The Walberg Watch Video of the Week:



On this Independence Day, what better way to show your patriotism than to demand better representation from your government? That's what it's all about!

For the original Walberg Watch coverage of the incident, click here. For an incident in which Mr. Motta actually had a good response from Congressman Walberg's office, click here.

For more information on the bills mentioned in the video:

HR 1415 (Restoring the Constitution Act)

HR 1070 (Stamp Out Gang Violence Act - 110th Congress)

HR 1070 (Constitution Restoration Act - 109th Congress)

HR 69 (Disability Benefit Fairness Act)

HR 699 (Pledge Protection Act)

Happy Independence Day, everyone!

United States Declaration of Independence (text)
United States Declaration of Independence (history)
Lee Resolution on Independence
1776 by David McCullough

Labels: 110th Congress, Constituent Services, Issues, Tim Walberg

Today, the Ann Arbor News features this letter:

On March 22, I wrote my eighth letter to Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton. I made one more effort to generate some kind of response from the congressman's office since my previous letters did not receive the courtesy of a reply. So far, I have failed to receive any acknowledgment. This lack of desire to actually correspond with a constituent is disappointing.

In the last election I supported Rep. Walberg, both in the primary and the general election. His predecessor, Dr. Joseph Schwartz, responded every time I contacted his office. Although I often did not agree with his answers, he at least did respond, an indication that he did listen to the people in his district.

(Emphasis added.)

And this, from a supporter! The letter, from a man named Stanley Bowling, then continues to commend and criticize others, but Congressman Walberg is held as the gold standard of unresponsiveness.

To be fair, I have heard of people with quick replies from Walberg's office, and I myself have had some quick interactions with his staff. Indeed, Michael Motta, whose horrible experience with Walberg was documented here (Walberg's letter contained many, many factual errors), recently sent me this e-mail:

Fitzy,
Well since I had the horrible paper correspondence from Walberg in the past (that you featured and we've discussed per your video), I figured I'd send along a good response I received in e-mail.
On Walberg's homepage (and in his newsletters) there's that survey that lists topics that you can check-off as interests. He had this and that on it, but no civil liberties! Big surprise huh? So I e-mailed a request for civil liberties to be put on there, and I received a prompt and efficient response, as detailed in the attached forward.
Peace,
Michael Motta

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Michael John Motta" <[]>
To: "Lahr, Matthew" <[]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:14:31 -0400
Subject: Re: addition to WW issues list
Hi Matt,
Thanks much! I think that's the most efficient and sensible response I've seen out of Washington since the 'Skins won their three Super Bowls! (I was born in PG County, MD). And you followed through on your word too.
I'll never vote for Walberg unless I get senile dementia, but I recognize that you and tech staff did a good job.
Maybe someday you'll be able to write a book like McClellan's ;)
Peace,
Michael Motta

Lahr, Matthew writes:
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your suggestion to add Civil Liberties to our weekly wrap
up issue list. Civil Liberties should be added to the list when
tomorrow's wrap up goes out.
Take care,
Matt
----
Matt Lahr
Press Secretary
Office of Congressman Tim Walberg (MI-07)
202-225-6276
Join Congressman Walberg's weekly email newsletter network to stay
informed on his work in Congress and on behalf of south-central Michigan

(Edited for formating and to remove e-mail addresses.)

So, it is possible for you to have a good correspondence with Tim Walberg's office. Even so, you have to wonder why they ignore Stanley Bowling. When you're running for reelection, the last thing you want is to have a once-loyal supporter writing letters to the editor against you.

Labels: 2008 Election, Constituent Services, Issues, Tim Walberg

From the Battle Creek Enquirer:

With wrapped boxes in hand, nine people walked up the stairs in the Commerce Pointe building to U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg's Battle Creek office on Wednesday.

Chris Simmons, field representative for the Tipton Republican, greeted the group who handed him the six empty packages.

"These gifts are like Congressman Walberg's promises," said Dale Bennett, speaking on behalf of the group. "They're beautiful and they're empty."

Bennett, a member of the Joint-religious Organizing Network for Action and Hope (JONAH) Clergy Caucus, was accompanied by five other members of the caucus, three members of the Kalamazoo-based Michigan Citizen Action and a representative of the national environmental organization Clean Water Action.

Erin Knott, Michigan Citizen Action assistant director, said the empty boxes represented Walberg's support for critical domestic priorities, including education, children's health care and veterans' benefits.

(Emphasis added.)

Beautiful and empty. Honestly, I wish I had thought of that. If you've ever heard Congressman Walberg speak, his rhetoric sounds great, but means nothing. Beautiful and empty.

Walberg's website reads:

The Great Lakes are a treasure essential to both Michigan and the entire nation.

Beautiful, isn't it? But how does he really feel?

“I don’t know how many of you realize that here in this state in the United States, we do not allow even the slant directional drilling under the Great Lakes... Our environmental lobby has done so well in lobbying efforts from keeping us from doing that, that we don’t drill in ANWR, we don’t drill under the Great Lakes... I don’t understand that.”

On Iraq, 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.

That sounds pretty good to me. "A new strategy," with "quantifiable goals and measurable results" is a reasonable policy. But when Congress considers legislation that

Directs the President, by January 1, 2008, to transmit to the congressional defense, appropriations, and foreign relations committees a comprehensive U.S. strategy for Iraq. Requires the President to update such strategy no later than July 1, 2008, and every 90 days thereafter, including a description of the number of Armed Forces deployed to Iraq and the missions for which they are so deployed.

Tim Walberg votes No. A beautiful promise, but, apparently, empty.

For that matter, Congressman Walberg promised $500,000 for W.K. Kellogg Airport, which was a particularly beautiful promise. We weren't supposed to notice that it was an empty promise, as he went ahead and voted No on that funding.

When given these symbolic gifts, what was Congressman Walberg's response?

Walberg was in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday when the gifts were delivered, but he responded via e-mail, saying excessive government spending and tax increases have delivered a recession and job losses for Michigan families.

"I voted for the largest increase for veterans care in American history, while consistently working to eliminate wasteful spending to balance the budget and prevent more tax increases on struggling Michigan families and small businesses," he said.

Matt Lahr, Walberg's press secretary, said the congressman was expected to vote in favor of State Children's Health Insurance Program legislation approved Tuesday by the U.S. Senate that extends the program into 2009 without the $35 million expansion sought by Democrats.

Lahr said Walberg also supported reasonable education initiatives such as the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007.

Yep. More empty promises.

Labels: 110th Congress, Constituent Services, Great Lakes, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

I first wrote about Rick Baxter nearly a year ago as then-Congressman-elect Walberg was setting up his office. Baxter, who had represented a state House district in Jackson County until losing re-election to former Jackson mayor and current Representative Martin Griffin, had just been named as Walberg's district director. (Around the same time, he also became the head of the Jackson County Republican Party.)

Baxter, Walberg, and Joe Wicks (Walberg's chief of staff) have a long history together. Baxter volunteered for Walberg's state House campaigns while a student at Lenawee Christian High School, and Joe Wicks helped run Baxter's first state House campaign and was Baxter's own chief of staff until leaving to help Walberg.

So it really was kind of strange this fall when Baxter decided to quit.

Rick Baxter, formerly district director for U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, said Friday he resigned his position with the congressman's Jackson office on Oct. 16 to work in the family business.

Baxter now is the business development director for Jackson-based Baxter Machine & Tool Inc.

Back to the family business? The article goes on to explain that it had absolutely nothing to do with Mark Schauer entering the race, and that it was just an "interesting coincidence."

Right. Because a young, motivated, rising Republican would never jump off a sinking ship to save his own political career. Obviously that's not why he left.

Now, I don't know whether the family business was the real reason that he quit or not. But here's the strange thing-- apparently, the rest of Walberg's staff doesn't know either.

I usually don't post much on rumors, but this was very interesting. From an e-mail I received not too long ago:

As far as Baxter's leaving, that is a lot more complicated. His leaving is very hush, hush and most of the general staff have no idea why he left. The little bit I know is that there were some bad feelings between Baxter and Wicks and Walberg himself. The best I have put together is that Baxter was "too honest" about his analysis of Walberg's public speeches and told Walberg exactly how he felt. Baxter would tell both Wicks and Walberg what he disagreed with as far as messages coming out of DC, press releases, their bad press relationships, and things Walberg would say in public. I know Walberg didn't like to be corrected and Wicks said it was Baxter not respecting Wick's or Walberg's positions. Now how that came to Baxter leaving and if that was the main reason I don't know. Both District and DC staff really don't know why he left. They just got an email from Baxter one day that said he had resigned and they haven't seen him since. I'm sure it does Walberg no good to down talk Baxter, due to his strong ties to Jackson and his connect to Jackson money, and it does Baxter no good (especially if he has future political plans) to down talk Walberg who is loved by the conservative voters in and around Jackson. But something pushed him to leave.

At the request of the source, I can't give you the name of the person who sent me that. Unfortunately, there's not an easy way for me to verify any of that... for some reason, I don't have a lot of friends in the Michigan GOP who would tell me about this sort of thing. So, take that as you will.

So, Baxter, Walberg, and Wicks may have had a personal clash, and now Baxter's out. How does that change the way Walberg's office is run?

First, it's worth noting that Rick Baxter was an important figure in Walberg's office. As district director, he was present at many of Walberg's events and was the only highly-publicized hire while Walberg was organizing his office. Serving as the chairman of the Jackson GOP at the same time probably helped to strengthen Walberg's ties with the party establishment, who had overwhelmingly supported Joe Schwarz in the 2006 primary. And, of course, as I've written before, Jackson County is very important to winning the district.

Losing that presence will probably hurt Walberg some. But there's perhaps a greater impact. As Walberg Watch readers noted last January, some of Walberg's staff in the district was hired by Rick Baxter and had worked with him before. Jill Larder (field representative, then casework/awards) and Mary Ann Duffy (constituent relations) each worked for Baxter in the past. What kind of impact did Baxter's sudden departure have on them? It's certainly worth asking about.

It's especially worth asking about in light of Baxter's replacement, Ryan Boeskool. He had been the field representative for Eaton and Jackson Counties. From the same source above, he has a decidedly different managing style than that of Rick Baxter, and is apparently not all that popular with the district staff. As the source claims, Boeskool will "openly berate employees in front of their co-workers," including Keith Brown, the Lenawee and Hillsdale field representative. Brown is the oldest and most experienced person on staff, having worked as Nick Smith's district director. Boeskool sounds like a nice fellow, eh? Apparently the incident with Brown led to some real bad feelings with the staff.

Now, some of you are probably thinking to yourself, "Fitzy, this is all very interesting, but a lot of it is coming from one source! How do we know this isn't all made up?" I asked the same thing, and I can't give you a good answer, except to say that if the person who sent me this e-mail made it all up, s/he made a lot of details and did a good job of it. It's consistent with what I know of Walberg, Wicks, and Baxter, and sounds plausible enough for me to write about it. Plus, I'm the trusting sort.

If you want, the source also makes a prediction:

This isn't public yet, but another staffer for Walberg is leaving next month [this month; I got the e-mail in November]. Tony Reinhard who is their DC scheduler and who also worked on the 2006 campaign is leaving before the end of the year.

and

Tony is not leaving on good terms and is being forced out. They are giving him this time only so he can find another job and so they can say he is just leaving for a "better opportunity."

So, let's see what happens. I'm kind of curious.

Labels: Constituent Services, Tim Walberg, Walberg Staff

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

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

I don't know about any of you, but I did attend one of Congressman Tim's visits to the district this summer, and I wonder if he was really there?
In his "Weekly Wrap up" of Friday, August 31, he takes on the "hot button" issues he faced from his constituents...Taxes, Education, The Second Amendment (?), and Health Care.
What's missing from this list?
Only the major topic of the visit I attended, Iraq and the War!
Of the hour we spent with Tim, the war, terrorism, war funding, and the like took up most of the time. The other major topic was the farm bill.
You think he didn't add it to the list, because he continues to fully support President Bush's policy?

Labels: Constituent Services, Iraq, Tim Walberg

At a town hall event in Adrian Township last night, Congressman Tim Walberg received this coverage from the Daily Telegram on his views on health care.

Health care was foremost on the mind of several people at the meeting. Lenawee County Commissioner Ralph Tillotson told of the differences in the cost of his medical procedure and the same procedure with another man.

“It is a very big problem,” Tillotson said. “I have Blue Cross and they negotiated the cost of my surgery down to $40,000. But Keith Brown, who has no coverage and had the same surgery, is charged $80,000. He’s going to be paying for the rest of his life. There doesn’t seem to be any negotiations. The privately insured have no bargaining power.”

Walberg said the U.S. is faced with two choices for medical care. One is socialized medicine and the other is free market concept.

“I like the idea of associated health plans as opposed to one insurer — the government,” he said. “Competition has to be brought back to health care.”

I'll say that since I wasn't there, I can't vouch for the accuracy of the quotes. Still, I think it'd be worth it to look closely at this.

First, Ralph Tillotson came to Walberg to speak about the price discrepancy between those with insurance and those without. Walberg's response? From the looks of it, he avoids the question, because he doesn't have an answer. His only thought is that we need to embrace the free market.

No surprise, really. Remember this exchange from the debate last fall?

Do Americans have a right to universal health care?
Walberg
- "Absolutely not. It's not a right, it's an opportunity we have."
- Get rid of third-party pay system [Note: get rid of insurance companies?], encourage personal responsibility.
- Tort reform-- fewer lawsuits
- America has the greatest health care known to the world

Congressman Walberg seems to be a strong believer in the "on-your-own society," so of course he won't support universal health care coverage. That isn't the story today.

No, far more interesting is this part of the Telegram article:

Walberg said the U.S. is faced with two choices for medical care. One is socialized medicine and the other is free market concept.

“I like the idea of associated health plans as opposed to one insurer — the government,” he said. “Competition has to be brought back to health care.”

Anyone else see the flaw in that?

Walberg sees the issue as a choice between two opposites-- socialism or capitalism. And that would be accurate, if it weren't for Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans' care, military care, and government employees. Those that benefit from any of the programs I just listed are already recipients of that socialized medicine that Walberg criticizes. In fact, 44.6 percent of health care costs are already paid by the United States government (versus 69.9 percent in Canada or 85.7 percent in the UK).

Does that mean the US has gone socialist without anyone noticing? No, though Tim Walberg might say so. It means that the proper solution might just be a blend of public and private health coverage. That's the competition built into our system, which Walberg ought to embrace.

Unlike Congressman Walberg, however, I can answer Ralph Tillotson's concerns.

“It is a very big problem,” Tillotson said. “I have Blue Cross and they negotiated the cost of my surgery down to $40,000. But Keith Brown, who has no coverage and had the same surgery, is charged $80,000. He’s going to be paying for the rest of his life. There doesn’t seem to be any negotiations. The privately insured have no bargaining power.”

Tillotson was absolutely right about not having bargaining power, though I think he meant if you don't have insurance, not the privately insured. The difference between the United States and other industrialized countries is that we don't have price controls, a phrase which probably gives Tim Walberg nightmares. Other nations have recognized that government involvement is sometimes necessary to prevent undue cost inflation.

Price controls are a tough pill to swallow, I admit. But for those with coverage, and for those with government-supported coverage, it would certainly be reasonable to negotiate lower prices, right?

Not according to Tim Walberg. He voted No on allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.

Mr. Tillotson, you took your concerns to the wrong person. Congressman Walberg has made it clear that he's not interested in lowering medical costs. Instead, he'd rather live in a fictitious world where socialists are plotting to give you free medicine, and cast himself as a defender of free markets.

Walberg is also hoping you don't notice that he's a recipient of that socialized medicine. His government health insurance and pension will keep him healthy for decades to come, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

Labels: Constituent Services, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

Apparently there's a robocall going around announcing that Congressman Tim Walberg will be in Tecumseh tomorrow, August 15, at Cal Zorn Park on Russell Road, 6 to 7 PM. (My source didn't sound sure on the time, so you might want to contact a district office if you're planning to attend.)

Stop by, enjoy the great outdoors in one of Tecumseh's largest parks, and ask Congressman Walberg some tough questions.

Also, for your reading pleasure, here's a letter to the editor that appeared in the Battle Creek Enquirer. I enjoyed it, so maybe you will too.

I think Tim Walberg must have had a very easy childhood. Apparently his mother, or anyone else for that matter, never explained to him that he can't have his cake and eat it too.

In a recent press release available on his Web site, Congressman Walberg "secured" funding ($500,000) for the Battle Creek airport in a transportation bill. The congressman must have thought, "Wow! What a nice cake to present to Calhoun County. Maybe they will vote for me the next time around."

Then Mr. Walberg must have thought, "Oh shoot! I need to be tough on government spending or else budget hawks in my district will throw me out as quickly as they threw out Joe Schwarz!"

Then perhaps he called his district aide, Chris Simmons, and asked, "Help Chris! I don't know what to do." Chris must have replied, "No need to worry representative. You can say that you support the funding, then vote against it. I do similar stuff on my radio show all the time!"

The congressman may have then replied, "Great idea, Chris! If anybody calls us out, we'll just blame the Battle Creek Enquirer for not being fair like we always do."

And so began the latest escapade with the Battle Creek Enquirer after they simply told Mr. Walberg that you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Perhaps Congressman Walberg always got two cakes for his birthday - must be nice to live by a double standard.

Scott Brown,

Albion

UPDATE: In addition to being in Tecumseh tonight, Congressman Walberg will be in Adrian Township.

ADRIAN TWP. — U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, will host a town hall meeting from 8 to 9 p.m. today at Adrian Township Hall, 2907 Tipton Highway. According to a news release from Walberg’s office, the congressman will take questions and listen to constituents’ concerns.

Labels: Budget, Constituent Services, Tim Walberg

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