Garrett vs. Lowering the Deficit

What is the one plan that successfully lowered the federal deficit?

PAYGO.

What does our Representative Scott Garrett consistently vote against?

PAYGO.

I've written about this before, especially lamenting what happened to the Republican Party.

As the Tea Party people start their convention, if they really are mad as hell about the size of deficits, they need look no further than Garrett and his fellow Republicans that served from 2002-Present (including Dick Armey). They were the ones to abandon PAYGO, allowing the deficit to grow, and they are the ones who keep voting against it.

While Garrett has previously said PAYGO only justifies increasing taxes, history tells another tale. When instituted by REPUBLICANS, it took a few years, but in the late 1990's we actually started running surpluses and paying down our debt. Garrett's brand of Republicans decided in 2002 this wasn't a good idea.

Here's how Alan Greenspan explained it:

However, the brief emergence of surpluses in the late 1990s eroded the will to adhere to these rules, which were aimed specifically at promoting deficit reduction rather than at the broader goal of setting out a commonly agreed-upon standard for determining whether the nation was living within its fiscal means. Many of the provisions that helped restrain budgetary decision making in the 1990s--in particular, the limits on discretionary spending and the PAYGO requirements--were violated ever more frequently; finally, in 2002, they were allowed to expire.

Reinstating a structure like the one provided by the Budget Enforcement Act would signal a renewed commitment to fiscal restraint and help restore discipline to the annual budgeting process. Such a step would be even more meaningful if it were coupled with the adoption of a set of provisions for dealing with unanticipated budgetary outcomes over time.

As I've noted before, it was Garrett's freshman year in Congress that he went along with the Republicans and their "Deficits Don't Matter" mentality.

Now, Garrett and the others are trying to tap into the populist outrage against government debt, while continuing to vote against the only thing that really works to reduce the deficit. It is the height of hypocritical political opportunism, and if these Tea Party people actually care about facts, they need to call out all 179 Republicans that voted against PAYGO.

Unfortunately, I doubt that will ever happen, because the Tea Party's "esteemed" leader was the one running the show when PAYGO was canned to begin with. I don't doubt these Tea Party people really are outraged, what I doubt is that their leadership's intentions are more than simply lining their own pockets, like Ralph Reed opposing Indian casinos.

Garrett Spins Again

Due to a number of reasons, I've been away from covering Representative Scott Garrett for longer than I ever would have imagined. However, after receiving an e-mail from a reader, I was snapped back to reality. Garrett has spinning again, big time.

At issue, is this week's Garrett Gazette, with it's title "Has Stimulus Failed New Jersey?" Here's the offending statement:

As President Obama prepares for his State of the Union address, unemployment remains at record highs for Americans. The White House claims their stimulus bill “has already created or saved up to 2 million jobs,” but the table below compares the White House's recent claims of state-by-state job creation with the actual change in state payroll employment through December 2009, using data announced on Friday by the U.S. Department of Labor. According to the data, 49 States have lost jobs since stimulus was enacted in February 2009. Only North Dakota and the District of Columbia have seen net job creation, and even those levels fall short of White House claims.

Garrett's playing semantics games again. The White House has never claimed that the stimulus eliminated job losses, only slowed them down. Here's what the White House actually reported:

Citing its own analysis plus a range of private sector summaries, the council estimated the annual growth rate last year would have been roughly 2 percentage points lower, and there would have been 1.5 million to 2 million fewer jobs.

So while Garrett would like you to believe the promise was job growth, all that was promised and delivered was that things would be better than without the stimulus. And that's what happened. Less unemployment and greater GDP.

Whether or not you agree with the stimulus, the least we should expect of Garrett and the Republicans is that they discuss the results honestly.

****

Just a quick note to readers: As I've started getting e-mails from a few of you asking what's going on, I'm healthy, just super busy. I have a number of side projects going on that have gotten in the way.

However, as we head into budget and election season, I realize it's important to keep Garrett honest. I am going to be converting "Blog the Fifth" into a weekly starting next Monday. I'll do my best, and thanks for the e-mails and support.

Garrett Against Tax Breaks

Representative Scott Garrett joined all but two Republicans in voting against extending $31 billion in tax breaks. Here's how the AP describes it:

The tax breaks include a sales tax deduction that mainly helps people in the nine states without local income taxes, a property tax deduction for people who don't itemize and lucrative credits that help businesses finance research and development.

[snip]

The tax breaks are supported by Democrats and Republicans alike and are routinely extended each year, but there are big disagreements over the tax increases that would pay for them. The dispute, combined with the Senate's prolonged debate on health care, makes it unclear whether the tax package will be enacted this year.

[snip]

Most Republicans argued that the tax increase would reach far beyond Wall Street, hitting real estate investment funds across the country. Instead, Republicans said, the tax breaks should be financed by federal borrowing, increasing the budget deficit.

The party that had one time introduced PAYGO has completely flipped to being the party of tax cut and borrow. They talk all the time about unfunded mandates, a favorite phrase of Garrett's is kicking the can down the road, but the fact is that when it comes to anything involving balancing the budget they wholeheartedly oppose the action.

It seems there are now a whopping two Republicans in the House who can claim to be fiscally conservative. This is an improvement, but the party has a long way to go to ever earn the right to recapture the purse strings of our nation's future.

If Garrett said anything during the debate or releases a statement I'll post it.

Garrett vs. Equal Rights

I wrote yesterday about my belief at this point that marriage equality was due. Herb Jackson posted a nice piece explaining that once again the rest of the nation is looking to New Jersey to lead. In the piece, he highlights Representative Scott Garrett and his standing opposition:

A bill pending in the House since May that would prevent the district (Washington, DC) from enacting a same-sex marriage law has 60 sponsors, including New Jersey Reps. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, and Christopher Smith, R-Robbinsville.

Garrett has not changed his tune much. Back in 2004 he took to the House Floor to deliver a speech slamming marriage equality:

If we redefine marriage, it will harm everyone, especially the children. It will legally repudiate the idea that marriage has anything to do with a family, and will legally embrace the idea that marriage is just an arrangement for the convenience of the grownups.

Now, I am here today to support what is best for the kids. The ideal situation for a child is to grow up with a mom and a dad in a loving, committed marriage . Mothers are better able to provide certain lessons than fathers can, and fathers in turn can provide role models in ways that moms simply cannot.

I think it is time that we rip away all the rhetoric that we have heard and know that this debate comes down to this: it is a choice of being what is in the best interests of our children over the choice of what is in the best interests of a select few adults. The choice is clear. I urge all Members to support our children by supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment.

How exactly does equality harm me? How exactly does equality harm Garrett, for that matter? Not one single opponent of equality has ever been able to explain that to me.

This is one of many sad examples of a publicly elected official assailing the dignity of individuals. The speech may be five years old, but there are countless examples that are similar.

History has never looked kindly on those who supported maintaining inequality, and this will be another example when the time comes. The Garretts of the world on this issue are probably okay with that. To some extent, you have to expect it, as unfortunate and misguided as it is.

Legalize It

I've only written about marriage equality a couple of times, but as things have hit a fevered pitch around Trenton, I've been thinking a lot about it. I listened to the testimony given by both sides for hours yesterday. The more I hear, the more I keep going back to my classic conservative roots, which Barry Goldwater explained the best:

The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being.

The Conservative movement Goldwater helped start certainly has fallen very far from the tree when it comes to respecting the dignity of the individual human being. I have yet to see an argument from opponents that does not fall into the category of debasing the individuals I know who happen to be gay.

The more these new conservatives use the language of segregation, the stronger a supporter of equality I've become. A good example of what put me over the top was this misleading video from the Family Research Council, claiming equality means people are losing their right to be intolerant. That's simply not true, people will still have the right to be and teach their kids intolerance. It disturbs me that this has been deemed an effective message, but the FRC would not use it if they did not already know they'd make some money off of it.

Then there's the religious argument. I firmly believe in the First Amendment's protections to practice as denominations see fit. Catholics' right to not marry gays is no different than their right not to recognize divorce, even though divorce is legal. It also should in no way impede Episcopalians' right to allow equality. The law specifically protects the rights of each to practice as they see fit. It's a non-argument.

Fifteen years ago, Goldwater had a very quotable comment specifically to this issue:

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay," Goldwater asserts. "You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."

Classic conservatives, including President Reagan understood this when push came to shove. Those that make their profit off of these anti-equality campaigns will continue perverting what true conservatism is as long as there's a buck to be made. Anyone that's claiming to be a conservative by arguing against anything but all men and women being treated equal is anything but a true conservative.

It's time our legislature man and woman up and protect the rights of the individual, and the rights of religious institutions to practice as they see fit.

Garrett Fails Purity Test

The announcement of the Republican Purity Test is further proof of how far from an inclusive party the Republicans have gone, and how far the authoritarians written about by John Dean have come. Instead of allowing people to choose their own Representatives, the powerful few want to dictate to the masses from their pirch in Washinton.

How'd that work out for you kids up in NY 23?

If this goes through, gone will be the future Tom Keans. Gone will be the Marge Roukemas and Leonard Lances and Frank LoBiondos. Gone will be the Teddy Roosevelts and the Abraham Lincolns.

Depending on how seriously they took this rule, gone would be Representative Scott Garrett.

While I doubt Garrett would fall from favor with this crowd, let's look at the pledge line by line to see where he gets tripped up, through a strict constructionist view (8 of 10 to pass):

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

Garrett, and every other Republican that voted for a Bush Budget fails on multiple fronts on this one. They exploded the deficit and the national debt. Many also voted against PAYGO, which would make new spending deficit neutral, and in many cases voted against tax cuts for actual small business owners (the non-publicly traded type).

Epic fail.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

Garrett's been clear on all of these, so that's a pass.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

This one is a mixed bag. They supported going to war with less than what the military wanted, but voted for the surge. I suppose, they could say, they'll only listen to the military after the civilians like Rumsfeld mess things up. I suppose Garrett passes.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

In order to contain Iran and North Korea effectively, we need to engage them as Reagan engaged the Soviet Union. While the Republicans interpreting this little test probably won't see it this way, Garrett and many others have been on record against engagement, and therefore should fail this one.

That's two fails.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

Republicans used to stand for all men and women being treated equal, however that's no longer the case. Special interest fundraising based discrimination has turned into party dogma. Garrett's on board with this.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

By arguing the status quo, as they do in point 2, Garrett and the rest of those that would profess these ideals are actively supporting corporate America dictating who gets what care. On top of that, they also fail point one yet again with point two, because it protects taxpayer rip off programs like Medicare Advantage.

The third fail.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

Really? With a blanket statement like that Republicans seem to want to arm every convicted violent criminal on parole? Wow. Since I don't know if Garrett would back that, we'll leave this one as an uncertain.

As I said, those who would dictate from the top what the party means instead of leaving it to their members, are unlikely to boot Garrett. That said, it's also important to look at this pledge with what it's missing:

• No commitment to a balanced budget;
• No commitment to eliminating waste;
• No commitment to veterans;
• No commitment to innovation;
• No commitment to education;
• No commitment to the environment;
• No commitment to a brighter future, only opposition.

This little Purity Test simply reinforces the image of Republicans as the party of No.

It also is a dangerous development. More on this topic to come soon...

Garrett a Birther? Nah.

Representative Scott Garrett seems to have been backed into a corner by Birthers. During the health care "house calls", Garrett managed to get badgered by a couple of birthers (those that refuse to believe the evidence President Obama was born here).

After a few minutes of his health care discussion being hijacked by these two nuts, one of whom fancies himself a blogger (sans spelling and grammer I suppose), he gave a very tacit "I agree" that has been picked up by the Washington Independent and Daily Kos.

While the Kos article has prompted a ton of comments based on the video, I think this one is closest to the truth:

I can't fault Garrett for pretending to agree with a group of mentally challenged Pbaggers. If a bunch of looneyloons approached me about Obama's birth I'd pretend to agree with them too just to get them off my back.

While I wish Garrett had had the fortitude to squash this whole thing, he's in a very precarious spot, as is the Republican Party. From the description of the video (spelling/grammar theirs):

NJ Lawyer confronts NJ Congressman Scott Garrett at 11/5/09 Washington DC House call on the Obama Presidential qualifications requirement of US Constitution under Article II Section 1. Repblicans and all Congressman do not realize the tens of millions of voting Americans wanting this issue resolved. Although considered a minority, the numbers are large enough to impact primaries especially for Republicans who seem to be skirting the issue.

That's right, these fringe folks just threatened Garrett and every other Republican who doesn't agree with them. As the Republican Party has embraced the Tea Party people and their organizing skills, including our local Bergen County Republican Organization, they've opened themselves up to further purity tests. This is reminiscent of when the Christian Coalition started their purge.

I've seen enough of Garrett over the years, both in person and video, to have seen him be serious and passionate about a belief of his. This isn't one of those times. The thing is, I'm pretty sure the Birthers know that, too.

An article a long time ago said Garrett would only have to fear a Republican primary challenge from someone on the Right, which I had a hard time believing was possible, but I suppose now we all know it is. As participation in primaries dwindles, these small groups of fanatics wield more and more power because they actually show up to vote.

This will likely be a non-issue for Garrett in the long run, but when Garrett gets attacked for not being Conservative enough, you know the Republican Party is in for a rough time ahead.