YouTube user SeventhDem (a phenomenal resource) uploaded this advertisement from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on October 22, 2008:



Ouch. We've talked about the sales tax thing before (though it's good to see them hitting him on it again), but I think this is probably one of the most pointed ads the DCCC has released. Notably, you come away from it remembering two parts.

First, there's the man with the line, "What nut would support that?" I think the DCCC is hiring better writers-- it's certainly more memorable than "Sour on Schauer," and they only had to say it once.

But the part that really leaves a mark is the end. While they phrase it as a question, it's clear what they want you to think: Tim Walberg both doesn't get it AND doesn't care. It paints him as out-of-touch with everyday needs and unconcerned with what you're going through.

And, frankly, while the ad doesn't tell a balanced story on Walberg's sales tax, the closing of the ad is very accurate. Walberg didn't go to Washington to represent us, he went there to push a rigid, ideological agenda. The far-right conservatism he's embraced is one that doesn't have room for compassion or helping those in need-- at least, not when it comes to the federal government. Walberg doesn't realize that people are hurting, and when government is one of the tools in your toolbox, it's irresponsible not to use it.

Use it carefully, sure. But you've got to use it.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Issues, National Sales Tax, Tim Walberg

Catching up... -- Fitzy

For the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Benenson Strategy Group conducted a poll over October 6 and 7, 2008. With a margin of error of 4.9 percent, here's what they found:

Mark Schauer (D) - 43
Tim Walberg (R-inc.) - 35

The press release didn't release details like sample size or, for that matter, if they asked any other questions, and I'm mentioning this late enough that I feel silly asking for those details now. Suffice it to say, this seems more or less in line with the poll the Schauer campaign released at about the same time.

Right now, I'm inclined to believe that both polls are accurate, and Schauer is leading by a respectable margin, with a lot of undecideds. Why? It's been weeks, and the Walberg folks haven't released their own counter-poll. If they had better-looking data than this, you'd better believe they'd release it.

Labels: 2008 Election, DCCC, Mark Schauer, Poll, Tim Walberg

(Thanks to the reader who e-mailed me about this.)

Some regular readers of this blog and of Chris Gautz's work at the Jackson Citizen Patriot website remember this advertisement put out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:



Right from the start, the ad cites an article in the Daily Telegram from 2004 in which Walberg calls Social Security "socialism." It's certainly not a good quote for Walberg-- as the ad notes, a lot of people rely on Social Security, and the negative connotation "socialism" carries is likely to offend a lot of people.

Chris Gautz was doubtful about the accuracy of the quote, mainly because, as a former employee of the Telegram, he had thought he would remember a quote that explosive. Although I probably would have read that article in 2004, my memory for these sorts of things is awful, so I deferred judgment to a later date.

But thanks to the magic of the internet and the wonders of active readers, Chris brought us the answer: Walberg did call Social Security "socialism"!

After reading for myself the full context of the quote, it would seem to lend credibility to what the DCCC was trying to say. But click below to see the portion of the article that was referenced and judge for yourself.

Here's the text of the article:

ADRIAN -- Tuesday's debate between Republicans and Democrats running for the 7th District Congressional seat allowed candidates to inform the public about their views, but led to little debate.

When a panelist asked the candidates about their views regarding Social Security reform and privatization, Republican Tim Walberg and Democrat Drew Walker openly debated the subject briefly.

Walker said the privatization of Social Security in the wake of corporate scandals and unstable stock prices could lead to individuals putting their retirement savings at risk in uninsured private accounts.

"What an incredible scandal; I would certainly never take part in that," Walker said. "Social Security is one of the foundations of our society for getting older."

The question then turned to Walberg, who began by expressing his feelings about Walker's statement.

"Wow, I just heard socialism at its finest," said Walberg, a former state representative. "Oh come on, that's offensive," Walker replied.

"That's defined as socialism when the government is required to take care of all of us," said Walberg, followed by audience laughter.

So, yes, now-Congressman Tim Walberg called Social Security "socialism" in 2004.

Labels: 2004 Election, 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Drew Walker, Issues, Social Security, Tim Walberg

I missed this the other day... On Septmeber 30, the Walberg folks have another attack ad:



First, can I just say, "Sour On Schauer" has to be the stupidest thing I've heard this year. Really? That's literally the best thing you can come up with? I support Mark Schauer, and I can come up with more clever ways to attack him! And what's with the lemons? Really? And the bouncing lemon animation, as if they were singing a song... but they're not singing?

Maybe I just don't get it. But really, come on! I'm all for creativity, but come on! Congressman Walberg, hire a better ad agency! These are awful!

But that's not the important part. A stupid campaign ad will be forgotten pretty quickly. Here's the important part:


Right there, "Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee and Walberg for Congress." As far as I know, that's the first time the NRCC has helped Walberg pick up the advertising bill. It's not unusual for the party to help pay for some costs for a campaign-- staff, polling, etc.-- as long as the party gets something out of it, too. But I don't remember seeing the NRCC actually help pay for ads before.

Normally, I'd say that means Tim Walberg is running low on cash, and needs some extra help to make ends meet. The third quarter just ended, so FEC campaign finance reports should be coming out sometime in the next two weeks and we'll get a clearer picture. If the Walberg campaign can't even pay for its own advertising, they're in trouble.

But I said, "Normally, I'd say that means..." Why wouldn't I say that this time? Frankly, because the NRCC doesn't have much money either, and has a lot of contested incumbents they're trying to protect. At the end of August, the DCCC had almost $54 million on-hand, compared to $14 million for the NRCC, and the DCCC was spending about twice as much as their Republican counterparts. Meanwhile, the Cook Political Report says that the Republicans have 37 seats in danger this year, compared to just 18 for the Democrats.

That makes me think there's some other reason than Walberg being short on cash. The NRCC is spread thin enough that I'd think they'd have better things to do than help Walberg pay for a crappy ad.

I don't know, this one has me puzzled.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Mark Schauer, NRCC, Tim Walberg

Social Security is an issue that people haven't been talking about much since about 2005 or so. With President Bush's failed attempt to push through a privatization plan, the system so many depend on has been left basically untouched by politicians.

When the Club for Growth attacked Mark Schauer earlier this week, they claimed he wanted to raise Social Security taxes-- which is a little misleading. However, aside from a few mentions every now and then by either Senator Schauer or Congressman Walberg, I haven't really seen or heard the issue brought up besides in that ad.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee changed that with a new ad, directly attacking Walberg on his support of privatizing Social Security:



Ouch.

Chris Gautz, who wrote about the ad this morning, says he doesn't remember the "socialism" quote, but I'm sure someone will come out with an article either confirming or explaining that.

But even if Walberg didn't actually say Social Security was "socialism," this ad could hurt him a lot. What Walberg supports is allowing younger workers to invest a portion of what they would get in benefits after retirement in the stock market-- ideally, to make more money. I was never exactly sure how that fit into the current system, where younger workers are paying for the benefits of retirees now... but that's policy. Right now, I want to talk about politics.

When privatization plans for Social Security were polled in 2005, most polls found that Americans were either split or slightly to moderately against the idea. When the headlines are things like "Dow Plunges 700," I suspect that the plan hasn't gotten any more popular recently. It's not an issue Republicans are eager to talk about right now.

But that's not even where it hurts Walberg. The conventional wisdom is that senior citizens are the most reliable voting bloc, and that they tend to be slightly more conservative-- slim advantage Walberg. But many of them rely on Social Security, as either a significant part or all of their income. Anything seen as potentially threatening that is going to play badly.

Will it cost Walberg the election? I doubt it. But it certainly won't help.

Labels: DCCC, Issues, Social Security, Tim Walberg

Catching Up... -- Fitzy

On September 19, 2008, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released their first Walberg-specific television advertisement:



My initial reaction? "Finally, someone's talking about this stupid plan!" And I mean stupid. Astoundingly stupid.

I've had a quarrel with the "FairTax" for a while now, starting long before Walberg Watch. I want to talk a little bit about it, if you're interested. But first, here's the Walberg campaign response to the ad:

Dear Friends,

Just wanted you to be aware of a recent attack ad that has aired on behalf of Congressman Walberg's ultra-liberal opponent, Mark Schauer. The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has invested significant amounts of money in our district to go on the attack, and spread lies about Tim's record.

Below is a press release we issued that explains the truth. Please feel free to share this with any friends who may have questions.

Thank you all for your support - let's all keep working toward victory in November!


Best,


Justin Roebuck

Campaign Manager

(Thanks to the friend who passed that along to me...)

I want to stop right there for a moment and remind Justin that it's actually the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, not the "Democrat" Congressional Campaign Committee. It just sounds dumb when you don't use the right word.

Yeah, that's a minor complaint, but it bugs me, and that's the reason that people like Tim Walberg do that. Just remember, every time you call it the "Democrat Party," an English major cries out in pain.

Moving on...

Jackson, MI- Today, Mark Schauer's Washington DC friends, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, kicked off their massive television ad blitz by attacking Congressman Walberg for supporting the Fair Tax proposal, H.R. 25. The ad claims Congressman Walberg supports a new 23 percent sales tax, but the ad fails to mention the Fair Tax proposal would repeal the federal income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, corporate income tax, and death tax, and junk the tax code, shutdown the IRS, and be a net tax cut.

"It's not surprising Mark Schauer's Washington DC supporters would attack Tim Walberg for fighting to junk the tax code, shutdown the IRS, and reduce the tax burden on Michigan families and small businesses. While Mark Schauer was the deciding vote for the largest tax increase in Michigan history, Tim Walberg is fighting against higher taxes and for the families of Michigan," stated Justin Roebuck, campaign manager.

Background:

Details on the Fair Tax, H.R. 25, the proposal the DCCC uses in the ad:

This is from a detailed study on the Fair Tax entitled “Taxing Sales under the FairTax – What Rate Works?” published by several well-known economists, including a Research Associate from The National Bureau of Economic Research.

[Link]

Key takeaways:

Repeals a myriad of taxes and replaces them with a simple single rate consumption tax - “As specified in Congressional bill H.R. 25/S. 25, the FairTax is a proposal to replace the federal personal income tax, corporate income tax, payroll (FICA) tax, capital gains, alternative minimum, self-employment, and estate and gifts taxes with a single-rate federal retail sales tax. The FairTax also provides a prebate to each household based on its demographic composition. The prebate is set to ensure that households pay no taxes net on spending up to the poverty level.” (page 2)

Net tax cut - “Revenues from the FairTax at a 23% tax rate, plus other federal revenues, are estimated to yield $3,209 billion which is $76 billion less than current CBO spending projections for 2007… ensuring real revenue neutrality at the federal level… implies a rate of 23.82%.” (page 2)

The press release then goes on to talk about Schauer as supposedly voting for the largest tax increase in the history of humanity. That's for a different post to debunk. Right now, let's talk about the "FairTax."

I'll concede a few points to Congressman Walberg-- the DCCC ad wasn't totally fair. If enacted, the "FairTax" would replace all other federal taxes you pay now. So, no more income tax, no more gas tax, no more business taxes, no more Social Security payroll tax. Instead, everything would be covered in a 23 percent sales tax on everything that you buy. Advocates say that prices wouldn't actually increase, because, no longer having to pay taxes while producing goods or services, businesses would lower their own prices and it would all balance out.

Sounds nice, right? Well, no. I'd like to give a few reasons for why this is a bad idea. This is by no means a comprehensive list.

For starters, it's not a 23 percent sales tax. That number is the result of mildly creative mathematics. Michigan's current sales tax, 6 percent on most items, takes the pre-tax price of the product, calculates 6 percent, and adds that on for the post-tax price. In other words, if a business sets a price at $1.00, tax is 6 percent, and the price you pay is $1.06. It's pretty straightforward.

That's not how the "FairTax" people calculate it. Instead, they get their 23 percent figure by deciding that 23 percent of the item's price will be tax.

As the Washington Post explains:

First, the 23 percent figure is disingenuous. If the current price of a widget is $1, a 30-cent sales tax would be added at the register under the FairTax. Because 30 cents is 23 percent of $1.30, backers of the tax claim that the tax rate is 23 percent.

So, it's not a 23 percent sales tax, it's a 30 percent sales tax. The DCCC ad was wrong. It might seem like a minor point, but it matters.

The Post continues:

The Presidents' Advisory Panel on Tax Reform -- that's President Bush's tax panel -- calculated that the rate would have to be at least 34 percent, not 30 percent, "and likely higher over time if the base erodes, creating incentives for significant tax evasion." Brookings Institution economist William Gale puts the rate at 44 percent -- and his calculation doesn't take into account cheating, for which there would be ample incentive.

(Emphasis added.)

So, now we're up to 34 to 44 percent federal sales tax. Add in Michigan's 6 percent sales tax, and we're looking at a 36 percent sales tax at the minimum and up to a 50 percent sales tax. That's a big increase in prices.

Except, that's not the whole story. Currently, Michigan's state sales tax is not levied on certain items, like food or prescription drugs. This would not be the case for the new Walberg tax, which would be applied to everything. Prices will go up.

And here's where a lot of "FairTax" advocates get angry. They say that prices won't go up, because of the savings businesses experience, not having to pay taxes earlier in the process. The idea is that certain taxes, like business and Social Security taxes, are embedded in the cost of your goods. Since these costs will be eliminated for the businesses, their prices will be lowered, so the new 34 to 44 percent sales tax won't have a real impact.

Setting aside for a moment the question of whether businesses would actually lower their prices to reflect changes in the tax code, FactCheck.org pretty decently refutes this argument:

A bit of critical analysis shows that this cannot be right. The FairTax is revenue-neutral. That means that for every tax dollar collected under the current system, the FairTax has to collect a dollar. If the FairTax exactly equaled embedded taxes, then it could not possibly be revenue-neutral, since embedded taxes do not take into account personal income or estate taxes. The FairTax rate would have to be high enough to replace embedded taxes plus income and estate taxes.

Chris Edwards, the Cato Institute's director of tax policy studies, points out that prices do not really matter; corporate, payroll, income and estate taxes currently generate approximately $2.4 trillion, and a revenue-neutral FairTax would still require that taxpayers pony up $2.4 trillion. Nor is it clear that the 22 percent embedded tax figure is particularly meaningful. David Burton, chief economist of the Americans for Fair Taxation, calls it "simplistic" to think that the entire cost of corporate taxes is borne by consumers. Cato's Edwards suggests that while consumers do pay at least part of the costs, producers also bear some of the burden. That is, employees pay part of the costs of hidden taxes (in the form of lower wages), and corporate shareholders pay another portion (in the form of lower returns on their investments).

So, the prices you pay will be higher.

Then comes the question of whether this makes any sense from the government's perspective. The only way the math works out is if the government pays itself the tax whenever it makes purchases... which gets a little messy. As the Boston Globe explains:

Governments must also pay. The FairTax would apply to all government purchases at every level. Only education spending is exempted.

States would have to pay 30 percent more on every highway and bridge they build, local governments would have to pay 30 percent more for police and fire protection, and even the federal government would have to pay the tax to itself when it buys weapons and ammunition for troops.

Taxes would have to be increased at the state and local level to pay the FairTax to the federal government. The FairTax rate would also have to be higher to pay for the additional federal spending it will require. However, FairTax supporters exclude this higher spending from their calculations. The 23 percent rate is designed only to be revenue-neutral, not spending neutral. Thus the federal deficit would either rise by more than $200 billion per year or spending would have to be cut by this much.

Hm. So, not only would this potentially be a 44 percent sales tax, and not only would prices rise, but local and state taxes will also increase in order for local and state government to afford paying new taxes to the federal government. And then the federal taxes-- now just the "FairTax"-- will have to be increased in order to afford paying... taxes... to... the federal government.

I don't know about you, but I'm starting to lose faith in Congressman Walberg's idea.

But then comes the "prebate." It's the magical addition to the "FairTax" that makes it okay for poor people. Basically, every month, every family in America would get a certain amount of money, calculated based on the size of your family. That check from the government would be enough so that families below the poverty line wouldn't be overburdened by the sales tax. How much would this cost? FactCheck.org:

Sometimes sales taxes are called regressive, meaning that the poorest pay higher rates than the wealthy. Strictly speaking, sales taxes are flat, since everyone pays the same rate. But because the poor tend to spend a high percentage of their income on basic consumer goods such as food and clothing, sales taxes do require the poor to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

The FairTax plan, however, helps to alleviate this difficulty by exempting sales taxes on all income up to the poverty level. Taxpayers would receive a "prebate," which Edwards calculates to be about $5,600 annually. The Treasury Department estimates that the prebate program would cost between $600 billion and $700 billion annually, making it the largest category of federal spending. Americans for Fair Taxation disputes the Treasury Department numbers, claiming that the actual cost would be closer to $485 billion per year. The Treasury Department has so far refused to release its methodology, making it difficult to determine whose estimate is correct.

So, let's say $485 billion is the right number. For comparison purposes, the Social Security Administration expects to pay out about $660 billion this year. So, the "prebate" proposal isn't quite as big as Social Security, but it's getting up there. And here I was, thinking that Republicans didn't want to add extra spending on entitlement programs.

The Boston Globe points out another problem:

Although FairTax supporters tout the generosity of the rebate, it is extremely modest because it is based on the poverty level income - a figure that bears no relationship to the actual cost of living. As a consequence of the way the poverty rate is calculated, childless couples would get a monthly rebate of $391 per month, but a single mother with two children would only get $329 per month.

That doesn't seem very "fair" to me.

Supposing the "prebates" actually did make this a viable plan for those below the poverty line, how would the system effect the rest of us? Back once again to FactCheck.org:

With the prebate program in effect, those earning less than $15,000 per year would see their share of the federal tax burden drop from -0.7 percent to -6.3 percent. Of course, if the poorest Americans are paying less under the FairTax plan, then someone else pays more. As it turns out, according to the Treasury Department, “someone else” is everybody earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year.

In other words, the net result of the "FairTax" is a middle-class tax increase and an upper-class tax cut.

But let's set all of that aside for a moment. If it makes it simpler, is it worth it? One of the main arguments in favor of the "FairTax" is that it would simplify the tax code, it would be easy to understand, and we could eliminate the IRS. The next, logical question then becomes: Who runs the massive "prebate" system? Who collects the sales tax in the first place? I've got to think a new bureaucracy on the scale of the Social Security Administration (or bigger) would be needed to make all of this work.

And there are more questions. What about charitable giving? Will people give as much if there's no tax incentive? What about tax credits that are used to stimulate certain parts of the economy, like alternative energy?

For that matter, what happens in economic times like we're facing now? If the federal government's primary source of income is a national sales tax, what happens if, in a recession, people just buy less stuff? Government revenues go down, arguably at a time when the government most needs resources to act to stimulate the economy (or bail out failing banks).

So, yes, Congressman Walberg, the DCCC ad didn't tell the whole story. Unfortunately, the whole story is much, much worse.

This is a stupid idea, and I'm embarrassed that my congressman supports it.

Labels: DCCC, Economy, National Sales Tax, Taxes, Tim Walberg

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced in July that it would be reserving $1.5 million in advertising time in Michigan's 7th District. The Politico.com brings us the response from the National Republican Congressional Committee:

The Republicans' campaign arm in the House has reserved another round of television ads to prop up their vulnerable GOP colleagues this fall.

[...]

With this latest round of reservations, the NRCC will be playing defense in 21 of the 26 races where the committee has secured airtime. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has secured time in many of these districts - a strong sign that the party in power could pad its majority in the House this fall.

[...]

In Michigan, the NRCC has reserved $618,000 to protect veteran Rep. Joe Knollenberg and $832,000 to help freshman Rep. Tim Walberg.

(Emphasis added.)

There's really not much more to say here. The GOP is playing defense, and, for now, has decided that Tim Walberg is worth fighting to protect. But when the DCCC has more cash-on-hand than the NRCC ($56,456,584 to $14,233,074 as of the end of July), they'll be able to push hard across all 21 districts that the NRCC is defending and more. When faced with limited resources, I still say there's a chance the Republican leaders may choose to protect an older incumbent (and longtime friend) over the freshman from Michigan.

Of course, Walberg has the Club for Growth and now Freedom's Watch on his side, so there'll still be plenty of money available to rush to his defense.

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, Advertising, DCCC, NRCC, Republican Party, Tim Walberg

Last week, I wrote about the factually inaccurate Freedom's Watch radio ad attacking Mark Schauer, and that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee would be responding. You can listen to their response.


Is this a serious ad buy? I'd say so:

The committee is looking toward New York, where they scored big gains in 2006, with a small buy against Rep. Randy Kuhl; to Missouri, with a sizable $26,000 purchase in Republican Rep. Sam Graves' district; to Michigan, where Rep. Tim Walberg will be hit with the biggest buy, at almost $40,000; and even in Idaho, where cheap television rates mean the $11,000 spent against freshman Rep. Bill Sali could go a long way.

(Emphasis added.)

They're spending $175,000 across ten districts. Spending $40,000 in Michigan's 7th alone is significant. If you've heard either the Freedom's Watch ad or the DCCC ad, feel free to share what station and when in the comments.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Democratic Party, Freedom's Watch, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

Following the "Freedom's Watch" radio ads, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will respond:

The DCCC Independent Expenditure (IE) today announced it will launch radio ads across the country responding to Freedom’s Watch latest bogus claims. Freedom’s Watch has put more deceptive radio ads on the air as part of the shady, soft money group’s plan to try to defeat Democratic congressional candidates.

Freedom’s Watch is operating as the cash-strapped NRCC’s de facto independent expenditure campaign. The organization has close ties to President George Bush and Senator John McCain and is funded, staffed, and guided by a “who’s who” of Republican operatives known for their win-at-all-cost tactics, including Karl Rove.

Michigan's 7th District is one of the 10 districts on the list. It's good to see someone call them out on their lies and distortions.

The DCCC also has a website exposing "Freedom's Watch" and it's unsavory backers.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Freedom's Watch, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

Once again via Swing State Project, we get this:

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats have reserved millions of dollars worth of television advertising in 31 congressional races in all corners of the country, according to documentation that provides an early roadmap of the party's drive to strengthen its majority in the fall elections.

[...]

In all, the documentation obtained by The Associated Press shows the DCCC has reserved nearly $35 million in advertising to begin in September and October.

[...]

Political parties and candidates frequently reserve advertising time in advance to obtain a lower price from television stations than might be available later. Final decisions on spending are normally made closer to the elections.

According to SSP, Michigan's 7th District is getting $1.5 million of the $35 million total. That puts us in a tie with Florida's 16th District for the sixth largest amount being spent of the 31 races being targeted. This is, perhaps, because of the high cost of advertising in our district, as I've highlighted before.

Just because they're reserving $1.5 million doesn't mean they'll use all of it, and it doesn't mean that they'll only spend that much. This is just another indicator that we're going to be in a top-tier and very expensive race.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, Advertising, DCCC, Media Markets

Mark Schauer has had a good couple of weeks... First the Detroit News poll, and now these:

Candidates for Change Named to DCCC Red to Blue Program

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee today announced the first round of Red to Blue candidates challenging Republican incumbents. This is the second slate of Democratic congressional candidates that have qualified for the competitive DCCC Red to Blue program, the first slate was for candidates in open seats. These candidates earned a spot in the program by surpassing demanding fundraising goals and skillfully demonstrating to voters that they stand for change and will represent new priorities when elected to Congress.

These candidates have come out of the gate strong and the Red to Blue Program will give them the financial and structural edge to be even more competitive in November," said Chairman Chris Van Hollen, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "The candidates for change in our first round of challenger Red to Blue are strong examples of Democrats who represent a commitment to new priorities for the families in their districts.

The Red to Blue program highlights top Democratic campaigns across the country, and offers them financial, communications, and strategic support. The program will introduce Democratic supporters to new, competitive candidates in order to help expand the fundraising base for these campaigns.

Chairman Van Hollen joined Red to Blue co-chairs Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Artur Davis (D-AL), and Bruce Braley (D-IA) to announce the first 13 challenger candidates for change who qualified for the Red to Blue:

Kay Barnes (MO-06)
Anne Barth (WV-02)
Darcy Burner (WA-08)
Robert Daskas (NV-03)
Steve Driehaus (OH-01)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Christine Jennings (FL-13)
Larry Kissell (NC-08)
Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
Eric Massa (NY-29)
Gary Peters (MI-09)
Mark Schauer (MI-07)
Dan Seals (IL-10)

Red to Blue was a proven success in the 2004 and 2006 cycles. In 2004, the Red to Blue program raised nearly $7.5 million for twenty seven campaigns across the country with an average of more than $250,000 per campaign. In 2006, the Red to Blue program raised nearly $22.6 million for 56 campaigns with an average of $404,000 per campaign. Red to Blue was also responsible for solidifying the structure of dozens of campaigns and making a real difference for Democrats across America.

I hope Brandon doesn't mind that I quoted him extensively...

And then tonight, the Battle Creek Enquirer reports:

Nursing union endorses Schauer over Walberg

LANSING — The Michigan Nurses Association (MNA) today announced its endorsement of state Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Bedford Township, in his 7th District Congressional race against U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton.

[...]

The MNA is an AFL-CIO affiliated union representing Michigan registered nurses and advocates for them and their patients.

I'm sure Congressman Walberg will have plenty of terrible things to say about unions, but in my book, there's nothing wrong with having the nurses on your side.

Labels: 2008 Election, DCCC, Fundraising, Mark Schauer, Nurses

We've heard it before, but it's always nice to hear it again. Unlike in 2006, when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee more or less ignored the Michigan 7th, it'll be a top target in 2008.

Today, subscription-only Roll Call has a list from Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), head of the DCCC, of the 40 seats they'll be targeting. Via MyDD, here's the list:

AK-AL: Don Young
AZ-01: Open
AZ-03: John Shadegg
CA-04: John Doolittle
CA-26: David Dreier
CA-50: Brian Bilbray
CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
CT-04: Chris Shays
FL-08: Ric Keller
FL-09: Gus Bilirakis
FL-13: Vern Buchanan
FL-24: Tom Feeney
ID-01: Bill Sali
IL-10: Mark Kirk
IL-11: Open
IL-14: Open
MI-07: Tim Walberg
MI-09: Joe Knollenberg
MN-03: Open
MN-06: Michele Bachmann
MO-06: Sam Graves
NV-03: Jon Porter
NJ-03: Open
NJ-07: Open
NM-01: Open
NM-02: Open
NY-13: Vito Fossella
NY-25: Jim Walsh
NY-26: Tom Reynolds
NY-29: Randy Kuhl
NC-08: Robin Hayes
OH-01: Steve Chabot
OH-02: Jean Schmidt
OH-14: Steve LaTourette
OH-15: Open
OH-16: Open
PA-03: Phil English
WA-08: Dave Reichert
WV-02: Sheley Moore Capito
WY-AL: Open

(Emphasis added.)

I'm a little disappointed that MI-08 and MI-11 aren't on there too, but I'm more than satisfied to see that the DCCC is going to make a serious attempt to pick up seats in Michigan. What are the qualifications for a seat to get on this list?

Among the 40 Republican-held seats the DCCC is targeting generally, Van Hollen acknowledged that not all of them are exceedingly vulnerable to a Democratic takeover. But he said they all exhibit potential, and include a mixture of the following factors:

* The demographics of the district benefit the Democratic candidate.

* The Democratic presidential nominee won the district in 2004.

* The Democratic presidential nominee performed reasonably well in the district in 2004, and the 2008 Democratic House candidate is particularly strong.

* The Republican incumbent running for re-election in the district is damaged -- either ethically or in some other manner.

"We're now letting our base know, our supporters around the country know, that it's critical that they now start directing resources to some of our key challengers," Van Hollen said. "We think we've done a good job putting our Frontliners in good shape."

I can see a few ways that the 7th District fits into those. As I said, it's not necessarily news, but it's always good to see.

Labels: 2008 Election, DCCC, Tim Walberg

I haven't been doing a great job here lately, but hopefully that'll change in the near future. After a couple of stressful weeks, I took a bit of a blogging vacation. But I'm back.

I'll have plenty of Walberg Voting Record updates coming up, but for now, here's some stuff that should be posts on their own. Instead of giving all the topics the time they deserve, I'm going to try to run through them all in this post.

____
The DCCC has been kind enough to put me on their press release e-mail list. Here's some of what they've been sending me lately.

Representative Tim Walberg Puts Big Oil Ahead of Middle Class Americans

‘Gas Prices Hit a Record High’ is a headline Americans are all too familiar with these days. Rather than join the bipartisan solution to lower energy prices and end America’s dependence on foreign oil, Representative Tim Walberg voted yet again for Big Oil.

“Hardworking Americans are being squeezed by skyrocketing gas prices, high health care costs, and increasing college costs. Rather than relieve Americans’ pain at the pump, Representative Tim Walberg voted to keep spending our tax dollars on subsidies and tax breaks for Big Oil making billions of dollars in profits,” said Jennifer Crider, Communications Director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Representative Walberg opposed a common sense, bipartisan energy plan that reduces America's dependence on foreign oil, lowers gas prices, and creates jobs.”

Background

· The Energy Independence and Security Act (H.R. 6) will take groundbreaking steps toward ensuring America’s energy independence and national security, including the first increase in vehicle fuel efficiency in a generation [H.R. 6, #1140, 12/6/07].

· The measure will increase the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for new cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This is the first increase in the fuel economy standard by Congress since 1975 and will reduce American oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels per day (roughly half of our current oil imports from the Persian Gulf).

o According to the American Automobile Association, drivers in Michigan currently pay an average cost of $ 3.01 per gallon at the pump [http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/sbsavg.asp]. This increase to the fuel economy standard will and save America’s families between $700 and $1000 per year at the pump and reduce America’s output of greenhouse gases equal to taking 28 million of today's average cars and trucks off the road.

· The measure will repeal the Bush Administration’s tax breaks for Big Oil companies and invest those savings in renewable sources of energy.

· The bill is supported by a wide range of leading business, labor, and environmental advocacy groups including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, The United Auto Workers, the Sierra Club, and the League of Conservation Voters.

and

Representative Tim Walberg Opposes Middle Class Tax Relief for 23 Million Americans

Late last night, Representative Tim Walberg voted to raise taxes on more than 23 million middle class families across America, including 771,200 Michigan taxpayers who will be hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax in 2007.

“Representative Tim Walberg voted to raise taxes on 771,200 hard working middle class families in Michigan already squeezed by expensive mortgages, growing credit card bills, and skyrocketing gas prices,” said Jennifer Crider, Communications Director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “This holiday season, Representative Walberg has given middle class families a giant tax bill to look forward to. Clearly, Representative Walberg values rubber stamping President Bush more than the middle class families he represents.”

Background

* The Temporary Tax Relief Act (H.R. 3996) would cut taxes for 23 million middle-class Americans by providing them relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). [H R 4351, #1153, 12/12/07].

* According to Citizens for Tax Justice, an estimated 771,200 taxpayer’s in Michigan will be hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax in 2007.

* Additionally, the Temporary Tax Relief Act will expand the Child Tax Credit to provide tax relief to 12 million families with children

* Middle class tax relief is paid for in this measure, rather than the Republican plan that leaves it to future generations to pay for tax cuts.

and

Representative Tim Walberg Voted Against Community Policing

Despite the FBI reporting that violent crime has increased for the first time in a decade, Representative Tim Walberg opposed giving law enforcement in Michigan the resources they need to fight crime in our communities.

“Even with violent crime on the rise, Representative Tim Walberg voted against giving police and prosecutors the vital resources they need to keep Michigan’s communities safe,” said Jennifer Crider, Communications Director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Keeping Michigan’s communities safe should be Representative Walberg’s highest priority, not Rubber Stamping President Bush’s proposed cuts to state and local law enforcement.”

Background

* The Consolidated Appropriations Bill includes $2.7 Billion to help state and local law enforcement fight crime and keep communities safe [H R 2764; Roll Call Vote 1171]

* The measure also rejects the President’s proposed 94% cut to the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program and instead provides $587 million to fund COPS. This includes $20 million for the “COPS on the Beat” program, which hires more police officers and has not been funded since 2005.

· According to the FBI, violent crime in America increased in 2005 and 2006 for the first time in a decade. [LA Times; 12/19/06]

That's the DCCC's take on his votes. Perhaps biased? Maybe. But I am glad to see they're keeping the pressure on him as we approach November 2008.

____
Susan Demas has a column in a recent issue of the Battle Creek Enquirer that's kind of harsh on all fronts, criticizing both Congressman Tim Walberg and Michigan Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer. It's worth reading, even for those of us that might not agree with everything she says. Francis Pepper mentioned the column in a post below, but I wanted to point out something from the last couple of paragraphs:

Both candidates play the part of the principled politician to the hilt - Walberg as the über-conservative, anti-abortion warrior and Schauer as the bright-eyed, progressive reformer.

In reality, modest Mark takes his marching orders from the governor and the reverend's soul is the property of Club for Growth.

But wait, some of my liberal friends will yelp. You can't be saying Schauer would be as bad as the congressman.

Policy-wise, Schauer would certainly be a step up if he could manage to pen press releases without lying about snaring money for the Battle Creek airport that he voted against.

What I find revolting is that both men swim the sewage of politics and don't retch - they actually seem to feed off the stench.

It's still early enough for other candidates to jump in. Lord knows, we deserve better.

While acknowledging that Schauer would be a better congressman, it's more than obvious that Demas wants a third alternative. Is she talking about Sharon Renier? I can't speak for her, but I'm guessing probably not. Is there another candidate that Demas is hoping will jump into the race?

____
That question brings me to former Congressman Joe Schwarz. He had a fascinating interview with Jack Lessenberry on WGTE's "Deadline Now" program, and I've wanted to write about that for a while now. I even went so far as to get a copy of the interview from the very friendly folks at WGTE (Toledo, Ohio's public broadcasting station), though the interview is now available online (you've got to scroll down the page a bit to the October 19 broadcast).

The whole thing is worth watching, but I want to look at one exchange in particular. In the interview, Lessenberry asks Schwarz whether he'll run again, and Schwarz says:

I don't know yet, it's one of the things that I've decided not to decide. It is a purposeful choice, not to decide. What candidates do at this stage of the game is go out there and vie for name recognition. I don't perceive myself as having name recognition problems in the 7th Congressional District, first. And secondly, quite frankly, the mechanism by which the Congress operates is seniority and whether you're a junior member of either the majority or the minority in the U.S. Congress, you're not pulling a lot of strength. Decisions are made by committee chairs, ranking members, senior members, so the status of a junior member, especially a junior member of the minority party, whichever party that may be after 2008, isn't going to be much.

Schwarz then continues to talk about the things he would like to still work on in the committees he served on, but says that while it was a privilege to serve in the House, "it's not the be all and end all."

It's always dangerous to read too much into statements like this, because politicians can and do change their minds (as they should). But to me, I'd say that right now, I don't think Schwarz will run. If that's who Susan Demas and others are looking toward as a viable third option, it doesn't look like it'll happen.

It looks like Jack Lessenberry reached about the same conclusion I did. If you watch the end of the program, he offers his own commentary, in which he compares Joe Schwarz to Al Gore. Both, he explains, are politicians who lost close elections and then went on to do a great deal of good work outside of elected office.

As for me, I thought I'd throw in my own thoughts on Joe Schwarz. If Schwarz were to challenge Tim Walberg and win the Republican nomination, I would not vote for him, I would vote for the Democratic nominee. If Schwarz were to run as an independent against Walberg and a Democrat like Mark Schauer, I would not vote for him, I would vote for Schauer. If Schwarz were to run for the Democratic nomination, I probably would not vote for him in the primary.

Why? Because, despite the lies Walberg espoused, Joe Schwarz is a conservative man. He and I disagree on countless issues, and if he ran as a Democrat, he'd certainly not represent the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. But he's a thoughtful, honest conservative, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I have nothing but respect for him, even when we disagree, because hearing him speak, you can tell that he truly believes the things he says, and he's thought them through.

Of course, maybe I'm just easily fooled by politicians that look and sound genuine. After speaking with Mark Schauer, I was left with the impression that he was a genuine, hard-working progressive reformer, but according to Susan Demas, that's not true. Interesting.

____
And now, the last item is a challenge for all of you loyal Walberg Watch readers. About six months ago, I got a new computer, and discovered Windows Movie Maker was pre-installed on it. Now, it's not much compared to the high-quality video production software available, but to a novice like me, this is new and exciting.

After a while, I started making some videos related to Tim Walberg. Not so much attack ads as informative videos, showcasing some of Walberg's votes and finer moments (like, drilling for oil in the Great Lakes, or "Iraq is as safe as Detroit"). But they're a little dry... Before they can go on YouTube, they need background music!

That's where you come in. I can't just stick in music from my own collection because that runs into copyright violations. I may, in fact, be the only YouTube user that cares about that, but nevertheless, I want to avoid phone calls from lawyers. Does anyone know of a good resource where I can get high-quality, public domain audio recordings? MP3 files would be best.

I hope everyone's holiday season is off to a good start.

Labels: 2008 Speculation, Community Policing, DCCC, Energy, Issues, Joe Schwarz, Mark Schauer, Oil, Taxes, Tim Walberg

As you may recall, Congressman Tim Walberg voted against re-authorizing funding for children's health care (twice), a move that has brought the congressman considerable (and deserved) criticism.

I mean, let's be serious here. The man voted against helping children in a bill supported by the insurance industry and the AARP, and he tries to say that he voted against it because it was "socialized medicine" and a "nanny-state" and hurt senior citizens. This was a chance to help children in need, and he blew it. But it's never about doing the right thing for Tim Walberg. It's about doing whatever the Club for Growth tells him to do. So, it was a dumb move on every level.

That's why I was very pleased to see that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is going to be running a series of ads in the districts of vulnerable Republicans who voted against the bill. (Thanks, lpackard.)

Here's the radio ad that's running in the 7th District:

Text of the Ad, "Simple Choice," Against Kuhl and Walberg Follows
"Nearly 700,000 children here in New York risk losing their affordable, quality health insurance, while Congressman Randy Kuhl receives his health care at taxpayers' expense.

"With the State Children's Health Insurance Program – SCHIP – set to expire, Congressman Kuhl has a choice to make.

"Continue to stand with President Bush or with American children.

"SCHIP will expand health care coverage for nearly 10 million children, and is funded by a 61 cent increase in the tobacco tax.

"Congress and 49 governors from across the country support SCHIP.

"Yet President Bush threatens to veto it SCHIP and Congressman Kuhl stands with him –instead of kids.

"Congressman Kuhl has a simple choice: give 10 million children the health care they need or turn his back on those children.

"Call Congressman Kuhl [Walberg] and tell him to stand with kids, NOT George Bush."

Disclaimer:
Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, www.dccc.org. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

Obviously, with Walberg's name instead of Randy Kuhl (and, I hope, with Michigan data instead of New York). There's also a robocall running:

Robo Calls
In addition to radio ads, the automated calls will made in each of the targeted districts (with the exception of NJ-03) encouraging constituents to call their Republican Member and support children's health care. Lisa Matzenbach, a mother of a chronically ill child on SCHIP, recorded the calls. Lisa and her daughter live in Joe Knollenberg's district. The text of the call follows:

"I am Lisa Matzenbach calling on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

"My daughter, Liane, has a chronic illness. Even though I work full time, I can't afford her care without SCHIP – the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"Congress recently passed legislation to provide SCHIP health care to over 10 million uninsured American children.

"But, Congressman Joe Knollenberg and President Bush are against providing more than 118,500 Michigan children access to the health care they desperately deserve.

"Please call Joe Knollenberg at (248) 851-1366 and tell him it's time he put our children first."

Again, with Walberg's information, not Knollenberg. I'm not normally a fan of robocalls-- as Sharon Renier learned, they can be used against you as a nasty campaign tactic and they can be kind of annoying. Still, it names the organization-- the DCCC-- at the start of the ad, so that's something.

Regardless of tactics, I'm glad to see them bring up this issue. Walberg is just plain wrong on it (for a refutation of the Bush-Walberg version of the story, click here), and he's on the wrong side of popular opinion as well.

By the way, if you want to read one local SCHIP related story, be sure to check out this article from the Battle Creek Enquirer.

Labels: 110th Congress, DCCC, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

I'll talk about Jim Berryman's announcement later, but I thought I'd hit on this one first. As Zach points out in his "Wednesday Coffee Talk" thread on Michigan Liberal, the AP report on Berryman's announcement includes this interesting bit about former Congressman Joe Schwarz.

Schwarz said in an interview he would decide this summer whether to challenge Walberg for the GOP nomination or run as a Democrat. He said he would not run as an independent, noting the "the path to higher office is strewn with the bodies of independents."

Schwarz said he had spoken with Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who chairs the Democrats' campaign committee, and has been encouraged by Democratic leaders in Michigan to run as a Democrat.

"I have some basic, some seminal, differences in policy positions on critical issues in the Republican party, both foreign and domestic. I suspect there would be some significant differences with some issues where the Democrats have a party position as well," Schwarz said.

That's interesting. The last time anyone really talked about this, reporter Tim Skubick included this quote:

The list of those who want the affable Dr. Schwarz to change include U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and his younger brother, U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin. The wife of veteran U.S. Rep. John Dingell, Debbie, has been pushing Schwarz to flip for more than two years.

But he is not there yet. He confesses there is less than a 50-50 chance he will change. And for some other Democrats, that's fine with them.

(Emphasis added.)

"Less than a 50-50 chance"? It might just be selective quoting in two stories by two different reporters, but his comments from the AP story on Berryman seemed to make a Democratic run sound much more likely.

Let's look at that again.

Schwarz said in an interview he would decide this summer whether to challenge Walberg for the GOP nomination or run as a Democrat. He said he would not run as an independent, noting the "the path to higher office is strewn with the bodies of independents."

In other words, no Joe Lieberman moments, and (unless a big name emerges soon) the 2008 general election will primarily be a Republican versus a Democrat, without any serious independent challenge. Similarly, there will probably be no significant splitting of the conservative base or liberal base between two candidates. That makes it a simpler race.

Schwarz said he had spoken with Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who chairs the Democrats' campaign committee, and has been encouraged by Democratic leaders in Michigan to run as a Democrat.

Congressman Van Hollen and the DCCC have said that the 7th District would be a top target, and this shows that he means it. The party campaign committees are less concerned with ideology and more concerned with picking a winning candidate, and helping him or her win votes. Schwarz certainly looks like he'd be a strong candidate-- an impressive resumé, high name recognition, cross-over appeal-- and it doesn't surprise me that Van Hollen has talked to him. Mind you, that's not to say the DCCC has endorsed Schwarz, or that he would necessarily be the best candidate. What it shows is that they mean it when they say 2008 will be different from 2006.

"I have some basic, some seminal, differences in policy positions on critical issues in the Republican party, both foreign and domestic. I suspect there would be some significant differences with some issues where the Democrats have a party position as well," Schwarz said.

This is a big change from the "50-50 chance" statement from before. Schwarz seems to be setting himself up as an "independent-minded Democrat" if he runs on that side, just as he was supposedly an "independent Republican." What should Democrats think of that?

It's tough to say. Schwarz had a solidly conservative voting record in the U.S. House from 2005 to 2007-- enough to earn President George Bush's endorsement-- but he has shown that he can and will think independently of his party label and leaders from time to time.

As a Democrat, he would be under significant pressure to vote with his new party. The question becomes, how often? It would probably end up being a case-by-case sort of thing, but I suspect his voting record would end up being a little more progressive if he were a Democrat. I have no evidence, though... this is just my own supposition.

Now, for Democratic primary voters, would that be enough? Would a Democrat but not necessarily a progressive be acceptable? It's tough to predict, especially without a complete candidate field or any clear statements by Schwarz.

I wish I had a clear conclusion to reach, but I don't. To me, it sounds like Joe Schwarz is taking the idea of running as a Democrat more seriously, but I haven't got any idea how what that might mean for the Democratic primary.

UPDATE: For what it's worth, Jim Berryman says he doesn't think Schwarz will switch parties.

Walberg won the 7th Congressional District seat last year after unseating first-term Republican Joe Schwarz in the primary. Although some Democratic leaders have reportedly approached Schwarz about running against Walberg in 2008 as a Democrat, Berryman said he doesn’t think that will happen.

“I’ve talked with Joe over the past few weeks and I don’t think he is going to switch parties,” Berryman said. “I would be awfully surprised if he switched parties. He’s a Republican and if he runs again, it would be as a Republican.”

Berryman and Schwarz are good friends. But then, in politics, when has friendship ever trumped ambition? I'm just sayin'...

Labels: 2008 Speculation, DCCC, Democratic Party, Joe Schwarz, Republican Party

As the DCCC sets it's sites on the 2008 elections it is clear that Tim Walberg will be targeted. The Swing State Project is sure aware of how vulnerable Walberg is. Over at MyDD Jonathan Singer posts about the growing interest in Michigan as the place to pick up seats in 08.

But the Michigan seat most clearly under the Democrats' gaze this year might be CD 7.

Even the DCCC's Blog has taken notice. There are at least two links to this Blog there.

In the Washington Post's Capital Briefs Blog there is talk of the DCCC's plan for 08. Paul Kane posts, DCCC MEMO: Sustaining Our Majority.

A. Staying on the Offense

As discussed in last week's memo, we are aggressively on offense and working to put a large number of Republican seats in play. We are in the process of targeting districts where Republicans won by less than 5%, seats won by Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election, districts occupied by ethically challenged incumbents and Republican seats likely to open. By challenging incumbent Republicans we can win additional seats and force them to expend resources defending their incumbents that would otherwise be directed at our most vulnerable members.

Tim Walberg and the 7th District fit this criteria.

Also, at the DCCC, Chris Van Hollen has announced his recruitment team.

Democrats have charged out of the gate by lining up a strong Recruitment Committee led by Congressman Artur Davis (AL-07). The team will include Russ Carnahan (MO-03), Mike Doyle (PA-14), Rahm Emanuel (IL-05), Steve Israel (NY-02), Ron Kind (WI-03), Jim Matheson (UT-02), Betty McCollum (MN-04), Mike Ross (AR-04), Tim Ryan (OH-17), Adam Schiff (CA-29), Hilda Solis (CA-32) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20).

These are the people that we need to keep updated on what is going on in Michigan's 7th.

All of our work will be pointless if we do not have a viable candidate in 2008.

Labels: 2008 Speculation, DCCC, Tim Walberg