Here's Mark Schauer's "closing argument," as articulated via television advertisement:



They released the ad on October 27, 2008, meaning it'll end up running for at most a week, and will probably be the last Schauer ad they see. I think it accomplishes a lot of things.

First, starting off by panning across a large group of unemployed workers has a certain populist element in a year that I think populism is a catchy message. There's a sense that these people losing their jobs was an injustice, and that Mark Schauer is on their side-- and on your side, if the same thing happens to you.

Second, it repeats the same message Schauer has stuck to for the entire campaign: he'll fight unfair trade agreements and fight for your jobs, while Tim Walberg thinks outsourcing is okay and won't fight for you. He's not trying some last-minute stunt or desperately changing messages. The Schauer campaign is comfortable with where they're at and think that it's working.

Third, everything about the ad, from the phrasing of Schauer's script to the music in the background implies "hope," which, as Barack Obama has shown, is popular this year. Schauer won't just fight the special interests or whatever. He'll "get up every day and work hard to get people back to work." That's a nice message.

And even so, it's couched in a certain degree of pragmatism-- the "I can't promise you that I can turn our economy around overnight" part. This is still a lean-conservative and lean-Republican district, and people won't vote for a Democrat they think is making ridiculously liberal assertions and promising to fix the world. Mark Schauer is promising to work hard, and will help make things better. Not perfect, but better.

I think this is his strongest ad. But then again, I'm a biased observer. What did you think?

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Issues, Mark Schauer

By PerfectStormer

January 16, 2004: Electrolux Group, one of the largest household appliance manufacturers in the world, announces it will idle its refrigerator assembly operations in Greenville, MI. Nearly three thousand jobs will be eliminated.

November 21, 2005: GM announces a massive restructuring plan which will result in nine plant closures and the loss of nearly 30,000 jobs, almost ten percent of its American workforce of 325,000.

April 11, 2006: Automotive supplier Federal Mogul announces it will idle its operations in St. Johns, Michigan. Four hundred and twenty jobs will be lost.

2007: Faced with years of declining Medicare reimbursements and the astronomical rise in the ranks of the uninsured, Hackley Hospital, once the largest healthcare provider in Muskegon County, completes two rounds of layoffs. Eventually Hackley agrees to be swallowed by its competitor, Mercy Hospital, resulting in Mercy Health Partners. Hackley Hospital, opened on November 17, 1904 as Muskegon's hometown healthcare provider, is no more. Hackley's Lakeshore Cancer Center closes.

You've heard the story a hundred times before. A manufacturer or other business hits hard times, finds a cheaper way to do things, finds a cheaper place to do things, and locks the door on the American worker.

Mark Schauer's heard the story a hundred times before, too*. He's heard it in his own family as his son-in-law, a journeyman electrician, struggles to find work in Washington state. He's heard it before with several nurses in his family (although their dilemma is rather reversed--forced to work overtime to compensate their brethren in the healthcare industry who have retired and not been replaced, been laid off, been or just plain been burned out by deplorable working conditions.)

He heard it again this morning. He heard from a representative from the Electrolux union in Greenville. He heard from a representative from the Federal-Mogul union in St. John's. He heard from a rep for the ironworkers' union, whose ranks are fleeing Michigan for greener pastures elsewhere. He heard from a maintenance worker at the Potterville school district, which has privatized its maintenance operations.

Mark Schauer was the guest of honor at a roundtable on economic issues hosted by the Michigan AFL-CIO this morning in Delta Township, moderated by Michigan AFL-CIO president Mark Gaffney. He heard these stories this morning, and among the stories, one fact emerged: Mark Schauer gets it.

He gets that these workers aren't statistics--they're real people. He understands the dilemma of the worker forced to leave his family behind in Michigan as he seeks work in Wyoming, or Massachusetts, or Washington. Most importantly, he understands that our entire economy is a giant, tangled web, and that if one strand in the web collapses, the whole web is in jeopardy.

He understands that we're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, enough money to fund the vetoed SCHIP program for five years. He understands that his great-nephew Aidan goes without health insurance because his parents make just a little too much money for SCHIP.

He understands that we're about to spend $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, money that (to use our new favorite frame) could be used to bail out Main Street. He understands that when the government buys back a bad mortgage from a bank, it's still a bad mortgage: the family living in the house the mortgage purchased is now forced out on the street.

He understands that our economic hell (at least here in Michigan) was created by NAFTA, fueled by CAFTA, and blown to epic proportions by the pro-business, anti-worker policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party.

He understands that when NAFTA was passed, as he put it, "somebody got lied to."

Mark Schauer gets it.

Labels: Economy, Issues, Mark Schauer

This one is titled, "Tables":



Except for the strange static in the background toward the end, I'd say that in my opinion, this is the most powerful ad of the race so far. It hits Walberg with his own words (albeit from 2004) and speaks to an issue pretty much everyone in Michigan can relate to in some way. And the personal promise from Mark Schauer at the end to "fight for your job" doesn't hurt either.

I don't have much more to say about this one. What do you think?

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Mark Schauer, 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

Catching Up... -- Fitzy

For quite a while now, I've written about how Mark Schauer's campaign has been using the internet in smart and innovative ways, as well as their strong outreach program with blogs and people like me. It's really very impressive, and they decided to use the medium yet again to respond to Tim Walberg's attack ads:

Truth Squad: Walberg Attacks Schauer Record of Helping Business - Released September 11, 2008 in response to Walberg's attack ad, "Jobs" (Coverage Here)



and

Truth Squad: Walberg Lies Again - Released September 17, 2008 in response to Walberg's attack ad, "Children's Future" (Coverage Here)



I like the format of these videos-- the true/false message is effective (and kind of funny), and, for the most part, they refute Walberg's attacks fairly well. (In some cases, it changes the subject, refocusing on Walberg's support for a 23 percent sales tax, but it does so smoothly and plausibly. It's certainly a better segue than Walberg's pornography to taxes transition.) It's a good use of video and it offers a point-by-point response.

Next time, I think some low, ominous piano chords might fit well when refuting Walberg's claims, to make the contrast with the hopeful music at the end more clear. But that's just me nitpicking. They're good videos.

The problem is, these things don't work as television commercials. They go out over the supporter e-mail list and are seen by YouTube wanderers, but that's about it. And as of writing this, each video has between 600 and 700 views on YouTube. That's still more than double the number of views Walberg's attack ads have on YouTube (Man, they're really bad at this!), but it's nothing compared to how many will see Walberg's ads on television.

That's where you come in. If you hear someone comment on Walberg's ads, send them these videos. Make sure the people you know see the other side of the story. These won't be viral YouTube sensations, no, but they have the potential to change a few minds.

I'm guessing that we're going to see a lot more of these videos between now and November. I'll be posting them to the Schauer media page on Walberg Watch as they're released.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Mark Schauer, National Sales Tax, Taxes, Tim Walberg

Catching Up... -- Fitzy

On September 14, state Senator Mark Schauer released his second television advertisement:



There are some striking similarities and even more striking differences between this ad and Congressman Walberg's second television ad. Like Walberg's ad, the important part is the personal testimonial-- one person in front of the camera, sharing his thoughts on the candidate. These tend to be effective. It's good politics to show other faces than your own.

But Walberg's second ad was an attack ad and very negative (with scary music and everything). It ended on a frightening note: "Our survival is in jeopardy if we let [Schauer raise taxes]." Schauer's ends with soft music, a message of hope, and a sense of accomplishment: "Our jobs are staying here, and we have Mark Schauer to thank for it."

I don't know which message will be more effective. Anyone who's been watching politics for the last eight years knows that fear works and motivates voters, but the last year has shown that hope works, too. I just think it's interesting.

Now that both candidates are on the air, I'd love to see some polling that asks about the effectiveness of the ads. But, sadly, pollsters don't come to me for ideas, nor do I have the money to commission polls myself.

Also interesting, though less important in terms of moving voters, was the fundraising e-mail sent out by the Schauer campaign after releasing the ad. One part of the e-mail reads:

We can't let Tim Walberg get away with another vicious smear campaign against me, like he did two years ago against Joe Schwarz.

Obviously, this shows that Democrats know how to use fear, too, just in a different sort of way. But I think it's also telling that Schauer is starting to invoke Joe Schwarz in these e-mails. Schwarz is every Michigan Democrat's favorite Republican, and for many good reasons, and memories of the 2006 primary are a good motivator for Schauer's donor base. But Schwarz is still a powerful influence among independents and Republicans in the district, too. I'll be interested to see how much his name is used as we move closer to November.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Fundraising, Joe Schwarz, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

This morning, Schauer for Congress sent out a fundraising e-mail that included a link to their first television ad. The timing of the ad, Schauer admits, is in part because of the attack ad released by Tim Walberg's campaign:

Walberg's latest commercial features a Jackson business owner who complains about taxes, saying "This plant, these jobs, our survival's in jeopardy."

But what he doesn't mention is the fact that I helped create a law that exempts his tool and die company from virtually all state and local taxes. While Tim Walberg and George Bush have supported unfair trade deals that make it harder for Michigan businesses to compete, I fought to level the playing field and make us more competitive.

That's the difference in this race - I've actually worked with businesses in the district to save and create jobs. As for Tim Walberg, it's clear that the only job he cares about saving is his own.

DONATE NOW

For almost a full month now, Walberg has been spending money on TV ads in a desperate attempt to raise his weak poll numbers, which show that he's just a few points away from losing his seat. I'll admit, this is earlier than we wanted to go on their air, but I won't let Tim Walberg get away with another vicious smear campaign like he did against Joe Schwarz two years ago.

Here's the new ad:



What do you think? Will this help get Schauer's name out in places like Lenawee, Hillsdale, and Branch Counties? Is it an effective ad? Is it an effective response to the Walberg ad?

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Fundraising, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

This is going to get pretty nasty... From YouTube user SeventhDem:



This is Walberg's second television ad and, perhaps because of its negative tone, is not yet included on the Walberg for Congress YouTube channel. Here's the Schauer campaign response:

WALBERG ATTACK MACHINE LIES ABOUT SCHAUER RECORD OF HELPING SMALL BUSINESSES

Schauer has strong record of helping tool and die industry compete for jobs, while Walberg is making things worse

BATTLE CREEK-- Yesterday Congressman Tim Walberg's attack machine kicked into high gear with a new round of television commercials aimed at distorting Mark Schauer's record on support for local businesses. In the commercial, Mike Shirkey of Orbitform in Jackson says, "This plant, these jobs, our survival's in jeopardy."

"Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Walberg -- tell the truth. Because of Mark Schauer's hard work and dedication to his district, an MEDC report shows that Orbitform pays virtually no state or local taxes," said B.J. Neidhardt, Campaign Manager for Schauer for Congress. "The simple truth is that Mark has fought on behalf of tool and die companies like Orbitform, which have been hit hard by the unfair trade deals that Tim Walberg and George Bush have staunchly supported."

As the Democratic Vice Chair of the Committee on Commerce and Labor, Mark Schauer was instrumental in crafting the legislation to create tool and die renaissance recovery zone in 2003 (PA 266 of 2003, RC 649), and has supported every expansion of the bill since then (RC 155'06, RC 231'08, RC 712'05).

A press release sent out by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) in December 2005 reveals that Orbitform and nine other companies in Jackson County formed the Automation & Tooling Alliance of North America to receive the tax-free tool and die renaissance recovery zone designation. According to the release, "The zones allow companies to operate free of virtually all state and local taxes for up to 15 years, thus boosting their efforts to compete in the face of global competition."

Not only did Mark help craft the legislation to create the renaissance recovery zones for tool and die companies, but he also helped secure Orbitform's renaissance status through the MEDC in 2005. That year, he also actively lobbied the Jackson City Council on behalf of Orbitform's management to approve the company's tax-free designation on June 28, 2005.

"It's not surprising that Mr. Shirkey was willing to attack Mark in a campaign ad for Tim Walberg, considering that he and his family have donated over $8,500 to Walberg's campaign," said Neidhardt. "Earlier this summer the Jackson Citizen Patriot pointed out his use of inflammatory partisan rhetoric in official company messages, so you have to consider the messenger."

Background:

- On December 12, 2005, MEDC sent out a press release announcing tool and die renaissance recovery zone status for Orbitform, exempting them from "virtually all state and local taxes." [Link]

- Nearly ¾ of Tim Walberg's 2006 primary money came from Club for Growth, a group that lists expanding free trade as one of its main goals. [Ann Arbor News, 8/9/06]

- Mike Shirkey and members of his family have donated over $8,500 to Tim Walberg's campaign. [Link]

- According to a blog post on the Jackson Citizen Patriot website, a two-minute monologue from Mr. Shirkey attacking presidential candidate Barack Obama was available on company phones earlier this summer. [Link]

- A copy of Tim Walberg's attack ad can be found on YouTube. [Link]

# # #

That's a fairly effective response to the ad and to Mike Shirkey, but at some point, the Schauer campaign will need a good response to the "deciding vote for the largest tax increase in Michigan's history" nonsense. It is nonsense, too (and hopefully I'll get a chance to write more about it), but a short, memorable response to the claim would be helpful.

I am, however, surprised by an attack ad from the Walberg campaign this early. Normally, I would think they'd save this for October, and let their buddies at Freedom's Watch do the dirty work. This makes me think that the ad is mainly a response to the EPIC-MRA poll that came out last week. Recall:

Overall, would you say that things in the United States are generally headed in the right direction, or have things pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?

8% Right direction
78% Wrong track
14% Undecided/Don't know/Refused

[...]

How would you rate the job being done by Tim Walberg in the United States Congress-- would you give him a positive rating of excellent or pretty good, or a negative rating of just fair or poor?

TOTAL POSITIVE - 32%
TOTAL NEGATIVE - 43%

[...]

If the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you vote for Mark Schauer the Democrat, Tim Walberg the Republican, Lynn Meadow of the Green Party, or Ken Proctor the Libertarian?

TOTAL WALBERG - 43%
TOTAL SCHAUER - 40%
TOTAL MEADOWS - 1%
TOTAL PROCTOR - 2%

Walberg's campaign is reacting to what looks like momentum for Mark Schauer. It seems to me that they're worried, and with good reason.

And, of course, remember that Mark Schauer hasn't gone on the air yet with his television ads. Walberg has been on the air since August 6th.

UPDATE: Sometime between when I first posted this and now, the Walberg campaign put up their ad on YouTube.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Economy, Mark Schauer, Taxes, Tim Walberg

A lot of people don't know much about a man named Homer Stryker, but they should. Raised in Athens, Michigan, he was a teacher, a World War I soldier, a doctor, and an inventor. As an orthopedic surgeon in Kalamazoo, he began building devices that improved the comfort of the patients he was treating. The company he founded-- Stryker Corp.-- has grown into a Fortune 500 company and a leader in medical technologies.

But best of all, they're still in Kalamazoo, Michigan. With nearly 19,000 employees worldwide, the world headquarters and much of the manufacturing is still in Michigan.

This is the perfect Michigan success story. It shows that Michigan businesses can thrive and be successful and stay in Michigan. It shows that hard work and creativity can lead to great results. This is the sort of success story politicians should be talking about all the time.

So what does Tim Walberg say about it while touring a hospital?

Matt Davis, a Marshall Realtor and Walberg supporter, noted the room contained a bed made by Stryker Corp. of Kalamazoo.

Walberg said he'd had surgery in 2007 at the Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland.

"I looked at the bed and it said 'Stryker,'" Walberg said. "Bummer."

(Emphasis added.)

"Bummer." That's his reaction to a Michigan success story. Why?

Jon Stryker, one of three billionaire grandchildren of Stryker's founder, has in recent years funded numerous liberal causes, and his Coalition for Progress has contributed to Schauer's 2008 campaign.

Yup. Tim Walberg doesn't like Stryker because one of the grandchildren of the founder is a Democrat. And it's true-- Jon Stryker has spent a lot of money on his political activities. It's much like the many members of the Club for Growth, who funded the congressman's 2006 campaign.

To his credit, Walberg eventually acknowledged that he was wrong:

In the end, Walberg noted that the company is a separate entity and said, "If Stryker makes the best hospital bed, that's the one I want to be in."

But an initial reaction says a lot. In the comments on the Battle Creek Enquirer article, user DSMi59 wrote:

His comment about Stryker and it's politics is a good guage of how he values Michigan businesses. It isn't the business he appreciates, one who chooses staying in Michigan and making local employment possible, it's that Stryker supports the wrong political party. He resents being in a hospital bed manufactured in his own state. Bummer, indeed!

And Michigan Liberal's Eric B. wrote:

He could have said that he was proud to have been in a bed made by the nation's best workers, right here in Michigan, in one of the nation's best hospitals. He could have said that. Didn't.

Congressman Walberg, perceptions mean a lot, and as a public figure, you're in a position that attracts a lot of attention. "Bummer" doesn't convince businesses to stay in Michigan. It's possible that we're all being a little too sensitive, but seriously, "bummer"? That's the most intelligent thing you can think of?

For the record, I've got no problem buying cabinetry from Merillat, despite the numerous times that the Merillat name shows up in Walberg's FEC filing. For that matter, Battle Creek Unlimited still does plenty of great things for that city, so don't judge them harshly just because their CEO contributed $500 to Tim Walberg's re-election campaign.

Business is business, and politics is politics. In a state like Michigan, I don't care who you vote for, as long as you're providing jobs and helping your community. It's too bad Tim Walberg doesn't feel the same way.

Labels: 2008 Election, Economy, Fundraising, Issues, Jon Stryker, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

One of the things Tim Walberg repeats wherever he goes is that Michigan is in the middle of an economic crisis. And you know what? He's right. Michigan faces some very complicated problems which can't be solved by simple acts like cutting taxes for the rich, which seems to be Walberg's favorite strategy.

What Michigan needs right now is jobs, and to get those, it takes real leadership and thoughtful action, not loud rhetoric and bluster. It takes leaders who are willing to go out and talk about the things that make Michigan great, not go out and bash the state. Michigan needs someone who's willing to work on behalf of its residents, not on behalf of the elitists who have been financing Walberg.

Thankfully, someone is actually doing something for the state. And, as luck would have it, he's also running for Congress.

From the Schauer for Congress campaign:

We had some exciting news to share today, and wanted to make sure folks saw this story from the Jackson Citizen Patriot:

A state agency this morning gave the go-ahead to award tax breaks to companies in Homer and Jackson, a move that will preserve and expand jobs, according to news releases from state Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, and the Michigan Economic Development Authority.

The announcement was made at a Lansing news conference.

Schauer and state officials have been working with both companies -- Brembo North America in Homer and Production Engineering in Jackson -- to secure incentives that will help them invest in Michigan, instead of sites in Mexico or Indiana.

Brembo North America, which manufacturesbrake systems, plans to conduct manufacturing operations in Homer. More than 100 jobs will be retained, with the goal of adding another 176 over the next several years. Michigan won out over options in the Carolinas and Mexico.

You read that right - with help from the MEDC and Sen. Schauer, Michigan beat out competition from Indiana and Mexico.

There's also a video:



Senator Schauer used his position in government to actually help his district and his constituents. He brought jobs here. Congressman Walberg, what have you done for us?

Labels: 2008 Election, Economy, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

On Thursday, the US House voted to extend unemployment benefits an additional 26 weeks in states with severe economic problems, like our own Michigan.
The amendment passed 256-166.
Guess who voted against the amendment?

That's right, our own "compassionate conservative", Congressman Tim Walberg!

He voted against extra weeks of benefits for our own neighbors, who are struggling in the poor economy, and based on the bill, I bet it's because there was a surtax of .5% on those making over $500,000 or couples making over $1,000,000!

Well, at least we know who Tim is looking out for...I'm sure this will mean more CFG dollars for the fall campaign!

Update by Fitzy: Just to add to elviscostello's post, here's the Detroit News on the vote, via Michigan Liberal:

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House today voted to extend unemployment benefits an additional 26 weeks in hard-hit states like Michigan -- 13 weeks for states that aren't suffering as badly.

An amendment extending the benefits passed by a vote of 256 to 166.

The jobless extension was one of three amendments voted on by the House to a spending bill left over from last year.

[...]

"We're hurting here in Michigan big time," said retired school teacher Conrad Keydel of Detroit, who supports the benefits extension.

"People who have been laid off have no where to turn. There aren't jobs. So Michigan needs this," he added.

Michigan's six House Democrats voted in favor of the amendment with the added jobless benefits. Three of its nine Republicans voted for the amendment as well: Joe Knollenberg of Bloomfield Hills, Fred Upton of St. Joseph and Candice Miller of Harrison Township.

Voting against the amendment that included the jobless benefits were Pete Hoekstra of Holland, Mike Rogers of Brighton, Vern Ehlers of Grand Rapids, Tim Walberg of Tipton, Thad McCotter of Livonia and Dave Camp of Midland.

[...]

The Bush White House issued a statement today saying the president would veto the proposals in the House going beyond Iraq funding.

U.S. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Royal Oak, who voted in favor of extra jobless benefits, said, "I think it's time for the minority (House Republicans) and the president get out of the offices they reside in and get into the shoes of typical American families... Opposition to extension of unemployment compensation is unconscionable."

Currently, workers who've lost their jobs get 26 weeks of unemployment benefits.

Under the House-passed provision, the jobless would get an additional 13 weeks of benefits, behind the 26.

But states such as Michigan, with unemployment rates above 6 percent would get 26 additional weeks -- bringing the total to 52.

Under the proposal, unemployed workers who've exhausted their currently available 26 weeks of benefits within the past 18 months (November 2006) could apply for extended benefits, Levin's office said.

The proposal would cost about $11.7 billion to provide extended benefits for an estimated 3.8 million jobless workers and be paid from the federal unemployment trust funds.

The provision extending jobless benefits also would pay for four-year of public college education for veterans who served 36 months on active duty.

(Emphasis added.)

So... which part did Congressman Walberg disagree with? The part where Michigan's economy was hurting and there are no jobs? The part where the unemployed need some extra help to survive because there are no jobs? Or the part where we're going to pay for college for young men and women who have given everything they have for their country?

Congressman Walberg, which part did you disagree with?

Labels: 110th Congress, Economy, Issues, Tim Walberg, Unemployment, Veterans, Walberg Voting Record