Friday, February 09, 2007
Walberg and the Role of Government
So, I was looking through Congressman Walberg's official House website earlier, figuring that, after receiving media attention, his office may have completed more pages, including his issue positions.
Unfortunately, while we can see which issues may matter to him, his positions on them are not clear. The one exception, as of this moment, is the issue titled "The Federal Government's Role". Here's what Walberg says:
The federal government has two primary roles. First, the government must protect our nation from foreign enemies. Second, the government must preserve the rights and freedoms in the founding documents so people can use their abilities, ingenuity and hard work to assist their families, community and nation.Hmph. Two roles, eh? National security and preserve rights and freedoms.
There are a few important things he didn't mention, I think. First, straight from the Constitution, the powers of Congress:
Now, it's true, Walberg did say the primary roles of the federal government. And, also true, national security gets a fair amount of attention-- declaring war, raising an army, etc. And, in the modern world, post offices and piracy on the high seas (Arr!) might not seem all that important.
At the same time, there are some pretty important things specifically mentioned as powers of Congress that I think ought to get a little attention from Walberg. Regulating foreign commerce, for example, should be a big one for any Michigan representative. And then there's "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." Walberg says he recognizes the need for promoting renewable energy, right? Well, what can and should the federal government do about it?
Incidentally, trade, the economy, and anything having to do with industry are all absent from Walberg's issues list, as are any mentions of science and the arts. But don't worry, "Life," the Second Amendment, and Tax Relief are all there. I bet those three are the issues you spend all your time thinking about.
UPDATE: 13 Feb. 2007-- As noted in the global warming post below, it looks like Walberg's website has a few new issues listed now, including "Economy." Still no content, but it's a start. Was it because of my little blog? Well, I doubt it, but it'd be nifty if it was.
And there are also the implied powers which the government exercises (for the strict constructionists out there, try here for starters).
I try to always build toward a point of some sort when I write these posts, but I'm afraid I don't have a clearly defined one tonight. Mostly, something about Walberg's view of the federal government struck me as wrong. Where's Social Security and Medicare? Where's regulating businesses for fair competition and honesty? He wants to protect you from foreign enemies and from infringing on your rights. Is that it? Does he feel no more compassion?
This is what Walberg writes:
The federal government has two primary roles. First, the government must protect our nation from foreign enemies. Second, the government must preserve the rights and freedoms in the founding documents so people can use their abilities, ingenuity and hard work to assist their families, community and nation.But this is what he's really saying:
As far as I'm concerned, you're on your own.
Anyway, that's my take on it. Share your thoughts on Walberg, the Constitution, and the role of the federal government in the comments.
Very interesting discussion. I'm confused with his second role of Government:
"Second, the government must preserve the rights and freedoms in the founding documents so people can use their abilities, ingenuity and hard work to assist their families, community and nation."
Rights and Freedoms? Does that include the right and freedom of choice? The right to be free from intrustive government?
Hmm, he campaigned as a conservative. They usually demand limited government, but he wants the goverment to regulate wombs and has proposed a 23 percent sales tax and a new bureaucracy to collect it.
Walberg preserving our rights? I'd say he's actively trying to take them away!
I looked over his bio on the website. It look's like he cut and pasted from the campaign website.
There still is no such thing as a "Lifetime A+" rating from the NRA.
I grew up in Battle Creek now living in Virginia.
Is there truth to the idea of recruiting former Mayor and Congressman Schwartz to switch to the Democratic Party and running against Walberg in '08?
I really doubt Schwarz would run as a Democrat. He's a Republican through and through, regardless of how Walberg has charactized him. He's a moderate Republican, but the party has moved so far to the Right he look's liberal and has raised speculation about party switching, primarly from hopeful Democrats who have no equal.Post a Comment
I think he would consider being an independent though. He appears to be throughly frustated with the Michigan GOP and their abandonment ment of the middle and moderates. By being an independent, he wouldn't have to fool with a primary again.
Here's something I found from another blog which summarizes the Michigan GOP's "accompolishments" in 2006. Although it's from a very bias site, it should concern ALL Republicans about the direction of their party:
- Unable to defeat a single Democratic incumbent in a state or federal election in 2006.
- Worst performance by a Republican candidate for Governor in 20 years, despite unlimited resources.
- Lost 6 seats in the Michigan House of Representatives to the Democrats, despite a Republican gerrymandered map.
- Lost 1 seat in the Michigan Senate to the Democrats despite a Republican gerrymandered map.
- Fewest Republicans and most Democrats in the Michigan Senate in 15 years.
- Lost control of Michigan House of Representatives to the Democrats, producing a Democratic Speaker for the first time in 12 years.
- Mailings to voters in Kent County helped Michigan Democrats send a second state representative to Lansing from Grand Rapids. Apparently Saul is even more effective at turning around Grand Rapids than Dick DeVos!
- Total Democratic sweep of all elected educational board seats for the first time in 20 years.
- Lost control of numerous county boards to Democrats.
- Endorsed Republican incumbent in 7th Congressional District defeated in primary.
- Urged the Republican National Committee to spend $1 million late on failed Senate campaign of Mike Bouchard rather than devote precious resources to defending Republican incumbents in Montana and Virgina, who in turn lost close races and swung control of the United States Senate to the Democrats!
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008