Bumped back to the top... Today's your last chance to get questions in! -- Fitzy

The Lansing State Journal's blog Capital Journal will be having a question-and-answer session with Congressman Tim Walberg. Says blogger and journalist Derek Wallbank:

To go over the rules again:

You submit questions either by commenting below or emailing them to me. I pick five, and will ask them of the congressman. His responses will be printed in a later post.

You have until Dec. 1 to get those questions in, so don't delay!

I hope Walberg Watch readers will head on over and ask some good questions. I'll probably be asking one or two myself.

Labels: Constituent Services, Tim Walberg

This has been reported elsewhere, but is worth mentioning here. Former Congressman and Doctor Joe Schwarz will be a guest speaker tomorrow, November 27th, on the topic of embryonic stem cell research.

The event will be hosted by the Livingston County Democratic Party.

Michigan’s restrictive laws block:
• Research that can lead to cures
• Job creation
• Research companies from moving to Michigan

Learn the truth from experts

Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures

Presents

Former U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz, M.D
Marcia Baum, Exec. Dir. MCSCRC

Tuesday, November 27, 2007
7 p.m.
Livingston County Democratic Hdqrs
10321 E Grand River, Suite 600
Brighton, Michigan 48116

RSVP: 810-229-4212 or livcodems@sbcuc.net


This event is free but donations are welcome.
Dessert, coffee, and tea will be served.

Schwarz doing an event with Democrats? Your guess is as good as mine when it comes to his future electoral plans. As of an October interview with Jack Lessenberry on WGTE's "Deadline Now," he said he was still undecided.

For those that have forgotten, Congressman Tim Walberg is against embryonic stem cell research, which Dr. Schwarz supports.

Labels: 2008 Speculation, Democratic Party, Joe Schwarz, Stem Cell Research

Over the next few days, I'd like to take a look at Congressman Walberg's staff. Thanks to an anonymous tip, I think there are some things worth looking at.

Before I begin, I just want to say I have nothing but respect and admiration for the people who work in a congressional office. Obviously, given their employer, Tim Walberg, I don't agree with their ideology, but these are hard-working people. They're being asked by us to help educate the congressman, solve all of our constituent problems, navigate the mess that is the federal bureaucracy, walk the fine line between politics and good government, and maintain high ethical standards. And, on top of all that, they've got to deal with phone calls from people who may seem a little bit crazy.

In other words, the staffers who work in Congressman Walberg's office really do a lot of hard work.

But what's it like to work in his office? Is it worth it? Are his staffers happy? You'd have to ask them. Are they fairly compensated? Well, that's actually something we can look at. As has been noted by others, staffers are probably underpaid, but in Walberg's office, some people are paid better than others.

As one more way that we can ensure openness in government, members of Congress report what they pay their staffers. I'm not interested in publicizing the financial data of ordinary folks trying to do their jobs, so I've removed names from the data I'm going to share. Instead, I'll give you only their pay level, job title, and gender.

Here's how Congressman Walberg's staff was paid during the first quarter of 2007, from January 01, 2007 to March 31, 2007.

Gender	Job Title	Amount
Male	District Director	$17,111.10
Male	Field Representative	$11,336.67
Female	Caseworker	$7,944.44
Male	Field Representative	$7,088.90
Male	Grants and Special Projects Coordinator	$11,611.10
Female	Caseworker	$7,822.23
Female	Staff Assistant	$6,250.00
Male	Press Secretary	$9,777.77
Female	Field Representative	$7,822.23
Male	Legislative Assistant	$7,516.67
Male	Legislative Assistant	$8,933.33
Male	Legislative Director	$17,111.10
Male	Special Assistant	$7,577.77
Male	Field Representative	$9,044.44
Female	Legislative Correspondent	$7,944.44
Male	Chief of Staff	$25,666.67
Female	District Office Coordinator	$6,722.23

(Female staffers, for further emphasis, are in bold, and the three leadership positions-- chief of staff, legislative director, and district director-- are in italics. "Shared Employees," who work for more than one member of Congress, have been removed.)

So, what does all of this mean? Here are the averages:

Gender	Avg. Amount
Male (11)	$12,070.50
Female (6)	$7,417.60

But that includes the three leadership positions I named above, all of whom make significantly more than the rest of the staff. With them removed, it looks more like this:

Gender	Avg. Amount (No Leadership Included)
Male (8)	$9,110.83
Female (6)	$7,417.60

In other words, the ordinary male Walberg staffer made $1,693.23 more than the average female Walberg staffer.

In the second quarter, from April 01, 2007 to June 30, 2007, there were no personnel changes, but pay did change. Here's what it looked like:

Gender	Job Title	Amount
Male	District Director	$17,499.99
Male	Field Representative	$11,625.00
Female	Caseworker	$8,124.99
Male	Field Representative	$13,201.05
Male	Grants and Special Projects Coordinator	$11,874.99
Female	Caseworker	$8,000.01
Female	Staff Assistant	$7,500.00
Male	Press Secretary	$9,999.99
Female	Field Representative	$8,000.01
Male	Legislative Assistant	$10,250.01
Male	Legislative Assistant	$12,000.00
Male	Legislative Director	$17,499.99
Male	Special Assistant	$7,749.99
Male	Field Representative	$9,249.99
Female	Legislative Correspondent	$8,124.99
Male	Chief of Staff	$26,250.00
Female	District Office Coordinator	$6,875.01

And, the averages:

Gender	Avg. Amount
Male (11)	$13,381.91
Female (6)	$7,770.84

and

Gender	Avg. Amount (No Leadership Included)
Male (8)	$10,743.88
Female (6)	$7,770.84

That's right, the gender gap got bigger. A male Walberg staffer (not including the chief of staff, legislative director, and district director) would have made $2,973.04 more than a female staffer in the second quarter, up from the $1,700 gap in the first quarter.

So does this mean Tim Walberg just likes to hire male staffers for the important and higher-paying positions? If so, that seems bad enough, but let's look at his Field Representatives.

Field Representative	Amount (1Q)	Amount (2Q)
Male	$11,336.67	$11,625.00
Male	$7,088.90	$13,201.05
Male	$9,044.44	$9,249.99
Female	$7,822.23	$8,000.01

So, the one male Field Representative who was making less than a female counterpart got a big bump in his pay during the second quarter, leaving the one female staffer making the least of all four.

____
UPDATE: In the comments, Jay pointed out something that I missed. On the website that I got this information from, the male Field Representative who got the big increase from the first quarter to the second quarter is listed as receiving that amount between March 01 and June 30, unlike everyone else, who's listed as April 01 to June 30. Obviously, this affects the averages and it's tough to say exactly how much he was paid for the second quarter only (not including March).

Still, I feel like the broader point remains: women in Walberg's office are generally doing the lower-paid jobs.
____

What does all of this mean? There really isn't enough data to do a serious statistical analysis (though, if someone wants to do a comparison to the House as a whole, that might be interesting), so I'm not going to claim there's a clear gender discrimination case here.

Here's what I can say:

• On average, male staffers made more than female staffers in those quarters.
  
• In those two quarters, there were no female staffers who made more than about $8,000/quarter, while all but one male staffer made less than $9,000 in at least one quarter.
• The three positions I labeled "leadership positions," which receive the most pay, were all held by men.

Is there a reason Congressman Walberg pays women less? Does he oppose equal pay for equal work? Does he prefer hiring men for the "important stuff"? Or is it just an "interesting coincidence" (like District Director Rick Baxter's recent resignation and Mark Schauer's entry into the race)?

I can't answer any of those questions. But you could ask Congressman Walberg.

Labels: Constituent Services, Gender Equality, Tim Walberg, Walberg Staff

Our Congressman is featured in an Article at Time.com.

Walberg lived up to his conservative ideals — voting against a bill in the House that tightens restrictions against predatory lending. The measure, which garnered the support of 64 Republicans in passing 291-127

The best part is this quote from Walberg.

When you make a law like this — politically posturing on the basis of probably no more than the 10 or 15% of the loans that were made were fraudulent and took advantage of people, and the rest were good — it moves away from necessity to pure political gotcha."

The Congressman agrees that about 1 in 7 loans was fraudulent and took advantage of people. The amazing thing is that he does not seem to care about these people. How many are in the 7th district? Classic, when you don't have an argument just say the other side is politically posturing. If Walberg wont even stand up for those he admits were taken advantage of, what will he stand up for?

Even Joe Knollenberg voted for this bill.

I think that there are some things that could be done to further enhance and help these people.

There has been a lot of Walberg-related news lately, and, sadly, I've covered none of it. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about Congressman Walberg. Unfortunately, when my "real life" starts to get busier, blogging has to take a back seat to everything else.

I can't promise any updates this weekend, but hopefully, when I get a little time off around Thanksgiving, I can throw a few things together. Either that, or I'll fill up that time with relatives and catching up on some sleep. We shall see.

However, I can promise upcoming posts... eventually... on the following:

• Walberg Voting Record Updates - Our fine congressman has chosen to vote against the middle class, against ending the war, against education, and for protecting predatory lenders.
• Remember "Better Know A County" from way back when? That particular series never really materialized, but it's been building into a single post about geography in the 7th District, and the impact that could have on the election.
• Walberg pumped up his rhetoric on veterans' issues around Veterans' Day, but I'd like to take a closer look at that. It's not all what he says it is.
• Is there any chance that a fellow Republican may challenge Walberg in the primary? There's been some murmuring about that in the comments, and I'd like to examine the possibilities.
• Potentially related, former Congressman Joe Schwarz was on Toledo PBS affiliate WGTE's program "Deadline Now" in October, being interviewed by Jack Lessenberry about the place of moderates in the GOP. Schwarz has some interesting things to say, and I'm only now getting a chance to sit down and write about it.

So. That's your preview for the next couple of weeks.

UPDATE: I thought I'd also mention: I've gotten a lot of e-mails from people over the last couple of weeks. I've read them all, honest, and am planning to respond, but if you're worried that I may have forgotten you, feel free to e-mail me again and again and again until I actually do respond.

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 can't find a link (if anyone else can, let me know), but I got this in an e-mail today. From the newspaper Roll Call's rankings of congressional races:

7th district
Incumbent: Tim Walberg (R)
1st term (50 percent)
Outlook: Tossup

In the tumultuous 7th, turnover has been the norm recently. After six-term former Rep. Nick Smith (R) retired, moderate Joe Schwarz (R) took the seat in 2004 — even beating out Smith’s son in a crowded GOP primary.

Schwarz also beat Walberg in that same 2004 primary, but Walberg rebounded to win the 2006 Republican contest and the general election. The second time around, Walberg has significant help from the Club for Growth.

Democrats think they have a good chance against the socially conservative Walberg in 2006. After all, their nominee last time, little-known organic farmer Sharon Renier (D) lost by only 3 points to Walberg, despite spending just $56,000.

A year out from the election, it's already listed as a toss-up. That's extraordinary. Schauer's strength in fundraising and Walberg's apparent weakness has already caught the attention of the national press.

The article then brings up something that's on everyone's mind:

And one other wild card still remains: Will Schwarz and Walberg face each other in a third Republican primary? Schwarz hasn’t ruled out running again just yet, though some close to him say he likely won’t go for it.

Or will Schwarz run as an independent or a Democrat? So many possibilities!

Once again, it's going to be an exciting year!

Labels: 2008 Election, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

Every so often, I feel compelled to mention the blogging of Joe Sylvester at the "Michigan Conservative Dossier." I really don't know why...

But the latest may lead to some extra pro-Walberg comments at websites like this one. Apparently, Joe is upset that a lot of folks that post on the internet criticize Congressman Tim Walberg, and wants to do something about it.

Every single day I get Google alerts with blogs and media outlets savaging Congressman Tim Walberg (R-Tipton) and I have decided enough is enough. The conservative voice needs to be heard!

If anyone is interested, I will send them a list of links once a week where Walberg is being savaged by leftists and you can go and post a pro Walberg comment on that website. Just submit your email on the "Contact Us" link on the right and I will start sending you updates.

Congressman Walberg is vulnerable, and he needs to know that we support him and that the internet is not just a place for leftists to savage (and in Joe Knollenberg's case, stalk) conservatives.

Joe wants to call his volunteers "the Walberg Brigade." To pro-Walberg volunteers coming here, I say, welcome! Before you comment, please try to be civil. I don't engage in vulgar personal attacks here against Congressman Walberg or other Republicans, and I hope you'll be kind enough to show Democrats the same respect.

That said, I don't moderate or delete comments except under extreme circumstances (unlike certain conservative blogs, where comments have to be pre-approved), so feel free to say whatever you'd like.

Walberg Brigade, welcome to Walberg Watch!

Labels: Netroots, Republican Party, Tim Walberg