U.S. Representative Tim Walberg holds Manchester coffee hour
Last Monday, Tim Walberg stopped in Freedom Township to hold a coffee hour.
In addition to the western half of Washtenaw County, U.S. Representative Tim Walberg represents 6 other counties.
Manchester’s U.S. Representative, Tim Walberg held a coffee hour last Monday morning in the Manchester area at the Freedom Township Hall. Rep. Walberg schedules his coffee hours with short notice, in this case alerting nearby supporters by letter, 4 days before. Rep. Walberg had a strong turnout including Township and Village elected officials and State Representative Donna Lasinski.
This coffee hour was the first Rep. Walberg has held in Manchester since the coffee hour held at Frank’s Place in the Village in April 2016, before the presidential election. The two coffee hours were starkly different in tone with the increase in political unrest that came with the election, noticeably present in the questions and responses at last week’s coffee hour. The divide in ideology, both in the country and the Manchester area, was well represented by an even mix of supporters and critics in the audience.
Walberg on the Issues
Rep. Walberg started by praising the tax cut and jobs act, stating that 90% of people in our country are seeing benefits as paychecks are coming out showing less withholding. He talked about touring a Lowe’s in Adrian where, because of the tax cut, all employees are receiving either a $1,000 or $500 bonus for this calendar year and benefit packages have been expanded to include new ongoing benefits such as maternity coverage. He also visited Cisco Systems in Delta Township outside of Lansing, which will be adding 65 employees.
He moved on to answering questions written by attendees and read by Freedom Township treasurer, Rudy Layher. Questions included, “Will a trade war be good for Michigan farmers?” To which Walberg responded, “Wait and see.” He clarified his position on Social Security stating that he is committed to keeping the promise of both Social Security and Medicare for those who’ve already paid in, but wants a different solution for those not already in the workforce. He specifically noted that he would like to see Social Security trust fund money taken out of Treasury Bills (where the funds are currently invested, as mandated by law), but when pressed about what alternative investment vehicle he would choose, Walberg declined to name one.
When asked how he can justify the huge deficit projected over 10 years caused by the tax cut, he explained that the projection does not take in to account economic growth–but also admonished those worried about the projected deficit for being concerned now but not being concerned about actual debt under the previous administration. When asked about the 2018 Farm Bill, he stated that it is moving through the house in a “good, nonpartisan fashion.”
Several questions elicited more controversial answers, causing audible disagreement by some attendees. On the topic of sanctuary cities, Rep. Walberg stated that sanctuary cities aren’t legal; there is a federal law against them, and that when recently the Oakland mayor warned citizens that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were coming, it was the same as warning bank robbers. When asked to clarify whether he was equating illegal immigrants with bank robbers, he replied affirmatively “the law is the law.”
On the topic of global warming, he argued that climate change has gone on for centuries and we’ve seen change before, giving the levels of pollution in Chicago as an example. He acceded that it does make sense to be proactive about climate change but with the caveats that the legislation promotes positive economic growth, doesn’t waste money on things that can’t be proven, focuses on good stewardship of the environment, and takes care of humans first.
He was asked multiple times about banning assault weapon or gun control in general in light of recent school shootings and very adamantly asserted that all he would say on that topic is that he supports the 2nd amendment. He did add that he would support working on improving background checks, if things are being missed, and supports “securing the schools” instead. He feels that the common denominator in all of the mass shootings is that they happen in gun-free zones. He stated that while he would never mandate the Manchester schools have armed teachers or security guards, if they decided they wanted to, he’d stand with them.
Walberg summed up his feelings on school shootings by saying: “Manchester, Chelsea, Adrian, Onsted, Addison… I could go on and on. School districts ought to make that decision, and if you really care about kids you’ll do what is necessary to take care of those students and you won’t be confined to one-size-fits-all, cause it ain’t working right now and we’re losing kids.”
The tension between Representative Walberg and his critics grew more pronounced as the event turned toward Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russia’s interference with the presidential election.
When asked about Mueller’s Russia investigation, Rep. Walberg stated that the investigation of Russian involvement is “falling heavier on the last administration and Hillary Clinton.” He went on to say, “In fact that’s why Donald Trump and I are not calling on the investigation to end because the more that comes out, the more it comes out that it is the other side that has crossed the line.”
Representative Walberg ultimately expressed a strong, but conflicted, view of the investigation. “I do not support ending it; that doesn’t mean I want to continue it. I think it is a prime waste of money but I don’t support ending it because it is proving it wasn’t us, it was them.”
By “us” he meant the Republican Party, and by “them” he meant the Democratic Party.
Walberg on the Dysfunction in Washington
Rep. Walberg went on to address directly the divisions among our political leaders, and the divisions that we see here in our community. He called on people across this district to ask senators to deal with bills, and not to bottle them up, but to amend them and send them back. He stressed the need for Michigan’s Democratic Senators to stop blocking Republicans: “Senator Peters and Senator Stabenow need to step up, be nonpartisan and say to Chuck Schumer, ‘You can’t keep doing this, we’ve got to do our job.’”
However, after calling on Democrats in Michigan’s delegation to abandon partisanship and work with Republicans, Walberg then went on to talk about how important it was that he and other Republicans stuck to partisanship and did not work with Democrats during the Obama administration because “it saved a lot of damage after his first two years.” He then went on to list many of the Democratic agenda items that Republicans either attempted unsuccessfully to defeat (such as the Affordable Care Act) or succeeded in defeating, such as the “Cap and Trade” bill which sought to set prices on carbon emissions so that market forces could reduce global warming over time. The crowd again responded with both cheers and sounds of disapproval.
Finally, Representative Walberg tried to knit together his seemingly contradictory views on partisanship. “It happens both ways,” he conceded, “but in the end there can’t be this constant filibuster that goes on. Both the House and Senate have to work. 76% of bills passed by the House still sit in the Senate; 426 bills still sit in the Senate, including 2 of my own, because of cloture requirements [where] you need 60 votes.”
The impasse in our government, Walberg said, is a simple question of mathematics. “Republicans have 51 members, Democrats have 49; no where do you get to 60 without having 9 Democrats cross and say, ‘We’ll at least debate it.’”
This mathematical reality is underpinned by what Representative Walberg sees as his purpose as a lawmaker: “When people say, ‘You all need to get along’, well, there is a point to getting along. But I got elected making promises and principles that I would stand by.” He went on to say. “[I was] strongly elected, solidly elected [by my district]… [and] for me to back off and agree to some of the things people are asking me to agree to would be a violation of my truthfulness to my constituents on where I stood.”
Representative Walberg seemed, as he spoke, to struggle with the contradiction he was describing; how what makes sense for him as an individual law maker is, at the same time, dysfunctional when pursued by every law maker in the capitol.
“It is one thing to get along and be decent and civil,” Representative Walberg went on to say, “and I think if you would ask anyone on both sides of the aisle how Tim Walberg deals, I think you find I’m civil, firm but civil. [And] that’s America, we don’t all agree. We have a diversity. What is wrong with that? Why should we be like sheep and all go in the same direction…”
Finishing off this topic, he said, “[The] bottom line is we need to get along for the American people and do the right thing that grows this country in the right way.”
The town hall ended with a lot of loud crosstalk, and it was in this context that Representative Walberg held up his hand and said, “Hey, I’m done, I’ve got to get to the airport.”
He then went on to give these closing remarks, while people continued to murmur, and others stood to leave. “We’re Americans,” he said. “We have diversity of opinions. Let’s thank God we’re Americans. Let’s work with our neighbors and friends. Let’s be civil, I hope you can say I was civil here today, even with some lack of civility here, but I’m going to keep doing these townhall meetings.”
Some called out angrily, while others clapped.
The mathematical closeness and rigid partisanship of Washington, which Representative Walberg described, and that rests at the root of the disfunction of our government, was clearly visible in the conflicting voices of the attendees at the coffee hour. This division was also visible in the votes cast by our community in the 2016 election, where Tim Walberg (R) received 3,066 (55%) of the votes and Gretchen Driskell (D) received 2,418 (45%) of the votes. That same basic divide is reflected in each of our community regions, with only minor variations.
As we approach the 2018 election, it is almost certain that a similar divide will persist here. And in a democracy, a government reflects its citizens.
A video recording of the whole coffee hour is available to watch on YouTube here.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login