Was it Stalin, Goebbels or Karl Rove?

Someone once said that if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth.

Clearly, Mike Rogers has been paying attention to this dictum. He had a guest op-ed in the Sunday Press & Argus titled, "Playing politics over SCHIP legislation."

cue the violins...

In a masterful blending of half-truths and full fictions, Rogers set up the usual SCHIP bogeymen (Illegal aliens! No oxygen for Grandma! You'll pay for Donald Trump's health care!), and takes credit for "co-authoring" legislation that was supposedly included in the SCHIP bill.

There have been any number of blogs rebutting the misinformation about SCHIP, including some here at MRN.

Then Rogers goes a step beyond bashing a program to help working families. He throws in a little extra, shall we say, misinformation about the proposed economic stimulus package and the FISA bill.

Mr. Rogers' idea of stimulating the economy is making a one-time payment of a few hundred dollars to families who need real jobs. Guess he hasn't noticed that our state leads the nation in unemployment. Thankfully, Governor Granholm, Senators Stabenow and Levin, and five other members of the MI delegation are paying attention, and they're working to include extended unemployment benefits as part of the stimulus package.

Mr. Rogers is also ringing alarm bells about FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. In a nutshell, FISA allows US law enforcement and intelligence professionals to obtain warrants from special courts. FISA courts are secret; the classified evidence for a warrant is not made public to protect sources and methods. If US law enforcement or intelligence professionals are in hot pursuit, without time to request a FISA warrant, the court allows them to obtain a retroactive warrant. At no time since FISA's inception in 1978 has the court refused a warrant.

FISA does need to be updated -- communications technology has changed dramatically in the last three decades. But Rogers & Co. are arguing that FISA hampers these investigations, and we should just keep on going with the unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps that the Bush Administration holds so dear. They're also worried about providing immunity for telecom firms, who leaped to assist the administration in warrantless wiretaps. A quick peek will show that Mr. Rogers has received a nice chunk of campaign cash from telecommunications firms like AT&T and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

Last but not least, Mr. Rogers' teary plea for the Democrats to stop being so gosh-darned mean included this little gem:

As we look forward, it is crucial to end political gimmicks such as the veto override vote

The "gimmick" to which Mr. Rogers is referring is actually part of Section I, Article 7 of the United States Constitution. (The Congressional Research Service has an excellent summary of how this works.)

I'm sorry that warrants and constitutional guidelines are "gimmicky" to you, Mr. Rogers.

No Way to Treat Your Fellow Michiganders

It's no secret that we're facing tough economic times here in Michigan, and have been for a while. The proposed federal stimulus package is being pushed through Congress as we speak, but the jury is still out on exactly how much good it will do.

The Freep's Susan Tompor had a front-page column titled, "Deal has rebates coming your way," a somewhat rosy-toned take on the stimulus package:

In Michigan, nearly 94% of taxpayers would get some kind of rebate check. About 2.57 million people would qualify for a rebate of up to $600 each, according to estimates by the Anderson Economic Group in East Lansing.

About 1.69 million couples in Michigan would qualify for a rebate of up to $1,200 each, the Anderson Economic Group says.

In the Department of Unintended Irony, right below Tompor's column was a piece titled, Ford May Not Refill Its Ranks. Ford cut 35% of its total work force from 2005 -2007.

This may be good news for shareholders, but for a state with a 7.5% unemployment rate and a drop in median household income of 11.9% over the past seven years, fewer jobs is bad news. A check for $600 or $1200 would be nice, but it won't begin to address the needs of Michigan working families.

What Michigan could really use in this package is a provision to extend unemployment benefits and extra funding for state health care programs (thanks for that third S-CHIP veto, W!).

Governor Granholm is heading to Washington next week to lobby the Senate to include
these two things in the proposed stimulus package, which is expected to give a $150 billion jump start to the U.S. economy.

Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd stated that the Governor wants the Senate to include a "bold plan that provides states' resources to provide health care and extend unemployment compensation to those workers who have lost their jobs. There's no place where these issues are more critical than in Michigan."

Senators Stabenow and Levin, as well as five members of the MI Congressional delegation, sent a letter to the Senate asking for a 20-week extension of unemployment compensation, with an additional 13 weeks for states with high unemployment levels. The legislators also asked for an increase in the amount of weekly unemployment benefits and more assistance for state Medicare programs.

Three guesses as to which member of the MI Congressional delegation went on record saying that Michigan didn't really need any more help...

Yes, you're right -- it was our own Mike Rogers! From the Detroit News:

U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, said Friday that Congress should not spend more on government programs like unemployment compensation, but instead should quickly get the rebate checks into the hands of taxpayers.

"We need to help the American people who are hurting by getting money in their hands," Rogers said, saying it will also improve consumer confidence.

Rogers' enthusiasm for reality-defying Bush economics clearly hasn't waned, despite four terms in Washington.

Does Rogers honestly think that a Michigan worker who has lost a good-paying job in the auto industry (who still can't find a job and whose unemployment benefits are running out) will be "hurting" less if he gets a check for $600?

Will a family paying for an individual health insurance policy suddenly become more "confident" if they get a check for $1200? I doubt it; in fact, that is roughly the cost of just one monthly premium for a self-insured family of four.

This is sad, insulting and wasteful all at the same time. It's the modern equivalent of bread and circuses (Hey, go to the mall and buy an iPod -- it will cheer you up! ). Did Rogers miss the class where we learned that trickle-down economics is a fantasy?

Serious, responsible leaders like Governor Granholm and Senators Stabenow and Levin know that we need real support to turn things around. They're willing to do the hard work to make it happen. Unfortunately, Mike Rogers prefers to keep on Bush's good side than to help fellow Michiganders.

Once again, Mike Rogers has shown where his priorities lie.

Stand By Your Mitt?

While all sorts of Mike Rogers-related miscellanea float through my inbox, some recent references to Rogers and Romney caught my eye. Since Saturday is a good day to tidy up loose ends, enjoy this collection of The Adventures of Mike & Mitten.

Rogers has been scrupulously avoiding commitment to any GOP candidate -- he dislikes making any decision without (a) guaranteed financial benefit, (b) guaranteed safety or (c) all of the above.

[Of course, once the dust has settled on a clear Republican nominee Rogers will be by his side quicker than a Congressional staffer at an open bar.]

A recent AP story on the MI GOP primary confirmed this unaffiliated stance:

"The number one issue in Michigan is jobs," says Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from the area around Lansing, who has not endorsed any of the candidates for his party's nomination. (emphasis mine)

This Switzerland-like pose has been going on for a while. Last summer, the Press & Argus' Buzz column noted that quite a few Rogers supporters were wearing Romney stickers at the Brighton 4th of July Parade, and asked:

Does that mean Rogers supports Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who spoke at a Republican Party event in Livingston County in April?

The answer, according to an e-mail from Rogers' spokeswoman Sylvia Warner, is simple: No.

So I was surprised to read a post at CoMITTed to Romney (hey, I don't make this stuff up!) stating that Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan was endorsing Romney -- on camera. You'd think that this would have received some local media attention. So I visited the site and clicked on the posted YouTube video which started with the title "Rep. Mike Rogers, R-AL."

Deary me. Being the helpful gal that I am, I left a comment on the guy's blog stating that he had the wrong Mike Rogers. I wasn't even snarky (seriously!), just stated a fact.

Apparently, one dares not challenge the Mittiness and wisdom of the "#1 grassroots site" that has been "coMITTed to promoting and electing Mitt Romney President in 2008 since June 2005." When I stopped by yesterday, the video was still titled with the MI Mike and my helpful comment wasn't posted.

Since I'm not smitten with the Mitten, I helpfully posted again:

Please change the title on your “Mike Rogers of Michigan” video– it incorrectly identifies the Congressman who is speaking. Michiganders are tired of their Mike Rogers being confused with the Alabama one!

Not only has Mike Rogers (MI-08) not endorsed anyone (see the AP story, :http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5xVGjP2icV1Q2o-iiKe22oGa3AD8U3SK780)but the misidentification is very disrespectful to Mike Rogers (AL-03).

My strategy of sounding like an outraged Michigan Republican (or an Alabama Republican who's offended by the comparison) seems to have worked. This comment did indeed make it to the website.

But wait -- the plot thickens! The Press & Argus tells us that Mr. Rogers will be partying this afternoon with Ann Romney (wife o' Mitt) and James Bopp (campaigner for Mitt) at the LivCo GOP's Shark Club bash. Not familiar with Bopp? He's a conservative political activist, attorney, Special Adviser on Life Issues to the Romney campaign, and author of such deathless prose as The Best Choice Is Also a Good Choice. Bopp has "turned into one of the more effective surrogates for Mitt Romney and his pro-life conversion."

(Yes, Duncan "0% in NH" Hunter will be there, too, but purely in the capacity of fig leaf.)

So Mike "Finger In The Wind" Rogers is doubling down on Mitt, giving a little wink'n'nudge to the Romney clan just in case Willard pans out. No public announcement, though, just in case McCain takes the lead...

Which way will the wind blow on Tuesday?

Badges: Not Just For Boy Scouts Anymore

I found a new GOP fundraising site called Slatecard.com, a wannabe ACTBlue. (ACTRed, perhaps? More on this site in my MichLib post.)

Their tagline? "It's fun to give right."

See, when you cough up your credit card and contact info, you can also "enhance your experience" by awarding online issue badges for candidates whose accomplishments you support.

What comes to mind when you hear "Mike Rogers' accomplishments"? Herewith is a listing of Mr. Rogers' badges on Slatecard.com

Nah, not really... unless you work for Cleary University. Or if you're a worker from Singapore or Chile. Oh, and he voted against raising the minimum wage.

Not so much. In his first year in Congress, Rogers was the only member of the MI delegation to vote against a proposed ban on drilling for oil under the Great Lakes. Since then, he's moved on to give major tax breaks for oil and gas producers (HR 3402, Vote#500, 9/28/05), weakened restrictions on mercury emissions -- and most recently, said no to the Clean Energy Act of 2007.

Really? He got a 0% rating from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and he didn't think that our government should tell the Mexican government about the location of Minuteman Project volunteers. At the same time, he gave the nod to extending immigrant residency rules and voted to exempt hospitals from having to report illegal immigrants before being reimbursed... A voting record like this is contradictory at best, pandering at worst.

Well, this MUST be true, since the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps PAC thinks that Rogers deserves a reward, since he's one of those Congressmen who have "already proven they are on America's side by opposing amnesty and promoting a border fence."

Mr. Rogers talks a good game -- nay, a GREAT game -- on Islamic fundamentalism. The problem is that his actions fall rather short of his words. He's served on the House Intel committee since he arrived in Congress seven years ago, and he's made any number of taxpayer-funded trips to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Since Mr. Rogers is a very flexible thinker, was able to tout his intimate involvement with US intel policy from 2001 - 2006, then do an about-face in 2007 (when the GOP lost control of the House) and state that "we have to change policy."

According to Mr. Rogers in 2005 and 2006, Pakistan was our premier partner in the war on terror (and he was more than happy to take money from Pakistani-Americans).

At a November 2007 breakfast, though, he allowed as how "We need to be asking a lot more of Musharraf on help in the tribal areas," where al-Qaida terrorist leadership is hiding, Rogers said. "Democracy is always better than none. We have to keep our eye on the ball (of fighting terrorism)."

After the breakfast, Rogers elaborated: "Musharraf does things that are good for Musharraf. Sometimes that included helping us on terrorism. We've just got to keep up the pressure."

Wow! Don't you feel more secure now?

A Lump of Coal

As one of Mr. Rogers' constituents, I signed up to receive his legislative updates via email. The most recent one is a textbook example of the way Rogers spins his D.C. behavior to make it look like he cares.

After fighting tooth and nail to block expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Rogers voted to support a watered-down version and happily patted himself on the back for it.

Today, the House of Representatives approved an SCHIP extension that incorporates legislation I co-authored earlier this year to fully fund and modestly expand health coverage for millions of poor and low-income children through March 2009. This is a significant victory that protects the needs of the children of America's working poor. The President is expected to sign this measure into law this week.

This measure provides for a clean extension of SCHIP and recognizes our responsibility to ensure that the children's health program is available for children who need it, and not for adults, people who enter the country illegally, or families who already have private insurance.

This legislation increases the programs' funding and keeps the focus where it belongs, on helping low-income kids. The bill fully funds the existing program for an additional 18 months. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the funding increases will ensure that no State would have to reduce their SCHIP benefits package or change their current SCHIP eligibility standards due to a lack of federal funding.

The kindest way to describe this is, ah, somewhat misleading. Here's a fact-based analysis of Rogers' message:

1.) It's not clear what Rogers is referring to when he talks about the previous SCHIP legislation he co-authored. If you find it, please let me know. It is clear that he doggedly repeated Bush talking points (no coverage for illegal immigrants, adults or "wealthy" families) all through the fall. This is most likely what was "incorporated" into the final version of the bill.

2.) "Fully funding" SCHIP is a misleading term. Earlier this year, the Bush administration placed considerable eligibility restrictions on the decade-old SCHIP program. Based on these restrictions, 14 states will actually have to drop children from SCHIP coverage. The Kaiser Family Foundation's Daily Health Policy Report offers a good summary:

The measure does not address an SCHIP policy directive announced in August by CMS that states must enroll 95% of children in families with incomes up to 250% of the federal poverty level before expanding eligibility, The Hill reports. Acting CMS Administrator Kerry Weems said that the Bush administration would not require states to disenroll children from the program despite the requirement. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that Weems' statement contradicts the policy, adding, "Perhaps CMS officials are reading their
directive differently than the rest of us."

An analysis by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute's Center for Children and Families found that 14 states provide SCHIP coverage to children in families with incomes greater than 250% of the poverty level and that they "will likely be forced to roll back their eligibility levels at some point before August 2008
or assume new coverage costs with state funds." Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) on the House floor Wednesday said, "Because of the president's executive order, kids in those states will actually come off the rolls in August." The National Governors Association on Monday sent a letter to Congress asking it to "address the issue raised in the ... guidance issued by CMS" (Young, The Hill, 12/20).

Translation: the new rules will force some children out of SCHIP coverage, since a number of states now cover families with incomes over 250% of the federal poverty level. This is especially true in the Northeast, which has much higher costs of living.

3.) Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families also noted that the requirement to cover 95% of eligible children is unrealistic:

No means-tested program where people have to apply and be reviewed for eligibility has reached this high standard of participation. In fact, Medicare, which is not means tested and where people are enrolled automatically, has a participation rate of about 95 percent. By comparison, the low-income subsidy for the Medicare part D prescription drug benefit, which is means tested, has a participation rate of only 43 percent. SCHIP and Medicaid participation rates are considerably higher—about 63 percent and 79 percent, respectively—but state-level participation rates vary widely and are difficult to measure accurately due to data limitations.

Translation: the 95% rule is an unrealistic standard; even if states try to meet it, there is no accurate way to determine participation rates.

4.) According to Rogers, the final version of the bill excludes adults, illegal immigrants and families with private insurance. There are plenty of posts that cover this in detail, but in a nutshell,

* the SCHIP bills that Bush vetoed did not cover adults. Back in 2005, though, the Bush administration urged states to expand SCHIP coverage to very low-income adults -- so Rogers and Dave Camp co-authored a letter supporting Michigan's participation in this program. Ah, how quickly they forget...

*the SCHIP bills that Bush vetoed did not cover illegal immigrants. In fact, an early version would have required a five-year waiting period for legal immigrant families. This is fear-mongering, pure & simple.

* Families at this income level ($42,925 a year for a family of 3) who have private insurance coverage are most likely getting it through an employer. With the spiraling cost of health insurance, more companies are requiring employees to shoulder a bigger share of the cost. For this hypothetical family, SCHIP coverage may well be more affordable than private coverage. Does Mr. Rogers really intend to micromanage that family's spending choices?

[Remember, SCHIP isn't "free" health care -- it requires premiums and co-pays that are tied to income level. ]

So you can see that this is just another Rogers Special: light on fact, heavy on emotion, and totally useless for working families.

Slap-Happy

Deary me. Mike Rogers lost the vote on the new energy bill in a big way (314-100). To repair his fragile self-esteem and garner a little press attention for, um, losing the vote, Rogers decided to vent about the way the bill was sent down Pennsylvania Avenue for Bush's signature -- in a Toyota Prius.

According to the Freep, the vehicle choice didn't go over too well with Rogers or his GOP buddy Candice Miller:

"It is a huge slap in the face, calculated, I believe, just to demonstrate their complete disregard for the domestic auto industry," said Rep. Candice Miller.

Rep. Mike Rogers called the Prius delivery a "slap in the face of every American autoworker."

Oh, really?

( It's Christmas. Sharing is good. So we won't mock Mike for sharing his talking points cheat sheet with Candy... we will, however, take him to task for manufacturing an unrealistic hissy fit.)

It seems to me that the auto industry doesn't share Mr. Rogers' indignation (or they're at least smart enough not to share it in public):

Chrysler’s president, James E. Press, said he welcomed the new legislation and hoped it would remain the single national standard that auto companies must meet.

“Now we get some better clarity where the road goes and how steep the hill to climb is going to be, and we’re going to have fun,” said Mr. Press, formerly Toyota’s top executive for North America. “We’re committed to meeting these standards and doing our part.”

Other manufacturing executives had an equally positive outlook on the bill, like Osram Sylvania CEO Charlie Jerabek.

But even though the energy bill has not changed the direction of lighting research, most manufacturers are relieved to have a federal standard in place.

“If each state passed its own rules for light bulb efficiency, we’d have to make 50 different types,” Mr. Jerabek said. “Now we can all standardize our production techniques.”

Hmmm. Sounds like manufacturers are okay with national standards. Wasn't Mr. Rogers recently in a tizzy about those awful Californians having their own emissions standards?

Bottom line? According to the non-partisan National Commission on Energy Policy, the bill's provisions for improved fuel efficiency and renewable fuels will result in

*Reduction in U.S. oil use of 2.8 million barrels a day by 2020, and 5 million barrels a day by 2030, over business as usual.

*U.S. Consumer fuel savings of $71 billion per year in 2020, and $161 billion in 2030, using approximate current prices ($90/barrel oil, $3/gallon gasoline).
*Reduction of transfer of wealth abroad of $73 billion per year in 2020 and $129 billion in 2030.

*Reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions by 320 million metric tons in 2020, and 675 million metric tons in 2030.

*Reduction in passenger vehicle emissions by 15% in 2020 and 30% in 2030 under what they otherwise would be.

*Reduction in 2020 of approximately 4% of projected total net U.S. CO2 emissions versus what they would otherwise be.

This is a deeply needed step forward for our country and our world. Quit whining, Mr. Rogers.

Jingle Bells a la Mike Rogers

Dashing through DC
With a gang of lobbyists
Love that K Street cash
Forget constituents

How can I get one more
Gerrymandered term?
What fun it is to wheel and deal
And watch the voters squirm.

Oh, incumbent, incumbent
It’s really quite a scam
Voters pay, you get to play
Off in Afghanistan

Blaming all the Dems
For our country’s ills
You say no to S-CHIP
And you laugh at CAFÉ bills

You say you’re Intel Guy,
Know lots ‘bout terrorist stuff
In Pakistan, you are the man
But you don’t come home enough

Oh, incumbent, incumbent
It must have been a bummer
The NIE says Iran’s nuke-free
No photo ops there in your Hummer

cross-posted at LivingBlue

The Twelve Days of Christmas

'tis the season and all, so I figured a little updated holiday song would be a nice change from all that policy wonking...

Mike Rogers’ Twelve Days of Christmas

On the first day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
A gerrymandered di-i-strict

On the second day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Two photo ops

On the third day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Three big checks

On the fourth day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Four K Street pals

On the fifth day of Christmas, special interests got me off
Mark Foley’s Christmas card list

On the sixth day of Christmas, special interests took me out on
Swell Potomac cruises

On the seventh day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Scary Pakistani pals

On the eighth day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
“No” votes on S-CHIP

On the ninth day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Money for my CHOMP bash

On the tenth day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Money for MIKE R PAC

On the eleventh day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Californians to blame

On the twelfth day of Christmas, special interests gave to me,
Lots of trips to Iraq

Energy Sap

Mr. Rogers is at it again: pontificating on national issues, blaming the Democrats and neatly avoiding any actions that might actually solve a problem.

(if this was Variety, this post would no doubt be titled, "Slacker Solon Talks Smack, Sasses Speaker, Slams Left Coast")

Today's example of RogersLogic is brought to you courtesy of the House energy bill that passed yesterday. The bill, which passed 235-181, raised standards for fuel economy, appliances and light bulbs, and also promoted the development of alternative fuels.

Mike Rogers voted against it. And this is what he said:

"Innovation is the key to solving the energy crunch and getting Michigan back on its economic feet. Taxation and wasteful spending take us backwards, deeper into an ocean of foreign oil and sky-high gasoline and heating oil prices. That translates into 'no new jobs for Michigan' as well as bad news for the entire country." — Rep.
Mike Rogers, R-Brighton.

I agree that innovation is key to solving the energy crunch. And lots of folks think that alternative energy sources could be a huge boost to the MI economy, including Governor Granholm, Thomas Friedman, and -- hey! -- Ethanol Guy Mike Rogers, who earlier this year raved about lithium ion batteries and hydrogen fuel cells.

So how does Mr, Rogers make this leap of logic, equating improved fuel efficiency with taxation and wasteful spending?

Well, despite all of the useful bits contained in the bill, it didn't address the issue of whether states should be allowed to set their own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. So it looks like Mr. Rogers is out to protect us (yet again!) from those Evil Californians:

"California would still be allowed to design American cars, and the only thing worse than that is to have Congress designing our cars," Rogers said in a statement.

"American families ought to decide what cars they want to drive, not the state of California where extremism continues to damage the manufacture of American cars and hurt American workers."

I'll type slowly so that Mr. Rogers can follow along.

1.) Until yesterday, the CAFE standards hadn't changed since 1975. Remind me again how the U.S. auto industry has been doing during that time?

2.) Californians are Americans, too. They (and their Republican governor) have agreed on ways to protect their environment. They are also a substantial automotive market. Mr. Rogers should stop being a Big Government control freak and let the market provide vehicles to meet the demand.

3.) What are you putting on the table, Mr. Rogers? You criticize A LOT. You haven't come up with any viable alternatives. You haven't secured much in the way of research dollars for our state's universities. You're happy to talk about ethanol, while letting all those corn stalks provide cover for your cozy relationship with Big Oil.

Don't be a sap, Mr. Rogers. Do the right thing: leave the politics behind and help our state take the lead in alternative energy research and manufacturing.

Amway = Security

Dick (Mr. $26.22 per Vote)DeVos will be the keynote speaker at the Second annual Michigan Homeland Security Venture and Angel Capital Symposium, which takes place tomorrow at Cleary University.

The Press & Argus article noted that

While not an expert in homeland security, DeVos is a Grand Rapids-area businessman, president of Windquest Group and the son of one of the founders of Amway Corp.

DeVos' talk is expected to focus on the value of investment in protecting the homeland, and about Michigan's growing role in the field.

[For a much funnier take on what promises to be theater of the absurd, I tip my hat to Eric B. at Michigan Liberal for his post "How to Wage War... and Make Money!"]

Now, you probably know that Mike Rogers is never far away when there's a big, steaming serving of pork 'n' cash available. So let's count the connections:

1.) Rogers is a major supporter of Cleary University ("Semper Coulter"). For FY08, he asked for the following goodies for Cleary:

• $1,040,000 for road construction at Cleary University


• $461,000 to Cleary University for equipment upgrades & technology instruction for high school students through Cleary's partnerships with local public and charter schools


• $225,000 to construct a community recreation center on the Cleary campus

Pretty sweet for a satellite campus of a university with less than 800 students!

Both Rogers and Cleary University are founding partners of the Livingston Economic Club , which ponied up $30,000 for Ann Coulter to speak last October.

2.) Moving right along, we come to the Michigan Homeland Security Consortium. For those of you unfamiliar with the MiHSC, it's a kind of Chamber of Commerce for security companies. Mike Rogers was the keynote speaker at its kickoff meeting on September 11, 2006. The MiHSC mission:

To drive the development and growth of the Homeland Security Industry within the State of Michigan, placing it at the forefront of the State’s economic revitalization.

Fair enough. We need something to revitalize our state's economy. And yet... I always get a little queasy when folks start to talk about national security as a growth industry. Mike Rogers, for one, is an old hand at linking security and profit. In 2004, the City Pulse carried this story:

“I believe there’s a great opportunity for Michigan companies in Iraq,” Rogers told a dozen businessmen at a Michigan Manufacturers Association meeting in Lansing on Monday, May 17. “This economy has the potential to give out $600 billion a year. The Iraqis are fast becoming a consumer population. In my entire life, I’ve never seen so many satellite dishes on roofs.”

Rogers, a former FBI officer and strong supporter of the Iraq invasion, has traveled to Iraq three times since the country’s government was overthrown in April 2003. During a one-hour briefing on “Doing Business in Iraq” with Bush administration senior official William H. Lash as guest speaker, Rogers painted a glowing picture of the prospects for economic gain in this combat-scarred country. [skip]

But during a discussion prior to the business briefing, Lash and Rogers downplayed reports about rising security concerns for foreigners. “It’s just like walking in a rough neighborhood anywhere in America,” Rogers said. (5/19/04)

3.) DeVos' brother-in-law Eric Prince is the CEO of Blackwater USA, which is intimately familiar with the amazing profit opportunties offered by the security industry (see this helpful House Oversight graph of Blackwater contracts during the Bush administration).


4.) DeVos has contributed to indicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's campaigns AND his legal defense fund. He also spent quite a bit of time hanging out with uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who now resides in a minimum-security federal prison after being convicted of fraud, tax evasion & conspiracy to bribe public officials. (H/T to Liberal Lucy for an earlier post that showed us the money.)

Interestingly, Mike Rogers has also spent some quality time with Messrs. DeLay and Abramoff. During the tenure of former Majority Leader DeLay, Rogers served as a hand-picked deputy whip in the Republican leadership & raised record-breaking amounts of moola as chair of the RNCC finance committee. In 2006, Rogers’ PAC, the MIKE-R Fund, made $10,000 worth of donations to DeLay's PAC. Rogers is also one of six Congressmen who accepted money from Abramoff’s PAC and refused to return it.

Isn't it nice that Dick & Mike have so many things in common?