particular video back in February as a YouTube test, but future videos will be released on Fridays this summer and fall. The videos aren't of the best quality, but as I've been making more, I think they've been improving. Remember, I'm very much an amateur at all of this.

If you have subjects you'd like to see in these videos, feel free to mention them in the comments. And if you think you can make a better video than me, by all means, please do so!

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

Today, the Ann Arbor News features this letter:

On March 22, I wrote my eighth letter to Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton. I made one more effort to generate some kind of response from the congressman's office since my previous letters did not receive the courtesy of a reply. So far, I have failed to receive any acknowledgment. This lack of desire to actually correspond with a constituent is disappointing.

In the last election I supported Rep. Walberg, both in the primary and the general election. His predecessor, Dr. Joseph Schwartz, responded every time I contacted his office. Although I often did not agree with his answers, he at least did respond, an indication that he did listen to the people in his district.

(Emphasis added.)

And this, from a supporter! The letter, from a man named Stanley Bowling, then continues to commend and criticize others, but Congressman Walberg is held as the gold standard of unresponsiveness.

To be fair, I have heard of people with quick replies from Walberg's office, and I myself have had some quick interactions with his staff. Indeed, Michael Motta, whose horrible experience with Walberg was documented here (Walberg's letter contained many, many factual errors), recently sent me this e-mail:

Fitzy,
Well since I had the horrible paper correspondence from Walberg in the past (that you featured and we've discussed per your video), I figured I'd send along a good response I received in e-mail.
On Walberg's homepage (and in his newsletters) there's that survey that lists topics that you can check-off as interests. He had this and that on it, but no civil liberties! Big surprise huh? So I e-mailed a request for civil liberties to be put on there, and I received a prompt and efficient response, as detailed in the attached forward.
Peace,
Michael Motta

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Michael John Motta" <[]>
To: "Lahr, Matthew" <[]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:14:31 -0400
Subject: Re: addition to WW issues list
Hi Matt,
Thanks much! I think that's the most efficient and sensible response I've seen out of Washington since the 'Skins won their three Super Bowls! (I was born in PG County, MD). And you followed through on your word too.
I'll never vote for Walberg unless I get senile dementia, but I recognize that you and tech staff did a good job.
Maybe someday you'll be able to write a book like McClellan's ;)
Peace,
Michael Motta

Lahr, Matthew writes:
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your suggestion to add Civil Liberties to our weekly wrap
up issue list. Civil Liberties should be added to the list when
tomorrow's wrap up goes out.
Take care,
Matt
----
Matt Lahr
Press Secretary
Office of Congressman Tim Walberg (MI-07)
202-225-6276
Join Congressman Walberg's weekly email newsletter network to stay
informed on his work in Congress and on behalf of south-central Michigan

(Edited for formating and to remove e-mail addresses.)

So, it is possible for you to have a good correspondence with Tim Walberg's office. Even so, you have to wonder why they ignore Stanley Bowling. When you're running for reelection, the last thing you want is to have a once-loyal supporter writing letters to the editor against you.

Labels: 2008 Election, Constituent Services, Issues, Tim Walberg

On June 19, 2008, the Battle Creek Enquirer ran a letter to the editor:

The House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act (H.R. 5781). This important legislation will provide federal workers up to four weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child, and will be a good first step toward paid paternal leave for all American families.

Urge Rep. Tim Walberg to vote "yes" on H.R. 5781 when it is voted on shortly. You can contact him through his web site: http://walberg.house.gov

The letter, from Linda Lumley, public policy chair of the Battle Creek branch of the American Association of University Women, goes on to explain why this is important-- namely, that the United States is one of the only industrialized countries that doesn't offer paid parental leave. While federal employees are guaranteed unpaid leave, many can't afford to do that.

GovTrack.us brings us this summary of the bill, from the Congressional Research Service:

Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008 - Allows federal employees to substitute any available paid leave for any leave without pay available for either the: (1) birth of a child; or (2) placement of a child with the employee for either adoption or foster care. Makes available for any of the 12 weeks of leave an employee is entitled to for such purposes: (1) four administrative weeks of paid parental leave in connection with the birth or placement involved; and (2) any accumulated annual or sick leave.

Authorizes the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to increase the amount of paid parental leave available to up to eight administrative workweeks, based on the consideration of: (1) the benefits provided to the federal government of offering paid parental leave, including enhanced recruitment and retention of employees; (2) the cost to the federal government of increasing the amount of paid parental leave that is available to employees; (3) trends in the private sector and in state and local governments with respect to offering paid parental leave; and (4) the federal government's role as a model employer.

Note that this only applies to federal employees, but recognizes trends in the private sector of doing the same thing. And it makes sense, too; if you've just had a child, you can't work right away, but you're going to need something to survive on. You can read the full text of the bill here. The bill is anticipated to cost less than a dollar per American in 2009.

Unfortunately, Ms. Lumley's letter came a little too late, because the House voted on the final passage of the bill the same day that the letter was published.

HR 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act, was passed, by a vote of 277 to 146. Joining the Democratic majority were 50 Republicans, including Michigan's Fred Upton, Candice Miller, and Thad McCotter.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

Just to be clear again, this isn't the federal government issuing some broad mandate and interfering with how private business is being run. This is the federal government offering paid parental leave to its own employees that most private businesses already offer. If Republicans want the federal government to be run more like a business, why not let it offer the same incentives businesses offer to attract good employees?

This is good policy and will help a lot of people. It's no wonder that Tim Walberg opposes it.

Labels: 110th Congress, Family Planning, Federal Government, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

One of the things Congress likes to do is designate weeks for groups of people or things. It's like naming a post office after someone. It's not actually all that important, but it shows that they care, they respect whatever group they're honoring, and maybe, just maybe, it'll increase awareness of some important issue.

For instance, the House of Representatives voted on June 3, 2008, to support National Men's Health Week, and on February 25, 2008, the House passed H. Res. 978, which describes itself as:

Expressing support for the designation of the week of March 3-7, 2008, as "School Social Work Week" to promote awareness of the vital role of school social workers in schools, and in the community as a whole, in helping students prepare for their future as productive citizens.

Congressman Tim Walberg supported both of those, and he also supported National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Week and National Engineers Week. My point here is to show that Tim Walberg, in general, has no problem with this sort of thing. If a group is worthy of recognition, he'll vote to give them a week. That's fine.

My problem comes in with a May 14, 2008 bill to recognize AmeriCorps Week. That bill, H. Res. 1173, reads:

110th CONGRESS H. Res. 1173

2d SessionInH. RES. 1173Recognizing AmeriCorps Week.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESMay 5, 2008Ms. MATSUI (for herself, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. PLATTS, and Mr. PRICE of North Carolina) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and LaborHouse of Representatives, U. S.,

RESOLUTIONMay 14, 2008Recognizing AmeriCorps Week.

Whereas the AmeriCorps national service program, since its inception in 1994, has proven to be a highly effective way to engage Americans in meeting a wide range of local needs, national response directives, and promote the ethic of service and volunteering;

Whereas over $5,000,000,000 in AmeriCorps funds invested in nonprofit, community, educational, and faith-based community groups since 1994 have leveraged hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funds and in-kind donations from other sources;

Whereas each year, AmeriCorps provides opportunities for 75,000 citizens across the Nation to give back in an intensive way to our districts, our States, and our Nation;

Whereas a total of 542,000 citizens since 1994 across the Nation haven taken the AmeriCorps pledge to `get things done for America' by becoming AmeriCorps members;

Whereas those same individuals have served a total of more than 705,000,000 hours nationwide, helping to improve the lives of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens, protect our environment, contribute to our public safety, respond to disasters, and strengthen our educational system;

Whereas AmeriCorps members last year recruited and supervised more than 1,700,000 community volunteers, demonstrating AmeriCorps value as a powerful volunteer catalyst and force multiplier;

Whereas AmeriCorps members nationwide, in return for their service, have earned nearly $1,430,000,000 to use to further their own educational advancement at our Nation's colleges and universities;

Whereas AmeriCorps members, after their terms of service end, remain engaged in our communities as volunteers, teachers, and nonprofit professional in disproportionately high levels;

Whereas AmeriCorps members served 4,100 nonprofit organizations, schools, and faith-based and community organizations last year; and

Whereas 2008's AmeriCorps Week, observed May 11 through May 18, is an opportune time for the people of the United States to salute current and former AmeriCorps members for their powerful impact, thank all of AmeriCorps' community partners in our Nation who make the program possible and bring more Americans into service: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) encourages all citizens to join in a national effort to salute AmeriCorps members and alumni, and raise awareness about the importance of national and community service;

(2) acknowledges the significant accomplishments of the AmeriCorps members, alumni, and community partners;

(3) recognizes the important contributions to the lives of our citizens by AmeriCorps members; and

(4) encourages citizens of all ages to consider serving in AmeriCorps.

From where I sit, that's pretty non-controversial. In essence, it says, "Hey, folks who have participated in AmeriCorps generally do good work for their communities. Let's encourage more people to join!"

AmeriCorps was established by President Bill Clinton in 1993, AmeriCorps volunteers work in education, community development, and recently, many have been assisting with relief efforts in flooding in Iowa. It's a program that gives young people a chance to gain experience and skills helping people.

H. Res. 1173, Recognizing AmeriCorps Week, passed by a vote of 344 to 69. In addition to 225 Democrats, 119 Republicans joined in honoring AmeriCorps.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

Congressman Walberg... why?

Labels: 110th Congress, Community Service, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

One of the things Tim Walberg repeats wherever he goes is that Michigan is in the middle of an economic crisis. And you know what? He's right. Michigan faces some very complicated problems which can't be solved by simple acts like cutting taxes for the rich, which seems to be Walberg's favorite strategy.

What Michigan needs right now is jobs, and to get those, it takes real leadership and thoughtful action, not loud rhetoric and bluster. It takes leaders who are willing to go out and talk about the things that make Michigan great, not go out and bash the state. Michigan needs someone who's willing to work on behalf of its residents, not on behalf of the elitists who have been financing Walberg.

Thankfully, someone is actually doing something for the state. And, as luck would have it, he's also running for Congress.

From the Schauer for Congress campaign:

We had some exciting news to share today, and wanted to make sure folks saw this story from the Jackson Citizen Patriot:

A state agency this morning gave the go-ahead to award tax breaks to companies in Homer and Jackson, a move that will preserve and expand jobs, according to news releases from state Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, and the Michigan Economic Development Authority.

The announcement was made at a Lansing news conference.

Schauer and state officials have been working with both companies -- Brembo North America in Homer and Production Engineering in Jackson -- to secure incentives that will help them invest in Michigan, instead of sites in Mexico or Indiana.

Brembo North America, which manufacturesbrake systems, plans to conduct manufacturing operations in Homer. More than 100 jobs will be retained, with the goal of adding another 176 over the next several years. Michigan won out over options in the Carolinas and Mexico.

You read that right - with help from the MEDC and Sen. Schauer, Michigan beat out competition from Indiana and Mexico.

There's also a video:



Senator Schauer used his position in government to actually help his district and his constituents. He brought jobs here. Congressman Walberg, what have you done for us?

Labels: 2008 Election, Economy, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

Thanks again to Eric B. at Michigan Liberal. While I've been otherwise occupied, he's been doing a phenomenal job watching Walberg.

I like Amtrak. I like it a lot. For personal reasons, I travel back and forth between my home here in Michigan and Chicago pretty regularly, and have taken the train from Jackson to Chicago and back four times in the last year. It's a comfortable ride, it takes about as long as driving, it's environmentally friendly, and it saves a lot of money on gas. You can do a trip to Chicago and back for maybe $50 ($25 each way). You're lucky if you can spend that little on gasoline for a trip like that.

Amtrak really is a great service, and I'm not the only one that thinks so. From an Amtrak press release last fall:

WASHINGTON — Amtrak ridership in Fiscal Year 2007 increased to 25,847,531, marking the fifth straight year of gains and setting a record for the most passengers using Amtrak trains since the National Railroad Passenger Corporation started operations in 1971.

That's nearly 26 million Americans riding trains, despite the low funding and almost non-existent advertising for Amtrak. For the Wolverine, which is the route that runs straight through the 7th District, ridership increased from 438,529 in fiscal year 2006 to 449,107 in fiscal year 2007, (a 2.4 percent increase), making it Michigan's most popular route. Here's a map, via Amtrak:

That includes stops in Jackson, Albion, and Battle Creek (as well as Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor, which, while not in the district, are close enough to matter).

This really is a service people use, and are going to use more and more as gas prices rise. Chicago is an accessible tourist destination that can be reached cheaply (and may soon be hosting the Olympics), and Amtrak can connect you to the rest of the country from there. More than that, Amtrak makes it easier for Chicagoans to come to Michigan, which helps them spend money here and help our economy.

Amtrak's very existence even helps our economy. The service employs 114 Michigan residents, and in 2007 the station in Jackson got a $250,000 grant for renovations (data from this .pdf file). As anyone can tell you, these are jobs and investments Michigan desperately needs.

This is an important service for the 7th District. I can't emphasize that enough. That's also something former Congressman Joe Schwarz knew when he represented us. I don't know of any links off-hand, but Edward Sidlow's book on Joe Schwarz (Freshman Orientation) included stories of Schwarz that revealed him to be a big fan of trains in general and of Amtrak in particular. He fought for Amtrak and for the district.

All of this brings us to our current representative, Congressman Tim Walberg.

On June 11, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives considered HR 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. The bill would authorize $9.9 billion to cover operating expenses for Amtrak and then spend an additional $5 billion to improve service. The cost comes out to $43 per American over a four year period.

In other words, for the cost of maybe 10 gallons of gas spread out over four years, you would be helping to run and improve a service you should really be using.

To me, this seems like a common-sense vote. It's a part of the government that actually works and directly benefits the people of the 7th District in countless ways. This is the sort of thing people want and people use. This is what we should be doing more of.

The bill passed, 311 to 104.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

Eric at Michigan Liberal sums it up nicely:

So, let's get this straight -- Tim Walberg is demanding relief for average Americans from the high price of gasoline. He is so insistent on it that he wants us to open up places for exploration and drilling that won't produce oil for 10 years, and won't hit peak production for two decades.

And yet, he votes against public transportation. Amtrak, specifically.

I do want to pay less for gasoline. Tim Walberg drilling for oil in ANWR or the Great Lakes isn't going to do that. What will do that is if I use less gasoline, and I can do that by taking the train. It's not the only solution, but it's a part of the broader solution to one of the biggest problems we're facing. It's a necessary component of achieving energy independence.

Tim Walberg doesn't want me to have that option. Why?

We can do better than this.

Labels: Amtrak, Issues, Tim Walberg, Transportation, Walberg Voting Record

Thanks to Michigan Liberal on this...

Congressman Tim Walberg has a big new energy plan, which I hope to be talking about more in the near future. As one might expect, it amounts to "Drill, Drill, DRILL," as Eric at Michigan Liberal demonstrates. This shouldn't be unexpected from the man who wants to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and under the Great Lakes.

To push his plan and make it look like Walberg has been doing something productive in Washington, Walberg has been telling lots of people about his new bill. At an event in Lenawee County, this video was recorded:



Note the exchange:

Question: How far along are the Chinese in their attempts to drill off the coast of Florida?
Walberg: Well, they'll be there. They're there.
Question: That's what I mean, how far along are they?
Walberg: They're there.

Really? The Chinese are already setting up drilling operations off the coast of Florida? Frankly, this is news to me. You'd have thought someone would notice sooner, but then in the last few days, I started to hear more and more about China drilling for oil just off of our coast.

The thing is, though, that it's just not true.

This whole thing started with conservative columnist George Will, who wrote:

Drilling is underway 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.

I haven't got the foggiest idea where George Will got this from. Apparently being a syndicated columnist gives you super secret information no one else in the country has.

Nevertheless, the story spread quickly, with Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R-OH) making the claim that China is drilling for oil off the coast of Florida the very same day that George Will's column was published. As others picked it up, Vice President Dick Cheney (R-WY) even ran with the story, even though one would think that he'd be one of the best informed people on this issue. As the AP reported afterward:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Dick Cheney's office acknowledged on Thursday that he was mistaken when he asserted that China, at Cuba's behest, is drilling for oil in waters 60 miles from the Florida coast.

In a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Cheney said on Wednesday that waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, long off limits to oil companies, should be opened to drilling because China is already there pumping oil.

"Oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida," the vice president said. "We're not doing it, the Chinese are, in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply."

He cited his source as columnist George Will, who last week wrote: "Drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are."

(Emphasis added.)

So, George Will apparently made up some story about the Chinese drilling for oil (or just hasn't produced the evidence for it), and any number of Republicans bought it without question-- the latest being Congressman Tim Walberg. Had he been paying more attention, Walberg would have noticed that Florida Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) refuted the claim two days before Walberg's event:



Senator Martinez was also the chairman of the Republican National Committee for nearly a year, so it's not like he's a maverick who's going against his party. He's a respected Republican leader, and no matter how much his own state might benefit from increased American drilling off the coast of Florida, even he couldn't buy the story.

So why would Tim Walberg and Dick Cheney tell people that the Chinese are drilling for oil? Could it be that they'll say anything to make their dream of drilling basically everywhere come true?

And why would Tim Walberg want that to happen? Is it because he doesn't believe in global climate change or because he's already received $10,050 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry this cycle? Or is it just because he hates sustainability?

Regardless of the reasons, Congressman Walberg, you're not allowed to make up your own facts, no matter how many other people believe them. When asked if the Chinese were drilling for oil off the coast of Florida, you said "They're there."

That's a pretty powerful accusation, with three possible explanations:

• You have evidence that the rest of us haven't seen.
• You heard that other people were saying it, and just didn't bother to check your facts.
• You were knowingly lying to us, and were just hoping we wouldn't notice.

If it's the first one, I'm eager to see the evidence. If it's either of the others, I'd like an apology.

I'd also like a better representative, please.

Labels: Dick Cheney, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg

Does anyone remember the 2006 primary campaign, where Tim Walberg was constantly attacking then-Congressman Joe Schwarz? Does anyone remember the repeated lines about the "Bridge to Nowhere" that Joe Schwarz supposedly supported?

In fact, I think it's safe to say that if there were three things that Walberg wanted you to know about Joe Schwarz, it was that he was pro-abortion, he was anti-gun, and he voted for the Bridge to Nowhere, so obviously he wants to waste your tax dollars.

Do all of you remember that? Thankfully, Susan Demas does. In a column this week, she points out something everyone apparently missed. Walberg has kept up his anti-earmark and anti-"Bridge to Nowhere" rhetoric even as he voted for it himself.

"The American people are disgusted by Washington's wasteful, pork-barrel spending. Taxpayers are tired of their hard-earned money paying for things like a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, fruit fly research in France and a hippie museum in New York." - U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Tipton) on Feb. 8, 10 months after he voted for said bridge to nowhere

Help me again on why we needed to send Tim Walberg back to Washington.

He was going to take fight the tax-and-spend power. That's why he and his pals Club for Growth ran non-stop ads to knock off another Republican, then-U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz, slamming him for voting for a rainforest in Iowa, a swimming pool in California and yes, that bridge to nowhere.

And yet Walberg voted for H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, which the free-market Heritage Foundation blasts as a "pork-laden" bill "intent on diverting taxpayer dollars from core responsibilities to water-sports and other low-priority schemes. Indicative of this bill's misplaced spending priorities is the authorization of more money for one of Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) infamous Bridges to Nowhere."

(Emphasis added.)

"But, that's not fair!" shout those that would defend Walberg. After all, it's not like he voted for the Bridge to Nowhere, he just voted for a big, massive bill, HR 1495, which just so happened to include a wasteful earmark! It's nothing like Joe Schwarz! Walberg is still the maverick conservative, out to fight for smaller government!

Except, that when Joe Schwarz voted for the same sort of earmark, it was under exactly the same circumstances--Schwarz voted for a massive bill where Congressman Don Young managed to slip it in. Schwarz was torn apart by his own party over this, because there was a lot of good in the bill, and it was worth it to put up with some pork in order to get it through. That's the way Washington works, as Tim Walberg has apparently learned.

It bothers me that Congressman Walberg criticized Joe Schwarz for something and then went and did the same thing. It bothers me a lot. But you know what bothers me more? Re-read Demas' column:

"The American people are disgusted by Washington's wasteful, pork-barrel spending. Taxpayers are tired of their hard-earned money paying for things like a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, fruit fly research in France and a hippie museum in New York." - U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Tipton) on Feb. 8, 10 months after he voted for said bridge to nowhere

That's right. Walberg was complaining about the "Bridge to Nowhere" wasteful spending after he voted for it himself. He is as responsible for the "disgusting" way Washington works as anyone else.

Demas closes her column:

I could give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, appropriations bills are thousands of pages long. Of course you end up voting for some earmarks you don't agree with.

But I don't recall Walberg being so charitable to the "embarrassingly liberal" Schwarz. And I don't see Club for Growth blasting Walberg for the exact crimes it's slandered its latest victims for, moderates U.S. Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and Heather Wilson (R-NM). Nice going, CFG. Keep pushing radical candidates and you'll help the Dems pick up another 30 seats in the House and help them reach the magic number of 60 in the Senate.

Since he's no longer the pork-fighting prince, I look forward to Walberg telling us exactly why he deserves to go back to the city of Satan, as John McCain says. Maybe Timmy can send out another campaign ad, er, educational piece at taxpayer expense.

Thanks, Susan.

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

I feel like I owe everyone an apology... I've been neglecting this blog for the last several months, and especially the last few weeks. I promise, that will change soon.

For the moment, however, I thought I'd share something with you all. For a super-secret project I'm working on (hint: it involves a big expansion of Walberg Watch and a complete redesign), I ended up doing a full recap of the year 2007, as it related to Congressman Tim Walberg. Here's what I came up with:

• Walberg votes NO on tough new ethics rules and rules pushing for fiscal responsibility in the House of Representatives
• Walberg votes NO on implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
• Walberg votes NO on increasing the federal minimum wage for the first time in over a decade.
• Walberg votes NO on allowing federal funding of stem cell research
• Walberg votes NO on allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices (like plenty of private providers)
• Walberg votes NO on cutting subsidies to oil companies posting record profits
• Walberb votes NO on a resolution condemning the president's strategy in Iraq
• Walberg votes NO on protecting whistleblowers who expose corruption in government
• Walberg votes NO on a bill meant to stop corruption in government contracts
• Walberg says that Iraq is as safe as Detroit... and is mocked by Stephen Colbert. He makes everyone angry
  
• Walberg votes NO on funding for relief for the Gulf Coast
• Walberg votes NO on a funding bill for the war in Iraq that includes a deadline to remove combat troops
• Walberg votes NO on improving rail and public transportation security
• Walberg punishes a journalist for reporting the truth
• Walberg votes NO on World Water Day
• Walberg votes NO on honoring Rachel Carson by naming a post office after her
• Walberg votes NO on giving shareholders greater power
• Walberg votes NO on giving voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia
• Walberg claims that Democrats are trying to pass a massive tax increase, but it's all a lie
• Walberg takes credit for something Joe Schwarz did, and makes everyone angry
  
• Walberg votes NO on holding OPEC accountable
• Walberg votes NO on stopping gas price gouging
• Walberg announces that he wants to drill for oil in... the Great Lakes? He makes everyone angry
  
• Walberg opposes the Fairness Doctrine
• Walberg votes NO on reducing college costs
• Walberg votes NO on responsible redeployment from Iraq
• Walberg tries to answer a constituent... and fails miserably
• Walberg shows that he doesn't understand the meaning of the words "compromise" and "pilot program"
  
• Walberg takes credit for something he voted against, and makes everyone angry
• Walberg votes NO on a Caribbean educational exchange program
• Walberg changes positions on the 9/11 Commission recommendations, but offers no explanation
• Walberg votes NO on funds for Planned Parenthood, claiming to be against abortion, even though none of the money was going toward funding abortion
• Walberg votes NO on housing assistance for Native Americans
• Walberg refuses to recognize Ramadan, explaining that it's just because he's a bigot
• Walberg votes NO on reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program so many times I'm not even going to bother linking to it
• Walberg votes NO on funding for infrastructure improvements (this, after a bridge collapse in Minneapolis)
• Walberg votes NO on authorizing funds for the FAA (the people who keep planes from crashing)
• Walberg votes NO on helping popcorn workers with cancer
• Walberg votes NO on offering affordable housing
• Walberg votes NO on improving tax collection
• Walberg votes NO on investing in small business
• Walberg says that the citizens of Maine should rise up in rebellion because birth control was made available in schools
• Walberg says that even if 1 out of every 7 loans were fraudulent, he doesn't think anything is wrong
• Walberg votes NO on studying ways we can preserve historical and natural sites

... And that was just 2007.

Starting soon, I'll be focusing my attention on 2008. I've got some exciting changes planned.

Labels: Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

On Thursday, the US House voted to extend unemployment benefits an additional 26 weeks in states with severe economic problems, like our own Michigan.
The amendment passed 256-166.
Guess who voted against the amendment?

That's right, our own "compassionate conservative", Congressman Tim Walberg!

He voted against extra weeks of benefits for our own neighbors, who are struggling in the poor economy, and based on the bill, I bet it's because there was a surtax of .5% on those making over $500,000 or couples making over $1,000,000!

Well, at least we know who Tim is looking out for...I'm sure this will mean more CFG dollars for the fall campaign!

Update by Fitzy: Just to add to elviscostello's post, here's the Detroit News on the vote, via Michigan Liberal:

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House today voted to extend unemployment benefits an additional 26 weeks in hard-hit states like Michigan -- 13 weeks for states that aren't suffering as badly.

An amendment extending the benefits passed by a vote of 256 to 166.

The jobless extension was one of three amendments voted on by the House to a spending bill left over from last year.

[...]

"We're hurting here in Michigan big time," said retired school teacher Conrad Keydel of Detroit, who supports the benefits extension.

"People who have been laid off have no where to turn. There aren't jobs. So Michigan needs this," he added.

Michigan's six House Democrats voted in favor of the amendment with the added jobless benefits. Three of its nine Republicans voted for the amendment as well: Joe Knollenberg of Bloomfield Hills, Fred Upton of St. Joseph and Candice Miller of Harrison Township.

Voting against the amendment that included the jobless benefits were Pete Hoekstra of Holland, Mike Rogers of Brighton, Vern Ehlers of Grand Rapids, Tim Walberg of Tipton, Thad McCotter of Livonia and Dave Camp of Midland.

[...]

The Bush White House issued a statement today saying the president would veto the proposals in the House going beyond Iraq funding.

U.S. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Royal Oak, who voted in favor of extra jobless benefits, said, "I think it's time for the minority (House Republicans) and the president get out of the offices they reside in and get into the shoes of typical American families... Opposition to extension of unemployment compensation is unconscionable."

Currently, workers who've lost their jobs get 26 weeks of unemployment benefits.

Under the House-passed provision, the jobless would get an additional 13 weeks of benefits, behind the 26.

But states such as Michigan, with unemployment rates above 6 percent would get 26 additional weeks -- bringing the total to 52.

Under the proposal, unemployed workers who've exhausted their currently available 26 weeks of benefits within the past 18 months (November 2006) could apply for extended benefits, Levin's office said.

The proposal would cost about $11.7 billion to provide extended benefits for an estimated 3.8 million jobless workers and be paid from the federal unemployment trust funds.

The provision extending jobless benefits also would pay for four-year of public college education for veterans who served 36 months on active duty.

(Emphasis added.)

So... which part did Congressman Walberg disagree with? The part where Michigan's economy was hurting and there are no jobs? The part where the unemployed need some extra help to survive because there are no jobs? Or the part where we're going to pay for college for young men and women who have given everything they have for their country?

Congressman Walberg, which part did you disagree with?

Labels: 110th Congress, Economy, Issues, Tim Walberg, Unemployment, Veterans, Walberg Voting Record

Five years ago today, the media and the Bush Administration were in a celebratory mood:



Notice how Peter Jennings describes the event:

... And it is from there tonight where the president is going to make what amounts to an end of the war in Iraq speech.

Peter Jennings and Bob Woodruff mention the speech that Bush would give later in the day. The important excerpt:

Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

(Emphasis added.)


The speech by President Bush did not include the phrase "Mission Accomplished," but the banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln was clearly visible and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told ABC's Bob Woodruff that early drafts of the speech did include the phrase.

Why am I bringing this up now?

Five years ago today, President Bush spoke to the nation to tell us that the war was basically over. On that day, 128 American soldiers had been killed. Since then, another 3,925 American soldiers have died in Iraq despite the fact that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

We know that Congressman Walberg has voted against bills which ask President Bush to come up with an exit strategy. Mind you, these aren't "cut and run" or "surrender" bills, despite rhetoric from some on the right, they're simply demanding some sort of strategy besides "stay the course." But Congressman Walberg is apparently satisfied with the way things are going now.

So I have a couple of questions for Congressman Walberg, on this anniversary of the "end" of the war.

• Given everything that we know now, was invading Iraq in the best interests of the United States and the world in general?
• If you had been in Congress in 2002, would you have voted to authorize the war?
• What conditions in Iraq would be enough for you to support the withdrawal or some or all American troops from the country?
• When can we expect a month or a year in Iraq without any American casualties?

Congressman Walberg, today, it's not so much that I want you to have the same plan as me. Today, I just want to know that you actually have some sort of plan. Do you?

This year, there have been American soldiers and marines killed in Iraq that were in eighth grade when the war started. A 19 year-old soldier killed by an IED would have been 14 when all of this started, and his biggest concern five years ago would have been starting high school.

Congressman Walberg, will the war be over in another five years? If you were in elementary school when President Bush announced that major combat operations were over, and if you enlist, is there a chance that you could be killed in Iraq?

Congressman Walberg, your granddaughter was born last Friday. When she's graduating from high school, if she or her peers choose to enlist... will they be sent to Iraq? Will their lives be in danger because of a war started by their grandparents' generation?

Tell me, Congressman Walberg, when will this end?

These are the questions that have been on my mind today.

Labels: Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

Many of you may remember the controversy caused by the Bush Administration got not too long ago involving their use of warrantless wiretaps and other surveillance, sometimes domestically. Critics said, "Hey! You can't do that! It's illegal!" The Bush Administration said, "... But we're using it to fight terrorists!" The critics again replied, "It's still illegal!"

Just to be even more clear about it, when the House of Representatives passed the Intelligence Authorization Act last year, they added an amendment regarding such surveillance programs. Here's what I wrote when that happened:

Congressman Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, offered an amendment yesterday.

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment numbered 10 printed in House Report 110-144 to state that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) shall be the exclusive means by which domestic electronic surveillance for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information may be conducted, and makes clear that this applies until specific statutory authorization for electronic surveillance, other than as an amendment to FISA, is enacted.

In other words, no more warrantless wiretapping by the Bush Administration. For those that have forgotten, President Bush has asserted in the past that the FISA court, which allows the government to secretly conduct domestic surveillance with only a handful of people knowing, was too slow. Instead, the president felt that he was justified in ordering the wiretapping of anyone, anywhere, at any time without a warrant from any court, and without any oversight. We were supposed to trust that he'd only watch the terrorists, of course.

That's my biased explanation, and some out there might disagree with how I characterized the warrantless wiretapping program. But-- here's the thing that has me shocked and amazed-- it looks like Congressman Tim Walberg, for once, agrees with me.

Tim Walberg voted Yes on the Schiff Amendment. A total of 23 Republicans joined 222 Democrats to pass the amendment, 245 to 178. In addition to Congressman Walberg, Michigan Republicans Vern Ehlers (MI-03) and Fred Upton (MI-06) voted to support the amendment.

Although I still think Congressman Walberg should be voted out of office, this was a very pleasant surprise this morning. Thank you, Congressman, for asserting that the executive branch does not have unlimited powers, and that even the president must follow the law.

It was one of my rare moments of actually agreeing with Tim Walberg. It was amazing.

Still, that didn't settle the controversy. The FISA court, many felt, was too slow and not able to handle modern threats, so people proposed a few possible fixes. This was the subject of much debate, most of which isn't relevant to this post. If you're really interested in more of the details, start with Wikipedia, and continue from there.

A major point of dispute did arise, however, and continues to be an issue. The Bush Administration requested an amendment to any bill which "fixes" FISA which would include retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that helped the Bush Administration while it was breaking the law in its warrantless surveillance program.

Let's be clear about this. The telecom companies knew they were breaking the law. They've got lawyers and everything, and I think most lawyers are at least vaguely familiar with the Fourth Amendment, which says that unreasonable searches and seizures (like listening to your phone calls without a warrant) aren't allowed. They're probably even familiar with some of the Supreme Court rulings and complicated legal arguments around the issues. I mean, lawyers generally know the law pretty well. And a big corporation doesn't do anything without talking to its lawyers.

It also doesn't help that the Bush Administration refuses to show congressional leaders documents related to their warrantless surveillance program. It's hard to forgive someone for something when you don't even know exactly what they did.

After a great deal of debate and leadership from Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) against granting immunity, the Senate passed a bill with retroactive immunity and the House passed a bill without retroactive immunity.

Congressman Tim Walberg, a proud supporter of President Bush, voted No on the bill without retroactive immunity.

Congressman Walberg then went to the Battle Creek Enquirer to offer his thoughts in an op-ed:

As we enter into April, our nation begins its seventh straight week of being more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Misguided leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives is directly responsible for our country's current state of vulnerability. On Feb. 17, important updates to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) expired, and House leadership refused to pass a permanent bipartisan FISA update modified to address today's world of instantaneous communication.

Without these updates, our intelligence community is back to using pre-9/11 gathering tools, which is completely unacceptable. Because FISA updates expired, American intelligence officials currently must fill out lengthy, detailed applications before new surveillance of foreign terrorists can begin. This process can take hours, with no guarantees.

American military and intelligence officials need the right tools to protect American citizens from terrorist threats. These officials need to be able to monitor, without delay, communications between suspected and known foreign terrorists in foreign countries. We must not prevent our intelligence community from being able to monitor Osama bin Laden's phone calls.

Ah geez. From the sounds of it, Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers pretty much invited Osama bin Laden to tea!

Really, this is ridiculous rhetoric. Congressman Walberg, if our national security is really at stake, why not support the House version-- which gives President Bush all the tools he asked for-- and deal with retroactive immunity later? If it matters as much as Walberg says, if terrorists are plotting to exploit this weakness, why not support any bill that strengthens our intelligence agencies? Can't telecom immunity wait for a week or two?

But Walberg does address the issue of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies in his op-ed:

House leadership will not support current FISA legislation because the bill would prevent trial lawyers from suing American telecommunications companies who cooperate with American intelligence agencies' monitoring of foreign terrorist communications.

Recent news reports revealed that almost 40 lawsuits are pending against the very telecommunications companies who helped our country in a time of crisis. Gathering intelligence to defend America's national security has never been and should never be a political issue.

It is shameful that some in Washington place the ability of trial lawyers to sue over national security. When American companies assist American intelligence agencies with monitoring foreign terrorist threats, they should be thanked, not sued.

That's right... blame the trial lawyers. Obviously, the only reason anyone is suing the telecom companies is because they're greedy. They're not suing because the NSA potentially invaded our privacy.

Congressman Walberg, however, is pure and altruistic on this issue, standing up for telecommunications companies because they were patriotic! It has nothing whatsoever to do with getting a $2,000 contribution from AT&T's federal PAC. Those things never matter to politicians.

Nevermind the fact that the telecommunications companies broke the law. Nevermind the fact that instead of giving them blanket immunity, we should be giving them a chance to state their case and defend themselves in federal court, as the House bill does. And nevermind the fact that we'd be giving them immunity without even knowing exactly what they did.

I agree, FISA probably needs updating. So, Congressman Walberg, just update FISA, and let the courts decide whether laws were broken and what the punishment should be. Isn't that why we have courts? Aren't we a nation of laws?

And stop making people like me seem like terrorist sympathizers. We're not, and you know it.

Now, if you noticed the title, you saw that it was "Walberg, Schauer on FISA." You're probably wondering where Mark Schauer comes into this, right?

Schauer, a Democratic candidate for Congress, released this video:



It's great to see that Schauer is taking a firm stand on this, and this is a great issue to define Walberg on. "I believe that corporations who break the law should be held accountable in court. Tim Walberg thinks we should give them immunity after they've broken the law."

These issues matter, and it's good to see Democrats standing up on them.

Labels: 110th Congress, FISA, Intelligence, Issues, Mark Schauer, Retroactive Immunity, Telecommunications, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

It's the moment we've all been waiting for... Congressman Tim Walberg, self-proclaimed environmentalist, share's his thoughts on global warming and climate change. At a town hall in Hillsdale on Monday, Congressman Walberg got a question on what the federal government should do to combat global climate change. This was reported first by Eric B. at Michigan Liberal, and audio is available here.

I've tried to transcribe it from the very low quality audio file, with some assistance from the transcription Eric already had. My version and his version differ slightly, and both of them are probably slightly different from what was actually said. That's just what happens when you have a low-quality recording.

Still, I'm confident that both of us have captured the essence of what Congressman Walberg is trying to say.

Question: What do you think is the role of the federal government in combating global climate change?

Walberg: In combating global climate change?

Question: [garbled, presumably "Yes."]

Walberg: Well, I think the federal government ought to give incentives to business, industry, and more importantly research institutions to do what's necessary to find out if warming is taking place. I don't think it can be just people like Al Gore [garbled] other side. I think it needs to be people who are doing significant research to find out if, indeed, we are warming. There are a lot of people in Michigan that are saying, "If this is warming, I don't want any more of it." [Laughter] Or, "If this isn't warming, give me more warming!" [garbled] What I'm saying is, when I read science, I read scientists, editors, who police equal on both sides that say there’s a cycle that significant warming that’s produced by human involvement and not just simple matter of fact natural currents that take place in the cycle then I read on the other side an equal number at the very least that say just the very opposite that this something that’s gone on for eons, that we go through these cycles.

The Czech, the president of the Czech Republic, who's spoken here in Hillsdale several times, [garbled] I don't want to hide anything from you guys, this guy is a conservative, he's a free market person, a capitalist. Um, he understands Putin, he understands Russia. But, he may say that we were in Prague dealing with the missile defense initiative. But over the course of the meeting with him the question came up about global warming and climate change. And he says, well, he says, I as you know I’ve written a book about that. Right now we are having it translated into English and I hope you would buy [garbled] and he said I was just in Nigeria for meetings last week, he said, in the process of less than 48 hours I went through two occasions, going and coming, of degree changes of over 30 degrees. Of course, that was Celsius. And then he smiled and he says, once I got back I realized it hadn't hurt me at all! Now, we've seen less than two degree changes in the last hundred years. So I think if you're asking that question, I'm saying we ought to do significant research where we let the private sector in research entities whether it be public institutions like Michigan State or U of M nonetheless the private sector area of government do those research and come up with a decision. I’m not sure the taxpayers ought to pay significantly for things like that.

Where do I begin? Let's start by figuring out what Walberg is actually saying, without his obviously hilarious jokes about cold weather in Michigan.

• "I think the federal government ought to give incentives to business, industry, and more importantly research institutions to do what's necessary to find out if warming is taking place."
• It can't just be political figures like Al Gore that inform us on this issue.
• Walberg has seen an equal number of scientists, if not more, that say global warming is part of a natural cycle and not a result of human activity.
• The president of the Czech Republic says that he's flown places where it's warm, then flown places where it's cold, and he feels fine. Therefore, maybe global warming isn't an issue.
• A two degree change in 100 years isn't that bad.
• The only research on this issue should be conducted by the private sector, and taxpayers should not pay for it.

I actually do agree with Congressman Walberg on one part. It should just be political figures like Al Gore that inform us on this issue. Gore is great for publicity, but all the real decisions should be made based on what actual scientists have to say.

Unfortunately, all of Walberg's evidence against global warming comes from, well, a political figure. And if you think Al Gore is biased, wait until you learn more about Václav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic.

For starters, the anecdote Walberg shares about Klaus's trip to Nigeria is, quite simply, stupid. We're talking about climate change, not the impact of a warm day versus a cold day on the body. Klaus was fine after his trip to Nigeria, and that's not surprising. Now, if the average temperature of the Czech Republic were to rise 30 degrees Celsius, that would be something else entirely. That kind of a change, which Klaus as an individual can withstand with no trouble, would give Prague an average temperature of 40 degrees Celsius, or about 104 degrees Farenheit. Since the average temperature of Death Valley in July is only 46 degrees Celsius, I feel that such a climate change would be significant.

But, as Klaus correctly points out, he can stand it just fine. Any agriculture in his country might not survive, but that's an entirely different problem.

Obviously, even the most pessimistic predictions of global warming don't come close to a world-wide increase of 30 degrees Celsius, and Prague isn't going to turn into Death Valley. But it's Václav Klaus and Tim Walberg that suggested such a change wouldn't be that big of a deal.

Václav Klaus has been very vocal in denouncing global warming. In a piece for the Financial Times in London, Klaus writes:

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

(Emphasis added.)

I don't know about you, but I'm a little worried when I see that my congressman is getting his scientific data from a man that says environmentalism is worse than communism.

Where does Klaus get this kind of expertise when it comes to scientific data? Why, he used to be a free market economist! Obviously, he's qualified to make this kind of judgment, and it won't be clouded at all by other interests!

I'll make a deal with you, Congressman Walberg. I'll never cite former Vice President Al Gore, if you promise to never again cite Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic. Let's stick to actual scientists, who we can agree aren't nearly as biased.

Let's recall also that Congressman Walberg is against funding actual scientific research, saying "I’m not sure the taxpayers ought to pay significantly for things like that." Never mind that science is so important, and has been for the entire history of the country, that Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution specifically lists one power of Congress as:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

That primarily addresses patent law, but there is nonetheless a precedent for funding scientific research.

Still, I'm willing to let that slide as a difference of politics. We all agree that it's the scientists that should be making judgments about the science of global warming. So what do the scientists actually say? Here's Congressman Walberg's claim:

What I'm saying is, when I read science, I read scientists, editors, who police equal on both sides that say there’s a cycle that significant warming that’s produced by human involvement and not just simple matter of fact natural currents that take place in the cycle then I read on the other side an equal number at the very least that say just the very opposite that this something that’s gone on for eons, that we go through these cycles.

In other words, Walberg says that he's seen an equal number of scientists at the very least who say that global warming is just a natural phenomenon, not the result of human activity.

I had no idea that Congressman Walberg reads peer-reviewed scientific journals so regularly, nor did I realize that the minister was qualified to interpret the data presented. I, a mere math major, freely admit that I don't read those sorts of scientific journals, nor would I be able to interpret them if I did. Obviously, Walberg is much more in-touch with the scientific community than I am.

Either that, or he's full of crap.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been releasing reports every now and then on the issue. The IPCC describes itself as:

a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :

• The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.
• The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
• The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals

When they released a report last year, this is what the New York Times reported:

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.

But, of course, the New York Times is a biased, liberal media source, and the IPCC is made up of a bunch of America-hating countries, so they can't be trusted. So instead, let's look and see what the actual scientists say. These, by the way, are the real scientists whose work Tim Walberg claims to be reading.

In science, the only research you take seriously is research that has been peer reviewed. That is, it's been examined by other experts in the field, who look for flaws and check to make sure that your methodology is sound. If it all checks out, it gets published in a respected journal.

Is it perfect? No. Mistakes still get made. But this way, it keeps the crackpots who don't have any idea what they're talking about from getting mixed in with serious scientific thinkers. If it isn't peer-reviewed, don't trust it.

Naomi Oreskes, a professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, sought in 2004 to find out if there really was a scientific consensus on global warming by examining such peer-reviewed articles. She published her result in the journal Science. Here's what she found:

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [...] Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

[...]

The drafting of such reports [as the IPCC reports] and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "[global] climate change".

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

(Emphasis added.)

Let us review.

Congressman Walberg does not believe we should rely on biased figures like Al Gore, yet has no problem relying on a man that says environmentalism is worse than communism.

Congressman Walberg does not believe that taxpayers should be funding scientific research like this, instead believing that private industry-- famous for their lack of bias in areas which could have an impact on their profits-- should take the lead on climate research.

Congressman Walberg claims to read the research of many scientists, and says that he finds many of them, if not a majority, reject the consensus view that human activities are causing a global warming and climate change. This, despite reports by organizations like the IPCC and a survey of peer-edited scientific articles which flatly contradicts Walberg's claim.

Congressman Walberg, what scientists are you relying on? Other than President Klaus, can you name a single reputable scientist whose peer-reviewed research contradicts the consensus on climate change?

Do you have any evidence to support your position?

I would welcome any response from Congressman Walberg, his staff, or his supporters. Until then, I offer these potential conclusions:

• Congressman Tim Walberg does not read scientific journals, nor does he rely on peer-reviewed research.
• His claim that he reads science that offers contradictory positions on climate change is either a lie or a misrepresentation of his reading of biased media reports or material supplied by lobbyists.
• His anecdote about President Klaus shows that he does not fully understand the issue, nor does he understand the value of actual scientific research.
• His position that scientific research into global climate change is primarily motivated by either a general mistrust of science, a general opposition to government spending, or arguments presented to him by lobbyists with an agenda of their own.

Congressman Walberg, this is a serious problem facing the planet. If you're not willing to take the time to make an informed judgment, don't pretend to know what you're talking about, and don't offer absolutely ridiculous anecdotes about trips from the Czech Republic to Nigeria.

I'm not a scientist, and I don't claim to fully understand climate science. But I can spot someone who's just trying to fake his way through the issue and sound smart. Believe me, Congressman, you're not fooling anyone.

Labels: Environment, Global Warming, Issues, Naomi Oreskes, Tim Walberg, Vaclav Klaus

Sargent Shriver, the first director of President Kennedy's Peace Corps and the 1972 Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee, was a firm believer that government action could bring about an end to poverty, providing opportunities and a level playing field to those unable to support themselves. Although Shriver, suffering from Alzheimer's disease, no longer works actively, the Shriver Center continues its advocacy and lobbying efforts to help pass laws which could help relieve some suffering.

Recently, the Shriver Center released a scorecard (.pdf file) rating the performance of members of Congress on poverty-related issues. Members of the House of Representatives were given a letter grade based on fifteen votes, and members of the Senate were rated on 14 votes.

Given that Shriver's belief that government can be part of the solution to the nation's problems is in every way opposite of Congressman Tim Walberg's belief that you are and should be on your own, I wasn't surprised that Walberg didn't score highly. Still, this bothers me:

(Click to enlarge.)

Of Michigan's entire congressional delegation, Congressman Tim Walberg was the only one to receive a failing grade. On only two occasions did Walberg cast a vote which the Shriver Center considers helpful in the battle against poverty.

Once again, I'm embarrassed to have this man represent me in Washington.

For more on the scorecard and its methodology, read the whole thing here and the press release from the Shriver Center.

Labels: 110th Congress, Issues, Poverty, Tim Walberg

(Thanks to an anonymous comment for the tip.)

If you've ever read Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway, comedian Dave Barry's take on politics in Washington, you might recall a sequence in which Barry includes the text of attack ads between two fictional candidates. With grainy black-and-white photos, it quickly spirals out of control, with one candidate using doctored photos of the other one, say, shaking hands with Adolph Hitler or Darth Vader.

In one, a photo is described in which the candidate is "hitting a kitten with a hammer." It's terrible, but I laughed a lot when I read it. Pretty soon, that's what negative advertising will devolve into.

But, the reason it's funny is because everyone knows how ridiculous it is. Everyone loves animals!

Except, maybe, Congressman Tim Walberg. He's not hitting any kittens with hammers, no, but he's not making any friends either.

The Humane Society Legislative Fund is the lobbying affiliate of the Humane Society of the United States, released their midterm report for the 110th Congress. They allocate points for different actions taken by members of Congress that are pro-animal rights. The best you can get is 100 points (or 100+, for some leaders on animal rights issues).

Congressman Tim Walberg scored... 17/100. He voted "yes" on one bill, which sets harsher penalties for animal fighting offenses, mostly in response to the Michael Vick incident. Walberg failed to support two bills (one protecting wild horses, the other protecting polar bears) and is not a cosponsor of two upcoming animal rights bills. Walberg also chose not to sign a letter encouraging more funding for existing animal protection laws.

What could Tim Walberg possibly have against protecting animals?

Maybe Walberg would be more helpful to the animals if they were to spend millions of dollars smearing his opponents. That seems to work well for other groups.

Labels: 110th Congress, Animal Rights, Humane Society, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Do you remember back in October, when Congressman Walberg voted "Present" on a House resolution recognizing Ramadan? Here's part of what the resolution said:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses friendship and support for Muslims in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and conveys its respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion;

(4) rejects hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(5) commends Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror.

A vast majority of the House voted for the bill, but Tim Walberg couldn't bring himself to vote to reject hatred and bigotry, and couldn't bring himself to offer respect to a major religion. As he later explained:

Among those who voted present on the resolution was Republican Tim Walberg of Michigan. "To offer respect for a major religion is one thing, but to offer respect for a major religion that has been behind the Islamic jihad, the radical jihad, that has sworn war upon the United States, its free allies and freedom in Iraq, is another thing," he stated.

At the time, I translated that as Walberg saying "All Muslims are terrorists." It doesn't matter that there are 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, the vast, vast majority of whom are peaceful. It doesn't matter that estimates of the Muslim population in the United States range from 1 to 6 million. Walberg refuses to offer respect to them, because, as he sees them, they're some sinister force.

But this is all old news. Why do I bring this up now?

It turns out that Walberg isn't just denigrating another major religion. He's choosing to promote his own religious beliefs at the expense of others, and at the expense of... well, facts.

First came HR 847, which came about a month ago, on December 11, 2007. That bill, "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith," reads in part:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

Even as the far-left liberal that I am, I really have no problem with this resolution. There's nothing wrong with rejecting bigotry and acknowledging the fact that many in the United States throughout history are and were Christians, just as I feel there's nothing wrong with recognizing Muslims in America.

Tim Walberg voted Yes on HR 847, recognizing Christmas and the Christian faith. There's nothing inherently wrong with that vote, from my stance (my libertarian friends may disagree). What's wrong with his vote is that it shows his own hypocrisy.

Look at the text from the Ramadan bill:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses friendship and support for Muslims in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and conveys its respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion;

(4) rejects hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(5) commends Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror.

And now, look at the Christmas bill:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

I ask you, the kind, tolerant people of Michigan: Is there anything all that objectionable in the Ramadan resolution that isn't in the Christmas resolution? Is there a reason why our representative in Washington would refuse to vote for one and not the other?

Walberg voted against a bill recognizing Ramadan and Islam because some Muslims are terrorists. As I pointed out before, some Christians are terrorists, too. Why is Walberg willing to recognize Christmas?

That kind of hypocrisy bothers me, but there's something else that bothers me more, which elviscostello mentioned in a previous post.

Congressman Tim Walberg is a cosponsor of H. Res. 888, which is

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as "American Religious History Week" for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.

Now, this is the point where I start getting a little nervous about state recognition and sponsorship of religion. Still, even I can't deny that religion has played a role in American history, so maybe that should be recognized. The problem comes with the text of the bill.

A resolution of this type follows a set pattern. The first part, with a bunch of sentence fragments beginning with "Whereas," state items assumed in advance. This is a priori knowledge used to justify the actions taken in the second part, in which it is "resolved" that some action or another will be taken.

The "Whereas" part of the bill lists 75 items, which I will not repost here. It's just too much. The list is meant to document the instances of religious recognition by the United States government. It's lots of things like, "Whereas, George Washington said X," or "Whereas, in 1789, Congress passed X," and taken at face value, it makes a compelling case to suggest that our founding fathers intended this to be a Christian nation.

Unfortunately for Walberg and his fellow co-sponsors, many of the items simply are not true. Some are, but many are deliberate distortions of the facts and outright lies. Chris Rodda at the blog Talk to Action has a good debunking of many of the "whereas"'s. Here are a couple of them, so that you can get the general idea:

"Whereas the Liberty Bell was named for the Biblical inscription from Leviticus 25:10 emblazoned around it: `Proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof';"

In order to associate the Liberty Bell, and particularly its biblical inscription, with the American Revolution, revisionists must disregard its real history. The only connection between the Liberty Bell and the Revolution is that it happened to be the bell that hung in the building where the Continental Congress met. The inscription, which is preceded in the Bible by a reference to "the fiftieth year," was chosen a generation before the Revolution by a now obscure Quaker, Isaac Norris, to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Governor William Penn's Charter of Privileges, the 1701 document that secured the religious freedom and other rights of the colonists and formally gave the Pennsylvania Assembly the expanded legislative powers that it had already begun to exercise.

At the time of the Revolution, and for many years after, the bell was simply called the State House bell. The majority of the signers of the Declaration probably had no idea what was inscribed on it. It wasn't dubbed the "Liberty Bell" until 1838, when it was adopted as a symbol of liberty by a Boston abolitionist group, and a poem entitled The Liberty Bell was reprinted from one of the group's pamphlets by William Lloyd Garrison in his anti-slavery publication The Liberator. In the decades preceding this, the bell had become so insignificant that, in 1828, the City of Philadelphia had actually tried to sell it as salvage.

and

"Whereas Thomas Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, provided Federal funding for missionary work among Indian tribes, and declared that religious schools would receive 'the patronage of the government';"

There are three distinct lies in this sentence. And, although each is created by misrepresenting a single incident, all are pluralized, creating even bigger lies.

The first item, that Jefferson "urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes," is copied verbatim from David Barton's article "The Founders on Public Religious Expression." The only source cited by Barton for this vague claim is an exchange of letters between Jefferson and John Carroll, the Bishop of Baltimore, in 1801. Carroll wanted to purchase a lot in Washington D.C. to build a church on, and apparently thought that sending his application to Jefferson rather than the Board of Commissioners might get him some preferential treatment and a better price, not because he wanted to build a church, but because Jefferson would remember his patriotism and services to the country during the Revolutionary War, when he volunteered to accompany Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, and his cousin, Charles Carroll, on their 1776 diplomatic mission to Canada.

Reading only the reply from Jefferson to Bishop Carroll, it would appear that Jefferson did try to influence the commissioners. But, Jefferson was exaggerating quite a bit when he told Carroll that he had recommended to the commissioners "all the favor which the object of the purchase would wage" and "the advantages of every kind which it would promise."(15) In reality, he barely gave an opinion on the subject, leaving it entirely up to the commissioners to decide if there was any advantage to accepting the application, and putting absolutely no pressure on them to do so. This was Jefferson's letter to the Board of Commissioners.

"I take the liberty of referring to you the inclosed application from Bishop Carrol & others for respecting the purchase of a site for a church. it is not for me to interpose in the price of the lots for sale. at the same time none can better than yourselves estimate the considerations of propriety & even of advantage which would urge a just attention to the application, nor better judge of the degree of favor to it which your duties would admit. with yourselves therefore I leave the subject, with assurances of my high consideration & respect."(16)

No new Catholic church was built in Washington until two decades later, and that was built on privately donated land, so it appears that the commissioners must have turned down Bishop Carroll's application.

The second item, that Jefferson "provided Federal funding for missionary work among Indian tribes," is based on a single treaty with the Kaskaskia, signed by Jefferson in 1803, which included a provision for a $100 annual salary for a priest for seven years, and $300 towards the building of a church. Of the over forty treaties with various Indian nations signed by Jefferson during his presidency, this is the only one that contained anything whatsoever having to do with religion. This had nothing to do with converting the Indians, as the words "missionary work" imply. The Kaskaskia were already Catholic, and had been for generations. These things were what the Kaskaskia wanted, and this being a treaty with a sovereign nation, there was no constitutional reason not to provide them.

The third item, that Jefferson "declared that religious schools would receive `the patronage of the government'," is based on a letter written by Jefferson to the Ursuline nuns in New Orleans on July 13 or 14, 1804. The nuns, like many of the territory's inhabitants, were concerned about the status of their property when the United States purchased Louisiana from France in 1803. A wide variety of rumors were being spread by anti-American natives of New Orleans, and among these were two about the convent -- one that the United States government planned to confiscate the convent's property and immediately expel the nuns from the country, and another that no new novices would be allowed to enter the convent, but that the government would let the nuns who were already there stay, and then take the property after they all died off. The territorial Governor, William C.C. Claiborne, temporarily managed to convince the nuns that their property was safe and that the United States government would never interfere with a religious institution, but then an incident occurred in which local authorities working for the federal government did shut down a church to prevent a riot between the followers of two rival priests. This renewed the nuns' fears, and they wrote to Jefferson requesting to have their property officially confirmed to them by Congress. Jefferson knew that there was no point in laying the convent's request before Congress because they were not yet making determinations about land claims in the territory, so he replied by assuring the nuns that their property was secure even without an official confirmation, and that they shouldn't have any problem with the local authorities, but if they did they would have the protection of his office. Because he used the word "patronage," however, the history revisionists imply that he meant financial aid.

And, of course, as Rodda points out:

And, finally, while the first resolve of H. Res. 888 asserts that the U.S. House of Representatives "affirms the rich spiritual and diverse religious history" of our country, in every one of Mr. Forbes's "Whereas's" that mentions a particular religion, that religion is, of course, Christianity.

Now, if there were as many errors as this in a high school history paper, what kind of a grade do you think it would get? But never mind the facts... people like Walberg want this to be a Christian nation!

Basically, this is what it comes down to for me:

• If Tim Walberg strictly voted against any bill that even hinted at state recognition or sponsorship of religion, I would respect him for sticking to a strict constitutional interpretation.
• If Walberg were to have voted for all three of the bills above, it'd be easy to argue that he supports expressions of faith for all beliefs.
  

But Walberg did neither of those. Instead, he chose to support two bills (one of which has a loose relationship with the facts) that recognize and promote Christianity, and opposed one bill that recognized Islam, followed by a statement accusing all Muslims of being terrorists.

Where does Congressman Walberg draw the line? Islam doesn't deserve recognition... does Judaism? Or Buddhism? If it's Christians only in Walberg's America, does he count the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (more commonly called Mormons)? Are Catholics allowed in a Protestant America? Are Eastern Orthodox Christians allowed? Are Unitarians, or Methodists, or Lutherans? Or is only Walberg's particular brand of Christianity allowed?

Am I over-reacting? No. Our representative in the House of Representatives has come out and said that some religions don't deserve our respect and don't belong in America. How long until Walberg decides your religion doesn't belong, either? I don't believe this nation will ever sink into a theocracy, but it is men like Tim Walberg that would allow that to happen.

Our country deserves better than this. Michigan's 7th District deserves better than this.

Labels: 110th Congress, Faith and Politics, Issues, Tim Walberg

Earlier this month, I received an e-mail from someone with some text from Congressman Walberg's campaign website, and some thoughts that I could potentially turn into a post. I started working with it, but found that one item in particular was taking up a lot of space, and deserved a post of its own. Now, I'm finally getting around to writing this post.

On Congressman Walberg's campaign website, he writes:

The differences between my agenda for change and the status quo in Congress couldn’t be clearer:

• I am working to restrain government spending and cut waste to balance the budget. The current leadership in Washington continues to overspend and pile more debt on our children and grandchildren.
• I am fighting to make the 2001 and 2003 tax relief permanent. The current budget will raise taxes on the American people by $400 billion, which amounts to $3,000 per person. That’s unacceptable.
• I oppose giving social security benefits to illegal immigrants. The current leadership has supported giveaways to illegal immigrants time and again.
• I support expanding the use of alternative energy and exploring for energy in Alaska and the Inter-Continental Shelf. It is time to eliminate America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
• I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Many in Washington support redefining this institution that has served as the foundation of civilization.
• I will support giving our intelligence agencies the tools to keep Americans safe. The current House leadership wants to gut intelligence services and take away these vital tools.
• I support the right to life and oppose using taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortion.
• I believe our government should be colorblind and provide for all Americans equally. And I’m committed to protecting and restoring the beauty of our Great Lakes.

I believe my vision of freedom and returning to our common-sense values will lead to hope and opportunity for all Americans and a better brighter future for our children.

There's a lot to work with in there and a lot of contradictions. But tonight, I want to focus on just one item:

I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Many in Washington support redefining this institution that has served as the foundation of civilization.

Let's talk about marriage and civilization.

Before going any further, I'll say right now that I know that my position on same-sex marriage is not popular in this state or this country. Michigan adopted an amendment to the state constitution that banned same-sex marriage in 2004 by a 59 to 41 percent margin. Only two counties-- Ingham and Washtenaw-- had a majority of voters oppose the amendment. I opposed that amendment, and I support allowing same-sex couples to have the same rights that I enjoy.

But that's not important right now. I believe what I believe, and Congressman Walberg clearly states: "I believe marriage is between one man and one woman." That's a perfectly legitimate position to take, and if he had left it at that, I would have left it alone.

Instead, he said:

I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Many in Washington support redefining this institution that has served as the foundation of civilization.

It's that second sentence that's a problem. Walberg gets his facts wrong on both counts.

"Many in Washington support redefining this institution..."

Do some people in Washington support redefining marriage-- or, rather, opening it up to same-sex couples? Yes. A few politicians here and there do. But Walberg's claim in the full text above was that these were the differences between his agenda and the "status quo in Congress." To me, that implies that he thinks a majority of Congress is trying to redefine marriage.

Is anyone in Congress trying to redefine marriage right now? Here are the bills that have been introduced in the 110th Congress that relate to defining marriage, with relevant text:

HR 107 (January 4, 2007)

"To define marriage for all legal purposes in the District of Columbia to consist of the union of one man and one woman."

Pretty straightforward.

HR 300 - We the People Act (January 5, 2007)

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

In other words, you can't claim the right to marry based on the Fourteenth Amendment ("equal protection of the laws"). This is a Ron Paul bill, which seeks to right any number of supposed wrongs that Paul sees.

HR 724 - Marriage Protection Act of 2007 (January 30, 2007)

"To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.

[...]

"No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C of this section."

In other words, this bill says that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, cannot be challenged in any court.

H. J. Res. 22 - Constitutional Amendment (February 6, 2007)

`Section 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of a legal union of one man and one woman.

`Section 2. No court of the United States or of any State shall have jurisdiction to determine whether this Constitution or the constitution of any State requires that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any union other than a legal union between one man and one woman.

`Section 3. No State shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State concerning a union between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage, or as having the legal incidents of marriage, under the laws of such other State.'.

A constitutional amendment, because this is obviously an issue worth amending the founding document of our nation over.

Did any of those look like those liberals wanting to redefine marriage? To me, it looks like the only folks interested in defining marriage in Washington are folks like Tim Walberg.

Now, about that other part...

"... redefining this institution that has served as the foundation of civilization."

So, marriage is the foundation of civilization? Here I was, thinking the wheel and fire had something to do with it.

Seriously, though, here's what the American Anthropological Association had to say:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

The experts say that Tim Walberg is wrong. What does make a civilization? Wikipedia says:

Social scientists such as V. Gordon Childe have named a number of traits that distinguish a civilization from other kinds of society.^[9] Civilizations have been distinguished by their means of subsistence, types of livelihood, settlement patterns, forms of government, social stratification, economic systems, literacy, and other cultural traits.

All human civilizations have depended on agriculture for subsistence. Growing food on farms results in a surplus of food, particularly when people use intensive agricultural techniques such as irrigation and crop rotation. Grain surpluses have been especially important because they can be stored for a long time. A surplus of food permits some people to do things besides produce food for a living: early civilizations included artisans, priests and priestesses, and other people with specialized careers. A surplus of food results in a division of labour and a more diverse range of human activity, a defining trait of civilizations.

Civilizations have distinctly different settlement patterns from other societies. The word civilization is sometimes defined as "a word that simply means 'living in cities'".^[10] Non-farmers gather in cities to work and to trade.

Marriage, however, didn't seem to make it in there.

I disagree with Congressman Walberg on same-sex marriage, but I realize that a lot of people disagree with me. But to suggest that Walberg is part of a struggling minority defending traditional marriage or to suggest that marriage is the foundation of civilization is both stupid and wrong.

And besides, is there anyone right now that thinks same-sex marriage is going to be an important issue in 2008? Is this what Walberg is going to try to run on?

Labels: 110th Congress, Gay Marriage, Issues, Tim Walberg

From the Battle Creek Enquirer:

With wrapped boxes in hand, nine people walked up the stairs in the Commerce Pointe building to U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg's Battle Creek office on Wednesday.

Chris Simmons, field representative for the Tipton Republican, greeted the group who handed him the six empty packages.

"These gifts are like Congressman Walberg's promises," said Dale Bennett, speaking on behalf of the group. "They're beautiful and they're empty."

Bennett, a member of the Joint-religious Organizing Network for Action and Hope (JONAH) Clergy Caucus, was accompanied by five other members of the caucus, three members of the Kalamazoo-based Michigan Citizen Action and a representative of the national environmental organization Clean Water Action.

Erin Knott, Michigan Citizen Action assistant director, said the empty boxes represented Walberg's support for critical domestic priorities, including education, children's health care and veterans' benefits.

(Emphasis added.)

Beautiful and empty. Honestly, I wish I had thought of that. If you've ever heard Congressman Walberg speak, his rhetoric sounds great, but means nothing. Beautiful and empty.

Walberg's website reads:

The Great Lakes are a treasure essential to both Michigan and the entire nation.

Beautiful, isn't it? But how does he really feel?

“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.”

On Iraq, Walberg says:

Without a doubt, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results.

That sounds pretty good to me. "A new strategy," with "quantifiable goals and measurable results" is a reasonable policy. But when Congress considers legislation that

Directs the President, by January 1, 2008, to transmit to the congressional defense, appropriations, and foreign relations committees a comprehensive U.S. strategy for Iraq. Requires the President to update such strategy no later than July 1, 2008, and every 90 days thereafter, including a description of the number of Armed Forces deployed to Iraq and the missions for which they are so deployed.

Tim Walberg votes No. A beautiful promise, but, apparently, empty.

For that matter, Congressman Walberg promised $500,000 for W.K. Kellogg Airport, which was a particularly beautiful promise. We weren't supposed to notice that it was an empty promise, as he went ahead and voted No on that funding.

When given these symbolic gifts, what was Congressman Walberg's response?

Walberg was in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday when the gifts were delivered, but he responded via e-mail, saying excessive government spending and tax increases have delivered a recession and job losses for Michigan families.

"I voted for the largest increase for veterans care in American history, while consistently working to eliminate wasteful spending to balance the budget and prevent more tax increases on struggling Michigan families and small businesses," he said.

Matt Lahr, Walberg's press secretary, said the congressman was expected to vote in favor of State Children's Health Insurance Program legislation approved Tuesday by the U.S. Senate that extends the program into 2009 without the $35 million expansion sought by Democrats.

Lahr said Walberg also supported reasonable education initiatives such as the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007.

Yep. More empty promises.

Labels: 110th Congress, Constituent Services, Great Lakes, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

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

Today, the House of Representatives considered HR 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act conference report, which reconciled the House and Senate versions previously passed. It reauthorizes funding for our intelligence-gathering agencies (at a cost of $2.00 per American). As far as I know, that part wasn't controversial, and I'm guessing that Congressman Walberg and most other members of Congress are fine with funding our intelligence agencies.

Here's the part that people disagreed with:

The House, in a 222-199 vote, passed annual policy legislation for intelligence agencies that included the ban on the use of simulated drowning in interrogations.

``This would mean no more torture and no more questions about what the CIA is allowed to do behind closed doors,'' said Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat.

U.S. interrogations emerged again as a controversial issue after Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden revealed on Dec. 6 that the agency destroyed videotapes of the questioning of alleged terrorists made in 2002.

(Emphasis added.)

That's right. The controversial part, apparently, is that the bill bans torture. That's controversial.

As you read above, the House passed the conference report, 222 to 199.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No. The entire Republican delegation from Michigan shared his position.

I was ready to write up something on how absurd it is that anyone would think it's unreasonable to outlaw torture, including waterboarding-- the simulated drowning technique mentioned above. But instead, I'll give you a much better take-down, by DHinMI at DailyKos. I don't usually like to quote entire posts, but really, you can't get a better explanation than this:

One might have thought the waterboarding debate in the US was settled over a century ago:

The water board technique dates back to the 1500s during the Italian Inquisition. A prisoner, who is bound and gagged, has water poured over him to make him think he is about to drown...

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.

In 1901 women were prohibited from voting. We were less than 50 years away from legalized slavery, and most African-Americans were denied the full rights of citizenship. Children were working in mines, we were on the cusp of becoming an imperial occupier of the Philippines, and "polite society" accepted most of the tenets of eugenics. But even then, our interrogation techniques had evolved beyond the practices of the Spanish Inquisition, and we punished torturers, even if they were our torturers.

Just as the military rejected torture during previous wars, soldiers today know that torture yields bad information, dehumanizes the torturers along with the tortured, and makes it more likely that when our soldiers are captured that they too will be tortured. That’s why 30 retired generals and admirals implored Congress to pass the prohibition against torture.

Congressman Walberg, I admit, I don't know that this is the reason why you didn't support the bill. Maybe you had an issue with the cost, or maybe you thought that our intelligence agencies would be protecting the wrong people or something... that seemed to be your problem with S-CHIP, after all.

But the impression I get is that you and your Republican colleagues opposed this bill because you think torture is just fine. You think it's a legitimate method of interrogation, even if it doesn't actually yield results and is a violation of human rights and any sense of decency we might have.

That's the impression I get. Am I right? Congressman Walberg, do you believe waterboarding is torture? If you do, do you think it's a legitimate interrogation technique?

If you don't think waterboarding should be allowed, then I'll issue an apology for this post right away. I would feel terrible if I accused you of something so despicable as supporting torture and it wasn't true. I'd really appreciate a response or a public statement to clear things up. Torture is a serious thing to me, and I find it hard to believe anyone who claims to be Christian-- or, for that matter, anyone who claims to have any morals, regardless of faith-- would support it.

Do you support the use of torture, Congressman Walberg?

I'm sending a copy of this post to his office in hopes of a response, but I think it would be great if more people were to ask him about it. Contact Congressman Walberg and ask him about this vote. Ask him whether he supports torture. I'm eagerly awaiting his answer.

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

Today, December 4, 2007, the House of Representatives examined HR 3998, "America's Historical and Natural Legacy Study Act". The bill's description:

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct special resources studies of certain lands and structures to determine the appropriate means for preservation, use, and management of the resources associated with such lands and structures.

In the text of the bill, there is a list of ten historical and natural sites, from the site of the Battle of Camden to Harry Truman's birthplace to the Mississippi River itself, and it authorizes the Department of the Interior to study ways to preserve the sites and possibly integrate some into the National Parks system. It's a study only.

HR 3998 passed, by a vote of 326 to 79.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No. He was the only member of the Michigan delegation to vote against the bill.

Nice. I guess someone didn't like history class field trips.

Labels: 110th Congress, Historical Preservation, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

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

I feel like I've written this post before, somehow...

Today, the House voted on the latest incarnation of the SCHIP reauthorization, which was re-worked to address concerns of people like Tim Walberg over illegal immigrants, adults, and higher-income families receiving coverage.

The latest version passed, with a vote of 265 to 142. That's not a veto-proof two-thirds, but it's pretty close.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No, apparently unsatisfied with the changes.

The next step, if this version is vetoed (which it probably will be) would be a continuing resolution to fund SCHIP at current levels for another month or so. Otherwise, the program loses all funding after October 31st.

Labels: 110th Congress, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Bumped to the top of the page, since it's kind of important... - Fitzy

The Hill brings us the latest on efforts to pass an SCHIP reauthorization:

After tinkering with their bill, House Democrats believe they have made the necessary concessions to attract a veto-proof majority on legislation expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

House Democratic leadership aides said that the new bill has addressed the three principle Republican complaints made about the original five-year, $35 billion expansion, which President Bush vetoed earlier this month.

A vote on the legislation is scheduled for Thursday. If it is approved with a veto-proof majority, it would qualify as a huge political victory for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as well as Senate Democrats, who already have the votes to override Bush.

and

The revised measure will include provisions prohibiting coverage of adults, preventing families with incomes of 300 percent of the poverty level from qualifying for the program, and making it harder for illegal immigrants to sign up for the program.

and finally,

Liberal activists are carrying out ad campaigns in the districts of seven House Republicans calling out the lawmakers for their votes against the SCHIP bills.

The ad campaign is funded by the MoveOn.org Political Action and is being supported by a broader grassroots outreach efforts being carried out by the MoveOne.org Political Action, big labor unions, Americans United for Change, USAction, the Campaign for America’s Future, ACORN and several other liberal groups.

Although the targeted members, GOP Reps. Tom Feeney (Fla.), Ric Keller (Fla.), Sam Graves (Mo.), Randy Kuhl (N.Y.), Marilyn Musgrave (Colo.) and Tim Walberg (Mich.), arguably aren’t the most likely lawmakers to flip their votes, MoveOn.org’s message won’t be lost on other House Republicans facing difficult reelection bids.

In addition to organizations such as these and Families USA, which are traditional allies of the Democratic Party, influential lobbying groups with ties to both parties also say they’ll keep up their efforts to get an SCHIP bill passed.

“Everything we’ve been doing, we’ve continued doing,” a spokesman for the AARP said. Those activities have included dispatching their formidable lobbying team to shore up support on Capitol Hill for the SCHIP bill, print and TV ad campaigns and grassroots activity.

Obviously, having not seen or read the compromise bill (actually, the second compromise... the original version was bigger than the one eventually passed and vetoed), I can't say whether or not it is good or bad. However, I can say that if it addresses the issues of adults on SCHIP, higher-income families, and illegal immigrants, Congressman Walberg really has no legitimate reason to vote against it. Those were his complaints, and the Democratic leadership says they've addressed them.

Please keep in mind, however, that in the bill Walberg voted against, all of his objections were already addressed. This would just be tougher language.

So, House Democrats have made moves to compromise. Will Congressman Walberg?

We'll find out tomorrow.

UPDATE: Er... we'll find out today. I hadn't realized it was after midnight!

Labels: 110th Congress, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

As I continue to try to catch up with the Walberg Voting Record...

On September 27, 2007, the House of Representatives took up HR 3567, the Small Business Investment Expansion Act of 2007. A summary of the bill can be found here. The cost is given as less than a dollar per American in 2008.

There's a provision in the bill which allows more federal dollars to go toward businesses which have already have a certain amount of private money from venture capitalists, allowing the Small Business Administration's investment programs to help more companies.

At least, I think that's what it does. Part of the problem with the kind of blogging that I do is that I'm trying to educate myself on a wide variety of issues with which I am unfamiliar, all in my free time. (And not even using all of my free time, because, believe it or not, Fitzy tries to have a social life, too.)

So if there's someone out there that can make sense out of it, please, say so in the comments. I'd love to hear from an expert. I've seen arguments in favor and arguments against. Frankly, I'm not sure what's good or bad about this, and I'd love to hear from you. (Though please, if you do your own research, use less biased sources than the two I just gave you!)

What I do know, however, is that the vast majority of members of the House of Representatives seemed to think the bill was a good idea. It passed, by a vote of 325 to 72.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No. He was the only member of the Michigan delegation to vote against the bill. Everyone else (except Congressman Dingell and Congressman Hoekstra-- they didn't vote) supported the bill.

So, either Congressman Walberg is a principled visionary, standing up for what's right, or obstinate and stubborn, and won't vote for something everyone else can agree is a good thing.

Based solely on what I've seen from him before, I'm going to guess it's the second one. But that's just me.

Labels: 110th Congress, Economic Development, Issues, Small Business, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

As I continue to try to catch up with the Walberg Voting Record...

On October 10, 2007, the House of Representatives voted on HR 3056, the Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007. A summary of the bill may be found here.

From my read of it, it looks like most of the bill is filled with simple, fairly uncontroversial reforms. For instance:
Since the U.S. Virgin Islands is an American possession (obviously), this seems to make sense. I'm sure there are arguments for and against, but I've got to think that this wasn't too controversial a move.

Other portions of the bill included increasing taxes on American expatriates who renounce their citizenship (apparently, that's an issue) and increasing penalties on individuals and companies that file incorrect information or fail to file certain forms.

The controversial bit of the bill comes here:
At first glance, this doesn't make sense. We want our government to collect its taxes, and debt collection agencies could help to squeeze the money out of folks trying to cheat the system. Right?

Well, Speaker Nancy Pelosi's website explains why that hasn't worked out very well:

Repeals IRS authority to enter into private debt collection contracts. The provision would repeal the 2004 provisions that give the IRS’s authority to enter into contracts with private companies to collect federal income taxes. Numerous cases have been identified that illustrate taxpayer harassment, abusive calling, and violations of taxpayer rights, the Fair Debt Collection Act, and taxpayer return disclosure protections. For example, one elderly couple was called 150 times, including five times a day, asking for a taxpayer. Within the first five calls, the debt collector knew that the taxpayer did not reside at the home. Calls continued for 27 more days with 1-7 calls per day. Other cases involve people in nursing homes, those serving in Iraq, innocent spouses and those subject to identity theft. The Federal Trade Commission has 130 complaints likely to involve the private tax debt contractors, and the Taxpayer Advocate has many more. With bipartisan support, the House has twice passed legislation to stop the private collection of federal taxes, most recently in the Roth amendment to the fiscal year 2007 Treasury Appropriations bill.

A blog called taxgirl has more, from a 2006 post:

Obstensibly, the idea for this move towards privatization is to save taxpayer dollars. However, IRS officials claim that the move will actually be more expensive (up to 8 times moreso) and will result in fewer dollars collected (approximately 5 times less). The net difference to taxpayers? A projected $1.1 billion collection from private companies versus $87 billion from IRS revenue officers - if only they could hire more revenue officers. However, despite the economics, which are undisputed, Congress has refused to allow IRS to hire more revenue officers.

So, private collection companies cost us more money and harass innocent people. It's probably best if we not give them any more contracts.

Now, since I don't know much about tax law, there's a chance that I might have missed some key element of the bill, or misrepresented something. If so, please speak up in the comments and educate me.

Until then, I'll go ahead and conclude that for the most part, it was probably a reasonable and fair piece of legislation.

Most of the House of Representatives seems to have agreed with me, too, because the bill passed, by a vote of 232 to 173.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

I know that Congressman Walberg doesn't like the IRS and would rather replace all other taxes with a 23 percent sales tax. But besides that, is there a reason he voted against this bill?

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

The SCHIP vote got a lot of attention over the last couple of weeks, but the House of Representatives was busy with other projects, too.

Among them was HR 2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007. The bill would "establish the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States to provide for the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of decent, safe, and affordable housing for low-income families." A summary from the Congressional Research Service, via GovTrack.us, may be found here.

The bill explains its own purposes:

`(1) to address the national shortage of housing that is affordable to low-income families by creating a permanently appropriated fund, with dedicated sources of funding, to finance additional housing activities, without supplanting existing housing appropriations or existing State and local funding for affordable housing;

`(2) to enable rental housing to be built, for families with the greatest economic need, in mixed-income settings and in areas with the greatest economic opportunities;

`(3) to promote ownership of one-to-four family owner-occupied housing by low-income families; and

`(4) to construct, rehabilitate, and preserve at least 1,500,000 affordable dwelling units over the next decade.

The bill passed, 264 to 148. Forty-one Republicans joined a united Democratic caucus in supporting the bill.

As one might expect, Congressman Tim Walberg voted No. Michigan Republicans Fred Upton and Candice Miller joined the majority.

As Michigan Liberal user phikapbob says, after voting against SCHIP, apparently some Republicans must feel that "poor kids without health care shouldn't have homes either":

Isn't it possible, by looking at the record numbers of mortgage foreclosures this country is seeing, that many families are overextending themselves to pay for adequate housing? What kind of person votes against health care for the poor one week, then follows that up with a vote against providing a roof over those peoples' heads? If this gets through the Senate, does Bush dare veto another bill with strong bipartisan support? The War on the Working Class rages on, my friends.

No real surprise, though. It's been clear from the start that Tim Walberg doesn't vote to help the people that work for a living. He's in it to help his Club for Growth supporters.

Labels: 110th Congress, Affordable Housing, Issues, Poverty, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

The House of Representatives just voted on overriding President Bush's veto of the SCHIP reauthorization bill. It failed to received a two-thirds majority.

The vote was 273 to 156 in support of overriding the veto. It would have taken 286 to override the veto.

They haven't announced it yet, but I can only assume from the numbers that Tim Walberg did not change his mind, and voted to support the president and oppose the children and about 80 percent of the country.

I'll have more updates later in the day.

UPDATE: The roll call vote can be seen here. Congressman Walberg did vote against overriding the veto, as expected.

I don't know what to say. I mean, I knew he wouldn't vote to override, but I still can't believe it.

Mark Schauer issued a brief statement:

"I'm disappointed that today a stubborn minority voted to provide political cover for President Bush instead of voting to provide health care coverage to thousands of children. The people of south central Michigan, the children of Michigan, deserve better."

Labels: 110th Congress, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Yesterday, state Senator Mark Schauer wrote a column for the Citizen Patriot in support of SCHIP. Now, it's Congressman Tim Walberg's turn, filling the pages of the Lansing State Journal.

Special interest groups in Washington, such as MoveOn.org, are upset with me for standing up on behalf of the taxpayers in my district and backing a reasoned approach to renewing the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

These special interest groups have been advertising on our local airwaves and spreading lies about my position. I support renewing SCHIP to provide health care to needy children in low-income families, but the bill these groups want me to vote for is the wrong approach.

Those nasty liberals! They're spreading lies about Tim!

Never mind that Congressman Walberg's own rhetoric on SCHIP is less than truthful. Rather than refute his points myself, I'll let the Detroit Free Press do it for me, with their excellent editorial on the facts about SCHIP, also published today.

Walberg says:

This bill would give children's health-care funds to childless adults, people who enter the country illegally and families in New York earning up to $83,000 a year who already have private insurance.

(Emphasis added.)

The Free Press says:

On childless adults-

In Michigan, 42% of SCHIP enrollees are childless adults, a program the state started with the Bush administration's blessing. Enrollees' annual income cannot exceed $3,500; the program is designed mainly to get them preventive care that will keep them out of emergency rooms. Two Republican congressmen (Mike Rogers and Dave Camp) sent a letter supporting the state's application.

In any event, Congress ended this option; it was not in the bill that the president vetoed.

In other words, Congressman Walberg, you're lying.

On illegal immigrants-

Not true now, not true in the bill the president vetoed. A provision that may have helped questionable immigrants was put forth in Congress but taken out before final passage. SCHIP goes only to citizens and legal immigrants who have been in the country at least five years.

In other words, Congressman Walberg, you're lying.

On those families in New York making $83,000 per year-

This can happen only if the administration grants a waiver. It has already rejected such a request from New York, probably the only state where the cost of living might justify such a request.

In other words, Congressman Walberg, you're lying again.

Walberg also says:

To pay for this huge expansion, 22 new million smokers will be required over the next five years. This bill and its budgetary gimmicks are certainly the wrong approach to take on children's health care.

The Free Press responds:

The bill is financed by a 61-cent-a-pack tax increase on cigarettes, which covers costs for the first five years. In the second five years, the cigarette tax will not be enough. Congress will have to decide in 2012 whether to restrict enrollment or find new revenue sources. That does not mean they will encourage 22 million new smokers.

In other words, once again, Congressman Walberg is lying.

Congressman Walberg ends his editorial repeating the same false talking points:

The House is scheduled today to vote to override the president's veto of the most recent SCHIP bill.

The Democrats are playing a typical Washington game by inserting funding for childless adults, illegal immigrants and families earning up to $83,000 a year into a bill for children.

Congress should act immediately to direct children's health care dollars to actual children who are in need and put an end to political games.

The Free Press says:

This state is so economically stressed that it's unfathomable any Michigan member of Congress would say no to SCHIP. Families who've had employer provided health care are getting laid off and bought out, or seeing their premiums soar, or finding them unaffordable as they try to stave off foreclosure.

There's no decent reason to deprive them of peace of mind over their children's health.

There are still probably a few hours left before the vote. Call Congressman Walberg and ask him to do the right thing and change his position.

(202) 225-6276

or

1-877-TIM-MI07

Labels: 110th Congress, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

(Thanks to an anonymous comment!)

In a guest column for the Citizen Patriot, Senate Minority Leader and congressional candidate Mark Schauer makes the case for SCHIP.

A few key pieces of the column:

Sometimes if people say something often enough, it seems true. That's what many have been doing in misrepresenting a bipartisan bill to guarantee health-insurance coverage to 80,000 Michigan children. We must set the record straight as Congress has another chance this week to do the right thing and approve this common-sense legislation.

[...]

Those who oppose the plan have resorted to myths. They say this proposal will allow illegal immigrants to receive coverage. In fact, the bill specifically says, "No federal funding for illegal aliens." Period.

It is also untrue to say families making $83,000 a year will be eligible. New York once applied for a waiver for families at that level, but it was denied. The bill maintains current eligibility requirements, which means that Michigan children from families earning less than $41,000 would qualify. "Wealthy" families would not take advantage of this program. See for yourself by visiting the nonpartisan FactCheck.org.

The notion that this bill will result in "socialized medicine" also doesn't hold water. In Michigan, the MIChild program is run by a network of private health-care providers. By extending the coverage to an additional 25,000 kids, the same private network will be used.

This approach could even save our country money in the long run because families without health coverage often turn to the more-expensive emergency room for care. It's true this version spends more than the president would like, but it is not nearly as much as the $12 billion per month we spend in Iraq.

[...]

As elected officials, we make tough choices. I recently voted for a budget solution that protects health-care access, even supporting cuts and reforms that traditional Democratic interest groups didn't support. It's time for Rep. Walberg to make a choice that shouldn't be so tough.

But you should really just have read the whole thing.

The veto override vote is tomorrow. It might seem like a lost cause, but contact Congressman Walberg and tell him that you want him to do the right thing, support life, and vote to override the veto.

Labels: Health Care, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

On September 26, 2007, the House of Representatives voted on HR 2693, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act. Speaker Pelosi's website explains:

This legislation responds to the appearance of a fatal and irreversible disease called bronchiolitis obliterans that appeared among a group of workers in a popcorn plant in 2000. The disease, which has come to be known as “popcorn lung,” is connected to diacetyl, a chemical used in artificial butter flavoring that the workers were exposed to, according to the National Institute for Occupations Safety and Health (NIOSH). The NIOSH scientists said that diacetyl caused “astonishingly grotesque” damage to the lungs, and likened exposure to the chemical to “inhaling acid."

Seven years after the first cases of popcorn lung were identified, and five years after NIOSH published its first report, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has failed to issue a standard protecting American workers from exposure to diacetyl. Many of the workers identified with severe lung damage have needed lung transplants, and several have died.

The Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act:

• Requires OSHA to issue an Interim Final Standard within 90 days of the date this law takes effect that would apply to flavor manufacturing establishments and the microwave popcorn processing and packaging industry. This includes engineering controls, respiratory protection, exposure monitoring, medical surveillance and worker training.
  
  It would also require employers to develop a written exposure control plan that will indicate specific measures the employer will take to minimize employee exposure.
  
  
• Requires OSHA to issue a final standard within two years. That standard would apply to all locations where diacetyl is used. It would also set a specific limit on how much diacetyl workers could be exposed to.

This is the first I had ever heard of the issue. Still, if people are having serious medical problems related to this, it seems like OSHA ought to do something about it.

The bill passed, 260 to 154. Forty-seven Republicans joined in supporting the bill, including Michigan's Thad McCotter, Candice Miller, and Fred Upton.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

As far as I know, he never issued a statement on this vote, but I'd be curious to know his reasoning. Does Walberg have scientific evidence suggesting that it's not that big of a deal? Is it an objection to government regulation in general? Does Walberg just not like popcorn or the workers who make it?

Really, I'd like to know. One would have thought this was a pretty straight-forward bill to support. Congressman Walberg, or any staffers reading, would you care to comment? Was there a reason to vote against this bill?

Labels: 110th Congress, Issues, Labor, Safety, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

On September 20, 2007, the House of Representatives voted on HR 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007. The bill would reauthorize and fund the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2008 to 2011. The FAA, of course, is the agency which keeps airplanes from falling out of the sky. Or, rather, it sets in place regulations on flights, airplanes, and airlines, and maintains the air traffic control system. Flying is a nightmare sometimes, but it'd be a lot worse without the FAA. A summary of what the bill does can be found here.

While not a high-profile bill, it was obviously vital to the economy and safety. Without it, the FAA would cease to operate and chaos would ensue. The bill easily passed, 267 to 151.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

Now, does that mean that Walberg wants airplanes to crash? Of course not. Even his rigid ideology, I assume, allows for regulation of something like this (if it doesn't, I'm truly frightened). Instead, the bit which probably made it impossible for Walberg and 150 other Republicans to vote to reauthorize the FAA was this:

Two amendments to the bill were introduced and passed. The first amendment that passed was an amendment to reopen contract talks between the FAA and the Naitonal Air Traffic Controllers Association. The amendment would put the 1998 controllers' contract back into force. If no agreement is reached within 45 days, the dispute would be sent to binding arbitration. The amendment directs that FAA controllers are to be given back pay but provides no funding for this purpose. Future disputes between FAA and one of its unions would be sent to binding arbitration in the event of an impasse. A second amendment was also passed to change the definition of "express carrier" under the Railway Labor Act to allow the non-aviation portions of express carriers to be organized under the National Labor Relations Act (instead of the RLA).

Each amendment strengthens the position of the workers in labor negotiations. Although Congressman Walberg issued no statement on the bill, I'm guessing his anti-labor stance is what prevented him from supporting the bill.

Tim Walberg: Fighting against the little guy on behalf of big corporations.

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

I'm going to try to catch up today on some votes that I've missed over the last month or so. -- Fitzy

On October 4, 2007, the House of Representatives took up HR 3246, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007. The Majority Whip's website describes the bill:

H.R. 3246 – Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007

Authorizes Five Regional Economic Development Commissions. H.R. 3246 provides a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severely economically distressed regions in the nation. H.R. 3246 authorizes five regional economic development commissions under a common framework of administration and management, and provides a structure for economic development decision-making and planning. These commissions are designed to address problems of systemic poverty and underdevelopment in their respective regions. The Delta Regional Commission and the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission are existing entities that are reauthorized in this legislation, while the others have been proposed in legislation introduced in this and previous Congresses.

and

Management and Administration. This bill models the administrative and management procedures for these five commissions after the highly successful Appalachian Regional Commission. The bill establishes commission membership, voting structure, and staffing; outlines conditions for financial assistance; authorizes grants to local development districts; establishes an Inspector General for the commissions; and other provisions designed to produce a standard administrative framework. By providing a uniform set of procedures, this bill provides a consistent method for distributing economic development funds throughout the regions most in need of such assistance and ensures a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severely distressed regions in the country.

Funding for Commissions. H.R. 3246 authorizes the appropriation of $1.25 billion over the 2008-2012 period to establish five regional economic development commissions under a common framework of administration and management, and provides a structure for economic development decision-making and planning. H.R. 3246 directs the five regional commissions to award grants to state and local governments, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations to promote economic and infrastructure development. At least 40 percent of the authorized funds would be used for rants to develop transportation, telecommunications, and other basic public infrastructure. Remaining funds would be used for other economic development activities, such as providing job training, improving public services, and promoting conservation, tourism, and development of renewable and alternative energy projects.

The bill passed the House with bipartisan support, on a vote of 264 to 154. Thirty-nine Republicans joined the Democrats in support of the bill.

Needless to say, Congressman Walberg apparently didn't feel it was appropriate to invest in developing the poorest parts of our country. He voted No, as did all other Republicans in the Michigan delegation.

Labels: 110th Congress, Economic Development, Infrastructure, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Walberg won't listen to the facts and he won't listen to labor. He won't listen to the American people or his own constituents. He certainly won't listen to the Democrats or to Mark Schauer. So far, he's only listened to the Club for Growth.

But before he was Congressman Walberg and before he was state Representative Walberg, he was Reverend Walberg. The national group Catholics United has been appealing to his pro-life morals to try to encourage him to vote to override President Bush's veto.

Now, local religious leaders are doing the same.

Several members of the Joint-religious Organizing Network for Action and Hope (JONAH) plan to meet with U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, today at 11 a.m. to persuade him to vote to override President George W. Bush’s veto of a federal and state funded children’s health insurance program.

Following the meeting, they plan to hold an open prayer for the Congressman’s vote at about 11:30 or 11:45 a.m. at Commerce Pointe near Battle Creek City Hall.

The public are welcome to join in the prayer.

This isn't an issue about money. It doesn't add to the debt, and no one would ever call this pork spending. And this isn't about "socialized medicine," because SCHIP is nothing like what Canada or Western Europe use. And this isn't about illegal immigrants or $83,000 or any of that stuff, none of which is an actual part of the bill.

This is a simple question of morals. When you see people in need-- especially children-- do you help them?

The meeting is over by now, but I hope it went well. I hope they convinced Congressman Walberg to listen to his conscience and changes his mind.

If Congressman Walberg votes to support the president's veto, it'll certainly make him an easier candidate to defeat. But you know what? I don't care about that. Once, just once, I want to see my congressman do something that will help someone besides the Club for Growth.

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

Something new from a different source...

Via DailyKos.com:

Ad Campaign Criticizes Pro-Life Members of Congress for Voting against Children's Health Insurance

Washington, DC- Catholics United will launch a radio advertising campaign targeting ten members of Congress whose opposition to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) have compromised their pro-life voting records.

The ads, which feature a mother urging her Congressional Representative to support SCHIP, will primarily air on Christian and talk radio statio