Blog the Fifth

Signing Off for Now

2010-11-03T11:09:00.004-04:00

After taking the heart of the election season off, this is pretty much a forgone conclusion, but I figured I would make it official. Blog the Fifth, for now, is going on the shelf. I have a number of reasons, but I leave it feeling a sense of accomplishment.

The first goal of Blog the Fifth was to hold Representative Scott Garrett accountable, and I did. He and his staff went from making stuff up to sticking by his beliefs without spinning like crazy. In a sense, he's been rewarded, absolutely crushing all comers. I'm not saying I agree with the man, but he's earned my respect for not wavering and not resorting to the distortions so many of his fellow Republicans did in recent months.

Even though he may no longer be my Congressman after redistricting, there is something to be said of knowing exactly where your guy stands and that he usually gets about 60-65% of his constituents to support him.

The second goal was to shine light on the corruption in Bergen County. When I started this thing, Papa Joe and his cronies were running everything and making an open mockery of what good government should be. Papa Joe and his chosen officials are all but gone now, and that's something everyone in Bergen County should be happy about.

County Executive-elect Kathe Donovan is someone I met back in '96 when I was interning at the BCRO, and she was as genuine then as she is now. She was endorsed by Democrats and Republicans alike, and hopefully will lead a thoughtful course correction in the way Bergen County has done business for far too long.

This whole thing isn't to say that I'm going to stop writing.

I've already reserved a new address for a new blog: Mighty Moderate

I plan to start posting over there soon, but for now, thanks to everyone who encouraged this project, read, and commented. Until next time...

Corruption Inspired Monster Rant

2010-07-27T21:45:00.006-04:00

The Bush administration and their enablers have truly morphed into the proverbially bad "gift that keeps on giving." What should serve as a warning to voters this fall who actually care about pesky things like good accounting, the Pentagon seems to have misplaced another $2.6 billion from 2004-2007. From the AP:

The audit found that shoddy record keeping by the Defense Department left the Pentagon unable to fully account for $8.7 billion it withdrew between 2004 and 2007 from a special fund set up by the U.N. Security Council. Of that amount, Pentagon "could not provide documentation to substantiate how it spent $2.6 billion."

I had written a couple years ago about the $15 billion in fraud inviting payments, as well as how Bush eliminated the auditors overseeing expenditures. While this latest finding is not surprising, it should serve as a reminder of the type of management and oversight Republicans utilized the last time they were in control in Washington.

In other Republicans on the wrong side of protecting our nation news, in the Senate they stood solidly for allowing foreign corporations, even those controlled by foreign governments like China or Venezuela, to spend unlimited money in elections. This is their answer to the power of the small donation that vaulted Obama into the Presidency.

Republicans are basically standing by the belief that Abramoff on HGH is a good thing. For a quick reminder of who Abramoff is:

The Sunlight Foundation posted several key questions for opponents that you will never hear answered, but every reporter and voter should be asking every Republican, including our Representative Scott Garrett, who voted against this thing:

Why, when the Supreme Court specifically said, “transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages,” are you opposed to a bill that does that?
How can you claim that the DISCLOSE Act violates the first amendment when disclosure regimes have long been upheld as constitutional? Campaign contributions, candidate, party and PAC expenditures and lobbyists disclosures have long been upheld as legitimate methods of deterring corruption and the appearance of corruption in the political process.
What is the basis for claiming the bill treats corporations and unions differently? The House and Senate bill ensure that unions and corporations are subject to the same transparency provisions, including disclosure of contributions to electioneering communications and stand-by-your-ad requirements. Under the Senate bill, both corporations and unions are required to report transfers among affiliates, including dues, greater than $50,000.
How is the public served when a shadow group can conceal everything about itself and still influence elections by pumping unlimited amounts of money into campaign ads? The interests of the messenger can be easily disguised by giving a group an innocuous or even misleading name. At its core, the DISCLOSE Act is designed to lift the curtain off of such groups so that public can judge the veracity of a campaign ad and the credibility of the speaker.

To be a little more positive, this is a big week for Garrett, as his covered bond legislation will be put to a committee vote. From the Wall Street Journal:

The measure, crafted by Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.), would establish a covered bond regulator within the Treasury Department that would define the criteria for issuers as well as the types of assets backing the bonds. The regulator would write regulations to oversee covered bond programs and protect bondholders.
The legislation envisions a U.S. covered bond market supporting lending in several sectors - to businesses and consumers as well as cities and towns.

Garrett has been touting this method for a while, and it may be his first piece of legislation to have solid bi-partisan support (unlike de-funding things like the Department of Education or the Department of Transportation).

While the chances are slim, Garrett working with Democrats may give fire to his Tea Party opponent in the general. Mark Quick posted the following on the website of the New Jersey Patriots (spelling his):

I am a canidate for NJ 5th district and Scott Garrett is no friend of those whom believe Illegal Aliens need to be deported not given a free pass. Garrett does not support an Arizona type law for NJ nor will he try and do anything in Washington DC, he is a LIAR and needs to go.

Having run as an Independent myself back in 2006, I think independents serve an important part of any election. They give an outlet for voters who don't feel the main party candidates offer them an alternative, and may spark a question or two of the main candidates from the mainstream media. In Quick's case, it's clearly for the far right. For those interested in learning more about Mark, you can go to his website here, I've also posted links to the other campaigns on the top right.

Tea Party Communists, Christie Slushies & AC Grab

2010-07-21T12:45:00.002-04:00

Representative Scott Garrett took to the floor the other day to praise a group called Constituting America. Garrett praised the organization for it's efforts to get kids into the Constitution. While we've had our disagreements over the years about interpretation, he's been pretty consistent on the importance of people reading the Constitution and I agree.

Unfortunately, a quick review of the group's website reveals this is, at best, an effort to launch an education arm of the Tea Party. It's highly partisan, and it's founders do so little to hide the agenda I'm surprised they're capable of receiving 501(c)3 status. Here's a sampling:

By letting Congress take away your right to own a gun, you will let a dictator seize your country and your home, because he will encounter no resistance.

On top of that, this is one of the stated goals for the education contest Garrett was praising:

Encourage students and citizens to wear red clothing in celebration of Constitution Day.

A little sarcasm here: Really? What are we? Communists? Fascists? Canadian? The last time I checked the flag was red, white and blue. All joking aside, Garrett has never taken to the floor to support a non-partisan group like Kids Vote, or (to my memory) the League of Women Voters, so it's more than disappointing that we have yet another example of Garrett being overly partisan.

In other news, Governor Chris Christie apparently has a public relations slush fund. Blue Jersey has been beating the drum on this, Rob Tornoe did a great cartoon (pictured), and Charles Stile has a must read piece on the issue for The Record. Here's the comment that's most chilling:

"I'm telling you that my position is when it was under U.S. Attorney. People have to operate under the law," he said. "If they operate under the law, then that's the way it goes."

Christie's argument is that this is legal, and let it go. The problem with that is that's the same argument Papa Joe used in his corruption trial.

With the vapid privatization report now complete, Stile's point that this slush fund could return us to the glory days of pay-to-play should terrify taxpayers. Privatization done wrong will hurt our state, driving taxes higher. If that report is any indication to the quality of work being done by those heading up the privatization decisions, we are in for a redo of the DMV privatization from a decade ago. Opponents of the privatization plan really need to remind people of what it was like the last time we tried this. It didn't go so well.

And now that Christie is armed with this privatization report, it's expected Christie is going to announce a take over of the gaming district of Atlantic City today. It seems out of character to be expanding government in a time of fiscal crisis, but one could easily make the jump: Christie takes over the casino District to "save" Atlantic City, but in order to save taxpayers' money, all the normal functions of government are privatized. I hate to be this cynical, but Christie has laid out his thoughts and plans so clearly on other items, it would almost seem odd if it didn't follow this pattern.

Saving $$$, White House Honesty, Brawling Legislature?, Steinbrenner,

2010-07-14T18:30:00.001-04:00

The weather last week put my office building on a forced conservation plan. We had lights turned off, elevators shut down, and constant reminders to keep our temperature a degree or two above normal, and to have our electronics go into sleep mode sooner. You know what, we lived. It begs the question why we as a society can't do this all of the time. It would likely save businesses and the government billions of dollars a year.

Shocker of the Week: White House Press Secretary speaks the truth by saying the Democrats could lose control of the House. Less than shocking: House Democratic leadership is aggravated by the truth. Note to Democrats: if your faithful do not believe you seriously could lose if they don't show up in November, you are going to lose the House.

State Senator Mike Doherty almost came to blows with a fellow State Senator over his assertions during a speech on education funding. From the NJ Herald:

A debate over education funding nearly turned into a scuffle on the Senate floor Thursday when two state senators had to be physically separated.

Sen. Dick Codey -- one-time governor and former Senate president -- played referee to Sens. Ray Lesniak, a Democrat, and Republican Mike Doherty. Codey said he jumped in once he heard Lesniak tell Doherty he would "punch his nose down his throat."

As the level of discourse at all political levels becomes more and more polarized, it may only be a matter of time before we start seeing fights like they have in Taiwan on a semi-regular basis.

One has to wonder if the passing of George Steinbrenner will rank as a "where were you when you heard" moment for those in the New York area. I was walking into the PATH. I was more upset about Bob Sheppard myself, because he seemed like a nice person with that beloved voice. Steinbrenner was who he was, and as a Mets fan I wasn't emotionally invested in loving or hating him, but he was without a doubt larger than life.

NJ Budget Fixes, Recovery?, Birthday, Covered Bonds

2010-07-07T18:25:00.001-04:00

Here's a novel approach to save our state, county and local governments money: Stop accepting credit cards.

According to the State Budget, NJ will bring in roughly $361 million in DMV fees. Even though everyone used credit cards the last time I went to the DMV, let's say half of those are paid with credit card, $180 million. Based on standard rates charged to merchants, we could save between $3.6 and $5.4 million. That's just one department that collects fees, and enough money to restore some of the tax credits that Governor Chris Christie cut that actually create jobs. Granted, the state may get a discount, but it's worth looking at.

The funny numbers of economic reporting continued on the Friday before the holiday:

The jobless rate did come down in June from 9.7 percent the month before. But that was mainly because 652,000 people abandoned their job searches.

The practice of not counting people as unemployed who have given up has been an issue of mine for a while. It's bi-partisan idiocy, making claims of the economic recovery more in line with the Emperor's New Clothes.

The other thing that impacts the jobless numbers: when people's unemployment benefits have run out. If the Republicans like Representative Scott Garrett continue to vote against extending unemployment benefits; there will be millions off the roles and the unemployment rate will be something Democrats can point to in the fall elections as success. Like I said, this is bi-partisan idiocy.

Friday is the birthday of Representative Scott Garrett. Sincerely, I wish him a Happy Birthday. In a very real sense, it's nice that many years he gets the week "off" from being in Washington (due to the recess) and can spend his birthday with his family.

For his campaign staff, however, it's unfortunate that the gift may have been given to Garrett's opponent, Tod Theise. In what was an overall positive piece, showcasing Garrett's chances of claiming the Chairmanship of the Financial Services committee that was denied to his predecessor, Herb Jackson wrote the following:

Getting a pet project that neither house had approved into a conference bill that leaders of both houses want to pass is the ultimate Washington insider move.

In an anti-establishment year, you have to believe that makes a TV commercial or two.

It also should be of concern that without hearings, without having the idea vetted (though most articles seem to favor it), Garrett has been able to create his own financial trading market. That's not exactly how our government should work. Unfortunately, similar to earmarks it, seems to be the game being played with Garrett a willing participant (yes, I know he took 2010 off from them for the campaign).

Blogging via Rant

2010-06-30T23:00:00.002-04:00

Well, it's been a while. And I've been asked a few times what I've been doing, and it's been a number of things, but not this. So, in Larry King style, I'm taking baby steps to get back into blogging. So, at least once a week, you'll be able to see the ramblings of a rehabilitating blogger on the road to a full return. Eventually, I'll get back to the research end of things, but for now here we go:

It's tough to stomach the fact that an estimated 71.2 million to 139 million gallons of oil have gone into the Gulf thanks to BP and the all around mess up down there. If the average gallon of milk is a foot tall, on the high end of that estimate we could already stack milk cartons past the moon.

Our Representative Scott Garrett took to the floor on Wednesday with a speech aimed at scaring people out of their support for financial reform, invoking among other things, Big Brother (2:20 mark). It's always interesting to me to see how one of the poster children for the Club for Growth, works also to appeal to the Tea Party members. At some point, their marriage of convenience will come crashing down. Steve Bell said it very well:

Indeed, the battle within the GOP won’t be among so-called moderates, social conservatives, and populists. The real battle will be between the pro-Ayn Rand Club for Growth (which supports the right of any banker in New York City to make any amount of money he or she can) and the populist Tea Party gang (which wants to hang every banker in New York City).

I've pointed out before, the Club for Growth doesn't care about deficits, which happens to be the main issue for the Tea Party. Garrett walking the tightrope should be interesting should the day ever come.

A milestone for transparency, the DISCLOSE Act, passed. The bill says that people spending massive amounts on campaigns have to give the "I'm Joe Smith, and I approve this message" line on their commercials. It also prevents foreign companies like BP or foreign governments like China from buying elections here. Almost all Republicans (including Garrett) voted against it. I read their arguments that it impinges on free speech, but in the real world it doesn't. You still can say/spend what you want. What it does do is make you accountable for what you're saying, and if people don't like it and stop buying your product, well that's the free market at work.

Garrett does have a challenger this fall: Tod Theise won the Democratic primary. A former Republican from the western part of the Fifth, it should be interesting to see how much of the vote gap he can close in Sussex and Warren.

Good luck, Tod.

Garrett Loves Christie's Budget

2010-03-22T13:24:00.003-04:00

The tax credit post is coming, but for those that missed it, here's Garrett's statement praising Governor Christie's budget:

(Washington, DC)– Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) released the following statement praising the bold and necessary moves proposed by Governor Chris Christie in his FY2011 budget proposal.

“It is not an easy task Governor Christie is being faced with but the FY2011 budget proposal is the first commonsense and fiscally responsible initiative a New Jersey executive has taken in years,” said Garrett about Christie’s budget.

In addition to the FY2011 budget, the governor has announced two other initiatives Congressman Garrett supports. First, has initiated a task force to find ways to privatize government jobs and cut government spending. Second, the Governor is proposing an Amendment to the New Jersey Constitution that will restrict property tax increases that are more than 2.5%.

“Years of reckless spending have caught up with New Jersey and we need to stand together and start thinking of new ways to run our state,” said Garrett. “The days of fixing wounds by raising taxes to unprecedented heights have left New Jersey with the highest taxes in the country, a budgetary deficit and a fleeing population. Governor Christie has said ‘enough’.

“The first step to this process is less government spending, which will lead to a more efficiently run government, a lower tax burden for everyone and better government service to the people of New Jersey.”

While I will be discussing other parts of the budget later, Tod Theise (Garrett's likely opponent) would do well to explain to the voters of Paramus that Garrett supports Christie's efforts to force an end to the Blue Laws.

Christie's Budget: Repeal Blue Laws?

2010-03-18T13:15:00.004-04:00

I want to begin this post by praising Governor Chris Christie for putting his budget proposals on-line and seeming to welcome the public's eyes into what is sure to be a difficult process. This sort of transparency is needed more not less.

I'm going to use the resources to really look at what he's planning and do a number of posts, some positive and some negative.

This first one is more of a "And exactly how is this going to work?"

From Christie's budget proposal:

Sales Tax - Repeal of Bergen County Blue Laws 65,000

That's $65 million, actually.

The governor's staff seem to believe the people of Bergen County will simply repeal the Blue Laws that are repeatedly upheld by voters. Or is he going to force that down everyone's throats? Pinning $65 million of new revenue on something that, as far as I know, is completely out of his hands is a little dicey to say the least. He has to know that, because it wasn't highlighted in his budget address.

Christie's said many times he doesn't want to resort to one time gimmicks, but realistically speaking, relying on something completely out of your hands to raise $65 million is a gimmick. If/when it doesn't happen, the budget goes out of balance and we have to go back to borrowing.

To make matters worse, even if it was approved by voters, when would it go into effect and how much money would it raise from that point?

Questions that need to be answered.

My next post will be on the film and high tech tax credits. More to come...

Why Deficits Matter

2010-03-14T16:24:00.004-04:00

The news today about Social Security should remind all of us why deficits matter. From the AP:

The retirement nest egg of an entire generation is stashed away in this small town along the Ohio River: $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the federal government, payable to the Social Security Administration.
It's time to start cashing them in.

For more than two decades, Social Security collected more money in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits — billions more each year.
[snip]
For more than two decades, regardless of which political party was in power, Congress has been accused of raiding the Social Security trust funds to pay for other programs, masking the size of the budget deficit.

This is part of the reason I'm so frustrated with the Republican Party. Yes the Republicans. When the calendar flipped to January 2001, they supplanted the PAYGO Republicans of the '90's with the "Deficits Don't Matter" Republicans of the 2000's, many of whom are still there.

Repeatedly voting for deficit spending, the news on Social Security is a reminder that each one of the caucus who held office in the 2000's should be removed. Representatives like our own Scott Garrett voted to add $1.8 trillion to the on-budget deficit himself. That was in just four years, and doesn't include Iraq or Afghanistan.

Now out of power, the Republicans on the Hill have taken a "Born Again" deficit-hawk stance in the press that's about as flimsy as wet newspaper. Garrett and others still assail PAYGO budgeting, preferring to borrow instead of plugging tax loopholes. They also completely ignore, and even defend, the harmful financial consequences of programs like Medicare Advantage.

While it's nice that Garrett and the Republicans feel an election year is a good time not to pursue earmarks, most of these Representatives were the biggest pigs at the trough for the better part of a decade. One can't forget Garrett acquired earmarks for a program after the Army had ended the program and the recipient announced the end to their stockholders.

I'm sure the Republicans will grab this report and run with it in their fiscally irrational stance against health insurance reform. If they really cared about deficits, they'd look at the billions in deficit reduction as a good thing.

But what are facts but a nusance to the practitioners of partisan politics? Voters need to be reminded of this, constantly, heading into the fall.

Republicans' Publicity Stunt

2010-03-11T14:59:00.004-05:00

Well, today Republicans launched their latest publicity stunt. Today's "We're Fiscal Conservatives, we promise" moment: Republicans placed a self-imposed ban on earmarks. From the AP:

The move is an election-year appeal to voters frustrated with Washington's free-spending ways. But it is a one-year pause, not a permanent ban.

I've written many times about how much I dislike earmarks, however this is nothing more than a publicity stunt. They ban them for a year, possibly get the House back, and then have folks like our Representative Scott Garrett go right back to sending money to programs people don't want.

This politically motivated "moratorium" has been brought about from the same Republicans that vote against PAYGO on a regular basis. This is the fundamental problem Republicans have had for the last decade, they govern by soundbite instead of sound policy.

While one can only hope voters recognize this as the stunt it is, the only meaningful way to ban earmarks is to legislatively eliminate them. If the Democrats had any gumption, they would get an up or down vote on a five to ten year moratorium and see what happens.

I Love Transparency

2010-03-03T14:14:00.006-05:00

The good folks at Sunlight Foundation have a nifty new tool for folks around the country to see what their Representative is spending on their behalf. This is a simple way to glance and compare Congress and their spending, as opposed to the House PDFs that literally will tell you every bottle of water they've bought (okay, maybe case). Both are useful in their own way, and this is so much better than what we had a couple of years ago.

For example, our Representative Scott Garrett ran his office last year for a touch over $1.2 million dollars, which is a touch on the low side compared to others I looked at (Frank, Rothman, Sires, etc.). Of course, Garrett did plow another $100,000 into franked mail pieces (the ones taxpayers pay for), but as it's not an election year he seems to have dialed it back by more than half over 2008.

We need more efforts like this in government. Really, it's our money they're spending, and the only way to prevent waste and abuse is going to be good accounting and ways to access the information.

Are the Democrats Punting?

2010-02-10T21:23:00.004-05:00

A comment over on Blue Jersey about the state of our Congressional District really raised an eyebrow and got me thinking. The comment was this:

I'll give you another example - I live in NJ-5, Scott Garrett is my congressman. It is looking more and more like the county parties aren't going to put ANYONE up - at a time where republican turnout will be higher and more motivated than the past 5+ years.

This is a sad statement on our politics in their current state. Gerrymandering has gotten to a point where folks like Garrett can serve until they are redistricted out or retire. His only threat real and perceived is in the primary, when the smallest fraction of the electorate makes all the decisions. Democrats won't run anyone because they don't want to spend the money. Politics is a business.

This reality undermines the entire intent of a Representative being accountable to their constituents. Forget the fact that the Democrats can't get someone who believes enough in their values to step up. With the Democrats punting, there's no one to bring up relevant questions for voters to ponder at the ballot box. Why vote against small business tax cuts repeatedly? Why vote against balancing the budget repeatedly? Why vote against extending unemployment benefits repeatedly? Why vote to hasten Medicare's insolvency?

Granted, Garrett is by all accounts safe in this seat. In fact it hasn't really been close on election day in a very long time. That said, Democrats failure to supply voters with any kind of alternative abdicates their fundamental responsibility in our already flawed two party system.

Garrett vs. Lowering the Deficit

2010-02-05T14:00:00.005-05:00

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

2010-01-26T13:33:00.002-05:00

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.

Garrett Against Tax Breaks

2009-12-09T22:30:00.005-05:00

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

2009-12-09T18:01:00.001-05:00

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

2009-12-08T10:56:00.000-05:00

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

2009-11-24T20:32:00.006-05:00

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.

2009-11-19T16:30:00.001-05:00

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.

Garrett vs. 1.4 million Home Buyers

2009-11-17T15:00:00.002-05:00

Representative Scott Garrett finally explained why he voted against extending unemployment benefits and the first time home buyer tax credit:

So, in sum, we have a program rampant with fraud, which gives taxpayer dollars to people who don’t legitimately qualify, and fails to appropriately credit the individuals that do qualify. It’s clear that employees of the IRS were aware of the problems with claims process for this program, as the inspector general found 53 cases of IRS employees filing "illegal or inappropriate" claims for the credit. In its current form, this program costs taxpayer about $1 billion a month and is expected to cost $15 billion for the year. Rather than terminate this program, Congress voted on November 5 to expand the program to homeowners looking to buy a replacement principle residence. How many more four-year olds will fraudulently receive taxpayer money under this program before Congress realizes this is a terrible idea?

Voting to expand this program would have been irresponsible of me, and an abdication of my responsibility as a guardian of taxpayer dollars. The Homebuyer Tax Credit Program was a poison pill to otherwise well-intended legislation.

It bears repeating that Garrett was one of 2.7% of the House to vote no on this bill, so it hardly was a poison pill.

It also bears repeating that Garrett has never stood up with the same conviction regarding funds going to fraud in Iraq, which has funded those who kill our troops.

Garrett gave a number of stats that, while far from ideal, pale in comparison to the good the program has done. From the Gazette, here are the numbers that were largely reported (bolding Garrett):

• 19,300 electronically filed 2008 tax returns where people claimed the First-Time Homebuyer Credit, yet had not purchased a house, claiming that they intended to do so in the future. Cost to the taxpayer: $139 million.

• 74,000 credit claims by filers who it was later determined weren’t first-time homebuyers. Cost to the taxpayer: $500 million.

• 580 taxpayers younger than 18 years of age who claimed First-Time Homebuyer Credits; the youngest of whom was a four-year old. Cost to the taxpayer: $4 million.

• 3,200 individuals claiming credits thought to be alien residents, which are prohibited from receiving most Federal public benefits. Cost to the taxpayer: $20.8 million.

It's unfortunate to see that if you add all the numbers together that roughly 6.5% of claims were fraudulent. However, the IRS is pursuing criminal investigations and suspending rebates, so those folks will be dealt with in time.

In the meantime, it also means that 93.5% of the submissions appear to be valid, which means roughly 1.4 million new homeowners have been helped by the program.

Garrett's statement explaining his vote against the bill is nothing more than a spotty claim to righteousness that makes the perfect the enemy of the good. Garrett seems to want to poison the discussion by ignoring the good the program has done, as well as the measures being taken to correct the program. That's a disservice to constituents and all of the home buyers and sellers within the district who benefit from the program.

Garrett Talks Health Care

2009-11-09T18:05:00.004-05:00

Representative Scott Garrett chats with Fox 5 about his vote against the health care bill. Garrett talks almost exclusively about Medicare Advantage as his reason, which as I've written before can currently charge taxpayers up to a 40% mark up on services.

It's good to see Garrett using the full term, as opposed to earlier, but I still can't understand how someone who claims he is a fiscal conservative can defend taxpayers paying up to 40% more than something actually costs for anything.

Although the House bill is dead in the Senate, taking the 40% mark up will be out no matter what bill comes back to the House for reconciliation.

While Garrett claims the program will be taken from those enrolled, nothing in the bill eliminates the program. What it eliminates is the 40% mark up. Now should insurance companies only participate due to their ability to gouge taxpayers, one could see them cease to offer the program, as the Chief Actuary for Medicare and Medicaid noted.

That aside, Garrett's interview is interesting in that it shows his true feeling on the Bill and overhaul in general.

Live Stream Of Garrett's Town Hall

2009-11-05T19:03:00.001-05:00

Update: It was less of a town hall and more of a sales pitch for why Representative Scott Garrett was going to vote against the bill. He didn't read one question in support of the plan. He only spoke for 50 minutes. It's unfortunate he'd take that route.

One clear thing, he continued defending his support of Medicare Advantage, which allows insurance companies to charge a mark up of up to 40% over what things actually cost. It rips off the taxpayer and drains the trust fund, and yet he still defends it. Unbelievable.

Free video streaming by Ustream

Garrett vs. Unemployment Extension

2009-11-05T15:55:00.001-05:00

Representative Scott Garrett was one of 12 Representatives to vote against extending unemployment benefits to the unemployed. If Garrett ever releases a statement on his reasoning I'll post it.

Garrett Health Care Townhall

2009-11-05T14:53:00.004-05:00

Representative Scott Garrett is hosting a virtual Town Hall meeting on the Health Care Bill tonight at 7PM. Here's the info:

RSVP by clicking here:

Email your questions in advance or during the town hall to congscottgarrett@gmail.com.

Congratulations Governor Christie

2009-11-03T23:56:00.006-05:00

When I voted this morning, and saw that many many more people than usual had voted before me, there was definitely a sense Christie may have done it.

Now, being the eternal optimist, I'm hopeful for this new chapter in our state's governance. Not only was Christie able to ride his corruption convictions to Trenton; his substantial county and local level coattails swept aside the first of Papa Joe Ferriero's hand picked Freeholders here in Bergen.

Regardless of who won the election, we were in for a few tough years ahead while trying to climb out of the mess we're in. Voters clearly wanted a change of direction at the top. Our state simply can't afford for partisanship to get in the way of progress. As Democrats control both Chambers in Trenton, compromise is going to be key if we're to rebound from this mess.

Voters have spoken, now we have to see if politicians will listen. I'm optimistic they will, even if cautiously.

Garrett's Election Thoughts

2009-11-02T18:15:00.000-05:00

Those interested will be able to see Representative Scott Garrett weigh in on the Election over on Fox Business Channel tomorrow night.

Garrett's $339 Billion Distortion

2009-10-27T18:00:00.002-04:00

It's been a while since we've needed a piece like this, but as the Health Insurance debate heats up, one had to guess at some point Representative Scott Garrett was going to start spinning like a top again.

At issue is a floor speech made yesterday, that will also likely be included in this week's Garrett Gazette to mislead constituents. The focus of the speech is a report by HHS Chief Actuary Richard Foster. It has become a rallying cry to those opposed to the health insurance overhaul.

Might as well get into the speech:

According to that chief actuary whom I just mentioned, total spending on health care would actually increase by $750 billion more than if we did nothing at all.

This is the second to last true statement in the speech, an average of $75 billion a year for 10 years.

From Garrett:

You see, the real overall cost of this bill would be $1.2 trillion.

From the Actuary:

We estimate that Federal expenditures would increase by a net total of $861 billion.

That's the $339 billion distortion. Not only is Garrett's gross cost more than $100 billion higher than the Actuary's gross ($1,035 billion), he doesn't mention the savings. It's wholly dishonest of Garrett not to mention the savings.

From Garrett:

After all of this spending, there would still be around 20-some-odd million uninsured Americans. So, for those folks who are trying to keep score of all of this, that comes out to be about $35,000 per uninsured person out there.

First off, the "20-some-odd million" includes illegal immigrants, per the Actuary, so I guess it's nice Garrett's calling them Americans.

Second, based on the above correction in numbers saying that all of the money spent is only to insure the uninsured (which it's not), the cost OVER TEN YEARS is roughly $25,000 per person, or an average of $2,500 per year per newly insured person. Garrett seems back to making up five figure distortions again.

From Garrett:

Now, another promise that the President made was that he said, ‘‘if you like your current coverage, you keep it.’’ Well, again, look back to that government actuary whom we talked about before. According to that chief actuary, that’s not true if you’re a senior on Medicare, because 8.5 million seniors on Medicare today would lose their current coverage, and they would be forced into some different coverage.

This is Garrett scaring seniors again. Readers may remember Medicare Advantage is one of Garrett's favorite taxpayer fleecing programs. He conveniently left out Advantage, from Medicare Advantage, when saying these words.

The reason is because it's inconvenient for him to acknowledge that, according to the Actuary, once insurance companies can't charge the government up to a 40% mark up on the same services provided as Medicare they're likely to reduce their available plans.

Seniors will be able to get the same services, it's just that Medicare won't be billed 40% extra for the same services, thus saving taxpayers money. The Actuary and the CBO see this as a good thing. And Garrett claims to be a fiscal conservative?

From Garrett:

The chief actuary says the cuts could force such organizations, such as nursing homes and home health agencies, to leave the Medicare program and, thus, ‘‘possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries.’’

Readers have to remember that if Garrett had his way, nursing care could be dropped by insurers anyway. Kind of a tough call, but as the Actuary actually said that we'll give this one to Garrett.

I've written before how this speech structure is an effective way to misrepresent the truth: book-ending the misrepresentations with facts to give credibility to the misrepresentations. The added twist here is that Garrett's talking about a report based on a bill that does not exist anymore, and won't be voted on.

And the spin goes on...

Garrett and Consumer Protection

2009-10-23T17:02:00.003-04:00

Representative Scott Garrett voted against creation of the Consumer Protection agency yesterday. He discusses his stance and reasoning over on MSNBC, opposite Barry Ritholtz. Ritholtz takes Garrett to task for his characterization of the bill, as well as his belief we already do enough, and Garrett even seems to back off his stance when faced with the practical implications of the agency:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

No Bidding Bergen: Ferriero Goes Down

2009-10-23T11:02:00.003-04:00

This is long overdue. Papa Joe Ferriero has been convicted.

While I've written a couple dozen times about Papa Joe, and could only hope they throw the 40 year/$500,000 book at him to send a message; the Record Editorial about the conviction makes me less enthused than I thought I would be. Here's the important part:

However, it is too early to break out the champagne. New Jersey’s culture of corruption has not been dismantled. It has been slowed down, nothing more. The steady stream of public officials hauled before judges and juries has not been diminished by high-profile arrests.

In Bergen County, the Democratic Party has operated with barely a blip since Ferriero’s arrest. The same candidates are seeking office; the same county committee people control the process. Removing the king, while the rest of the kingdom remains firmly in place, is more show than substance. What happens next is what is important.

Democrats in Bergen have a choice to make, keep doing things the same corrupted way or follow the path of State Senator Loretta Weinberg and win based on principle. They only have to look at the BCRO to see how quickly things can fall apart following a corruption bust. Unfortunately, as the Record pointed out, they haven't even attempted to reform themselves.

The no-bid contracts associated with corruption cost all of us money. And although people barely list corruption as one of their concerns when voting, they're fooling themselves if they think high property taxes and high corruption are unrelated. When the public finally puts two and two together, if the BCDO hasn't changed their ways, they won't be able to win an election for dog catcher.

Caroline Kennedy's Speech

2009-10-22T14:41:00.002-04:00

This was quite the surprise, to have Caroline Kennedy speak yesterday before Governor Corzine and President Obama.

Obama's Entire Speech

2009-10-22T13:00:00.003-04:00

It was quite the event. Here is Obama's speech for Governor Corzine:

More Updates

2009-10-21T18:13:00.005-04:00

Obama: One voice can change a room...

Obama: Tells the story about Fired Up; Ready to Go. Pretty amazing.

Obama: The outcome of this race isn't up to Jon, it's up to you.

Obama is on absolute fire. Super aggressive.

Obama "there seems to be some selective memory on how we got in this fix"

Obama is on the stage. He has given his shout outs.

We need to cover the facts: Jon is running for re-election during challenging times.

Corzine: Over next 13 days I ask you to stand strong with me; and I'll stand with you for four more years.

Scrolling down has become onerous.

Obama visiting NJ

2009-10-21T15:03:00.029-04:00

Update: Corzine is hammering education and health. He's slamming mandate free policies.

Corzine: I believe we have a moral obligation to provide a world class education.

Update: Corzine is thanking everyone. This crowd is loving him. "Yes we can". "We are all in this together"

Update: Kennedy- Corzine introduced after she says he's never forgotten the value of a good education.

Update: This is a good speech. Real meat and potatoes, and now we get Caroline Kennedy.

Update: Oh, the "Jewish Grandmother" as hatchet woman is interesting to see in person. She's tearing Christie apart, but seems like she's about to offer the audience milk and cookies.

Update: Senator Loretta Weinberg is speaking now. She's highlighting NJ's diversity. She just used "Strength in Diversity"

Update: Just a reminder, you can watch live at http://www.joncorzine09.com/

Update: We're in the holding pattern dance party now. Nothing to do with politics, but watching senior citizens jam to "Sexy Back" is always fun.

Update: The obligatory Bon Jovi. Still can't believe they're having him open Giants Stadium.

Update: We're at the strategic placing stage, with people being lined up behind the podium.

Update: Rothman is tying his support of Obama into Corzine. He mention's Sarah Palin's name and the crowd boos loudly.

Rothman is claiming Corzine will go down in history as one of our greatest Governors ever.

"Let's get the job done" is his ending.

Update: Rep. Steve Rothman. Obama's first backer. They're rolling out the big guns in order.

Update: Huttle- "Chris Christie is wrong when it matters most"

Update: Valerie Huttle up there. Talking about stimulus money. "Jon Corzine knows what matters" seems to be the developing theme.

Update: Vernon Walton is getting the crowd chatting yes we can.

Update: Dennis McNerney is on the stage.

Update: 3,500 folks are going to be here.

Update: And here we go.

Update: The campaign is running live video on their website: http://www.joncorzine09.com/

Update: Ah. I doubt the music selection is as interesting at most political functions.

Update: Heard the Joe Ferriero verdict may come today. Would provide for an interesting contrast if he came back guilty the same day Loretta is on with the President.

Update: Best sticker so far: Mammos Matter. Cozine/Weinberg also have a ton of pink signs in the crowd.

Update: I'm actually hoping to hear State Senator Loretta Weinberg speak. She has been at the forefront of cleaning up politics in the Democratic Party and the state. After her battles, and more important victories against Papa Joe and the BCDO, her ending up NJ's Lt. Governor has great potential.

Update: All the regular press are starting to fill into our area. Very good to see some familiar faces.

Update: This venue is much more intimate than PNC, and has the temperature of the ice rink VP Biden visited so many months ago.

One thing that seems to be a common visit during the events this week is voter turnout. Less than 50 percent of people vote, and therefore 25.1 percent can decide who will be our Governor.

I wrote a rather long piece on this a few years back. Above all, people need to participate to gain accountability of their government.

President Obama has returned to NJ in support of Governor Corzine and I'm here. The crowd is starting to be let in and the music is starting to play. Frequent updates to come...

Garrett Talking Down Payments

2009-10-21T10:08:00.003-04:00

Here's Representative Scott Garrett discussing his plan to increase the down payment on FHA loans to 5%.

Christie Just Keeps Burying Himself

2009-10-20T13:04:00.004-04:00

One has to wonder if Chris Christie is purposely trying to lose, or if his recent issues are reflective of what his management of the state would be like. We're in rough enough shape as it is, this kind of mismanagement won't help us get better.

In case you missed it, there are two issues that he just keeps making worse for himself.

First, Christie just keeps getting deeper in the scandal with Michelle Brown, his former assistant/travel buddy. The NY Times ran a scathing piece, highlighting her alleged interference at the US Attorney's office. Christie's surrogates then tried to deflect the criticism. However, they can't avoid the issue and the more they try and say he didn't do anything wrong the worse they're sounding.

Second, and this really should be first, on whether or not he's going to be a fiscal conservative, Christie himself has been quoted as saying he would allow cabinet officials to put themselves up at expensive hotels. The story was picked up by News 12:

And by WPIX:

You simply can't claim to be a fiscal conservative and then propose to govern like this. As Christie has started to attack Chris Daggett to stop from taking fiscal conservatives, one has to realize it's because Christie himself is not a fiscal conservative. No way, no how.

Daggett Supporter Drops By

2009-10-15T12:56:00.004-04:00

As a former Independent candidate myself, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Chris Daggett and what his campaign has been able to accomplish to date.

He's earned the endorsement of the Star Ledger, seeks the council of solid centrists like Governor Angus King (quoted under my picture to the right), receives full write-ups in the New York Times, and is currently polling at 16%. Pretty remarkable.

So, as I have spoken about the other two candidates, I figure it only fair to let one of Daggett's folks have a voice here. Here's a comment left on my post yesterday (I took the liberty of connecting the hyperlinks):

Unfortunately politicians in both parties do this. We need to shake up the system by electing Chris Daggett.

That's why The Star Ledger’s endorsement of Chris Daggett is great news. I wish the Republicans would stop the Bush/Rove Fear mongering. There is obviously a consensus that a vote for Daggett is not a vote for Corzine.

Daggett is a viable candidate and there are many of this who are voting for him because we know he can win and is the only candidate who can change this state. The Star Ledger’s endorsement echoes and re-affirms that opinion.

We need people to get involved and spread the word about Chris Daggett.

Learn 15 ways to help and get started now.

Even if your not from NJ you can still cyber volunteer. Go here to get Html and Text code to post on the web or in an email!

Christie's Room(s) at the Inn

2009-10-14T18:30:00.003-04:00

Update: Hotwire lays out the trips; Blue Jersey promoted a thoughtful comparison between Christie and Sharpe James.

I'm going to flat out say it, Chris Christie is not the sharpest politician in the world.

From the AP:

On trips in 2007 and 2008, his top deputy, Michele Brown, also exceeded the guidelines after Christie approved her requests for rooms in the same five-star hotels where he was booked.
The vouchers show Christie and Brown stayed at the NineZero Hotel in Boston on Oct. 16, 2007 and each billed taxpayers $449 plus taxes and fees for their rooms, more than double the government allowance for a Boston hotel room at the time, according to a General Services Administration travel reimbursement table.

You can't claim to be fiscally conservative, and then act like it only applies to everyone else. To make matters worse, in addition to Christie taking taxpayers for a ride, Christie approved his assistant doing it, too.

In fairness to Christie, he's said he couldn't find a room. Although the Red Sox were playing in the playoffs that night (was he there?) and Tori Amos was in town (or there?), it's unlikely every affordable hotel in Boston was booked on a Tuesday night. In fact, Christie has a demonstrated history of this sort of blatant waste, exceeding federal limits on 87.5% of his trips.

Then, going back to things you should think about, the AP article points out some interesting timing:

Christie made a mortgage loan to Brown five days after they returned from Boston, on Oct. 22, 2007. He failed to report the loan on federal ethics forms and on his 2007 federal income tax returns, omissions he later described as a mistake. Brown has since resigned and joined a private law firm.

While no one is saying that Christie and Brown have had an affair, he should have realized at some point in time, such a coincidence in timing would sow seeds of doubt in the public's mind.

So not only does he abuse taxpayer dollars, he doesn't think.

New Jersey has a long and sorry history of politicians who don't think, which is part of the reason we're in the mess we're in. While people are already seem burned out over the campaign, it will be interesting to see how the public reacts.

Garrett Talking Health Care

2009-10-06T14:06:00.002-04:00

Representative Scott Garrett was on CNBC chatting about President Obama's health care reform plan.

Christie Vs. Christie on Mammograms

2009-09-28T13:50:00.004-04:00

While I've written about whether or not Representative Scott Garrett supports the elimination of mammogram coverage for women before, the argument is getting a fresh look in our Governor's race.

Tom Moran of the Star Ledger has a must read piece on what Chris Christie is saying about mammogram coverage now, versus what he said in the primary:

"He’s saying under my plan women would not be able to get mammograms,” Christie says.

Really? Corzine’s television ads are careful on this point. They charge only that Christie would allow insurers to sell policies without mammogram coverage. That happens to be true.

And Christie could not point to even a campaign stop where Corzine went overboard and made a phony accusation.

There have been many times that I've argued that on paper, many conservative ideals are very appealing to many people. However, soundbites of the appealing nature generally have real world implications and many times cease to be practical. This happens to be one of those times.

This should be an interesting test case of the argument for whoever ends up running against Garrett next year. Take what he's said, and explain to people what it means in the real world.

Way to go, Garrett!

2009-09-25T11:06:00.007-04:00

Back in July, I wrote that I would fully support Representative Scott Garrett getting involved with a discharge petition of H. Res. 554. For those that don't know, 554 would require all bills to be posted on-line for 72 hours before a vote.

This is what I wrote at the time, as 554 relates to health care reform:

Anyone who honestly cares about making sure this reform is done right should be supporting H. Res 554. It would provide the confidence going forward, or an opportunity see issues that need amending, or the silver bullet if it deserves to fail.

Whether for or against the bill, we need to know what's in the bill.

Garrett signed the discharge petition yesterday. Actually, the entire Republican portion of our delegation has also signed it at this point, so way to go to them as well.

The good people at the Sunlight Foundation say that we're 45 signatures from getting this done. I'm rather disappointed the Democratic members of our delegation haven't signed yet. I've heard it said that transparency is inherently progressive. It's time they get on the good government train.

Garrett for Wasting Tax Dollars

2009-09-24T12:35:00.004-04:00

One of the perplexing things about Representative Scott Garrett is that he chooses to advocate for practices that waste taxpayer money, while slamming waste in other programs. I've written before about Garrett's affinity for Medicare Advantage, which has been documented to cost taxpayers more than it should. Yet Garrett gripes about Medicare costing too much.

Today, Garrett sent an e-mail defending his opposition to reforming Federal Student loans. Here's part of his logic:

On Thursday, the House passed a bill (H.R. 3221) that will, if signed into law, eliminate private loans with federal guarantees, replacing such loans entirely with the government’s Direct Loan program – in other words, removing the optionality of the public option – at a cost of $1 trillion over the next ten years.

What Garrett conveniently fails to mention is that enacting this policy is actually saving taxpayers billions. From the CBO:

H.R. 3221 would make several changes to the federal student loan programs, including the Federal Perkins Loan Program. As shown in Table 2, CBO estimates that, on net, those changes would reduce federal costs by $40.7 billion over five years and $74.8 billion over 10 years.

So once again, we have Garrett defending taxpayer money flowing into private hands at a higher cost than we should be paying for the service we're receiving.

Adding insult to the injury of honest debate, Garrett relates his argument to the health care debate and justifying his opposition to the public option.

The student loan public option should serve as a cautionary and instructional tale for Congress and the American people as we continue to discuss ways to reform the health care system.

Garrett's right, the cautionary tale here is that without reform, we're going to continue spending more than we should. That's fine with Garrett, the question should be put to his constituents, is that okay with you?

Garrett Votes for Unemployment Extension

2009-09-22T19:46:00.003-04:00

Well, this one happened after I did my little run down, and was a little surprising. Representative Scott Garrett joined the vast majority of the House in voting to extend unemployment benefits.

Readers may remember, Garrett was one of only four Representatives to vote against extension of benefits back in 2003.

With 83 Representatives voting against the extension this time around, I was certain Garrett would be one of them. I was pleasantly surprised he wasn't.

Garrett's Recent Votes

2009-09-22T19:03:00.004-04:00

With the focus so much on health care these days, it's easy to forget that the House has other business. Representative Scott Garrett has had a number of votes recently that should interest folks here in the Fifth District. Here's a sampling:

H.R. 3221 Garrett and most Republicans voted no on fully funding Pell Grants.

H.R.3246 To provide for a program of research, development, demonstration and commercial application in vehicle technologies at the Department of Energy. Only member of the NJ Delegation to vote no.

H.R. 22 To reduce the amount that the United States Postal Service is required to pay into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund by the end of fiscal year 2009. This was approved, with Garrett's support, by a landslide.

H.R. 965 This one is aimed at providing funding to those preserving the Chesapeake Bay. Once again, Garrett was the only one from NJ to vote no.

Garrett Opposes Medicare

2009-09-16T20:22:00.005-04:00

So, after taking a weeks vacation and working to get another project off the ground, I decided I should see what's been cooking in the health care debate with Representative Scott Garrett. Unfortunately, not much has changed in the two weeks of my hiatus.

His staff, apparently in response to pointed criticism from Representative Steve Rothman, decided to put the following statement on his website:

That's a pretty bold statement. As Medicare is government health care, I'm sure the seniors of the District would find that nugget slightly terrifying. One would have to think the sentiment could be fodder during the general next year if applied properly.

Garrett and Rothman faced off on CNN. Herb Jackson posted Rothman's critique:

You know, Scott, I looked on your website tonight. I saw that we share the same concerns and you were criticizing the Democrats' ideas, but you didn't offer one specific program on your website of how to address the problem of insurance companies dropping people with insurance when they get sick or providing competition so the insurance companies can't raise rates, double and triple, as we've seen them happen before.

Garrett does have the e-mail he's sent out before now posted, and although rather nice on platitudes, doesn't list any of the bills he claims he handed the President last week. It also, and I think this is disingenuous, links to Op-Ed pieces as "general news". Call it what it is, the opinions of people Garrett agrees with.

The bottom line is not much has changed during the health care debate. Even if everything Garrett says he supports were in the final bill, and what he isn't saying is that much of it was in the initial bill, he's going to vote against it. Garrett's not even taking the discussion or constituents' concerns seriously, as he was in Europe defending European hedge funds instead of holding town halls.

The sad thing is, Garrett isn't alone on this. Republicans are using this as a building block for 2010, at the expense of the American people and our economic recovery. Petty and partisan, my hope is that before November 2nd next year, people will start to realize that's exactly what's going on.

Garrett Lectures EU on Hedge Funds

2009-09-02T15:08:00.003-04:00

A hallmark of conservative principles used to be that we don't interfere with other nations, because we don't want them interfering with us. However, in this new world, our Representative Scott Garrett decided he should join in defense of hedge funds with Representative Paul Kanjorski in criticizing what is essentially a European Union decision. From Bloomberg:

Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat, told EU lawmakers today that proposed EU rules “scared the living bejesus” out of the industry. (London Mayor) Johnson said that the proposals threaten London’s role as a leading financial center.

The rules under consideration would limit the amount of borrowing hedge funds can use and require the use of European- domiciled banks. The initiative was designed amid the fallout from the financial crisis, in which the decline of the U.S. housing market triggered bank losses and triggered the first worldwide recession since World War II.

“Your focus should be elsewhere,” Congressman Scott Garrett, a Republican from New Jersey, told members of the European Parliament’s economic and monetary affairs committee. He said hedge funds weren’t the cause of the global financial crisis.

While Garrett has a history of defending hedge funds, one has to hope the characterization of Garrett's comments weren't actually Garrett saying they played no part in the problem. It would be the height if irresponsibility for him to suggest hedge funds played no part in artificially inflating the bubble.

However, Garrett's "focus elsewhere" comment is very much in line with his thinking. Readers have to remember, he voted against having hedge fund managers taxed like normal people, which would lay the groundwork for a permanent AMT fix for the 20% of our District who have to pay it.

Yes, apparently the opposition to the proposals are bi-partisan, but why are our Congressmen over in Europe telling them how to run their markets? What jobs are they costing our financial sector, if in fact hedge funds would move, should the regulations go into place?

Garrett Talking Health Care Pt. 2

2009-08-21T11:12:00.003-04:00

It must be nice for Representative Scott Garrett to represent the District right next to New York and Secaucus. Being opposed to everything, he's likely getting a lot of phone calls for in studio time.

Here, he's on Squawk Box with Rep. Allyson Shwartz.

Nearly 10% of NJ's Lost Jobs Are Back

2009-08-19T18:39:00.013-04:00

Correction: It was pointed out that the 150,000 jobs lost was total, not simply private sector. Therefore, with the public sector losses, the overall gains are actually about 5%.

In a conference call that just finished up a little bit ago, Governor Jon Corzine touched on something that probably is getting lost in all of the press about Chris Christie's apparent violation of the Hatch Act and the overall politicization of our Justice Department under Karl Rove and George Bush.

We here in NJ gained 13,000 private sector jobs last month. Since 2007, we've lost about 150,000, so we've gained 8.6% back. It's still a long way to go, but 9% in a month is progress.

Since the beginning of the recession in December 2007, New Jersey has lost 150,100 jobs (-3.7%). Nationally, employment has declined by 6.7 million jobs (-4.8 %).

Considerable over-the-month job gains occurred in the leisure and hospitality (+6,200), construction (+3,400), professional and business services (+3,200), and manufacturing (+3,100) supersectors. Hiring in the arts, entertainment and recreation component (+5,300) was responsible for the gain in leisure and hospitality, while most of the growth in professional and business services employment was due to gains in the administrative support/waste management/remediation segment (+2,900). In construction, the job gains were mainly due to hiring by specialty trade contractors.

So not only did we add jobs, we've lost fewer jobs as a percentage than the nation. As someone who regularly reads the reports, and chastised those who ignore them, the fact we actually added manufacturing jobs is, well, shocking. When you consider that since the recession began in 2007 as a nation we've lost 2 million, and in New Jersey we've been losing them for months, the gain is definitely a positive sign.

With Christie's ethics armor getting dented (daily at this point), if New Jersey can get a few months like this before the Election, Corzine will definitely be in a stronger position.

It's good to have some good news for a change.

Garrett Talking Health Care

2009-08-17T13:15:00.003-04:00

Representative Scott Garrett and Representative Anthony Weiner sat down on Fox 5's morning show to discuss the health care debate. One of the important things they discussed was whether or not Congress actually will read all 1,000 of the bill.

Garrett, for his part, has put his money where his mouth is on this one, signing up to co-sponsor H. Res. 554. I've written before about the "Read the Bill" campaign, and I'm really happy to see Garrett on board.

The discussion on health care is an interesting watch:

Also, Garrett and Weiner participated in a chat room together after the on-air interview. Nothing earth shattering in there, both stayed on their message.

Morons At The Gate

2009-08-11T14:30:00.001-04:00

If significant health care reform is defeated, and people's bills continue to rise with more and more of the GDP being eaten without improved outcomes, idiotic mentality will be a leading cause. As promised, the NJ Tea Party folks visited the town hall meetings of Rep. Steve Rothman yesterday, and as The Record reports, it got a bit rowdy.

However, the lack of commonsense in those protesting could not be overlooked:

When a supporter of universal coverage declared “all Americans are entitled to health care,” he was greeted with a chorus of boos.

“Everybody does have health care,” someone shouted from the audience. “Go to the hospital and get it!”

PricewaterhouseCoopers just released a study estimating that logic costs those of us with insurance an extra $14 billion a year.

"This is an inappropriate use of the ER," said Dee Swanson, president of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. "You don't go to the ER for strep throat."
Since emergency rooms are legally obligated to treat all patients, Swanson said providers ultimately find ways to pass on the cost for treating the uninsured to other patients, such as to those who pay out-of-pocket for their medical care.
[snip]
"Going to the doctor for strep throat would cost $65-$70. In the ER, it's $600 to $800," he said.

So, the Tea Party folks seem to advocate wasting money. To be fair, I suppose it's one, but based on the previous e-mail I was forwarded, it's fair to wonder how widespread the lack of sense is.

In all, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates we waste $1.2 trillion of our $2.2 trillion spend on health care. Around 20% of this waste has been directly created by the very private insurance companies the Tea Party people are defending:

"Every insurance company has its own forms," McGenney said. "Some practices spend 40% of their revenue filling out paperwork that has nothing to do with patient care. So much of this could be automated."
Dr. Jason Dees, a family doctor in a private practice based in New Albany, Miss., said his office often resubmits claims that have been "magically denied."
"That adds to our administrative fees, extends the payment cycle and hurts our cash flow," he said.
Dees also spends a lot of time getting "pre-certification" from insurers to approve higher-priced procedures such as MRIs. "We're already operating on paper-thin margins and this takes times away from our patients," he said.

There's that private rationing again. In all the rhetoric the Tea Party people throw out about the bureaucrat rationing care, there's no mention in their talking points about the corporate bureaucrat rationing care. They have no solution for it, because there's no accountability required by health insurance companies other than to their shareholders.

When there are problems with Medicare (ex. The Donut Hole), Congress is forced to deal with it or face the ire of their constituents. One would think the very Tea Party slamming the health care bill at town hall after town hall would prefer to have someone they could directly deal with as opposed to a faceless claims processor at an insurance company.

The problem with that statement is that it makes sense. As so much of the debate has proven so far, making sense is less important than scoring points for the press and donors. Obviously, there are legitimate concerns and questions about the proposed overhaul, but when people are circulating memos on how disrupt instead of engage in the conversation, we're not going to get anywhere.

Spinning Tea

2009-08-06T18:45:00.002-04:00

While our Representative Scott Garrett distorted numbers recently to scare people about health care reform, the Tea Party people are going from distortion to flat out lies. This is a long post, but if the mainstream media isn't going to do this, someone has to.

It's been well publicized at this point that those who are part of the Tea Party movement are packing town hall meetings to disrupt instead of discuss health care reform. There are legitimate concerns about the proposal, but the tactics being used by these folks not only drowns out those with legitimate concerns, but also discredits the very views they're supposed to be standing for and makes their opposition seem baseless.

As Blue Jersey predicted, the NJ Tea Party group is attempting to get members to Representative Steve Rothman's recess town hall meetings. To encourage members, and fire them up, they sent out an e-mail recently. With the miracle of the searchable PDF, anyone willing to ask "is that true" can go through the e-mail and shred it.

(A note, I've cut and pasted straight from the e-mail, grammatical and spelling errors are strictly the tea party people's fault)

You know the provisions of the public healthcare plan contain concerning features including the following:

You will not be able to keep your private plan (no matter what they say, it’s in the bill).

Where, exactly? That's the question that any thinking person should ask. People point to Section 102, because it prevents new enrollments in plans that don't meet the minimum requirements of coverage. This has no impact on people's current insurance.

In fact, had the Tea Party people scrolled down they would have seen Section 112, where insurance companies are required to renew grandfathered plans. Your coverage is protected as long as you pay for it. But obviously, that reality doesn't help the opposition's fund raising, so I'm sure the oversight was intentional.

Seniors will be compelled to attend counseling every five years to receive information on how to end one’s life with dignity --- this is code for you’re not going to get the surgery or drugs you need, so end your life sooner ---this is the culture of death.

It's amazing the Tea Party people would rather have seniors be uninformed and not know what their options are. Section 1233 absolutely wants people to know about living wills and medical proxies, options and resources regarding palliative care and hospice, and resources available in the state in which the patient lives.

Health care costs will be passed along to you in the form of increased taxes, or loss of jobs due to small employers having to eliminate jobs to pay the additional 8% on their payroll….think of it 20 employees making an average of 50,000 annual salary = $80,000 to that small employer in tax……that employer has to eliminate two jobs for every 20 people to stay even.

What they leave out in this section is that the tax only applies if the small business does not already provide benefits. If benefits are provided, there's no tax. So no one working a job at a small company that provides benefits has anything to worry about in terms of taxes costing them their job.

You will pay for all families – illegal aliens too.

This is the only true statement in the whole thing. Yes, everybody else will be paying for you.

Also, where people get the delusional thought that we don't already pay for illegal aliens is beyond me. This is true, and it will always be true whether we have private or public care. When people show up to an emergency room or the equivalent they are going to get treated and then we bill whatever national plan they're under.

You will also have your tax dollars funded toward abortions even if you are opposed to that form of birth control. That means also late term abortions…up to the day before birth!

Partial birth abortions are illegal, and whoever wrote this e-mail is intentionally misleading people. It also ignores the fact that the committee votes prevent any abortion funding.

I haven't written a post this long in a long time, but the health care debate is too important to let small groups of people using misrepresentation and intimidation to disrupt what is a vital discussion. I realize there's not a lot of money to be raised by the special interests by being truthful and having a meaningful conversation, but that's what we need right now.

There's a lot of good in this bill, but it could be a bit better. There are also good ideas that have come out of the Republican party, like allowing churches and industry groups pool together, that get drowned out by the Tea Party people.

Whether you're for or against the health care reform as presented, arguing your points needs to be based in fact. Otherwise, what may be a very good idea will either be dismissed or missed because someone decided to be disruptive instead of constructive.

Garrett's Big Day

2009-07-31T11:17:00.003-04:00

Representative Scott Garrett is going to have a big day today. H.R. 3269 is on the floor, which is going to give shareholders a greater say in compensation packages and disclose their incentives. As by the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg, Garrett is on a mission to stop this from happening.

Garrett has introduced an amendment that's now being debated to basically re-write the entire bill. You can watch the proceedings on CSPAN.

250K Cars Sold

2009-07-30T23:12:00.006-04:00

The news tonight that the fabled Cash for Clunkers program is out of money, less than a month after being passed and three days after applications began being accepted, is a good thing.

From the New York Times:

About a quarter-million vehicles were sold under the program, which offered payments of $3,500 to $4,500 for people who traded in old cars for new ones that had higher fuel economy. The average payment worked out to about $4,000, and the total payout, about $1 billion, the amount allocated by Congress under the program, formally called the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS.

Republicans like our Representative Scott Garrett who voted against the program the first and second time should take heart: A tax incentive for real people actually worked.

Garrett's Hiring

2009-07-29T15:48:00.003-04:00

For those looking to work for Representative Scott Garrett, or a Conservative in Washington in general, this could be your chance:

Legislative Assistant - Congressman Scott Garrett has an opening for a Legislative Assistant handling a variety of issues including Foreign Affairs, Environment and Energy. A successful candidate will have a strong conservative philosophy, be a self-starter, able to manage multiple projects at the same time and perform well under tight deadlines. Strong writing and analytical skills are a must. Please email a cover letter, writing sample and resume to NJ05jobs@mail.house.gov.

Garrett helps Corzine

2009-07-27T13:10:00.006-04:00

Representative Scott Garrett and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (a Republican) are not the closest of friends, at least in the media. I had written about one dust up two years ago between Garrett and the unapologetic moderate. Recently, they revisited their "good will" toward each other. From The Hill:

LaHood got into a heated argument over the $787 economic stimulus package Friday with Rep. Scott Garrett (N.J.) while offering testimony to the House Budget Committee.

The debate was related to attempts by some Republican governors to refuse stimulus money, and ended up with LaHood offering praise to New Jersey’s Democratic governor, Jon Corzine, who faces an uphill reelection battle this year.

[snip]

"Sen. Kyl is not in charge of the money, congressman," LaHood told Garrett. "The governor is. I wanted to be sure that the governor was not in the same line of thinking."

When Garrett wondered whether his state would receive a similar letter, LaHood backed Corzine, the embattled New Jersey governor, noting that he had secured millions in stimulus funding from Congress. Corzine this year is facing a tough re-election race against Republican Chris Christie.

"Your governor has been a real leader in this, by the way," LaHood said during an exchange in which the two former GOP conference members talked over one another.

Garrett and his people were so pleased by the exchange, they made a video of it and put the testimony up on Garrett's YouTube Page:

By Garrett persisting as he did, and feeling it was worth posting, Governor Corzine was able to get this nice little web video made:

Nothing like a respected moderate Republican sitting and giving sworn testimony that a Democratic Governor has created jobs during an election year. Corzine should probably call and thank Garrett.

Our Unbelievable State

2009-07-24T14:52:00.002-04:00

We should all be embarrassed about the corruption busts yesterday.

Jason Springer of Blue Jersey did a nice job rounding up all of the video clips he could in this post.

Google has about 1,700 stories up about the busts. They also seemed to make the front page of every newspaper in the region and those with national distribution.

Garrett and the Tea Baggers

2009-07-24T12:54:00.005-04:00

The Ridgewood Blog put up a video of Representative Scott Garrett addressing the Tea Party folks before the Fourth of July parade in Ridgewood. It was a nice chance for him to talk about his Constitutional Caucus:

Garrett's Health Care Funny Numbers

2009-07-22T12:52:00.007-04:00

Here we go again.

Representative Scott Garrett's streak of not misrepresenting numbers has officially come to an end. In this week's Garrett Gazette, the full court press to scare people out of us becoming more competitive with the world by implementing a better health insurance system stepped it up a notch on the spin cycle.

The health care plan proposed by the Democrats will cost American families more than $1,000,000,000,000, and yet will cause as many as 114 million individuals to lose their current coverage under the bill, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group.

Sounds scary. Not only does Garrett fail to acknowledge much of the $1 trillion is already in the system, and would be shifted as opposed to being new costs; by Garrett's statement our number of uninsured would climb to 162 million. There would be no debating that would be awful, if that's actually what Lewin said.

However, if you look at the testimony, this is what they said:

Beginning in the third year, the newly established “Health Choices Commissioner” would be permitted to extend eligibility to include all employers. If the plan is opened to individuals and all employers, the number of people in the public plan would rise to 122.9 million people. Private coverage would decline by about 113.5 million people.

That's right. If the public option was made available to all individuals and employers 113.5 million would shift the way they're covered, not lose it. Why would so many people shift? Because they're choosing the lower cost option.

By entering a larger insurance pool without a profit motive, costs would drop for those who choose it. It's how insurance plans are supposed to work.

If people wanted Cadillac plans they could still get them. The thought of people actually having the freedom to choose to not to get ripped off is why former insurance lawyer Garrett and others who back the industry are fighting so hard to scare the hell out of people, and spending over $1.4 million a day to lobby Congress. They're terrified because they know if people have an honest choice, they will in fact choose the lower cost.

It never ceases to disgust me to see how untruthful the politics of health reform gets. The status quo advocates have a simple playbook: Misrepresent as much as possible to scare the hell out of people.

The debate over costs is being worked out in a pretty transparent and straight forward way by the Blue Dogs. Unfortunately, Garrett's type of argument doesn't serve as a productive addition to the discussion. It just stirs up misinformed rage.

Garrett should stick with the Financial Services sub-committee and leave health care to those whose voice can actually be heard and genuinely want us to stop having a competitive disadvantage to other nations.

Discharge H. Res. 554

2009-07-18T09:46:00.000-04:00

With the health care debate raging, now is the time for Congress to implement the rules change being pushed by the good people at the Sunlight Foundation via ReadtheBill.org

H. Res. 554 was reported to committee on June 17th, with no action since. Here's what the Resolution does:

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that legislation
and conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours
before consideration by the House, and for other purposes.

As crucial as it is that we pass health care reform, it is equally crucial that we do it right. And even if it's employed by the Blue Dog Democrats and the Republicans as a delay tactic, a discharge petition for H. Res 554 may be in order.

The discharge petition would get the bill out of the rules committee and on to the floor for a vote. I'd fully support Representative Scott Garrett if they got the petition voted on and passed, because that's how important it is that the health bill is done right and in full view of the public.

It's been clear for some time when bills are rushed is when lobbyist and special interest provisions are inserted. While the perfect can't be the enemy of the good, if we're not careful, the largest reform in many of our lifetimes could turn into something much less than good.

Although this bill seems to reverse many examples of recent history of rushed bills gone wrong (ex. Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Donut Hole), when bills come out of committee without review there's no way to guess what other things may have been inserted.

Anyone who honestly cares about making sure this reform is done right should be supporting H. Res 554. It would provide the confidence going forward, or an opportunity see issues that need amending, or the silver bullet if it deserves to fail.

Whether for or against the bill, we need to know what's in the bill.

Garrett Backer Busted

2009-07-17T16:10:00.000-04:00

Since coming to Congress, Representative Scott Garrett has been the darling of the American Conservative Union, receiving a 100 percent rating from the group for the duration of his career. Garrett even acknowledges their stance on issues when explaining his own, most recently with regard to the Cap and Trade Bill. As it turns out, they're simply a corrupt money making proposition.

Politico delivered the bombshell:

The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s support in a bitter legislative dispute, then the group’s chairman flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.

To make it even better, Politico posted the letter on-line. Here's a part of the letter from the ACU:

Through our projects and activities, we support and defend the doctrine of original intent of the framers of the Constitution, and we support America’s businesses and entrepreneurs. We are proud to promote the principles of capitalism and the pursuit of the American dream.

[snip]

For the activist contact portion of the plan we will contact over 150,000 people per state multiple times at a cost of $1.39 per name or $2,147,550 to implement the entire program.

[snip]

If we incorporate the targeted, Senator-personalized radio effort into the plan, you can figure an additional $125,000 on average, per state.

Adding the radio, ACU was basically shaking down Fed Ex for $3.4 million. When they didn't pony up, they went with UPS. Of course they deny that now.

One would like to believe after Conservatives got burned by Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff, when they turned out Christians against gambling while being funded by competing casinos, they wouldn't be duped by such systematic fraud. However, the ACU seemed confident they could do this.

That said, the folks over at Sean Hannity's forum are talking about this:

Yes, but the services offered actually took the price tag up to 3.5 million (charges such as $1.39 per name email contacts). The fact that a supposed advocacy group was basically selling their endorsement of a specific issue is ridiculous. What next? Another million if they keyvoted it?

[snip]

They are (were) a pretty damned big deal as far as congressional rankings went especially. If the ACU keyvotes a subject, a lot of people jump.

Key votes are the ones that Garrett's reputation as a 100% voter are based on. As mentioned earlier, Garrett mentions them in his official communications. He also mentions them in his fund raising appeals. If it ever comes to light they've been selling key vote status, there will be even more hell to pay for Garrett and the others that place this organization so highly in their own communications.

If Garrett releases a statement on any of this I'll post it in full.

Full Text of Obama's Speech

2009-07-16T22:17:00.003-04:00

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. It is good to see you. Hello, New Jersey! (Applause.) All right, everybody have a seat. Everybody have a seat. I want to begin by just making a few acknowledgements. First of all, I'm going to have a lot to say about this guy, but I just want everybody to know that one of my earliest supporters, somebody who had faith and confidence in me before I was a United States senator was the man standing next to me right here -- Jon Corzine. (Applause.) And so it is a special honor to be with him.

I've got a couple other friends I want to quickly acknowledge. Larry Cohen is around here somewhere. CWA -- right here. We appreciate you, Larry. (Applause.) President of the Communication Workers. We've got a couple of outstanding mayors -- the Pride of Newark, Cory Booker is here. (Applause.) There's Cory in the back. And we've also got the Pride of Jersey City, Jeremiah Healy. (Applause.)

I want to just say a little something at the top. As many of you may have heard, five officers were shot in the line of duty in Jersey City. Jeremiah -- I just saw him; we just discussed it. He may already be on his way back. Obviously we are watching this closely. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of all the officers who have been hurt. And we are confident they are going to end up coming back strong as ever. But it's a reminder for all of us of the incredible sacrifice that our law enforcement officials engage in, and their families are part of, each and every day. So I hope everybody keeps them in their thoughts and prayers in the days to come. (Applause.)

It is great to be back in New Jersey. I'm proud to stand with a man who wakes up every single day thinking about your future and the future of this state -- and that's your governor, Jon Corzine. (Applause.)

Like many of us in public life today, Jon is a leader who's been called to govern at some extraordinary times. He's been tested by the worst recession in half a century -- a recession that was caused by years of recklessness and irresponsibility, and obviously had a disproportionate impact here in New Jersey, given the closeness of the financial sector to the state.

Part of the crisis was caused by the same small thinking that's plagued our politics for decades -- the kind of thinking that says we can afford to tinker around with big problems, put off tough decisions, defer the big challenges, tell people only what they want to hear.

That's not the kind of leader Jon Corzine is. He didn't run for this office on the promise that change would be easy, and he certainly has not avoided what is hard. This isn't somebody who's here because of some special interest or political machine -- he's here because he cares about what happens to the people of New Jersey.

This is a man who has provided more property tax relief than any other governor in New Jersey's history. (Applause.) This is the first governor in 60 years who has reduced the size of government. At the same time, this is also a leader who has stood up against those who wanted to cut what matters, like education. Jon Corzine has not only protected funding for New Jersey's schools, he's reformed them with higher standards, and now students in this state rank at the top of the country in reading and math. That's a testimony to Jon Corzine's leadership. (Applause.)

Since Jon Corzine became governor, the Children's Health Insurance Program has been expanded to reach 80,000 more children -- 80,000 who got health insurance who did not have it before. New Jersey has become a leader in clean energy. And Jon Corzine wasn't just the first governor to pass an economic recovery plan for his state; he was an ally in helping the federal government, my administration, develop the national recovery plan.

And because of these recovery plans, jobs have been saved and created throughout the state of New Jersey -- jobs of cops and teachers; jobs in small businesses and clean energy companies. Unemployment insurance and health insurance has been extended to those who have felt the brunt of this recession, who lost their jobs. Tax relief has been delivered to families and small businesses. Ninety-five percent of working families have already received tax relief as a consequence of our recovery plan. And I can promise you that more help is on the way in the weeks and months to come.

Now, I realize this is little comfort to those who have lost a job in this recession. Some of you know people who've lost jobs, or maybe you're -- worried about losing their home or can't afford their health insurance anymore. I realize that some of the progress that's been made doesn't help some folks who need to pay their bills and have fallen deeply behind. And I'll be honest with you -- even though jobs have always been one of the last things that come back in a recession, some of the jobs that have been lost may not come back.

The fact is, even before this crisis hit, we had an economy that was creating a good deal of wealth for the folks at the very top, but not a lot of good-paying jobs for the rest of America. It's an economy that wasn't built to compete in the 21st century. It was one where we spend more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier; where we've been slow to invest in clean energy technologies that have created new jobs and new industries in other countries because we've been slow to take up the call of clean energy. We had an economy where we've watched our graduation rates lag behind too much of the world. We used to be at the very top, number one, in college graduation rates. We aren't anymore; we're in the middle of the pack.

But that was the America of yesterday. That doesn't have to be the America of tomorrow. That must not be the America our children inherit. (Applause.) You see, what we're facing right now is more than a passing crisis. It's a transformative moment that's led this nation to an unmistakable crossroads. We've got some choices and decisions we've got to make -- right here in Washington -- in Washington and right here in Trenton.

Now, there are some in New Jersey, some in Washington, some all across the country, who want us to go down the path we've already traveled for most of the last decade -- the path where we just throw up our hands and say, "We can't do anything about health care. It's too tough. We can't do anything about energy -- too hard" -- where we do nothing but hand out more tax breaks to the wealthiest few that make the rich richer and the deficit even larger, and leave ordinary people in the lurch. That's one path. It's a path where our health care costs keep rising and our oil dependency keeps on growing, where our financial markets remain an unregulated crapshoot, and our workers lose out on the jobs of tomorrow.

But that's not the future I accept for the United States of America. That's not the future that Jon Corzine accepts for the United States of America. That's not the future you accept for the United States of America. (Applause.) We are going to set a new course for this nation, and it's going to start right here in New Jersey. (Applause.)

We did not come as far as a country as we have because we've spent all our time looking backwards, or because we stood still in the face of great challenges and said "No, we can't." We didn't get here by lowering our sights or diminishing our dreams. We are a forward-looking people -- a people who have always faced the future not with fear, but with determination; not with doubt, but with hope. We've always taken great chances, and reached for new horizons, and remade the world around us.

And that's what we must do again. I am absolutely confident that we will weather this economic storm. But once we clear away the wreckage, the real question is: What are we going to build in its place?

Even as we rescue this economy from this crisis, I believe we have to rebuild an even better economy than we had before. We're going to have to lay a new foundation that will allow this country to thrive and compete in the global economy. And that means investing in the clean energy jobs of the future. That means educating and training our workers for those jobs. That means finally controlling the health care costs that are driving this nation into debt. (Applause.)

When it comes to these issues, the naysayers seem to think that we can somehow just keep on doing what we've been doing and expect a different outcome. We can't. And everywhere we go, I meet Americans who know that we can't. They know change isn't easy. They know there will be setbacks and false starts. And I love some of our opponents who stand up and say, "Look, it's been six months and you haven't solved the economy yet." (Laughter.) The American people know better than that.

Here is what they also know: We're at a rare moment where we've been given the opportunity to remake our world; a chance to seize our future. And as difficult as it sometimes is, what is inherent about the American spirit is the fact that we don't cling to the past in this country. We always move forward. And that movement doesn't begin in Washington -- it begins with you. It happens because the American people decide it's time to move forward; because you decide it's time for change; because you're willing to face the future without fear. And if you do that now, then we will not only reelect Jon Corzine so he can keep on fighting for families here in New Jersey, but we will do what earlier generations have done and build something better to leave to our children and secure our future in the 21st century.

We are counting on you. And I'm absolutely confident that the American people are going to meet the test.

Thank you, everybody. God bless you.

Obama for Corzine

2009-07-16T12:11:00.021-04:00

Update: And it's a wrap. The man is ridiculously gifted at imparting his passion on the crowds he's speaking to. However, it's passion like that we're going to need to get health reform passed.

Longer post coming.

Update: Obama to cynics: What's your plan? What do you plan to do?

Update: Paraphrase: At least half the money of the plan is already in the system but being spent badly.

Update: "We are at a point where inaction is not an option." Obama just got the crowd got jumping. "It's not going to be easy". And Obama brings out the "no one's talking about taking your health insurance away."

Update: Obama talking health care. "The health care issue is starting to heat up".

Update: Paraphrase: We need to give every child. A better future.

Update: We did not come this far as a country by looking backward.

Update: Obama is ripping into those like Representative Scott Garrett.

Update: Obama: We're going forward.

Update: Obama talking about Corzine. 80,000 kids have health insurance thanks to expanding Family Care.

Update: Obama is on the stage. He has asked us to keep the Jersey City officers shot this morning in our thoughts and prayers.

Update: Corzine ripping lack of specifics in Republican proposals. Corzine: The same people who failed so miserably in the White House wants you to hand them the keys to the State House.

Update: Corzine: With a partner in the White House there is no limit to what we can accomplish.

Update: Corzine: Health care is a right not a privilege.

Update: Long introduction of Obama. Corzine is making the Abe Lincoln comparison.

Health care is the first issue Corzine mentions, now the economy,

Leaders don't choose their time in history, but they have a responsibility to seize it.

Update: Corzine introducing Obama now. Paraphrase: Obama is challenging us to discover the best in ourselves. The elected officials are being introduced. Corzine is thanking us for believing in America. And Corzine just teased the crowd.

Update: The regular press corps was just walked in and the seal has just been attached. Here we go.

Update: Now we have a jamming gospel choir. Uplifting. A large group of folks are singing along.

Update: Corzine 09. It rhymes. Next speaker is Jim Mooney (sp?). Correction: He sang the National Anthem.

Update: And here we go. Missed our first speaker's name, but straight out of the gate, tying Chris Christie to George Bush. Maybe had Christie not given the multi-million dollar no-bid contracts to Ashcroft or raised all the money for Bush it wouldn't be so easy.

Update: So I've had some interesting conversations with national reports, attempting to explain to them what's been cooking here in NJ.

Update: The crowd is getting pumped up. The DJ really is a nice touch. It appears some speakers are getting ready to take the stage as the signers are getting set up.

Update: Heavy Bruce Springsteen being played. Charles Stile of the Record is typing away.

Update: Inside and sitting in the press section. The DJ's been good. The crowd just erupted. The helicopters are coming in.

Update: Oh man. It's hot. Although, we just found out Obama had an all female crew flying Marine One to Andrews. Doesn't change the fact it's hot with no water.

Update: They are having us gather. Out of the shade.

Update: Mainstream press, elected officials, and a band have shown up. Also, Joey Novick of Politics Unusual has just arrived.

Well, I succeeded in making to the Gov. Corzine rally with President Obama. So far so good, except for two sets of dead batteries for my good camera.

A huge crowd is already here and we're at least an hour from having the doors open.

I'm standing outside the press entrance waiting for it to open. Updates will be coming as I have them.

Health Politics of Fear

2009-07-15T19:01:00.007-04:00

Well, at some point we had to expect our Representative Scott Garrett to weigh in on the health care debate. In this week's Garrett Gazette he did, and his message is to be terrified of choice.

That's literally what the health care debate is over. Cut out all of the horror stories from other nations that don't apply, because that's not what we're talking about, and it comes down to choice. Even though Garrett and his fellow Republicans scream about rationing, most honest brokers acknowledge it already happens. We're talking about having an extra choice in our insurance options.

At about $100 billion a year, citizens are going to have to get health insurance, providers are going to have to become efficient, and citizens can shop for the same sort of plan Garrett and other Federal employees get.

Obviously, this scares the hell out of those spending $1.4 million a day to lobby against the effort. See, if insurance actually works as the market should dictate, instead of as a scam, the more people in an insurance pool the broader the risk is spread and the lower the cost.

Unfortunately, that's not how the system has worked. While Republicans have dusted off the early 90's playbook against health care, and are rehashing some of the misrepresentations of truth from the SCHIP debate; there are as many if not more horror stories generated by our current health care system. From hospitals dumping patients in alleys to insurance companies arbitrarily deciding people's access to care, we're living in a rationed system now.

Everyone knows at least one person who has had an issue with an insurance provider. And lets not forget that all of us who have insurance have to pay more for critical treatment of what could have been preventable when the 47 million uninsured need something.

However, we know that Garrett will vote against this based on "principle." However, as with his opposition to SCHIP, Garrett's belief that states should get to decide things for themselves, as he often cites the 10th Amendment, goes straight out the window:

Removing burdensome state coverage mandates and opening up the health care marketplace to competition across state lines could dramatically reduce health care costs in New Jersey and across the country.

So, the mandated coverage that states have decided their citizens should have needs to be removed by the Federal government. But isn't Garrett the one that argues states should be allowed to set their own standards for, well, everything else but health care?

To his credit, Garrett does address some of the things in the mammoth 1,000 page bill as being good ideas. From the Gazette:

Effectiveness: The current health care system reimburses the number of procedures rather than the quality and efficacy of the care. While doctors are compensated for extra tests and hospitals visits, they are not paid for offering telephone consultations or implementing health care IT. By encouraging quality over quantity of care, we can down on over testing and strengthen the doctor-patient relationship

This is part of what Mike Huckabee talked about when he said we have to go from a treatment of the sick mentality to a prevention and well-care mentality. It's a good idea, which is probably why steps are taken in the bill in this direction. Good ideas are good ideas regardless of party.

With Garrett being the only member of our Congressional delegation to oppose the SCHIP expansion, it makes sense that President Obama would come to our state tomorrow in support of Jon Corzine. Our program works, and reading what I have of the bill, it seems to be a further expansion of the good practices we have here. Every Republican except for Garrett believed enough in what we do here to vote for it to continue. We're a model for once. While Obama can boost Corzine, having an example that works boosts Obama.

Is the bill perfect? No. Will the Dem leadership have to capitulate to the Blue Dogs demands for some fiscal sanity? Absolutely. But while the fiscal conservative Democrats and the socialist Democrats find middle ground to move our nation forward, the fear mongering of Garrett and his Republican brethren mean once again our District doesn't have a seat at the table. They're not willing to honestly talk about the debate to their counterparts on the other side of the aisle or their constituents. So, we're going to be left out. Is that representation?

Blue Dogs Step Up on Health Care

2009-07-12T23:45:00.006-04:00

Even though they have been drowned out this weekend by an interestingly timed explosion of stories about the CIA, the Blue Dog Coalition put out a comprehensive letter about why they couldn't support the current Health Care reform package as written. Without the Blue Dogs, a reform package cannot get through the House.

Although some on the left may see this as obstructionist, the reality is the program's price tag needs to give us all pause. We're talking about a trillion dollars here, and as our last trillion dollar mistake should have taught us, if we don't plan well now, we'll be paying more later.

Fiscally conservative in the true sense, readers have to remember that it was the Blue Dogs that called out our own Representative Scott Garrett for refusing to support pay as you go reform and certain balanced budget initiatives. I'm glad they had the courage to put this out there. It was needed.

Here's the letter in it's entirety, as they raise some excellent concerns:

July 9, 2009

.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer:

As members of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, we write today to express our strong reservations about the process and direction of the draft tri-committee health care reform proposal. We share President Obama’s deep commitment to passing comprehensive, deficit-neutral health care reform that lowers costs for American families and businesses, increases the quality of care provided, and expands access for every American. We also believe that the process by which we get there is critically important if we hope to develop responsible health care reform legislation that accomplishes all of these goals.

After reviewing the draft tri-committee health care reform proposal, we believe it lacks a number of elements essential to preserving what works and fixing what is broken. Following are our initial thoughts, and we hope to see a draft at some point that substantially addresses each key item:

Deficit Neutrality – President Obama has repeatedly called for a health care bill that “must and will be paid for.” We do not support health care reform that is not deficit neutral. We have to take steps to control the cost of health care if we ever hope to put our country back on a fiscally sustainable path. As the Senate has done, this may require us to pare back some of the cost-drivers in order to produce a bill that we can afford. We also firmly believe that paying for health care reform must start with finding savings within the current delivery system and maximizing the value of our health care dollar before we ask the public to pay more.

Delivery System Reform – We must be much more aggressive in bending the cost curve. The discussion draft fails to include adequate structural changes that will succeed in lowering costs and increasing value. We cannot simply “add” new consumers to a broken system. The inclusion of pilot programs on Accountable Care Organizations and Medical Homes are good first steps, but innovative delivery system reforms, such as value-based purchasing and the value index, would properly realign incentives to promote high quality, efficient care.

Small Business Protections – Any additional requirements for employers must be carefully considered and done so within the context of what is currently offered. Small business owners and their employees lack coverage because of high and unstable costs – not because of an unwillingness to provide or purchase it. We cannot support a bill that further exacerbates the challenges faced by small businesses.

Rural Health Equity – Rural communities face unique challenges in delivering health care, and our reform efforts must not overlook them. The short-term extensions of rural provisions included in the discussion draft are critical, but we must not fail to address the underlying problems and inequities that plague rural providers. A strong rural package is critical to our support.

Bipartisanship – It is imperative that comprehensive health care include the ideas of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. The American public is looking for us to work together, regardless of party affiliation, to pass comprehensive health care reform.

We also wish to reiterate our support for the recommendations previously made by our Coalition regarding how to appropriately structure a public option. In order to establish a level playing field, providers must be fairly reimbursed at negotiated rates and their participation must be voluntary. A “Medicare-like” public option would negatively impact hospitals, doctors and patients. Medicare reimbursement is on average 20 to 30 percent lower than private plans and this inequity is even greater in some parts of the country. Using Medicare’s below-market rates would seriously weaken the financial stability of our local hospitals and doctors.

Finally, any health care reform legislation that comes to the floor must be available to all Members and the public for a sufficient amount of time before we are asked to vote for it. This includes any amendments or changes to the bill included as part of the rule. We need time to review it and discuss it with our constituents. Too short of a review period is unacceptable and only undermines Congress’ ability to pass responsible health care reform that works for all Americans.

From where we are today, significant progress on the draft tri-committee health care reform proposal needs to be made in order to address each of these concerns. We cannot support a final product that fails to do so. We stand ready to work with you to fulfill President Obama’s goal and lower the cost of health care for American families and businesses.

Garrett to Obama: No New Fed Powers

2009-07-10T15:58:00.002-04:00

Well, Representative Scott Garrett has sent a letter to President Obama requesting an investigation of the Federal Reserve. Garrett's been very vocal over the last couple of weeks about not giving the Fed new regulatory powers. Now, he's been joined by a few other Republicans and a couple of Democrats in calling for an investigation into the Fed's role in the Bank of America takeover of Merrill Lynch.

While I'm not certain Obama will look at it today, being that he met the Pope, Garrett and his guys raise some interesting points. No harm in looking into this before regulations are implemented.

Here's the complete letter:

July 10, 2009

President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform recently held a hearing at which Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, testified regarding his alleged involvement in threats made to the management and board of Bank of America regarding its merger with Merrill Lynch.

While Chairman Bernanke testified that he made no such threats in relation to the merger, there is a considerable amount of other testimony and evidence that calls into question those claims.

As you of course know, the financial services regulatory reform proposal that your Administration put forward two weeks ago contains within it provisions that would grant the Federal Reserve considerable new powers and oversight over a broad swath of industry in this country in order to monitor and take action to reduce “systemic risk” in our economy. Before Congress, working with the Administration, moves forward on granting the Federal Reserve any additional power, however, the actions of the Federal Reserve related to the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch deal need to be fully investigated.

If a thorough investigation of these events brings to light conclusive evidence that the Federal Reserve has overstepped its authority and abused its power under current law (where it already wields considerable regulatory strength and broad authority), it would be inappropriate to grant it sweeping new powers. Even if an investigation does not yield conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the allegations should give the Administration, Congress, and most importantly, the American people, pause before concentrating extensive new power in the hands of one regulatory entity with little to no direct accountability to the public.

Furthermore, there is additional evidence that the Federal Reserve withheld information from other regulators regarding its interaction with Bank of America. Again, with efforts underway to increase cooperation among regulatory entities, this evidence raises serious questions about the Federal Reserve’s commitment to collaboration with other regulators and about the wisdom of concentrating even more power in this entity.

Given the events of the last few years and the resulting financial and economic turmoil in which our country now finds itself, it is appropriate that your administration, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and many other public and private entities, engage in a wide-ranging debate about what reforms are needed for our financial regulatory system. Momentum is now beginning to form to enact legislation to implement reforms. No additional powers should be contemplated for the Federal Reserve, however, until this issue is thoroughly investigated and the Federal Reserve is cleared of any wrongdoing. As mentioned above, even if it is cleared, we must ask ourselves, and we believe the American people are asking themselves, do we really want to centralize even more power in this entity?

Sincerely,

Scott Garrett
Member of Congress

Menendez & Torricelli: The Company You Keep

2009-06-30T22:18:00.005-04:00

Herb Jackson had an interesting piece in The Record today about Senator Bob Menendez's newest ally as chair of the DSCC: Disgraced former Senator Robert Torricelli. If President Obama was serious about getting the stink of corruption and special interests out of politics, Menendez picked the wrong guy "to be helpful".

Here Jackson discusses Torricelli's recent campaign donations:

The DSCC was the biggest single recipient, getting $135,000. Other recipients included the Bergen County Democratic Organization, which got $44,000; and $10,000 contributed in 2003 to the campaign of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who left office this year facing accusations he tried to sell the appointment to fill President Obama’s vacated Senate seat.

So, Torricelli donated to indicted Joe Ferriero's BCDO machine and indicted Blagojevich. Jackson posted the invite on his blog. One has to wonder if Senator Roland Burris was among the unspecified "Members of the Senate Democratic Caucus".

Folks need to remember that several of those involved with Torricelli in the past pled guilty to illegal campaign activity. Simply stated, Torricelli's campaign contributions don't pass the smell test at this point and haven't for years.

How Menendez, having to fend off his own corruption accusations in 2006, could choose Torricelli as his go to guy in North Jersey is baffling if improving the culture in Washington is actually a goal. At least at first glance, this is simply more of the same money conquers any principle fundraising. Such a shame.

Read the Bill

2009-06-28T13:12:00.006-04:00

I realized it's been a while since I last wrote, however a transparency bill has been introduced recently that I hope our Representative Scott Garrett and the rest of the delegation from New Jersey will get behind: H. Res. 554.

Here's the purpose of the bill:

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that legislation and conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and for other purposes.

Often is the case that you will see Garrett and other members of the House lament the short amount of time available to review a bill, yet the Resolution only has 1 primary and 4 co-sponsors.

Congress passes legislation almost every day that no one has read, except the staffers who wrote it and the lobbyists who helped them. We've seen it with everything from spending bills to the Patriot Act to the stimulus package. Often complained about by members, neither party's leadership seem willing to embrace the 72 hour practice.

The good people at the Sunlight Foundation are leading the charge to change this with ReadTheBill.org, which supports H. Res. 554. Everyone should be on board with this, because the idea of Congress enacting law without actually reading what they're voting on should be troubling to us all.

Thoughts on Corzine vs. Christie

2009-06-02T23:21:00.003-04:00

So the field is set for yet another very expensive, very nasty campaign here in New Jersey. Governor Jon Corzine against former US Attorney Chris Christie. The gloves definitely came off during Corzine's rally.

Corzine is down in the polls, and it's going to be a heck of a fight. Bad economy, an inherited mess worsened by the Mess, and some high profile issues and missteps (selling the Turnpike?) are working against the Governor.

Christie's biggest problem, aside from the multi-million dollar no-bid contracts, is the Republican brand itself. Biden and Corzine hit on it in a couple ways, but Corzine became impassioned to the point I thought he was going to levitate off the stage when delivering this part of his speech:

Our opponents disagree. They say that government should be small ... Small enough to slip under your bedroom door. Small enough to root for a new president to fail ... Narrow enough to divide us by gender and ethnicity over a Supreme Court nominee ... Self-righteous enough to dictate their own religious beliefs to the rest of us ...on stem cell research ... family planning ... and even science curricula. We must be bigger than that.

Distilled into a few moments, Corzine's delivery of this characterization that Republicans have earned over the last few years was impressive. As part of his effort to pump up the troops, Corzine's personal passion on this point was palpable.

It will be interesting to see how Christie's campaign deals with this earned image of Republicans, and if voters can accept it or not.

Oh , this is going to be fun.

Pictures of the rally in the next couple of days.

Corzine Kick-off

2009-06-02T19:37:00.009-04:00

Well,after two hours in the car, I finally made it to West Orange for Jon Corzine's campaign kick-off.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell started the festivities off. She sounded what is likely to be one of the themes of the campaign: Republicans want to implement in Trenton the exact kind of policies and politics voters rejected last November.

7:55 - Not that it's a reason to vote for the guy, but the music is pretty good. Although, for an ice rink it is really hot in here.

8:01 - Bio video has begun. Very cool.

Both coming out now

Biden speaking now. Very strong.

Biden is going over Gov. Corzine's accomplishments. "This is America's Governor".
Corzine has started. He"s thanking everyone for their help. "With great leaders like Joe Biden in our corner we will prevail."

The Party of No argument is being made.

"The only things Republicans have delivered is the worst economic crisis in 80 years."

Wow, he just exploded about the Republican Party.

"I've been a fighter all my life"

More updates coming...

Retire Garrett Launches Newsletter

2009-05-30T16:19:00.002-04:00

The folks over at Retire Garrett have launched a newsletter aimed at removing Representative Scott Garrett. Done in PDF, it's easy to e-mail to folks who don't tend to go to blogs. It introduces the organization to those unfamiliar with it:

We are constituents of the 5th Congressional District who are concerned about the extreme political stance of our congressman, Scott Garrett. We are people from all walks of life, people of all ages, people from all political parties, people without party affiliation, we are people who reject extremism, the watchword of Representative Garrett.

The group has already received some early press for their efforts. Another Retire Garrett event was promised some time in June or July, I'll keep everybody posted as to when it is.

Moron for Kansas 1

2009-05-28T21:53:00.003-04:00

I realize I haven't been writing much of late, but this was just too much to pass on. Somehow I got on the mailing list for Rob Wasinger, who is running for the House in Kansas's 1st Congressional District.

One of the things that started my running and writing about our Representative Scott Garrett was his blatant misrepresentation of facts a few years back. To his credit, he and his new staff seem to have dropped the habit of late. However, that doesn't mean others won't mislead voters in order to win favor.

Such seems to be the case with Mr. Wasinger. In a roughly 500 word diatribe against Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Wasinger drops a few gems ignoring a fundamental fact: The House Doesn't Vote on Judges.

Here's what I mean:

I am running for Congress because of our shared conservative values,especailly our belief in a judiciary that upholds the Constitution and does not legislate from the bench.

I've been in the Court battles. As the former chief-of-staff to Senator Brownback, a member of the Judiciary Committee, I've seen first-hand the growing power of the judiciary and know how to stop it.
And I pledge to you: I'll always put principle above politics.

It'd be nice if one of his principles wasn't to misinform voters in the process.

My personal favorite is this one:

Let's weaken Obama in 2010 by taking back Congress to ensure we have enough votes to block liberal appointments to the federal judiciary.

Not only does the House not vote on Judicial appointments, but Kansas 1 hasn't had a Democrat holding the seat since 1955.

This is exactly the sort of partisan misinformation campaign that really destroys our ability to move forward. Who knows, Wasinger could be the next Representative from Kansas 1. But at some point, we as a people have to stop electing people who blatantly misrepresent the truth.

And Republicans, should they ever want to gain national trust again, have to stop accepting this kind of behavior.

Congressional Art Competition

2009-05-12T18:06:00.001-04:00

This is one of the cool things that Representative Scott Garrett and other members of Congress get to do every year. From the Garrett Gazette:

Please join me for this year's Congressional Art Competition on Saturday, May 16 at Sussex County Community College, from 10:00am to noon.

I have been collecting submissions from fifth district high school students for the competition, and this Saturday, we will showcase all of their submissions and announce this year's winners.

The Congressional Art Competition showcases paintings, drawings, collages, and prints submitted by high school artists. A panel of local judges will determine the best artwork and I will announce the winners at an awards ceremony following the reception. This is a great opportunity to view the work of local students and support their creative efforts.

The first place winner will have his or her piece displayed for a year in the U.S. Capitol Complex, along with other winning pieces from around the country. The second place piece of artwork will be displayed for a year in my Washington, D.C. office and the third and fourth place pieces will be showcased in my district offices.

The response from area high school students has been simply outstanding. I am proud to have my office participate in this competition every year, and so pleased to recognize the efforts of student artists in our community.

Sincerely,

Scott Garrett
Member of Congress

Garrett's Statement On His Mortgage Vote

2009-05-07T17:40:00.003-04:00

As noted earlier today, if Representative Scott Garrett decided to shed some light as to why he joined 14% of voting Members in opposing cracking down on predatory lending and fraud I'd post it. It's roughly the same "if we take the fraud and dishonesty out of the process, you the consumer will be hurt" line of logic he used justifying being opposed to credit card reform.

Here's his statement:

“At a time when millions of Americans are still feeling the pain from the credit crisis, this bill will further restrict credit options for consumers and decrease liquidity in our nation’s mortgage markets.

“Additionally, it’s unfortunate that this bill does not do anything to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As these two entities have been identified among the leading causes of the financial crisis, it should be a top priority to address the problems with them as soon as possible.

Garrett had issued this statement on an earlier version of the bill that I had missed:

“The intent of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act is to improve mortgage lending regulation. Unfortunately, this legislation has the potential to limit the accessibility of home financing options for consumers, while increasing the cost of credit. Due to its breadth in scope, there is the potential for many unintended consequences in the marketplace, as the legislation affects everyone from the mortgage originators that make loans to the securitizers that package the loans in the secondary market.

“I do appreciate the intent of the bill, which is to increase underwriting standards and protect borrowers. In actuality, though, this bill is flawed in many ways, as it contains a weak safe harbor provision, increases the liability for assignees and securitizers and places a larger class of loans under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act’s (HOEPA) high-cost provisions.

“In addition, the risk retention requirements as structured will force lenders to markedly increase their capital, which will further narrow credit choices and increase the cost of borrowing for consumers. I applaud Chairman Frank for his efforts in trying to address the important issue of risk retention, however, I believe there are ways to construct this provision more effectively. I look forward to working with him to find solutions for this matter, possibly in the form of covered bonds, which have the potential to aid in returning liquidity to the mortgage market with their high underwriting standards and may also serve as an alternative to securitization.”

Garrett Hearts Predatory Lenders?

2009-05-07T11:55:00.004-04:00

Well, Representative Scott Garrett was one of 59 Representatives to vote against providing the resources to crack down on predatory lenders. Garrett's vote really, to me at least, makes no sense.

I can understand him standing with the hedge funds, he always has. I can understand him standing with the credit card companies that double bill, his opinion is that those taking cards have the responsibility to know they're getting ripped off.

But not prosecuting fraud?

What's the logic causing one to vote against providing the money to investigate and prosecute those predatory lenders who assisted in the financial markets melting? If there aren't prosecutions, does that validate his perception it's the borrowers fault? I realize Garrett usually doesn't want to blame lenders, but he has to recognize predatory lenders exist.

And the bill deals with sniffing out fraud with TARP funds. For a guy that spends a lot of time talking about waste fraud and abuse, I would have thought when the opportunity to throw those folks in jail came along he would have been on board. Not providing funding to crack down on TARP fraud?

If Garrett posts a statement regarding this vote, I'll put it up.

Garrett Shows Hedge Fund Love

2009-05-06T17:14:00.003-04:00

Representative Scott Garrett released a statement criticizing President Obama for pointing out that it was hedge funds holding the debt of Chrysler who wouldn't budge enough to prevent bankruptcy. I've put the whole statement below, but here's the kicker of Garrett's statement:

Many of those invested in these funds were seniors, school teachers, and others whose pension funds are an important component in maintaining a healthy standard of living throughout their retirement.

The line, although nicely dressed up, is pretty much pulled straight from the statement the hedge funds put out to defend themselves:

We have a fiduciary responsibility to all those teachers, pensioners, retirees and others who have entrusted their money to us.

If hedge funds actually had to file who was investing in them, it might be possible to prove their statement, but alas they don't and we can't. One can have a healthy amount of skepticism though, as hedge funds are limited in size by both number of investors (100) and net worth requirements (typically at least $5 million).

So it's interesting to see them spin this like they're some kind of social safety net, when they were given their privileged status because their investors are at less risk than most folks. The funds themselves are so unregulated, and charge so much in fees, states like New Jersey either won't allow or severely limit the amount of public pension that can be invested in them (you know, for teachers, etc.).

However, as long as they have people in Congress like Garrett to turn to, they'll have their champions.

Those that pay the AMT have to remember folks like Garrett voted against taxing hedge fund managers like normal people to patch the AMT. As I noted at the time, doing that would have provided a blue print for permanent repeal. Garrett put 5,000 of these fund managers above the millions who are subjected to the AMT. At least he's consistently supportive of the funds.

Here's Garrett's full statement:

“I am troubled by President Obama’s statements that single out a certain class of Chrysler’s creditors. The president’s comments display complete disregard for the rule of law, as well as the practices which govern our bankruptcy code.
“The actions of the hedge fund managers in exercising their fiduciary responsibilities to their investors is not the reason why Chrysler is in jeopardy, and their acceptance of the government’s offer would not have guaranteed the company’s success. I think the president should think about who he's attacking when he makes these statements. Many of those invested in these funds were seniors, school teachers, and others whose pension funds are an important component in maintaining a healthy standard of living throughout their retirement.
“This demonization of investors comes at the same time when the administration’s Treasury Department is begging for participation from the private sector in its Public-Private Investment Program. The president’s comments beg the question: why would private investors enter into a partnership with the government when there is the future possibility of being publicly scolded for making business decisions the government dislikes?
“It’s time for the government to stop interfering in the marketplace. It simply creates greater uncertainty, facilitates the choosing of winners and losers, and prevents private capital from entering the marketplace.”

Garrett Explains Credit Card Vote

2009-05-06T10:46:00.003-04:00

Representative Scott Garrett was on NPR to explain his being one of only 70 (and only from NJ) to vote against the Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights. Garrett maintains that if the credit card companies can't do things like double billing, they'll stop issuing credit cards. Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, and the interviewer, take him to task.

CFG, GOP and Specter

2009-04-30T17:00:00.004-04:00

I've written enough times about the Club for Growth, and their links to Representative Scott Garrett, that people are aware how wrong I think they are. Now, in the game of finger pointing about why Senator Arlen Specter switched parties, they're finally taking some heat. There are lessons in this for Republicans and Democrats.

From Politico:

(Sen. Orrin) Hatch, the No. 2 man at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Toomey can’t win in a general election in Pennsylvania — and that by chasing out Specter, the Club for Growth and its backers may have cost the GOP another seat in the Senate.

“I don’t think it had anything to do with leadership; it had to do with Club for Growth,” the Utah Republican said of Specter’s switch. “I wish they’d spend their money going after Democrats, rather than Republicans. ... Let’s just be honest about it: In blue states, we’re not going to get conservative Republicans. It’s just that simple.

[snip]

“I would remind Mr. Steele and some of our party leaders: Theirs is a job of winning elections, of increasing party strength, not of forming some sort of party purity police so this grand experiment to shrink the base to its purest form finds us confined to a phone booth,” (veteran GOP strategist John) Weaver said.

The Club for Growth only received 2903 donations from individuals last election cycle. Granted, they raised and spent $3.4 million, but it came from 2,900 people. That's less than seven people per Congressional District.

Yet the Republican Party tolerates their slash and burn tactics. They can't be a player in a general because their message doesn't resonate, so they go in the primary forcing good Representatives like Marge Roukema into early retirement, cost Lincoln Chaffee reelection by burning his warchest, and switches by long time public servants like Sen. Specter.

And what do they get?

They get to pad their paychecks by pointing to things like Garrett's recent vote against clean water as success, wringing their hands they don't have more people like him. They never seem to point to the fact he was only one of ten to vote that way. Such bluntness would probably be too demoralizing or a wake up call to help the CFG faithful realize they're pouring money into a an ideological black hole.

As the GOP continues it's march toward irrelevance, Democrats can't be too certain it can't happen to them as well. Voters saw it in Connecticut with the campaign against Lieberman. Targeted by MoveOn, Leiberman and his 90% Democratic voting record spoke at the Republican National Convention last summer.

Granted, MoveOn crushes the Club for Growth in terms of number of donors and raised ten times as much money last cycle, but it's still only about 11,000 donors. That's a whopping 26 people per Congressional District of 600,000.

The claims by special interests that the locally elected representatives of a District or state have lost touch with their constituents and therefore merit a primary challenge are just that; claims by a special interest they don't like the representative. Sure, there are Districts throughout the nation where the general is won on Primary Day, but the assault on moderates in moderate Districts is a recipe for disaster for either party.

It's what happened to the Republicans, and the Democrats need to guard against it.

Bye Bye Pontiac

2009-04-27T16:31:00.004-04:00

I was rather sad to see the news that GM is going to be shutting Pontiac down. My first car was a 1976 Grand Le Mans (similar to one pictured above), and I've had many many Pontiac rental cars (I ask for them). Even though I drive a Chevy, I've always had a soft spot for Pontiac.

The ones who follow these sorts of things have often speculated it would be Pontiac or Saturn to go down, another brand I'm fond of.

As sorry as I am to see the brand go, my heart really goes out to the 21,000 folks who are going to lose their jobs. Unfotunately, many of these people are the victims of "this quarter's all that counts" mentality that's dominated the American auto-industry for decades now.

Farewell, old friend.

Garrett's Reading List

2009-04-22T10:53:00.001-04:00

Politico has an interesting article about the Republican Party's new favorite book: The Forgotten Man. The book has been hailed and derided for it's approach to covering the New Deal from the perspective of the wealthy. It's subtitle is telling: A New History of the Great Depression

Our own Representative Scott Garrett and staff are prominently featured in the Politico article.

“It’s been suggested as required reading for all of us, I think,” said Erica Elliott, press secretary for Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) — who himself notes that his chief of staff “stole” his hardback copy, so he had to purchase a paperback.
Garrett said the book “is a good read” that details, among other things, “how FDR engaged in vitriolic demonizing of Wall Street and Big Business to advance his agenda.”

Also, he jokes, “it had good pictures when you get to the middle.”

Here's a little lesson from the book that Politico pointed out:

Of course Hoover and Roosevelt may have had no choice but to pursue the policies they did. They may indeed have spared the country something worse — an American version of Stalin’s communism or Mussolini’s fascism.

It should be interesting to see if the Republicans butcher the intent of the book, or simply ignore the parts they don't like, kind of like Scripture or Goldwater's The Conscience of the Conservative. Looking forward to reading this one.

Garrett on Durban II

2009-04-21T16:01:00.004-04:00

It was hard to miss President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hijacking of a conference that was supposed to lead to an end of racism. Representative Scott Garrett released a very strong statement condemning both Ahmadinejad and the tone of Durban II:

“The Durban II Conference is not a peaceful platform for transcending racial and cultural intolerance; it’s a forum for hatred targeted at the United States, Israel and Europe. This is clearly illustrated in the comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who today labeled Israel as an oppressive entity.

“The participants of this conference will likely ignore the ongoing persecution of people in places like Darfur, Liberia, and the Congo—even though their suffering is in part fueled by ethnic discrimination. In addition, the participants aren’t likely to oppose the oppression of women or religious minorities across the globe.

“As thousands of innocent people continue to be victims of ethnic discrimination, I find it shameful that the United Nations would waste an opportunity to hold a conference that could have raised awareness about ongoing atrocities. Instead of an open and frank discussion about promoting freedom and equality, this facade promotes intolerance.

“I applaud President Obama for choosing to boycott Durban II and I am pleased that Canada, Israel, Australia, Italy, and several other countries have made the same decision. I now urge my colleagues in the U.S. Congress to join me in going one step farther.

“A few weeks ago, I re-introduced a bill that would prohibit U.S. funds from going towards the Durban Review Conference. We currently finance 22 percent of the total U.N. budget, on which there are no usage restrictions. I believe that one of the best ways to achieve U.N. accountability is by making sure that we put our money where our mouth is and prohibit the use of U.S. funds to spread hatred. Hopefully, we can encourage the U.N. to see that this conference actually harms global efforts to advance freedom.”

The Tea Parties

2009-04-16T18:30:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, in addition to being tax filing day, also became national "teabagging" day as thousands took to the streets to protest having to pay taxes. It's interesting that those leading the charge are many of the same people that looked the other way while the Bush Administration and his Republican Congress were saying deficits don't matter.

Our own Representative Scott Garrett got in on the action, mentioning the tea parties in an Op-Ed he got published in the Herald News.

Americans recognize that the government needs their tax dollars to function and provide essential programs for our country, and Americans have always been willing to pay their fair share.

As nice a statement as it is, the "fair share" thing depends who you're talking to.

The reason our District gets crushed by the AMT is because getting rid of it would force taxes and/or borrowing up for the rest of the nation. There was the thought of taxing 5,000 or so hedge fund managers like normal people, which actually would have been a huge step toward repealing the AMT, but Garrett and others rejected the approach. Is that fair?

And what's essential?

You're reading this, so you're benefiting from the investment of taxpayers in the 60's, 70's and 80's to build the technology and backbone of the Internet.

On top of that, chances are, you honed your reading skills thanks to the investment of those taxpayers working when you were a kid. And there's no doubt many of us survived childhood due to vaccines that were funded by taxpayers from the 1920s to present day.

If you're at your job, it's roads and transit that others paid for to get you there. Ever pay to pave your driveway? Imagine having to pave your own road to work.

And we all cheered when Captain Richard Phillips was rescued, but we can't forget that taxpayers footed a lot of bills to get the SEALS to where they needed to be to take those shots, starting in kindergarten.

Now, there's no doubt the government spends a lot of money it doesn't need to. Programs like Medicare Advantage, where taxpayers are paying more for services than they should be, are ripe throughout government. Any meaningful change in tax and spending policy has to start by sifting things like that out. However, we're coming out of eight years of tax cut and spend, which eliminated not only deficit hawks but true fiscal conservatives in government.

In addition to no-bid contracts, earmarks tend to be a top waste of money, or at the very least one of the biggest ways of preventing us from making sure we're getting the best bang for our buck. Unfortunately, there are only 35 Representatives who don't request earmarks.

If you're one of the teabaggers reading this, then hold your own Representative accountable. If they're earmarking, they're not helping reduce government spending. If they're talking about eliminating national programs, they're talking about raising your local taxes. If they're talking about giving you tax cuts, but won't cut programs we don't need like the F-22, they're talking about taxing your grandchildren.

Protests like yesterday don't mean anything when people re-elect their own elected officials 90% of the time. The whole mess is our own fault, and it hardly started with Obama. Sure, Republicans seized and nourished the rage, but that's the greatest con-job of all since they were the ones handing out no-bid contracts in Iraq and were in control of Congress and regulation agencies when things started falling apart in the financial sector.

The partisanship, the name calling, all of it needs to stop. We're in a hole we allowed ourselves to be put in, and now we're going to have to dig ourselves out. It is possible we will, but the anger expressed yesterday needs to be transformed from name calling into concrete ideas. And voters need to wake up and realize where we're at has been decades in the making, and it's likely going to take a decade to fix.

NJ Transit Cuts

2009-04-09T15:54:00.000-04:00

For those that hadn't seen it, it looks like the Governor is about to cut $62 million from the budget of NJ Transit. State officials are saying it's part of a larger group of cuts, but one has to hope this was a misquote.

"In that $4 billion, of 2,400 line items in the budget, 36 are reduced and NJ Transit is not immune from this," said Tom Vincz, Treasury Department spokesman. "We have asked all stakeholders to share the burden, and this is in line with the efficiencies we've asked of all agencies."

Out of 2,400, 36 are reduced? Even if it was 240 lines, it hardly seems like all stakeholders are taking a hit.

I've written before about my frustration with parking and the elimination of half of my night time trains. Now, it looks like they may have to cut more service. Although NJ Transit said they're going to try and avoid it, having their funding reduced 17% may make it impossible to avoid.

The State is not being smart about this. It costs the state less in terms of road repair, emergency services, and lost productivity (sitting in traffic) to have people use mass transit. Now is not the time to make it harder to use mass transit, and that's exactly what the Governor's proposal seems to do.

Our Military Industrial Nightmare

2009-04-08T00:35:00.000-04:00

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has done the unthinkable: he's had the gall to recommend cutting military programs that aren't needed and shifting money to ones that are. The horror.

Here's how Gates sums up his view:

"When programs are out of control, when they're six years late, when they're twice the cost that they were originally forecast, something has to be done. Something has to give," Gates said.

That makes sense, to normal people, but the same article provides a clear example of how messed up Washington thought is:

"There are certain policy decisions Congress has a say so in, and we are going to have a say," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who wants to buy up to 60 more of the F-22 fighter jets, said Tuesday.

That's 60 planes the Pentagon doesn't want, at $150 million a piece. Now, our Representative Scott Garrett and both Senators Menendez and Lautenberg have been guilty of getting money for programs the Pentagon doesn't want, but never to the tune of $9 billion dollars.

The problem is Congress as a whole ignores the Pentagon all the time. We need body armor, Congress gets us a new plane. What's going to make this fight even more bizarre than normal is the fact Gates's proposal isn't even cutting the budget. He's telling Congress we're changing what we're buying to what we need.

The early criticism just reinforces that Congress has been sucked into buying what they're told by lobbyists we need as opposed to the Pentagon. It's tragic that Congress will borrow whatever it takes to make their campaign donors happy.

It wasn't even 50 years ago that Eisenhower coined the phrase Military Industrial Complex. For those that forgot his prophetic warning, here it is:

Garrett Talks Budget on CNBC

2009-04-03T11:20:00.000-04:00

This was interesting to watch:

Republican Budget Bonanza

2009-04-02T15:18:00.000-04:00

Well, with the Budget Spin wars going in full steam, I figured I'd print off the President's Budget, the CBO's estimate on the President's Budget, and the Republican Alternative introduced by Representative Scott Garrett and his Republican colleagues yesterday. It's interesting to sit and have all the documents on the desk at the same time.

Both proposals are disappoinging in that neither even pretends to attempt to balance the budget. As I wrote in an earlier post, both parties are addicted to deficit spending, it's just a matter of what they're borrowing for.

While Obama's budget has been scrutinized a lot, we knew where he was coming from because he's been talking about it since 2007. Even though there's no shot of the Republican Budget passing, it's interesting to now see where their conversation starts:

The budget gives priority to the Federal Government’s most important obligations, national defense, veterans’ benefits, and homeland security activities. All other appropriated spending is level-funded for fiscal years 2010-14, and then increased at a moderate rate through 2019.

So the party of Eisenhower and his warning against the military industrial complex has completely embraced a defense only spending mentality. It's unfortunate that Republicans see our military spending as a jobs programs. Money to get more teachers? Doctors? Green Collar? Nope.

It's also interesting to see their views on return on investment. In their argument in support of more drilling and against the cap and trade proposal (which, thankfully, is going nowhere fast), they cite "studies" that for every $1 billion invested in big oil, 5,400 jobs are created. That's spending $185,000 to create one job.

The SBA, whose budget is frozen by the Republican "vision", creates a job for every $50,000 lent, at a cost of around $200. Either way you look at it, Republicans are embracing a jobs figure that costs between 370% to 92,600% more to create a job.

That's not ensuring our tax dollars are being spent wisely, but it's consistent with other schemes like Medicare Advantage or hiring Blackwater to handle security, where taxpayers pay more for service than if the government did it itself. That's not fiscal responsibility, it's fiscal fleecing, and Republicans want to return to being trusted stewards?

Adding insult to injury is their tax proposal, which throws everyone into an AMT like structure by eliminating deductions, credits, etc. It also makes permanent things like the competitive advantage they gave foreign companies and taxing firefighters at a higher rate than hedge fund managers.

No one can argue that Obama's budget is fiscally responsible, doubling the national debt in ten years, although still less than Reagan in terms of percent. Unfortunately, the Republican alternative still adds roughly 50% to the debt over ten years, while continuing many of the policies and objectives that got us in this mess in the first place.

At some point, somebody is going to have to put our fiscal house in order, maybe before our grandchildren die.

9,288

2009-03-27T09:42:00.002-04:00

As of this moment, that is how many press mentions Representative Scott Garrett has right now on Google regarding the financial situations.

Garrett on Geithner's Plan

2009-03-25T12:56:00.003-04:00

Representative Scott Garrett got a lot of press today for his involvement in the hearing with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke yesterday. You can read his opening statement here.

Here's my personal favorite comment he made in an interview, as reported by the National Journal:

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ): "We've heard the story before under the prior secretary of Treasury, where he said he had a plan, it is the only plan, and that plan will work. ... I guess he's suggesting that it's something to do with will that has to get it done. No. I think it really has to get down to what's in the weeds of the plan and whether the plans are actually good ideas from day one"

We're talking trillions of dollars, and people have to ask questions.

Stimulus Scams

2009-03-24T14:16:00.001-04:00

Another piece of the update from Representative Scott Garrett covers stimulus scams:

SEEING THROUGH STIMULUS SCAMS

With talk of stimulus plans ruling the news, it’s no surprise a new round of stimulus scams are afoot.

Here’s how it goes: An email, online ad, or website says you’re eligible to get an economic stimulus payment. You just have to send back a form or submit one online to get it. The message might appear to come from a rebate company or look like it’s straight from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

But the promise of stimulus money in return for a fee or financial information is always a scam, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation’s consumer protection agency.

There’s more than one way to perpetuate a stimulus scam. Some scam artists ask you to send a small processing fee, supposedly to get a much larger check in return. That’s money you’ll never see again. Others skip the fee, and instead, ask for your bank account number so they can “deposit” your check. Then, they use the information to clean out your account or open new ones using your identifying information.

Some stimulus scams encourage you to click on links, open attached forms, or call phony toll-free numbers. But simply clicking the link or opening the document can install harmful software, like spyware, on your computer. The result could be your personal information ending up in the hands of an identity thief.

If you get a message offering you money from the stimulus program in exchange for your personal information, ignore it, delete it, or throw it out. The IRS doesn’t send emails like this asking for personal information, and rebate companies claiming to have stimulus payments for you should not be trusted, regardless of how plausible the script sounds or how official the forms look.

When a stimulus plan does involve a check to you (it may not), you won’t need to fill out a separate form in an email or give out personal information — like account numbers or your Social Security number — to someone who calls you out of the blue.

If you get an unexpected email from someone claiming to be from the IRS and asking you to call a number or email back personal information, forward it to phishing@irs.gov, then delete it without clicking on any links or opening any attachments. If you think you are the target of a scam, you also can file a complaint with the FTC at ftc.gov/complaint.

If you need to reach an agency like the IRS, don’t use phone numbers or links included in an email. Always type the web address directly into your browser, and look up any url you aren’t sure about. Use phone numbers listed on agency websites or in other reliable sources, like the Blue Pages in your phone directory.

The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint or to get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and investigative tool used by hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

Ringwood Superfund Meeting Tonight

2009-03-24T14:11:00.003-04:00

Just got this week's update from Representative Scott Garrett, and for those concerned with the Ringwood Superfund site, there's a meeting tonight. Garrett also provided a link to where residents and citizens can get more information. Here's the post:

EPA TO UPDATE PUBLIC ON PROGRESS AT RINGWOOD SITE

As part of its ongoing commitment in keeping residents informed of the most recent activities at the Ringwood Mines Superfund Site, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will host a public information session at the Ryerson Middle School in Ringwood, New Jersey on March 24, 2009 at 7:30pm. This information session will be an opportunity for residents and other stakeholders to discuss issues and ask questions related to the site.

“EPA has and continues to work closely with interested members of the Ringwood community on every aspect of our work at this site,” said acting Regional Administrator George Pavlou. “We are keeping the line of communications open and will continue to make sure people have access to EPA experts and can participate in the important process of addressing contamination at this site.”

EPA will update residents on the work that has gone on at the Ringwood Mines Superfund site in the past year during the public session. This update will include discussion of cleanup actions taken at the site, as well as discussion of future plans for work at the site. The information session will be held at the Ryerson Middle School, located at 130 Valley Road in Ringwood, New Jersey. EPA welcomes all residents and members of the community to attend the public information session to ask questions or raise any concerns they may have in relation to the Ringwood Mines Superfund site.

To find out more about the Ringwood Mines Superfund site, visit:
http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/ringwood/index.html.

Garrett: End Partisanship?

2009-03-23T17:47:00.001-04:00

Well, here's to hoping, from Reuters:

"The severity of issues facing our financial regulatory system calls for us to put aside partisan differences and elevate the level of dialogue," said New Jersey Rep. Scott Garrett, top subcommittee Republican, in a statement.

I've written a lot about partisanship, as well as how unhelpful Garrett's normally overly partisan nature is toward getting anything done. Just last week he took to the floor slamming all things Democrat, to the point he engaged in a fight over who started the Federal Reserve a hundred years ago.

Seriously, American families worried about paying their bills don't care who is to blame, and certainly don't care what party did what a hundred years ago. It's petty and pointless, but is a great example of why we'll have to be a more than a bit skeptical that Garrett actually act on this sentiment. That said, here's to hoping he'll act this way, because Garrett's statement is right even if his actions to date are partisan.

Our nation can't afford anymore of this childish bickering over who is to blame. Both parties are to blame, big time, and both parties are going to have to work to get us out of this mess.

Garrett: Let AIG Keep Bonuses

2009-03-19T16:38:00.006-04:00

Representative Scott Garrett has been pretty good in opposing all things bailout, but he seems to have lost touch with reality a bit today.

This tax gives the government permission to take what is private property.

Nope, sorry Scott, that's the people's money AIG was handing out and we the people have asked for it back, and 77% of Representatives voting went and got it for us.

The thing is, Garrett's statement comes across as an opposition to the reclamation of taxpayer's money because he was opposed to giving it in the first place.

The pointing of fingers at those receiving bonuses is shifting the blame from who’s really at fault.

Even though these bonuses were given to those responsible for the economic meltdown, Garrett only wants to blame the Democrats for this, we get it. However, two wrongs have never made a right, and for someone who has been so right on opposing the bailouts, it's disappointing to see him so wrong on this.

Garrett on AIG

2009-03-18T21:47:00.003-04:00

Representative Scott Garrett has had a number of good quotes printed today regarding the AIG mess. Here's a sampling:

From the Associated Press:

"Part of me wants to say to some of the loudest critics, 'What did you expect and why weren't you asking more questions before?' I would argue that the real outrage now is the $170 billion of taxpayer money that's been pumped into this company and to what effect," he said.

From Voice of America:

"Why didn't [Treasury] Secretary [Timothy] Geithner raise this issue just last week with the president when we knew he was briefed in detail about the bonuses from the CEO of AIG? What about the fact that the Fed [i.e., Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank] and the administration still have not outlined an exit strategy from this whole situation? "

The problem here is that Republicans are doing a little bit of revisionist history when it comes to TARP. Garrett, to his credit, was against all the bailouts all of the time.

However, I keep seeing Republicans doing their best to make it seem like it wasn't President Bush who started this whole thing. Or the fact after the House defeated the first bailout, it caved a few days later.

Unfortunately, both parties are guilty of creating this mess. The contracts were known about since before TARP I, and we still gave them money. This is a bi-partisan mess, and it doesn't do the nation any good for the Republicans to be dancing around while the nation burns.

Call an Earmark an Earmark

2009-03-18T21:33:00.003-04:00

I've used this title before, but Representative Scott Garrett made it into the Warren Reporter for getting a "grant" again:

This Institute was made possible by a grant of $894,348 awarded to Centenary College from the U.S. Department of Justice to develop a fully-integrated incident response and crisis management training for law enforcement agencies and first responders in small rural and suburban communities in Northwest New Jersey, as announced by Congressman E. Scott Garrett in June.

This was an earmark. The problem is that calling these things grants gives the impression that the program beat out other similar programs for funding because it's a superior use of taxpayer money. This simply isn't the case.

I have nothing against Centenary. It's a excellent school that I was fortunate to visit during the campaign a few years back. The problem is with the earmarking practice as it relates to taxpayer money.

Could another NJ college provide this same program at a lower cost? Could another college have better outcomes? Is another college more qualified?

We'll never know the answers to these questions because there was no competition for these funds. With Garrett bestowing the money, we lose the guarantee of a review beforehand, and the reporting requirements on an earmark are less than for a grant after the fact.

I have no doubt Centenary will do a fine job, but let's call and earmark an earmark.

Happy Sunshine Week

2009-03-16T13:40:00.004-04:00

For those that hadn't heard, this is Sunshine Week. For those that are unfamiliar, here's the description from the website:

Sunshine Week is a national initiative to open a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include print, broadcast and online news media, civic groups, libraries, non-profits, schools and others interested in the public's right to know.

There's a lot of useful information gathered by government at all levels which could, and likely would, help shape our direction forward on a number of issues. Unfortunately, much of this information is either not available or difficult to access and compile.

As an example, our state recently received high marks for making things available on-line. However, anyone who wants to compile how much an individual receiving a no-bid contract has donated to the powers that be must compile it themselves. Hardly encouraging for citizen participation.

There's a long way to go for us to get all the information out there that we the people are entitled to. As I mentioned earlier, Bloomberg News has had to sue the Fed to find out where all of our bailout money is going. Under enormous pressure, AIG, disclosed who received some of their bailout money today after people went crazy they were giving out an estimated $450 million in bonuses to the very people who ran the company into the ground. Without public pressure, they may never have yielded.

This week promises to showcase the unveiling of several new initiatives and pieces of legislation nationwide aimed at providing we the people with our information. Should be interesting to see what comes out of it, but a good government is a transparent government.

Garrett Gets a Favorable Op-Ed

2009-03-13T13:59:00.006-04:00

While it's not uncommon for Representative Scott Garrett to find himself the focus of editorials, columns, and blog posts (clammyc rips him today on Blue Jersey); it's rather uncommon for him to get 1,500 words of praise.

However, that's happened over at PolitickerNJ, where former EPA Region 2 Administrator Alan Steinberg talked about bailouts and credit default swaps. Here's a taste:

I first met Scott Garrett when I began my service as Senior Policy Advisor on the Assembly Republican Staff in June, 1992 while he was serving in his second term as an Assemblyman. Over the past 17 years, both in his capacity as an Assemblyman and as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I have had the good fortune to work with Scott on numerous issues, and my respect for his intellect, character, ethics, integrity, and courage has grown.

[snip]

Every two years, the Trenton insiders of both parties talk of the ultimate electoral demise of Scott Garrett. To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of Scott’s political death continue to be exaggerated. I recently had a conversation with a prominent New Jersey political journalist in which he stated that key Republicans want to sacrifice Scott’s 5th District seat in the next reapportionment. Nothing could be a more politically suicidal move for the New Jersey GOP than that.

Although not a constituent, or donor, Steinberg is obviously starting the fight of 2011 now on Garrett's behalf.

Stewart vs. Cramer

2009-03-13T07:40:00.005-04:00

Wow. Daily Show host Jon Stewart gets his claws into Jim Cramer. It gives some fascinating insight as to how the market has been manipulated and how we the people were hurt by the Wall Street regulars. It also speaks directly to the need for real journalism.

Garrett on Public Lands

2009-03-13T07:30:00.002-04:00

As posted by Herb Jackson, here's part of the statement Representative Scott Garrett put out on why he voted against the Patterson Falls and Thomas Edison's Workshop:

“If The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 only contained spending that truly improved and protected our environment, I would whole-heartedly support its passage. The legislation, however, bundles good projects with pork projects and spending of $5.5 billion over five years. Examples of pork in the bill include $3.5 million to the city of St. Augustine, FL for a birthday party, $200,000 for a tropical botanical garden in Hawaii and $250,000 to study the birthplace of Alexander Hamilton in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

“This is appalling, especially in a time of economic crisis when the American people are looking to Washington to cease the excessive federal spending that continues to bloat our national debt. It’s time to get serious about fiscal responsibility and do more than simply pay lip service to the concept.”

2009-03-12T17:02:00.003-04:00

Representative Scott Garrett found himself on TV with Donnie Deutsch talking about the TARP and other things. It's an interesting session, that Donnie starts off by ripping, albeit nicely, some of Garrett's previous statements.

Only in New Jersey

2009-03-11T14:55:00.005-04:00

When I was down at Transparency Camp the other weekend, I tried to explain to folks the types of shenanigans that go on at the local level here. With that in mind, I'm going to try and give readers regular examples of this. This first edition deals with "non-partisan" school boards, in two BCDO dominated towns.

First, on the nepotism front, in Palisades Park the school board had a resignation this week. The reason, Board Member Yungoo B. Woo couldn't legally serve on the Board, because he hadn't lived in town for more than a year.

After being in a town of 17,000 for less than a year, Woo was appointed to the Board in February. Woo is a cousin of current Democratic Councilman, and former School Board Member, Jason Kim. Claiming he moved into Kim's house last March, Woo will be able to run for his seat on the school board this spring.

Second, on the suppression of descent front, the Closter School Board voted unanimously to not allow Steve Issacson, who regularly roasts Closter's Democrats at unofficialwebsiteofclosternj, to run for a seat on the school board. They reached this decision prior to Mr. Issacson's deadline from the state to select whether he wanted to run for Closter Board of Education or the Northern Valley Regional High School District. Issacson had filed papers to run for both, but now will only be able to run for Northern Valley.

As one of his fellow Closter folks found, there seems to be some question as to whether the Board missed the deadline to invalidate Issacson's petition. From the State's website:

Objections or Challenges to a Nominating Petition ***
Monday, March 9, 2009 (46th day prior to election)
No later than the 46th day before the election objections or challenges to a nominating petition must be filed in writing with the secretary of the school board. The school board must immediately notify the challenged candidate. (19:60-7)

At issue may be when the objection was filed. From the Record, on Tuesday, March 10, or after the deadline to file a complaint:

Closter schools Business Administrator Peter Iappelli said he plans to formally object to Isaacson's nomination if one of the petitions is not withdrawn.
"I'm aware of [his nomination] being defective, and I'm just doing what my responsibilities require me to do," Iappelli said. "He sees it as something different. Everything's fine if he withdraws from Northern Valley and lets us know in writing.

Granted, Iappelli may have filed his objection later in the day, but it doesn't change the fact Issacson had until today to decide.

It should be interesting to see how this all plays out. Get your popcorn.

Garrett: Audit the Fed

2009-03-09T13:56:00.003-04:00

Representative Scott Garrett has joined Representative Ron Paul and 19 other Representatives in co-sponsoring legislation to audit the Federal Reserve and it's branches. With $11.7 trillion in lending since the the financial crisis began, Garrett wants some transparency:

"I would assume that information would be shared by the Fed and the New York Fed," said U.S. Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican. "At some point, the demand for transparency is paramount to any demand that they have for secrecy."

Basically, the legislation Garrett is backing gives the government the ability to audit the Fed. While we have the authority to do so, there are so many exceptions and ways for the Fed to get out of an audit, the power is useless. For instance, the Fed must agree to the audit. Paul's legislation that Garrett signed on to eliminates the exceptions.

Here are some of the other exceptions, from the US Code:

(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;

(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;

(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or

(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)-(3) of this subsection.

Yep, that's basically everything the Fed does being listed as off-limits for Congressional oversight. Garrett's joined the effort to change that, and should be applauded.

In addition to Garrett's efforts, Bloomberg (news, not the Mayor) is suing the Fed under the Freedom of Information Act to get the information we're entitled to.

At some point, seeing how this massive amount of money is being spent is going to happen. The Fed existed heading into the Great Depression, and we need more than their word that they're not making the same mistakes now that they made then. Transparency is key to preventing us from repeating the mistakes of the past, to learn from history. It's important that both the lawsuit and the legislation succeed.

Garrett at CPAC

2009-03-08T11:44:00.003-04:00

Herb Jackson of the Record has an excerpt from the speech given by Representative Scott Garrett at CPAC last week:

"The first is that we have adopted a mantra in Washington of trying to either delay or prevent pain. Bailing out all Wall Street, homeowners who made bad decisions, and many others are predicated on the belief that with government intervention, we can somehow prevent pain.

"The second is that some politicians in Washington now believe that an elite group of government bureaucrats is somehow smarter than the collective wisdom of the U.S. population.

"So far, we have heard that the new administration has either considered appointing, intends to appoint, or has appointed: a health czar, an energy czar, a chief performance czar, a climate change czar, a technology czar, a drug czar, and an urban affairs czar. This would seem to indicate less of a leap to socialism and more of a leap to Bolshevism."

This is not a new message from Garrett, readers may remember that back in August he began articulating we should let the Housing market free-fall so we reach the bottom and can start recovering.

Garrett actually did a good job of faking out local constituents about whether or not he attended people. His face was splashed on a ton of local news last weekend, to the point that a couple of people said to me that they were glad he hadn't gone this year.

With Rush Limbaugh's continued role of a assuming control of the message of the Republican party, thinking Republicans shouldn't want to be associated with it either. Limbaugh has done more to mislead public debate with lies and misrepresentations of facts than any figure in recent memory.

Limbaugh, the entertainer, weakens our political dialogue by masquerading as informed and thoughtful. After all, let's turn to something Garrett said on the House Floor a couple years back:

When we looked at those expressions, we remember the words of talk radio host Rush Limbaugh , who often does say the expression ``words mean something.'' He is usually expressing it about one of his callers who has just called in and talked about a particular topic or what have you, and he will take a little slight angle on it and say, well, those words mean something that are being said there.

So, Garrett knows those words Limbaugh said at CPAC mean something. He also had the good sense to get out of town so he didn't have to talk about what Limbaugh said on Saturday night.