Are the Democrats Punting?

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.

Christie's Room(s) at the Inn

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.

Way to go, Garrett!

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 Talking Health Care

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.

Spinning Tea

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.

Discharge H. Res. 554

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.

Read the Bill

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.

Garrett: End Partisanship?

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.

Call an Earmark an Earmark

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

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.

Stewart vs. Cramer

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: Audit the Fed

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 Discloses Earmarks

Due to my recent trip to Transparency Camp, and the work week since, I did not see that Representative Scott Garrett once again entered his earmarks into the Congressional Record. He declared what he had received from the pork stuffed Omnibus Bill.

Garrett's share of the $7.7 billion in earmarks: 0.052%

Garrett's been pretty good about submitting these disclosures, and despite a number of votes against transparency and accountability, he's transparent about this.

My Weekend @ Transparency Camp

Those that read regularly know how important I think transparency is when it comes to making our government work the way it’s supposed to. I was fortunate this weekend to go to an event called Transparency Camp, where people from all over the nation with the same basic belief came together to figure out where we are and where we need to go.

At the event, I was able to meet all of the people responsible for the sites I use all the time when talking about Representative Scott Garrett (OpenSecrets.org, Tax Payers for Common Sense, Govtrack.us); as well as some I hadn't fully explored (FollowTheMoney.org, OpenCongress.org, Sunshine Week). It was truly one of those amazing life experiences.

What I took away from the convention was a better understanding of how all of these sites worked, internal government issues getting in the way, as well as what to look forward to (there’s a doozey dropping in a few weeks) and a renewed sense of purpose.

A few projects of particular interest to are:

• Readthebill.org: Requesting bills to be posted 72 hours before voting (sign the petition).
• 50 State Project by Sunlight Labs: Every bill, every vote, every state.
• Show Us the Data: Joint effort between the Open The Government and the Center for Democracy and Technology to unlock government data we should have.

One thing that was said in a number of seminars I attended was that bloggers hadn’t earned the general public’s trust at this point, largely because there was so much garbage out there. This is true, and as a community we have to raise our game.

With newspapers dying, and television becoming more of a reactionary as opposed to pro-active force, we’re what’s going to be left. In that sense, I really hope those of you that do blog will take advantage of Sunshine Week, to learn about the tools they have available.


At the end of the day it’s our government, our money they're spending, and our data that could save lives. It was an amazing weekend, and I hope if nothing else, my attendance will make this a more useful and accurate source of information than folks have already told me it is.

Garrett Gets $14.7 Million in Earmarks

Today, Representative Scott Garrett did two things: He called on President Obama to cut more spending from the budget, and voted against the $410 billion spending bill with some of Garrett's $14.7 million in earmarks for FY 2009.

Here's Garrett's quote to Jessica Coomes of the Express-Times:

"Let's start it right now," Garrett said about trimming the debt. "...That would've been a great way to add some substance to his remarks last night; unfortunately, he didn't do it."

Practice what you preach. Garrett had initially touted requesting $24.8 million.

It's been shown time and again that earmarks don't make certain taxpayer dollars are being spent most efficiently or that we're even spending on things the agencies want. The whole process raises questions:

• Why was Hackettstown Community Hospital chosen instead of Valley or Pascack Valley?
• Other than being born there, why choose out of district Englewood Hospital's bloodless surgery program over Hackensack University Medical Center's, which has a branch in District?
• Why does Garrett keep getting money for a program the Army ended two years ago? Or is it something pushed by a lobbyist that Garrett agreed to without consulting the Pentagon, again?
• What about the other $10 million he signed on to? Does the Pentagon actually want what he bought them?

To be fair to Garrett, he wasn't alone in requesting many of these earmarks. In addition, many of the programs sound worthy, which is often a hangup for folks, including myself at times. Garrett also isn't the worst, by far, about earmarking.

All of that said, the bottom line is that we're talking about a systemic problem of allocating money with no accountability for results. As much good as some of these earmarks may do, we can't be assured we got the best bang for our buck.

Garrett vs. SEC & Madoff

It didn't take long for the appointment of Representative Scott Garrett as Ranking Member of the committee overseeing the capital markets to pay dividends in terms of exposure and the chance to speak. Garrett's committee held a hearing today looking into the SEC's failure with regard to the Bernard Madoff scandal.

In Garrett's opinion, Madoff was able to do what he did due to a lack of communication and execution by the SEC. From his opening statement (posted in its entirety below):

There is discussion of "gaps" in our current regulatory scheme that need to be filled to prevent cases like this from happening in the future. I don’t believe that is the case. Each and every one of Mr. Madoff’s relevant businesses fell under the jurisdiction of one or more financial regulators. Given what we currently know about this situation, I do not believe there was a regulatory gap that needs filled with more, often excessive regulation. Rather we should be focused on ensuring that current regulations are being met and that proper oversight is occurring.

Garrett's opening statement, and subsequent comments as reported by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, were restrained compared to others. Rep. Gary Ackerman had the quote of the day, as reported by Herb Jackson:

"Your value to the American people is worthless," Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, D-N.Y., told a panel of SEC department heads who said they could not explain what happened because of the ongoing investigation. "We thought the enemy was Mr. Madoff. I think it's you."

It's unbelievable that Madoff could get away with this, and it seems, the SEC did nothing for so long. For comparative purposes, direct costs and insurance claims for 9/11 were between $57 and $85 billion. Madoff's scam is estimated at $50 billion now, with Markopolos promising there are more funds yet to come forward.

When Madoff goes down, it should be interesting to see how he's prosecuted and what he gets. The idea that one man's greed could do as much damage to the economy as the hijackers leads me to believe he should be treated the same; and those at the SEC who sat on information should be charged as accomplices.

Here's Garrett's statement:

“Thank you, Chairman Kanjorski, for holding this important hearing today. I am excited about the opportunity to work more closely with you to ensure the long-term viability of our capital markets. I also want to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony.

“There is discussion of "gaps" in our current regulatory scheme that need to be filled to prevent cases like this from happening in the future. I don’t believe that is the case. Each and every one of Mr. Madoff’s relevant businesses fell under the jurisdiction of one or more financial regulators. Given what we currently know about this situation, I do not believe there was a regulatory gap that needs filled with more, often excessive regulation. Rather we should be focused on ensuring that current regulations are being met and that proper oversight is occurring.

“It appears the failure came from a lack of coordination or basic information sharing between agencies, specifically the different divisions within the SEC as well as FINRA.

“The failures at the SEC that allowed Madoff to continue to operate his Ponzi scheme for many years did not come from a lack of agency funding or authority but in performing and executing the responsibilities under the powers it had.

“We cannot end all fraud nor guarantee these changes would have prevented it. However, under appropriate due diligence, at least in this case, it appears that the improprieties would have been discovered earlier. But for the fact that Mr. Madoff came out and confessed, this scam would still be going on as far as we know.”

Bailout Bonanza

With the news that Citigroup is going to get $300 billion in taxpayer dollars, and that commitments of taxpayer dollars are nearly $8 TRILLION, it's not surprising to see Representative Scott Garrett in the news today. From Bloomberg:

“Whether it’s lending or spending, it’s tax dollars that are going out the window and we end up holding collateral we don’t know anything about,” said Congressman Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. “The time has come that we consider what sort of limitations we should be placing on the Fed so that authority returns to elected officials as opposed to appointed ones.”

Garrett's dead on with this one. And when pressed for more transparency, Fed Chairman Ben Bernancke had this to say:

“Some have asked us to reveal the names of the banks that are borrowing, how much they are borrowing, what collateral they are posting,” Bernanke said Nov. 18 to the House Financial Services Committee. “We think that’s counterproductive.”

I'm sorry, but this isn't Ben's personal piggy bank we're talking about. It's nearly $8 TRILLION in taxpayer money. We have a right to know that the Fed and Treasury are being more responsible with it than the people they seem hellbent to lend it to were with their own institution's money.

The commitments made by the Fed and Treasury (appointed), when added to our existing deficit (Congress), have pushed the amount each man, woman and child owe to over $61,000.

For comparative purposes, the median income for a family of four in the United States was $67,000 in 2007, but their Washington induced debt is roughly $244,000.

We're responsible for it, but without Congressional oversight, we have no way of making sure we get our money back or that we're not throwing money down a hole. In order for the Big Three to get their $25 billion, they have to present a business plan. That's .32% of what the Fed and Treasury are kicking out without having similar conditions.

Something has gone very, very wrong. And we the taxpayer are in line for getting royally screwed.

Garrett & The Burned Cross

Not sure how many people heard about the cross burning in Warren County or not. A family that supported Obama had a homemade banner torn down and turned into the kindling for a cross burning. Now, the eight year old daughter of the family is having trouble sleeping.

This is a spot where Representative Scott Garrett needs to take a stand. Garrett won the Warren County part of our District by a 2 to 1 margin, so what he says there carries some weight. I'm disappointed I haven't seen any comments from him condemning the act.

Knoxville, Townhall & Garrett

I'm not sure if anybody else felt awful reading the motives behind the shooter at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee. Whatever illness the man is suffering from, he says he targeted the church because they were liberal, particularly their views on women and gays.

Back in June of last year, I pointed out that Representative Scott Garrett was posting over at Townhall.com. At around the same time he began posting, Townhall was playing host to a twenty one part fantasy about killing liberals and RINOs. Despite Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives calling for it to be removed, I checked and it's still there as of this writing.

It never sat well with me after Columbine that people targeted various performers as being to blame for the tragedy; and I'm in no way placing any blame on Garrett or Townhall.

What I am saying is that the fantasy on should be taken down.

Townhall isn't some little obscure corner of the Internet; it's one of the largest conservative sites out there. With that comes a certain amount of social responsibility. Profiting by playing host to a series advocating the death of politicians, judges, TV personalities, and individuals of various political beliefs falls into the category of abdication of that social responsibility.

Even though Garrett hasn't posted on Townhall since May, his contributions have helped Townhall sell advertising dollars. One would think that Garrett could have some sway to get the fantasy taken down.

We're a better nation than this, and one sick individual doesn't change that. At the same time, we have to expect those making and shaping public policy not to legitimize this sort of illness by providing it a forum.

Birds of a Feather...

Well, Politicker is reporting that our Representative Scott Garrett is scheduled to attend a "South Carolina-style" fundraiser for Senator Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund. Garrett is one of seven Representatives scheduled to attend.

For those that don't know DeMint, he has consistently ranked as the most conservative Senator since being elected.

One of DeMint's more controversial beliefs, stated in his first campaign, is that openly gay individuals and single mothers shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools.

DeMint has also held up several pieces of legislation, including the aid for Hurricane Katrina victims that Garrett voted against. Also, both DeMint and Garrett voted against the Energy Act of 2007, which increased our efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

That's not to say they're clones. For example, DeMint did not join Garrett in voting against reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.

Project Vote Smart has pages for both Garrett and DeMint where people can compare their voting records by issue and judge for themself.