Where, Exactly, Is Mike Rogers From?

He says he's from Michigan, but you really have to wonder...

Rogers recently hit a mean-spirited trifecta, topping off a busy week in which he voted against mothers and the military by voting against Michigan's unemployed.

It's not news to anyone that Michigan has the nation's highest unemployment rate. Since 2000, we've lost 350,000 jobs and our median income for households has fallen by 11.9 percent.

At the beginning of this year, Governor Granholm, Senators Levin & Stabenow and five Michigan representatives asked Congress for help with extended unemployment benefits and health care funding. They were trying to get support for our state at a time when people are really hurting -- and they were doing it in a very sensible way. The Congressional Budget Office has shown that extending unemployment benefits is a more effective economic stimulus than cuts in corporate tax rates or temporary tax reductions.

So what did Mr. Rogers do when his Governor, his Senators and his colleagues tried to help the citizens of Michigan? He turned his back on all of us and publicly stated

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.

Got that? Mike Rogers thinks that a check for a few hundred dollars is all you need to feel more confident. You don't need a job, or affordable health care for your family or any other frills.

Perhaps if Mr. Rogers visited the Eighth Congressional District as often as he does Iraq, he would have a better idea of what he can do to help us.

This toxic combo of inaction and bad attitude isn't exactly what I would call "representative." And it's certainly not worth $162,000 a year (plus gold-plated health insurance).

Rogers Votes Against GI Bill

Last week, we let you know that Mike Rogers voted against honoring the mothers of America.

This week, Mike Rogers voted against the new GI Bill.

Will puppy kicking be next on the Rogers agenda?

Happily, the bill's House supporters carried the day, 256-166; it now moves to the Senate and will likely face a Bush veto after that. Surprise, surprise!

The updated GI bill is sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), a Vietnam vet and former Secretary of the Navy. IAVA has a good summary of why the program needs to be brought into the 21st century:

The current educational benefits offered to veterans are far lower than the original GI Bill. Today, after contributing a nonrefundable $1,200-$1,800 from their first military paychecks, troops can receive a total of roughly $45,000 towards their education. Unfortunately, this covers only 60-70% of the average cost of four years at a public college or university, or less than two years at a typical private college.

In addition, structural problems and bureaucratic delays discourage veterans from using their GI Bill benefits.

Although 95% of veterans pay the nonrefundable $1,200 contribution, only 8% of veterans use their whole benefit and 30% of veterans don’t use their GI Bill at all. These veterans have contributed $230 million to the national treasury, but received nothing in return. [skip]

A 1988 Congressional study proved that every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending and tax revenue.

The New GI Bill enjoys the support of the VFW, the American Legion, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Air Force Sergeants Association, AMVETS... the list goes on.

So why isn't it good enough for Mike Rogers? He's happy to explain -- at great length -- how crucial it is for our country to stay in Iraq and fight the Global War on Terror. What's his explanation for voting against a bill that not only provides a direct benefit to our troops, but also will improve retention and recruitment at a time when our armed forces are spread so thinly?

Rogers has made multiple trips to Afghanistan and Iraq on the taxpayer's dime. Each trip brings him back more convinced that things are going well.

Is he spending his time socializing with charming members of the Coalition Provisional Authority and carefully screened active duty personnel?

Whatever he is learning there, it isn't translating to increased support for the men and women of the U.S. military. He's voted against bonuses for active duty troops and housing for military families. He voted to cut veterans' health care by $13.5 billion over five years. He was against extending health care benefits to active duty National Guard and Reserve members. He voted against full retirement and disability benefits for veterans.

Needless to say, national veterans groups aren't too impressed with Mr. Rogers:

* The Disabled American Veterans gave Rogers a zero percent rating in 2004 and 2005

* The Retired Enlisted Association gave Rogers a 33% rating in 2004 and 21% in 2006

* The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association gave Rogers a grade of C in 2006.

Rogers is running for his 5th term this fall. You can bet he'll trot out his "support for the troops" speech any chance he gets, and throw in his "on the ground" experience in Iraq for good measure.

If you happen to hear him, be sure to ask -- loudly, clearly and oh-so-politely -- to explain why he turned his back on our troops once he returned to Washington.

Bet There's No Apple Pie, Either!

From our bloggy pals down in Ohio, a post that confirms what you always knew in your heart:
178 Republicans Vote Against Mothers.

First, the Democrats and Republicans voted for HRES 1113 (House Vote 274), which the Washington Post reports was a resolution "Celebrating the Role of Mothers in the United States and Supporting the Goals and Ideals of Mother's Day." This was on May 7, 2008 at 2:19pm. Then, at 2:27pm, a re-vote on the same HRES (Vote 275), 178 Republicans voted against the Mother's Day Resolution.

No kidding.

This is amazing, like a gift from the gods of the internet plopped down in our laps to play with over the summer.

Seriously, though, there is no good way for a politician to answer the question "Why did you vote against mothers?".

An accurate reply might reference some sort of procedural motion ("I voted against tabling it"), but that sounds vaguely like a kid saying he didn't clean his room yet, but he will soon.

Happy Mother's Day from Mr. Rogers & his gang!

Whistle a Happy Tune, or Else

We know that Mike Rogers doesn't really pay much attention to the lives of people living in MI- 08. That much is clear from his voting record, which shows plenty of support for oil companies & not enough for working families. He prefers to stay in Washington, spending his time & energy fundraising on behalf of his fellow Republican pols. When he does come home, it's to raise more money or piggyback onto programs set up and funded by other people.

Well, Mr. Rogers was in town this weekend, rallying the party faithful as the keynote speaker for this year's Lincoln Day Dinner. He manfully held back the tears as he recounted his chat with a group of "dejected" Okemos high school students, who (according to MR) "honestly believed the world was going to combust in 26 minutes." He "was shocked — shocked, and said ‘oh, wow,’ what work do we have to do.’”

Let's leave aside the fact that Mr. Rogers enjoys what could be described as "emotional" anecdotes, which are only tenuously based in reality.

Why, oh why, might high school students be concerned about their country's future?

Could it be the endless war which has claimed 4,000 American lives while enriching no-bid contractors like KBR, whose poor quality work has injured and even killed active-duty service members ?

Or maybe it's the abandonment of our Constitution by Bush and his happy henchmen like Rogers, who have rolled over on FISA, habeas corpus, opposition to torture and other bedrocks of American values.

Perhaps they're concerned about our massive national debt, which has mortgaged their futures and jeopardized our national economic security. How 'bout those record levels of unemployment and home foreclosures, or the skyrocketing prices for food and fuel?

The students at OHS (and their parents) have plenty of reasons to be concerned about our country's future. It's patronizing at best -- and downright idiotic at worst -- for Mike Rogers to natter on about "what work [he has] to do" to get these kids to whistle a happy tune.

Mike Rogers is in the home stretch of his fourth term in Washington. In the majority for the first 3 terms, he agreed to war, torture, debt and corporate welfare. Now in the minority, he's managed to simultaneously whine about (a) how badly the Dems have messed things up and (b) how swell things actually are.

Mr. Rogers certainly DOES have work to do -- he needs to quit with the happy talk, go back to Washington and work to get our country moving in the right direction.

Company's Coming!

The Neighborhood is looking forward to next week's visit by Jack Lessenberry, Michigan Radio's Senior Political Analyst. Mr. Lessenberry will be at the Howell Opera House on Thursday, May 8 at 7 p.m. The evening is sponsored by two groups that are working to make a difference in Livingston County: Voters' Voice (a nonpartisan organization that organizes and supports local forums to educate and enlighten citizens in Livingston County) and Community Unitarian Universalists of Brighton.

When Ann Coulter came to town last fall, these two groups partnered to do something positive. They invited Jonathan Cohn, the author of Sick, to give a talk about America's health care crisis. The evening raised $1,400 to benefit the new VINA non-profit dental clinic.

Voters' Voice and CUUB are once again working to bring light -- not heat -- to Livingston County. Jack Lessenberry's topic, "Michigan and the election: Are there any surprises in store?" will interest everyone in the Neighborhood.

The added bonus? Enjoy the beautifully restored Howell Opera House!

An Evening with Jack Lessenberry
Thursday, May 8, 2008
7:00 p.m.
Howell Opera House
123 West Grand River
Howell, MI

The public is invited. Admission is free. Donations to defray
costs will be welcomed.

Better Late Than Never

Last week, LivingBlue reported on Mike Rogers' lack of support for the new and much-needed GI Bill (S.22/H.R.5740).

Lo and behold, today the GI Bill website listed Mr. Rogers as a co-sponsor. (Bart Stupak, Pete Hoekstra, Vern Ehlers, Fred Upton, Tim Walberg -- what are you waiting for?)

This is good news. Our troops deserve this support. It's the right thing to do: as a nation, we owe them (and their families) so much for their service. It's also the smart thing to do, as the IAVA website notes:

As our military recovers and resets in the coming years, an expanded GI Bill will play a crucial role in ensuring that our military remains the strongest and most advanced in the world.

Now Mr. Rogers can now turn his attention to more fun things -- like party planning!

The Republican National Congressional Committee wants to raise $7 million at this year's President's Dinner, scheduled for June 18th. The voters of MI-08 will be proud to know that Mr. Rogers has been named a Team Captain for the dinner!

Last year's Team Captains were on the hook to raise $75,000 each... I'm not worried about Mr. Rogers coming up with the cash, though. He's been a champion at raking in the dough since he got to Washington 8 years ago.

He was a record-breaking fundraiser in his 2 terms as NRCC Finance Committee chair. He's consistently raised more than the average House member in each election cycle. His PAC, the "MikeR Fund" ("Majority Initiative --Keep Electing Republicans"), was ranked 17th of 152 Republican leadership PACs in 2006. He founded CHOMP ("Challengers Helping Obtain the Majority Program") after the GOP's losses in 2006. And he's made time to raise money for (and with) all sorts of fellow Congresscritters, including disgraced Congressmen Mark Foley, Tom DeLay and Bob Ney.

See? Mike Rogers is in Washington working really hard! Being busy! Helping people!

Unless of course you are a resident of Michigan's Eighth District, in which case he's too busy to help YOU.

SCHIP to Shore

There have been lots of posts about the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) here in the Neighborhood, focusing on Mike Rogers' opposition to efforts to expand affordable health insurance for children of working families. (For a refresher, see Bull-SCHIP Excuses, SCHIP of Fools or Let the S-CHIPs Fall).

SCHIP is a joint federal/state program that helps working families purchase affordable health insurance. Please note that it isn't welfare, it isn't a handout, and it isn't socialized medicine. SCHIP has been a success since its start in 1997, and has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Last year when it was time to renew the program, many legislators wanted to expand SCHIP coverage.

Then along came a vicious little directive from the Bush Administration via the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid:

Under the Aug. 17 directive, states cannot expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover youngsters with family incomes over 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($53,000 for a family of four) unless they can prove that they already cover 95 percent of eligible children below twice the poverty level ($42,400).

Moreover, in such states, children who lose or drop private coverage must be uninsured for 12 months before they can enroll in the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and co-payments in the public program must be similar to those in private plans.

This directive was not only an example of pure meanness (forcing children to go without health insurance for a YEAR when switching to SCHIP) and statistical impossibility (there is no way to "prove" that 95% of eligible children are participating - The Urban Institute has a good summary of the methodological issues).

It also smelled like a violation of the 1996 Congressional Review Act, which requires federal agencies to keep Congress informed when they (agencies) change the rules. Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and John Rockefeller (D-WV) asked the GAO for a ruling on the legality of the CMS directive, and guess what?

The GAO found that the new policy “amounts to a marked departure” from a longstanding, settled interpretation of federal law. It is therefore a rule and, under a 1996 law, must be submitted to Congress for review before it can take effect, the opinion said.

The Congressional Research Service agreed, finding that "an abrupt change of course requires a rulemaking to substantively alter those practices and relied upon interpretations."

This was reported by the New York Times ("President is Rebuffed on Program for Children"), but by and large the MSM has ignored the story.

Former FBI agent Mike Rogers prides himself on being a law & order kind of guy. He also loves to talk about how he works to protect children. Wonder when he'll fess up to supporting a violation of a federal law -- or to turning his back on the 170,686 uninsured children in our state.

One Child Isn't Left Behind

A six-year-old boy from Lansing has had a pretty amazing week. Christopher had his first plane ride, his first visit to Washington, D.C., and his first visit to the White House at a reception for Pope Benedict XVI.

How did this happen? Well, the Bush administration allowed (loyal) members of Congress to invite constituents to the papal reception. Mike Rogers chose Christopher, his specialized intensive care therapist and the CEO of St. Vincent Catholic Charities in Lansing to attend as his guests. Rogers has "worked with the agency in the past and 'was very familiar with the work they do with children.'" *

I won't attempt to argue that this is anything but a heart-warming story. The Lansing trio had the experience of a lifetime and no one should begrudge them their adventure.

I will argue, however, that it is a cheap election-year trick on Rogers' part. How else can you explain his very public display of care and concern for one child in light of his voting record on children and family issues during his 4 terms in Congress?

Here are a few recent highlights (lowlights?):

Rogers voted in favor of the FY 2006 budget reconciliation bill that cut mandatory programs by $39 billion. This included cuts to foster care and child support. It also toughened TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) requirements for states, but decreased funding to help states support the new stricter rules. For details, visit PreventChildAbuse.org

In 2007, Rogers voted against HR 3043, which included $401.41 billion for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and $27.32 billion for the Administration for Children and Families. (data from OpenSecrets.org)

The Children’s Defense Fund has given Rogers an average rating of 14 on a scale of 100 over the past five years. And in case you think the CDF is just cranky over budget cuts, think again: since its establishment in 1973, the CDF has not accepted government funding. All of their funds come from foundation grants, corporation grants and individual donations.

Nearly 25,000 Michigan children are in foster care. Some 16% of these children are placed in facilities rather than family foster homes. Christopher is one of these children.

The good news? At age six, Christopher is old enough to remember his amazing adventure --but not old enough to know he was being used as a publicity prop.

* A little digging revealed that the only reference to Rogers and St. Vincent -- other than the oodles of coverage for this particular story -- was on Rogers' own website:

I and my staff are involved in Capital Area Youth Alliance, Youth Development Corp., Arts Council of Greater Lansing, Cristo Rey Community Center, Sparrow Health System Home Care Board, Impression Five Museum, Michigan Children's Trust and Auction Committee, Operation Backpack, U.S. Citizenship Swearing-in ceremonies, Congressional Merit Awards, LCC Foundation Lip Sync fundraiser, Livingston Economic Club, Rotary Clubs and Rotary Lip Sync Fundraiser for Senior Citizens, Charitable Federal Campaign, Capitol Area Migrant Council, St. Vincent Catholic Charities Arty Pizza Party committee, Ele's Place Community Outreach Committee, Hispanic Heritage Month Committee, several area chambers of commerce. [emphasis added]

Put on Your Party Shoes!

Come on down to Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood (a/k/a Livingston County) and join the Livingston County Democrats for a celebration of 25 years of political work.

The LivCo Dems are hosting their 25th Annual Winans Dinner on Saturday, April 19th at the Hamburg VFW Post 1224, 8891 Spicer Road in Hamburg.

The evening kicks off at 6 p.m.; you'll enjoy a delicious dinner, as well as a 50/50 raffle and a silent auction. To top it all off, the special guest speaker is UAW President Ron Gettelfinger.

Tickets are $60 per person. For reservations or more information, call (810) 229-4212 or email livcodems@sbcuc.net.

Now, for those of you who may be wondering who Winans was...

Edwin Baruch Winans (1826-1894) had a long and distinguished political career serving both Livingston County and the State of Michigan. Winans, who owned a farm in Hamburg Township, was a Hamburg Township Supervisor and Livingston County probate judge. He was elected to two terms in the Michigan House (1861-1865), and was also a delegate to the state constitutional convention in 1867. Winans was the first Democrat elected Governor after the Civil War, serving from 1891-1893.

Take THAT, all you Republicans who think that Livingston County has been Red since the dawn o' time!

Mike's Methodology

This morning's Press & Argus featured not one but two stories about Mr. Rogers' speech to the Howell Chamber of Commerce.

On the front page, he disses the Senate bill to help homeowners facing foreclosure, even though he said that helping those families was his "top priority." Inside, he calls for a "new energy outlook".

Both are classic examples of RogersSpeak, adoringly and unquestioningly reported.

*sigh*

So, rather than refuting his many erroneous statements with pesky facts -- yet again -- let's use these stories to distill the basics of Rogers' Rules of Politics.

Rule #1. Always side with your campaign donors. Help out families in foreclosure? Not likely when the Finance and Real Estate sector was your Number 2 donor in '05-'06 and '07-'08, and your top donor in '03-'04.

More drilling for oil in the US? It's a great idea, especially when the Energy and Natural Resource sector were your #5 donor in '03-'04, #4 in '05-'06, and #3 in '07-'08.
(All figures from OpenSecrets.org .) Oh, and don't forget that Rogers was the ONLY member of the Michigan Congressional delegation to support drilling in the Great Lakes.

Rule #2. Ignore the needs of your constituents. Just because Michigan continues to lead the nation in joblessness, why should you support efforts to extend unemployment benefits and state health care programs? When it comes to helping Michigan families who face foreclosure, say that it's your "top priority" but don't actually do anything about it. Double bonus points for loudly criticizing legislation that other people have crafted without actually coming up with anything of your own. (See "troop surge" for double bonus points in action.)

Rule 2a.) Better yet, sneer at your state's efforts to help people:

Some states, such as Michigan, are already having a hard enough time managing their finances, Rogers said, let alone selling homes. "I just think it's a disaster waiting to happen," he said.

Rule 2b.) Sneer at other states' efforts to help, especially if California is the state in question.

"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."

Rule #3. Cite incorrect or outdated information in support of your position. Repeat as needed. This is particular favorite of Mr. Rogers', as shown during the S-CHIP debacle last fall. In today's story on the foreclosure bill, Rogers said that the bill "would, for the first time, allow bankruptcy judges to alter homeowners' mortgages." No, it doesn't. That provision was dropped when the Senate forged the bipartisan compromise bill currently under discussion.

Rule #4. When these tactics don't work, call for reform. Be sure to gloss over the fact that you're a multi-term incumbent who helped to create many of the policies that aren't working... This is a fave Rogers tactic, especially when it comes to national security issues. Triple bonus points when you combine national security and energy policy in a froth of righteous indignation.

Counter-intuitive? You betcha! But it's worked well for Mr. Rogers.