As officials in Jackson discuss a high-speed rail system to Ann Arbor and Detroit, it's important to remember Congressman Tim Walberg's previous positions on funding public transportation. After voting against a public transportation investment bill and a bill to reauthorize and fund Amtrak, can Jackson County expect his support for a commuter rail system?

With all of this in mind, the Lansing State Journal took Walberg and Republican Congressman Mike Rogers (MI-08) to task today for their anti-Amtrak votes.

More people in Michigan are taking to Amtrak trains to get around. Ridership increases from October 2007 to July 2008 ranged between 5.9 percent and 7.2 percent on the three lines in the Great Lakes State.

But Michigan wouldn't have three Amtrak routes had state government not struck a deal with Amtrak to subsidize those routes a few years back. For the coming fiscal year starting Oct. 1, Michigan again plans to pump $7.9 million into Amtrak service to mid-Michigan, among other places.

Yet mid-Michigan Congressmen Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, and Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, voted against a federal Amtrak funding bill in June.

Talk about working at cross purposes.

and

Rogers, Walberg and the rest of Congress should continue to seek rail reform. But it does not serve Michigan's interests to be voting against Amtrak in the meantime.

The editorial (rightly) points out some of Amtrak's flaws, but they make a strong case that voting "no" on Amtrak without a viable alternative in mind makes no sense. Since Tim Walberg has yet to offer anything besides an oil company give-away energy plan, I very much doubt that he had reform on his mind when he voted against Amtrak.

Labels: Amtrak, Issues, Tim Walberg, Transportation, Walberg Voting Record

Bumped to the top, because this is more important than polling. -- Fitzy

Congressman Tim Walberg says this on his blog:

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to meet with patients at Jackson Dialysis in Jackson, Michigan and discuss transportation issues. I heard from patient after patient about how high gas prices are negatively affecting their pocketbooks.

[...]

With situations like these becoming more and more common across the country, it is important to ask: how much longer can America afford Speaker Pelosi’s energy plan? We need an energy policy that will use existing American energy sources to create more prosperity and security for the American people.

(Emphasis added.)

From that, we get the impression that the patients Walberg spoke with mainly complained about having to pay for gas to get into the clinic. That's a frustrating problem, and perhaps increasing energy production could help.

There's just one problem: that's not what the patients were complaining about!

Covering the meeting, the Jackson Citizen Patriot brought us this:

Imagine having a four-hour dialysis appointment, then waiting up to three hours in the lobby, nauseated, for your ride home.

It can get tiring, especially for someone like Josephine Young of Summit Township, who has done it three times a week for nearly six years.

Young, 69, was one of a handful of patients at Jackson Dialysis, 234 W. Louis Glick Highway, who talked to U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, on Tuesday about public transportation issues and the soaring price of gasoline.

Young, who uses either a wheelchair or walker, relies on Jackson Transportation Authority's Reserve-A-Ride.

[...]

``We have more than our share of transportation issues,'' Diane French, regional operations director, told Walberg.

``I don't care if it is cardiac, cancer, whatever chronic disease, public transportation is our biggest obstacle. If a patient's children tries to bring them, they may lose their job so that doesn't work either,'' said French, who oversees 15 dialysis centers between Ann Arbor and Ludington.

Jackson Transportation Authority only travels into more rural areas of the county on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, where an estimated 30 percent of Jackson Dialysis Center clients live. So those people must be scheduled those days for dialysis.

(Emphasis added.)

In other words, high gas prices aren't the problem. The problem is that patients without transportation are facing scheduling problems which are threatening proper treatment. These are patients who aren't looking for cheap gas and more oil. They're looking for more transportation options.

These are transportation options, of course, that Tim Walberg opposes.

Here's what Tim Walberg got from the meeting:

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to meet with patients at Jackson Dialysis in Jackson, Michigan and discuss transportation issues. I heard from patient after patient about how high gas prices are negatively affecting their pocketbooks.

[...]

With situations like these becoming more and more common across the country, it is important to ask: how much longer can America afford Speaker Pelosi’s energy plan? We need an energy policy that will use existing American energy sources to create more prosperity and security for the American people.

...

Uh, Congressman? How will drilling for more oil help this problem?

Did you even bother to listen to what they had to say?

UPDATE: I got an e-mail reminding me about this from the Citizen Patriot last summer:

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg's office sent out a press release this week that touted his work toward securing $350,000 in federal funding for the Jackson Transportation Authority.
However, the statement made no mention that Walberg actually voted against the transportation appropriations bill that included the JTA funding. The bill passed the House and will now go on to the Senate for consideration.

(Emphasis added.)

So... Congressman Walberg takes credit for helping JTA, while actually voting against it. Then, he visits people who say they want more help from JTA, only to ignore them and their needs and use them as a political tool.

Classy, Congressman.

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.

NOTE: This disclaimer was added a few days late... I keep forgetting to add it at the end.

Labels: Health Care, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg, Transportation

Tim Walberg says we need to drill for more oil. That's the central theme of his energy plan. But he says he wants more than just drilling for oil. For instance, there's this press release from June 5th:

Congressman Walberg has co-sponsored legislation to provide incentives for solar, wind, cellulosic ethanol, bio-diesel and energy conservation. He also supports an increase in domestic energy production through carbon-free nuclear power and clean-coal technology. He has co-sponsored legislation that would encourage conservation with tax credits for green buildings and legislation that would spark a revolution in clean hydrogen technology.

(Emphasis added.)

Did you catch that? He didn't put too much emphasis on it, but it was there. Tim Walberg says he supports energy conservation, too.

And really, that makes sense. We can't conserve our way out of the energy crisis. We're pretty much always going to have increased energy needs. But if we could use a little less in certain areas of our lives, it would go a long way. What if we used energy-efficient appliances? What if we turned off the lights in a room when we weren't in it? What if, dare I say it, people drove a little less?

Many cities offer a way to drive less: public transportation. And as anyone who's visited Chicago or New York can tell you, it really can be convenient. Sure, it's not always clean or quick, but you can get from Kenosha, Wisconsin to South Bend, Indiana using Chicago's public transportation system for a relatively low cost, and certainly less than what it would cost in gasoline and without the rough Chicago traffic. (Chicago-native Tim Walberg should already know this.)

So one would think Congressman Tim Walberg-- a man who I once heard call himself an environmentalist, a representative who's pushing a new energy plan-- would be interested in encouraging this. As a nation, we could save a lot of money if the folks in cities just drove less. There would be more gasoline available for those of us who live in places where public transportation isn't practical. And in the places that really could benefit from public transportation-- say, Ann Arbor or Battle Creek-- maybe a little extra help from the federal government might be nice.

Today, June 26, 2008, the House of Representatives took up HR 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008. The bill (which notes that public transportation saves 11 million gallons of gasoline each day) would cost every American just one dollar every year for four years.

HR 6052 passed by a vote of 322 to 98. That's just 23 percent of the House of Representatives voting "no," with 91 Republicans joining a united Democratic majority.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

Congressman Walberg, I know that it's government spending and all, but... come on! This would save energy and it wouldn't cost much! This is an obvious complement to your "more drilling" strategy. You could do both. Maybe, if the public transportation part works, we won't even have to drill as much!

But then, Congressman Walberg never was interested in real solutions, was he?

Labels: 110th Congress, Energy, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg, Transportation, Walberg Voting Record

Thanks again to Eric B. at Michigan Liberal. While I've been otherwise occupied, he's been doing a phenomenal job watching Walberg.

I like Amtrak. I like it a lot. For personal reasons, I travel back and forth between my home here in Michigan and Chicago pretty regularly, and have taken the train from Jackson to Chicago and back four times in the last year. It's a comfortable ride, it takes about as long as driving, it's environmentally friendly, and it saves a lot of money on gas. You can do a trip to Chicago and back for maybe $50 ($25 each way). You're lucky if you can spend that little on gasoline for a trip like that.

Amtrak really is a great service, and I'm not the only one that thinks so. From an Amtrak press release last fall:

WASHINGTON — Amtrak ridership in Fiscal Year 2007 increased to 25,847,531, marking the fifth straight year of gains and setting a record for the most passengers using Amtrak trains since the National Railroad Passenger Corporation started operations in 1971.

That's nearly 26 million Americans riding trains, despite the low funding and almost non-existent advertising for Amtrak. For the Wolverine, which is the route that runs straight through the 7th District, ridership increased from 438,529 in fiscal year 2006 to 449,107 in fiscal year 2007, (a 2.4 percent increase), making it Michigan's most popular route. Here's a map, via Amtrak:

That includes stops in Jackson, Albion, and Battle Creek (as well as Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor, which, while not in the district, are close enough to matter).

This really is a service people use, and are going to use more and more as gas prices rise. Chicago is an accessible tourist destination that can be reached cheaply (and may soon be hosting the Olympics), and Amtrak can connect you to the rest of the country from there. More than that, Amtrak makes it easier for Chicagoans to come to Michigan, which helps them spend money here and help our economy.

Amtrak's very existence even helps our economy. The service employs 114 Michigan residents, and in 2007 the station in Jackson got a $250,000 grant for renovations (data from this .pdf file). As anyone can tell you, these are jobs and investments Michigan desperately needs.

This is an important service for the 7th District. I can't emphasize that enough. That's also something former Congressman Joe Schwarz knew when he represented us. I don't know of any links off-hand, but Edward Sidlow's book on Joe Schwarz (Freshman Orientation) included stories of Schwarz that revealed him to be a big fan of trains in general and of Amtrak in particular. He fought for Amtrak and for the district.

All of this brings us to our current representative, Congressman Tim Walberg.

On June 11, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives considered HR 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. The bill would authorize $9.9 billion to cover operating expenses for Amtrak and then spend an additional $5 billion to improve service. The cost comes out to $43 per American over a four year period.

In other words, for the cost of maybe 10 gallons of gas spread out over four years, you would be helping to run and improve a service you should really be using.

To me, this seems like a common-sense vote. It's a part of the government that actually works and directly benefits the people of the 7th District in countless ways. This is the sort of thing people want and people use. This is what we should be doing more of.

The bill passed, 311 to 104.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

Eric at Michigan Liberal sums it up nicely:

So, let's get this straight -- Tim Walberg is demanding relief for average Americans from the high price of gasoline. He is so insistent on it that he wants us to open up places for exploration and drilling that won't produce oil for 10 years, and won't hit peak production for two decades.

And yet, he votes against public transportation. Amtrak, specifically.

I do want to pay less for gasoline. Tim Walberg drilling for oil in ANWR or the Great Lakes isn't going to do that. What will do that is if I use less gasoline, and I can do that by taking the train. It's not the only solution, but it's a part of the broader solution to one of the biggest problems we're facing. It's a necessary component of achieving energy independence.

Tim Walberg doesn't want me to have that option. Why?

We can do better than this.

Labels: Amtrak, Issues, Tim Walberg, Transportation, Walberg Voting Record

On September 20, 2007, the House of Representatives voted on HR 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007. The bill would reauthorize and fund the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2008 to 2011. The FAA, of course, is the agency which keeps airplanes from falling out of the sky. Or, rather, it sets in place regulations on flights, airplanes, and airlines, and maintains the air traffic control system. Flying is a nightmare sometimes, but it'd be a lot worse without the FAA. A summary of what the bill does can be found here.

While not a high-profile bill, it was obviously vital to the economy and safety. Without it, the FAA would cease to operate and chaos would ensue. The bill easily passed, 267 to 151.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No.

Now, does that mean that Walberg wants airplanes to crash? Of course not. Even his rigid ideology, I assume, allows for regulation of something like this (if it doesn't, I'm truly frightened). Instead, the bit which probably made it impossible for Walberg and 150 other Republicans to vote to reauthorize the FAA was this:

Two amendments to the bill were introduced and passed. The first amendment that passed was an amendment to reopen contract talks between the FAA and the Naitonal Air Traffic Controllers Association. The amendment would put the 1998 controllers' contract back into force. If no agreement is reached within 45 days, the dispute would be sent to binding arbitration. The amendment directs that FAA controllers are to be given back pay but provides no funding for this purpose. Future disputes between FAA and one of its unions would be sent to binding arbitration in the event of an impasse. A second amendment was also passed to change the definition of "express carrier" under the Railway Labor Act to allow the non-aviation portions of express carriers to be organized under the National Labor Relations Act (instead of the RLA).

Each amendment strengthens the position of the workers in labor negotiations. Although Congressman Walberg issued no statement on the bill, I'm guessing his anti-labor stance is what prevented him from supporting the bill.

Tim Walberg: Fighting against the little guy on behalf of big corporations.

Labels: 110th Congress, Aviation, Issues, Tim Walberg, Transportation, Walberg Voting Record

The Michigan Democratic Party and Chairman Mark Brewer are hitting Congressman Walberg hard on his apparent flip-flop on the Transportation bill and funding for the Battle Creek airport.

Brewer:

“It looks like Walberg was for the airport funding before he was against it. I don’t know what’s more alarming the fact that Walberg would side with President Bush over what was best for his constituents or the fact that he lied about it,” Brewer said. “In Walberg’s short time in office he has compared Iraq to Detroit, advocated for oil drilling in the Great Lakes and lied to his constituent about supporting a local airport funding bill that he voted against.”

Check out the front page of the MDP website for an old photo of Tim Walberg... with a mustache!

Labels: 110th Congress, Issues, Tim Walberg, Transportation

Thanks to the anonymous comment that brought this to my attention.

On HR 3074, the appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (which Walberg earmarked and voted against), Congressman Walberg offered an amendment. It's an amendment he seems proud of, perhaps because it's the first time the House has passed something he's written.

But it's a very puzzling amendment. Here's the text as read by the House clerk:

Amendment offered by Mr. Walberg:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __X. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Department of Transportation to promulgate regulations based on race, ethnicity, or sex.

Walberg called it "prohibiting 'affirmative action for roads.'" Apparently he thinks this is a big problem. He spoke in support of his amendment (it's worth noting that the House clerk recorded a slightly different version of his speech than he posts on his website), and he was "almost speechless with the fact that this very simple amendment has not been challenged aggressively yet."

When the amendment was challenged, here's what Congressman John Olver, sponsor of the bill, said:

Either this is not a serious amendment or it is an exceedingly serious amendment. This amendment is either totally unnecessary or it has a really nefarious purpose. We do have rules and regulations, I think, that might come under the material of the legislation that support and require certain set-asides for minority or women-owned businesses in providing among all of our contracting in transportation departments, in some of those departments, and under certain circumstances. I think those are entirely appropriate.

I don't know whether this is the sort of thing that the gentleman was trying to get at, but I think that this has some entirely unknown effects. Perhaps I should have asked the gentleman whether he had particular things in mind that he knew about because I couldn't at first think of any.

Mr. Chairman, my chairman says I should accept the amendment, and I am going to accept the amendment.

In other words, Congressman Olver couldn't quite figure out what the amendment would actually do, and Congressman Walberg offered no specific examples of what he wanted to prohibit. In the end, it was easier just to swallow it than get into a big fight over a very vague amendment.

Conservatives are celebrating a victory, but the commenter that brought this to my attention seems worried:

That simple, huh? No opposition? Walberg walks away thinking he scored a major victory, but does anyone understand what that amendment affected? It seems like the democrat in charge of opposing the amendment could not even figure it out. I think Waberg might have just catapulted himself onto the national stage with the help of the democrat leadership.

Congratulations on your victory, Congressman Walberg. Now, if we could just figure out what that actually means...

Labels: 110th Congress, Affirmative Action, Issues, Tim Walberg, Transportation, Walberg Voting Record

From the Battle Creek Enquirer:

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg worked for months to bring more funding to W.K. Kellogg Airport, but the Tipton Republican said he was forced to vote against it.

Tuesday, the U.S. House approved $500,000 for a new runway at W.K. Kellogg Airport, a Walberg-drafted earmark contained in a $104 billion Transportation and Housing and Urban Development bill.

Wednesday, Walberg’s office sent a news release stating Walberg “secured” House approval of funding for the airport, 2712 W. Territorial Road.

The release did not include information on Walberg’s vote against the bill.

Matt Lahr, Walberg’s spokesman, said that although the congressman did not vote for the funding, “he still supported it.”

According to Lahr, Walberg joined 150 GOP members of Congress in signing a letter on May 18 promising to uphold any of President Bush’s vetoes of Democratic-drafted spending bills.

So, Walberg gets an earmark on a bill that would help Battle Creek, but when orders from the White House come in, he switches positions and votes No. The bill passed anyway, 268 to 153.

But the flip-flop isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is the part that I emphasized in the quote above-- Walberg took credit for getting an earmark he ultimately ended up opposing, and he omitted that part in his news release. He was trying to hide his real position.

The readers of the Enquirer online had some interesting thoughts on the story.

God's Machete:

This is just amazing?

No matter what he says or how he votes, everything good is his doing and everything not good isn't his doing?

This is almost too good to be true, but whatever he says I believe, because he says he is a man of God?

Thank you Tim, it is so nice to have someone to thank.

DSMi:

Is this anything like the big Bush blast on Dem's voting for it before voting against it ? The Michigan flipflopper from the land of flipflop haters? OMG how funny.
Remember that slogan Boots or FlipFlops that graced the billboards? Who knew it would come back to bite them in the butt?


"Standing with 150 others that swore an oath promising to uphold any of President Bush’s vetoes of Democratic-drafted spending bills. "

Are these adults we've sent to do our legislative duties or a club of kids playing following the leader. This certainly puts the seal of approval of truth to the Bush agenda to lockstep the GOP to make the Dems look bad.

Poor Walberg, a one termer with recall looming. How funny

bccurmudgeon:

Let me see if I've got this straight.

Three years ago Joe Schwarz put everything he had into saving the ANG base at the airport in Battle Creek, thereby assuring local jobs and increased economic activity in the community.

Now, Walberg votes AGAINST funding coming into this district to enhance the same airport? But says he "supports it?"

My mama always taught me that it isn't what you SAY that's important, it's what you DO.

Further words (that would not get me removed from this forum) completely fail me.

UPDATE: The Enquirer has more today:

Ed Sarpolus, vice president of EPIC-MRA, a Lansing-based political research and consulting firm, said sending a press release on the bill's success — without disclosing how Walberg voted — is a case of "trying to have his cake and eat it, too."

"Like many conservatives, Walberg knows that he has to spend, spend, spend to get reelected," said Sarpolus. "Even if they vote differently; even if that means telling the public a white lie."

Now, when are we going to see a Republican primary challenge?

Labels: 110th Congress, Issues, Tim Walberg, Transportation, Walberg Voting Record

Today, the United States House of Representatives voted on HR 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act. It describes itself as a bill "to improve the security of railroads, public transportation, and over-the-road buses in the United States, and for other purposes." It's a pretty large bill, so if you'd like more information, read the text of the bill (here or here).

It passed, 299-124.

Tim Walberg voted No. Although 124 Republicans voted against it, 74 joined the Democratic majority to support the bill's passage. Among those 74 were Michigan Republicans Vern Ehlers (MI-03), Peter Hoekstra (MI-02), Joe Knollenberg (MI-09), Thad McCotter (MI-11), Candice Miller (MI-10), and Fred Upton (MI-06). Joining Walberg in opposition to the measure were Dave Camp (MI-04) and Mike Rogers (MI-08). All six Michigan Democrats voted to support the bill.

Former Congressman Joe Schwarz was reported to be a big fan of railways and trains, and was seen as a friend of Amtrak during his term (and Amtrak, for those unaware, has a line that runs straight through the 7th District). How do you think he might have voted on a bill to improve transportation security? And how do you think a Democrat-- any Democrat-- would have voted?

Labels: Issues, Tim Walberg, Transportation, Walberg Voting Record