Michael Motta, a diarist at Michigan Liberal, shared this with us last week, and then sent me a little bit more information. I'd like to thank him in advance for all the hard work and research he did, and for giving me permission to talk about it here. It's important enough that I wanted to bring it up.

He received a letter from Congressman Tim Walberg:
The letter, in case that's too small for you to read, thanks Mr. Motta for contacting Walberg about HR 1070, the Constitution Restoration Act. It then proceeds to explain why Walberg thinks the bill would be a good idea, and reminds us that he's a co-sponsor of HR 69, the Pledge Protection Act of 2007.

The Constitution Restoration Act would "limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism," according to its own description. How does it do that? By limiting the ability of federal judges and the Supreme Court to review cases "concerning ... acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

That's right-- it makes it so that they can't hear separation of church and state cases. It clearly states that such issues are no longer in the jurisdiction of the courts, and states that judges that review such issues should be impeached.

And Tim Walberg thinks the bill is a great idea. That, and the Pledge Protection Act, 'cause there's everyone knows that if "under God" is removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, people might start pledging allegiance to the flag of Canada or something.

I'm really tempted to go off on a rant about separation of church and state and why Walberg is wrong, but I won't. See, there are a number of things that are wrong with Walberg's letter.

For starters, Michael Motta didn't write to Walberg in support of HR 1070, the Constitution Restoration Act. He wrote to Walberg to support HR 1415, the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007. That bill, supported by the ACLU, deals with restoring civil liberties curtailed by the Bush Administration.

Yep, Walberg thanked him for supporting a bill that Michael Motta doesn't support. Walberg (or, at least, his office) ignored what Michael Motta actually said and thanked him for what they wanted him to say.

But it gets worse.

See, the Constitution Restoration Act isn't HR 1070. The Stamp Out Gang Violence Act is HR 1070. In 2005, during the 109th Congress, the Constitution Restoration Act was numbered 1070, but that was two years ago and long before Walberg even entered the House. Oops.

Does Walberg even know which bills are up for consideration and which aren't?

____
UPDATE: I didn't think to check this before, but I went back and checked another piece of the letter. Walberg reminds us that he's a co-sponsor of HR 69, the Pledge Protection Act of 2007. Except, HR 69 isn't the Pledge Protection Act, it's the Disability Benefit Fairness Act of 2007. The Pledge Protection Act of 2007 is HR 699. A typo, perhaps, but on top of everything else...

But wait! In the bill text, Tim Walberg is not listed as a co-sponsor! He even got that wrong!

UPDATE II: Ignore that last line, I spoke too soon. Walberg is a co-sponsor of HR 699, but it wasn't listed on the Thomas text.
____

Ah, but it gets even worse!

Michael added an update to his diary at Michigan Liberal to share the latest:

I got another in the mail today from Walberg. I'm convinced that Walberg is going by the theory that negative publicity is better than no publicity.

"Dear Mr. Motta:
Thank you for contacting me expressing your concerns and thoughts about the 2007 Farm Bill. I appreciate hearing from you." Et cetera, et cetera.

And I sure do appreciate that I must be expressing a lot more concern about our nation than I actually am! Now I'm not just a civil liberties guy and an anti-war guy but a big Farm Bill guy to boot! Only problem is I have no recollection whatsoever of becoming a big Farm Bill guy. Maybe the bill is good, maybe it could be better - honestly I don't know. One good thing about this Walberg letter is at least he didn't thank me for my opposition or support of the Bill.

Of course it would be nice if Walberg not only appreciated hearing from me, but also listened (or read with any degree of literacy). Since this letter was dated July 12, I am pretty convinced that it was a response to my e-mail explaining that I'm in favor of the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 (per the initial diary entry). Must be that 2007 part that was a killer for staff to sort out.

So now I'm chalked up as being in favor of a reactionary bill that was killed during the last Congress, and also as a concerned Farm Biller. What next?

(Emphasis added.)

So, let's recap. When Michael contacted Congressman Walberg to express his support for a civil liberties bill, he was thanked for supporting two entirely different bills, one of which was debated and tossed aside long before Walberg was elected. [UPDATE:] And, he claims credit for co-sponsoring a bill that he isn't a co-sponsor for, getting another bill's number wrong too!

Whenever I complain about a politician like Tim Walberg, I inevitably get the response that, as long as they're doing a good job, I can't complain too much just because I disagree with them. In other words, competency trumps ideology. I personally don't believe that, but some people do.

This episode calls the competency issue into question. It's not just about them mixing up the names of two bills, anyone could be guilty of that. But Walberg and his office got everything completely wrong on this one.

If this is how they handled one constituent's thoughts and concerns, how badly have they screwed up everything else?

Labels: 110th Congress, Civil Liberties, Constituent Services, Faith and Politics, Issues, Separation of Church and State, Tim Walberg