UPDATE: Mystery solved. An anonymous commenter says:

As much as it pains me to give Tim Walberg credit for anything, he was attending a funeral service for his father-in-law in Arkansas on those dates.
[Link]

To Congressman Walberg and his wife, I'm very sorry for your loss.

To everyone else, disregard the question below. It wasn't meant to imply any malfeasance, and, as we now know, it was perfectly appropriate for Congressman Walberg to be absent.

-----

I've been sifting through Congressman Walberg's voting record from the last month or so, and I noticed something that strikes me as odd. It might be perfectly innocent. I'm just curious if anyone out there has an answer.

On September 15 and 16, Walberg didn't cast any votes in the House of Representatives. Many of the votes he missed were procedural, but he missed votes on the passage of a student loan bill, two resolutions honoring the military (here and here), and on an energy bill that would allow drilling for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Since Congressman Walberg has generally been good about showing up for votes (11 of his 22 missed votes came during those two days), and since he's always eager to vote for drilling for oil, it struck me as odd that he missed all of those votes. Now, it could be (and probably is) something innocent, like, he was sick, or there was a family emergency, or something like that.

But I'm just curious-- does anyone know where Tim Walberg was for those two days? Did I miss some big protest that only he and eight other congressmen took part in? What kept him out of the House?

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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