I wonder how he feels about Episcopalians?

Walberg is simply a religious and political hack with no business being in public office. What a shame we let him walk away with an election.

BTW, I noticed Club for Growth did a scathing ad on Huckabee here. Looks like they are back to their old tricks of political assassination. I can't wait to see what these cretins try to do to Mark Schauer!
 

Tim doesn't like his cafeteria lunch.

"So far, I'm not happy. They put scrambled eggs on cardboard now, uhhh, and you can imagine what a scrambled egg tastes like at a consistency moving around on a cardboard plate. It ... it isn't good."

For the full article about the renovation of the Capitol cafeteria to using no plastics and a healthier menu, go here. http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11189
 

Schauer: 7th Is Trending Democratic
Mark SCHAUER (D-Battle Creek) is wearing two hats these days as Senate Minority Leader and a candidate in the 7th Congressional District.

MIRS sat down with Schauer this week at the start of a new legislative year to see what his priorities are, his assessment of last year's bitter budget battles and how his juggling act is going.

He's challenging freshman U.S. Rep. Tim WALBERG (R-Tipton), who's been marked as vulnerable by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for failing to get 50 percent of the vote in 2006 against Democrat Sharon RENIER, who ran a shoe-string campaign with no caucus support. Walberg also is arguably to the right of this conservative Southern Michigan district.

The 7th went 54 percent for George W. BUSH in 2004. The seat has been held by a Republican since the 1992 redistricting, which created the boundaries that are more or less still in effect today.

Schauer, however, disagrees with the conservative characterization of the 7th, insisting it's "trending Democratic," which should boost his chances in November.

"You have to look at the fact that an unfunded Democrat took 46 percent of the vote, that the winner, Tim Walberg, took less than 50 percent of the vote. Look at Eaton County. Democrats have taken control of the county Board of Commissioners," Schauer said.

"I've been winning in Jackson County for two consecutive Senate races. It's kind of interesting when you look at the state House map � I was doing this yesterday � Democrats hold House seats in all of Lenawee County, all of Jackson County, all of Washtenaw County. I hold the Senate seat in Jackson and Calhoun County. A Democrat holds a House seat for part of Eaton County.

"So our numbers show it as a 47 percent � I don't want to say our numbers, nationally recognized numbers show � a 47 percent Democratic district, which is very similar to my Senate district."

Q. Why do you think your votes for tax increases won't hurt your chances in the 7th District race?

A. My Senate district, which comprises about 39 percent of the congressional district, I've been winning by large margins because my constituents know that I'm tireless in my fight for jobs, for quality communities, for good schools for adequately funded community colleges and universities, funding for health care. And you can't do those things if you have to continuously slash the state budget. And I voted for many budget cuts over the years and we've seen significant cuts over the last five years or so to higher education and local units of government, public safety.

And I think what the vast majority of people in the 7th District are looking at is an opportunity to strengthen our economy. They acknowledge that we don't achieve that by slashing funding for higher education, which results in higher tuition or inability to afford higher education. They understand that the health crisis is real and that having more uninsured results in increased premiums that businesses pay.

So I think the people of the 7th get that our economy needs to be our No. 1 priority. And frankly, the tax cutting of the (former Gov. John) ENGLER era hasn't produced a vibrant economy. The cupboards were bare and we've been forced to disinvest in some key areas. I have great optimism about the voters of the 7th District.

Q. Why did you still want to serve as Senate Minority Leader while running for Congress?

A. Well, I think I'm doing a good job. � I've been characterized by my staff as the Energizer Bunny, but the battery does run out when I get home and unfortunately it may be in the middle of a movie my wife has been waiting to watch with me.

I am at what I hope is a transitional point in my public service career. But I have always said that one of the best things to make the case for a new job is to do a great job in the job you currently have. I already had a couple of jobs; one is as a state senator representing the people of Calhoun and Jackson counties and the other is Democratic leader of the Senate. I enjoy this job. It's a job of facilitating, directing, guiding. I'm a very collaborative manager. I work very hard to involve my caucus members in different aspects of my caucus. I've had a great staff who I love working with and for the most part, I think they like working with me. There are certainly areas for which we strive for improvement.

It means I have two full-time jobs and I work very hard at both of them and I expect that I'm going to do them both very well.

Q. Do you have anybody in mind who might be a good replacement for your seat if you're elected November?

A. You know, that'll be up to the caucus to decide. When I informed my caucus members that I was taking a look at running for Congress, we processed that sort of as a family. Folks said I would be crazy not to take on the race for the 7th. That being said, it will be up to that caucus, should I be successful, to decide who their leadership will be and I'm sure they'll make a great choice.

Q. What about for your Senate seat itself?

A. My hope is that there are at least three Democrats holding state House seats within the 19th Senate District (Reps. Marty GRIFFIN (D-Jackson) and Mike SIMPSON (D-Liberty Twp.) and (Calhoun County Commissioner) Kate SEGAL is another possibility for the 62nd and the 63rd could be in play, as well. There are actually four House seats within the 19th.

And that doesn't mean that that's where a Senate candidate has to come from, but I think there are going to be lots of great options for Democrats. And believe me, as the newly elected member of Congress, my top political priority will be to elect a Democrat to my Senate seat and help the Senate Democratic caucus.

Q. Some people have referred to 2007 as the year of the tax hike. How would you characterize it?

A. I would say it was the year of grappling head-on with the severe structural budget deficit. And it was a year of a difficult bipartisan deal to solve the problem through a combination of measures of cuts, revenues and reforms. It was a bipartisan solution, but even some Republicans voted with Democrats and I'll speak about the Senate, supported revenues because they were not willing to cut funding for schools, for health care or for public safety.

Q. Do you find it hypocritical that Republicans were unwilling to vote for the tax increase but they were willing to spend the revenue?

A. Some did. And a few Republicans did, which reflected the bipartisan agreement, and some within Republican ranks that did agree that we must protect priorities that would make Michigan strong and allow us to invest in areas that will make Michigan strong and competitive. I think it's unfair and disingenuous for some to attack those who voted to raise taxes, but were first in line to spend the revenue. There were plenty of those people.

Q. You describe yourself as being very close to Gov. Jennifer GRANHOLM and having very few policy differences with her. Why do you think criticism that you don't have an independent agenda is unfair?

A. The people of my district, the businesses in my district, the workers in my district benefited from the fact that I have a close relationship with Gov. Granholm. But that relationship is based on a number of philosophical similarities in terms of how we strengthen our communities and how we strengthen our economy. But that relationship has given me the ability to advocate fiercely for issues and priorities that I care about, to affect public policy, to affect decisions made by her office. Disagreements we have are aired in private by and large and I will characterize it as a very productive and positive relationship.

While our agendas may be similar, they're not necessarily the same or identical. I have a background that informs my priorities and passions. I come out of the nonprofit sector. I established myself as a community leader by running a large organization (Community Action Agency) that ran Head Start, that ran senior programs, that ran emergency relief programs, that ran neighborhood development programs. So that's the reason why I'm a fierce advocate for things like early childhood development or worker training or retraining or economic development.

So my priorities are based on my experience, my work at the community level. And I'm glad that most of those priorities are shared by the Governor and where they don't, I try to make the case for those priorities.

Q. How would you describe your relationship with Senate Majority Leader Mike BISHOP (R-Rochester)?

A. I would describe it as a good relationship, but certainly one that can get better and I hope gets better and closer � and that happens through communication. We just need to understand our similarities as well as differences, and focus on our similarities and our similar policy interests. I think it's time for the Legislature, for all of us to focus on strengthening Michigan's economy and have the best interest in all of our constituents, regardless of our districts and care about that as a top concern. I will look forward to working with Leader Bishop and everyone to help strengthen our economy.

Q. When MIRS asked Bishop the same question a few weeks ago, he described your relationship as rocky and he zeroed in on there being a trust issue. Do you share that assessment? (See "Bishop Takes On Rivals, Reforms," 1/4/08).

A. No, I go back to just the basic issue of communication and I think there are some differences between where Democrats and even moderate Republicans stand on issues of investing in education, health care and strong communities as means to strengthen our economy and where conservative Republicans come down on their basic philosophy of government. So 2007 was a year where we came to grips head-on with a structural budget crisis and that became the forum to essentially play out our priorities and philosophies.

Personally, I feel very strongly that we will not be strong and competitive as a state when we divest in our human and fiscal infrastructure and educational institutions and don't address the issue of the number of uninsured in our state. So there were intense debates over how we grappled with the structural budget deficit crisis. And it was very tense here. Certainly, trust always needs to be nurtured, but trust is based on communication. Trust is based on caucuses dealing with each other and members dealing with each other with respect and that's what we need. We certainly need to strengthen the foundation that we have. Our state is counting on that.

Q. If there was one piece of legislation you could get through this year, regardless of politics, what would that be?

A. My first priority right now, which I hope will pass quickly, is the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). I think Michigan needs to be among the ranks of states that prioritizes alternative energy generation and energy conservation, not only to address the issue of climate change, but to boost our economic prospects and to diversify our economy. That's legislatively priority one and it should be a priority for both Democrats and Republicans.

Q. There's a move out there to split RPS off from reforming P.A. 141 (which partially deregulated utilities). Do you support that?

A. I think they both should move. In my mind, they don't necessarily have to be linked, but they are both priorities. While I want as much green energy generation as possible, it's probably going to take a combination here in the short term and for companies like Consumers Energy and DTE to invest millions of dollars in generation they need some certainty in the market, so Act 141 reform needs to happen, as well.

Q. How would you respond to criticism that the Senate Democrats are more interested in getting political mileage off drug immunity and the anti-smoking legislation than the bills themselves?

A. I think it's completely untrue and unfounded criticism. The issue of smoke-free workplaces and public places has evolved. If you had asked me a year ago was there a clear consensus within the Democratic caucus that was a priority we should move forward on, I would have said no. But the advocacy of people like (Sen.) Ray BASHAM (D-Taylor) and now there's a Republican leader in (Sen.) Tom GEORGE (R-Texas Twp.) on the issue, there is a consensus.

And I think there's a cultural shift around the issue of second-hand smoke and wellness. I think that people understand a connection with rising health care costs. Michigan has very high rates of smoking and tobacco use, so it clearly is a public health issue. Democrats want to drive down health care costs, want to find ways, this being one of them, to improve wellness and I think it's also an economic issue. Democrats are going to be looking at all of these issues through an economic prism. When people smoke and are less healthy, that drives up health care costs.

On the issue of drug immunity, it's just a basic fairness issue. We are not going after the industry and it is a basic issue of fairness that people who are injured using a product ought to have the ability to seek recourse. Michigan is the only state in the nation that doesn't have the ability to hold in this case, the pharmaceutical industry, accountable.

And in the case of Merck and Vioxx where they can remove the product from the market, they've acknowledged that there were complications that were discovered post-FDA approval, Michigan citizens with very rate exceptions have no ability to be compensated or seek compensation for damages. We're the only state in the union to have that special protection. So it is purely a public issue, one that's about fairness for the people of the state.

Q. But the drug immunity issue obviously was a campaign issue.

A. Frankly, it was an issue that was more championed by House Democrats. I wouldn't say it was necessarily a central theme. I think the public would resoundingly agree that current law is not fair and should be changed and sometimes those issues are talked about within a campaign context about contrasting candidates' differences on an issue. But it's really about just a fairness, public policy issue for Democrats.

Q. Can you describe the opposition in your caucus about moving the primary fix-it bill this fall?

A. Well, I don't think there was much opposition given the overwhelming vote for the bill. We as a minority customarily withhold immediate effect until a final version of the bill comes back from the House, and that needed to happen. The House had indicated they were planning to make some changes to the bill, which they did and it came back, but the bill was never taken up by the majority.

I was disappointed by that. We could have had a more meaningful primary on the Democratic side. I'm not necessarily suggesting that it needed to be that final version from the House, but we could have worked out an agreement and unfortunately, that didn't happen. I've expressed to the Majority Leader as well as to the Speaker (Andy [DILLION]) (D-Redford Twp.) that I wanted to try to work out an agreement. And as I said then, I think the Republicans got what they wanted from the Supreme Court and they were content to not do anything further.

Q. You seem to have an interest in new media. How would you describe your relationship with the press, in general?

A. Good. Open, accessible. Part of my job is informing my constituents about what I'm doing, what I'm working on, what my priorities are, explaining often times complex issues like the state budget or other policy issues. And I've always, going back to my days in the nonprofit sector and (Battle Creek) city commissioner, had an open, active relationship with the press. I think the new media is an exciting way to do that. It's a very particaptory way. It's instantaneous, it's grass roots, interactive medium, which I think is fun and exciting.

Q. Any favorite sites in particular?

A. I try to check out MichLib (Michigan Liberal) and Blogging for Michigan every day. That leads me to others, some local, some national. I like Walberg Watch.