Garrett Loves Christie's Budget

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?

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...

Morons At The Gate

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.

The Tea Parties

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

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

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

This was interesting to watch:

Republican Budget Bonanza

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.

Garrett Gets His Susan Powter On

Maybe I'm dating myself slightly, citing the slightly scary woman screaming at us to "Stop the Insanity", but that's the first thing that came to mind when reading the opening of the latest Op-Ed by Representative Scott Garrett published by the Record.

AN APHORISM most often attributed to Albert Einstein goes: "The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over again, and then expecting different results." By this definition, then, the "stimulus" package approved by the House Friday (and which also seemed headed toward Senate approval late Friday) is fiscal insanity.

It's amazing how the arguments of the minority party mirror each other in such a bi-partisan manner. Democrats were saying the same things about Iraq and all of the budgets Garrett voted for over the years. Let's not dwell on that, shall we, because Garrett's own words in essence shoot down the entire Op-Ed a bit further down.

Among economists who study fiscal policy closely, the evidence is conclusive: Massive increases in deficit spending during a recession do not stop a recession and can, in fact, be very harmful to a nation's finances in the long run.

The odd thing about this is that Garrett goes on to cite the tax cuts passed around the 1981 and 2003 recessions as what should be given credit for pulling us out of those recessions. This is a bit misleading.

The tax cuts Reagan passed in 1981 led to our national debt exploding 186% by the time he left office. The interesting thing is that the Bush tax cuts "only" led to 48% explosion in the national debt. If you went to the Midwest, you'd find plenty of people that would say we've never recovered from 2003.

The bottom line is that both parties are addicted to deficit spending, they just have different names for it. Garrett and his gang want you to believe you're getting something for nothing, while your grandchildren will be asking you what they're paying for. Meanwhile, the Democrats are telling you what you're getting, and hoping you'll explain it to your grandchildren for them.

For another take on Garrett's piece, check out clammyc's post over on Blue Jersey.

Garrett Authors Alternative Stimulus

Representative Scott Garrett has answered the call of Representative Eric Cantor to introduce alternative economic stimulus packages. As with Garrett's previous piece, there is a 10% tax cut for corporations. However, this piece seems to be a vast improvement over his last set of proposals, including more tax cuts for families and individuals.

There's been a ton of press already, but The National Review lists off some of the things most people would agree are a good idea:

— An increase in the child tax credit from $1,000 to $5,000.
— An increase in the deduction for college expenses from $4,000 to $6,000,
and in the income threshold at which the deduction can be taken.
— An end to mandatory IRA withdrawals at age 70 1/2.
— The plan would also let people of any age draw down their IRA money
without taxes or penalties in calendar 2009.

The only big issue with this is what it does to the deficit. Garrett "pays" for the program with a 1% cut across the board on non-defense discretionary spending. Depending on whether or not War on Terror funds are included, this cut represents a savings between $4 to $6 billion. The corporate tax cut could reduce revenues upwards of $30 billion alone.

While the math may not add up now, Garrett adding more than simply corporate tax cuts to his proposal shows he's taken heed of the criticisms leveled at his last effort. It's a positive step forward for our Congressman, and I wouldn't be surprised to see several of these proposals included in President-Elect Obama's final proposal.

The RSC Action Plan

I was looking over the new Action Plan from the Republican Study Committee, and noticed something odd. Part of the action plan is the following:

We will not wait on the Democrat Majority to end "Bridges to Nowhere" and "Monuments to Me"—we declare an immediate earmark moratorium and pledge to reform the system.

On their website, the RSC has a list of members who have sworn off earmarks. What's interesting about the list is our Representative Scott Garrett has not taken the pledge. I suppose it would be difficult for him to take the pledge when he's advocated for a $1.5 million earmark for a program after the Army ended it.


Beyond that, the Action Plan seems to be little more than a commitment to the Bush priorities over the last few years. Herb Jackson summed up the plan on Sunday in The Record.

The right-leaning Republican Study Committee issued an action plan that, among other things, calls for tighter controls on spending, looser controls on oil companies and agencies gathering intelligence on suspected terrorists, eliminating the alternative minimum tax, putting welfare-like restrictions on food stamps and housing assistance, and requiring people who are not elderly, young or disabled to work to get government help.

Among other things, it's disturbing to me that in a time of economic downturn, the RSC would advocate taking food stamps and Section 8 housing away from families in need. Here's how the RSC sums up their belief:

Such reforms will ensure a more stable environment for low-income children by encouraging their parents to marry and raise them in two-parent homes.

Nothing like stigmatizing those who need help in these economic times. The USDA has a fact sheet here, which highlights among other things this little tidbit of information:

The Food Stamp Program is a program that supplements the food purchasing power
of low-income Americans. The average time a food stamp recipient stays on the program is 9 months.

The RSC is declaring war on a largely short term, underutilized program (65% of those eligible), where 75% of the participants are children. Average monthly participation in the Food Stamp program has increased 50% since 2001, now covering 1 in 11 Americans in a given month. A large part of the reason for the increase are the very economic policies the RSC fought for.

This is the classic political bait and switch. Unfortunately, history shows this is an effective way to distract voters from things like the $15 billion in fraud the RSC allowed to occur or the deficit they exploded while in the majority.

Although touted as returning Republicans to their roots, there's nothing about balancing the budget, staying out of individuals' lives, or defending the Constitution involved in the plan. In a number of instances, it's the exact opposite. Since the RSC can't stand on their record, it's interesting to see them attack the results of the policies they have implemented over the years.

I guess we'll all have to wait and see how short term the American voter's memory is.

CFG Loves SG and Deficits

Few special interest groups take such pride in openly talking about how they buy politicians with campaign cash as the Club for Growth. They do raise a tremendous amount money, but with only 1145 donors they'd have a tough time winning a town council race if they could pool their votes as opposed to their cash.

Pat Toomey, Bully in Chief at the Club, explains the Club's rationale for taking out Republicans in an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal today (emphasis mine):

Conversely, many of the Republican candidates the Club for Growth's members have supported over the years are now leaders in the conservative movement and favorites among the party's grass roots. Sens. Coburn and Jim DeMint and Reps. Scott Garrett, Jeff Flake, John Campbell, Jeb Hensarling, Tim Walberg and Mike Pence are just some of the brave leaders who have led the fight for limited government and greater economic freedom.

[snip]

A Republican majority is only as useful as the policies that majority produces.

Back in November I highlighted the CFG's policy goals. I double checked their website, and they haven't changed. As I've mentioned before a balanced budget and reducing the deficit play no role in the Club's stated goals. Here's how Toomey explained the rationale to Congress last year:

While shrinking the federal deficit is important, it is not crucial as an end in itself, but only to the extent that it serves as a means to another end—increasing prosperity and economic growth. At the end of the day, job growth, higher incomes, and gains in family wealth are more important than the number on the federal government’s ledger.

Since 2001, the Federal Deficit has mushroomed 63.3% to over $9.3 trillion . That works out to a little over $31,000 per citizen, and was equal to roughly 37% of the GDP last year. On a side note, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that Toomey seems to share Garrett's penchant for distorting facts (same link as above):

It is important to remember that the current deficit is only 1.5% of the Gross Domestic Product and decreasing by the day.

We spent $430 billion on interest payments in 2007, which was more than the entire non-defense discretionary budget. At some point, maybe during the campaign, Garrett and the folks at the Club would like to explain how it's beneficial to the taxpayer to have more than a third of their tax dollars going to pay interest instead of being kept in their own pockets.

Over a period of time, aggressively paying down the debt could lead to a reduction in taxes of 25-30%. Playing the same numbers game others do, this would reduce the "average" tax bill by between $2,700-3,300. Or, put another way, return around $300 billion a year to families without their children having to pay it back with interest and without loss of services.

This isn't even including any corporate cuts possible. How much could the economy grow with an extra $300 billion injected, per year? How many jobs would that create?

However, that's the sort of long term planning lacking with the cut and borrowers like the CFG and Garrett. It's unfortunate really. They love to beat their own chests, padding their personal checkbooks and campaign coffers by saying they're fighting the good fight to shrink taxes; when in fact the policies they advocate ensure taxes will always be higher than they need to be.

Garrett on Corporate Taxes

I give credit to Representative Scott Garrett, he's still trying to get his corporate tax cut through. In an editorial to the Washington Times he had this to say:

Currently, the American corporate capital-gains tax rate is 35 percent, which happens to be the highest rate in its history, with the exception of 1940-41 owing to World War II.

Sadly, Garrett neglects to realize that we are currently fighting two wars. He also may not realize that when adjusted for inflation, our military budget is at it's highest levels since WWII. Our deficit has ballooned 60% in 7 years, how much higher will it go with what Garrett's proposing?

In theory, for competition's sake, what Garrett is arguing in an ideal world would make sense. Unfortunately, we're not there and it would be robbing from future generations to do what he's proposing at this time.

This is the clearest example of Garrett being a cut and borrower.

Careful What You Wish For

Back in October, Herb Jackson pointed out that Representative Scott Garrett joined in on presenting a list of complaints about federal spending on "Budget Boondoggles." One such "boondoggle" was printing of the Congressional Record, of which Garrett and his colleagues had this to say:

Even in the current era of on-line data, the Government Printing Office[GPO] prints thousands of excess copies of floor proceedings and legislation – most of which are never read.

Garrett supported an amendment to decrease the printing budget for the GPO. On those grounds, in this "current era", one would think that President Bush going to a paperless budget, saving taxpayers around a $1 million, would make Garrett happy. One would be wrong.

“I think people who request a copy of the budget should be given it gratis,” said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), another Budget panel member. “You want something in your hand so you can thumb through it and mark it up and reference it.”

Garrett is skeptical of the business vision of entrepreneurs such as Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, who are hawking digital books and claim that paper versions will someday become a thing of the past.

“The whole idea of books going online, I don’t think it’s going to catch favor,” he said.

To be fair, I don't know Garrett's practice. He may make notes on every page. However, if he doesn't he should practice the fiscal responsibility he preaches and save taxpayers money by printing only the pages he needs.

Better Ideas?

There's a lot of chatter around the web about Governor Corzine's toll hike plan to put the state on firm financial footing. The challenge to the rest of us is that if we don't like it to come up with another option.

I'd rather have all the tolls going toward debt relief than padding the profits of some foreign company leasing the highways. However, kind of like tobacco taxes, if people actually stop driving and start riding NJ Transit because of the hikes how is this plan sustainable?

I guess I need to read more about it.

Garrett's Pledge to the President

As I noted yesterday, Representative Scott Garrett has signed a pledge to the President supporting his decisions on Appropriations bills. It's unfortunate that someone who professes strong conviction and understanding of the Constitution would be so willing to abdicate his responsibility not only to us as constituents but to the Founding Father's intent.

Here's a few facts that make the decision more disturbing to anyone with a minor interest in fiscal responsibility or economic growth:

Budget Surplus/Deficit (without borrowing against Social Security):
2000: $1,629,000,000.00
2006: -$537,271,000,000.00
(That's a 33,082% increase)

Total Deficit:
January 2001: -$5,728,195,796,181.57
Today: -$9,113,206,502,561.64
(That's a 59% increase)

US Dollar vs. the Canadian Dollar:
November 2001: $1 =$1.54
11/16/07: $1 = $1.02
(That's a 33% drop in value)

Consumer Prices vs. Median Income:
Consumer Price Increase Oct. 2000-2006: 13.60%**
Median Income Increase 2000-2006:13.67%
(Feeling you're not getting ahead?)

Unemployed People:**
Oct. 2000: 5,153,000
Oct. 2007: 6,773,000
(That's a 31.4% increase)

People Working Two Jobs:**
Jan. 2001: 7,134,000
Oct. 2007: 7,852,000
(That's a 10% increase)

Labor Force vs. Employed Oct. 2000- Oct. 2007:**
Increase in Labor Force: 7.5%
Increase in Employed: 6.5%

With a track record like this, signing on to blindly follow the President's lead significantly cuts into the image of Garrett as an independent kind of guy, fiscal conservative, or pro-growth. As I've mentioned earlier, regarding the SBA, often times the things the President and Garrett seek to cut are the very things that provide a return on investment for the taxpayer and reduce expenditures for things like unemployment and medicaid by creating jobs. There's more to be written about this, however this can get folks started.

**It was brought to my attention that the links don't work. The source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Their site was off line the few times I checked today, will post numbers tomorrow (11/18/07).

Garrett Really Full of SCHIP

As I pointed out in an earlier post, our Representative Scott Garrett voted for every deficit inflating Republican budget he's had the chance to vote for (FY 2004, FY 2005, FY 2006, FY 2007). Yet, on the House floor the other day he had this to say:

Even though it is our own administration on these issues, I voted against a budget that has come before this House, even though it is one of our own budgets, because I thought we were spending too much. So I believe I come to the well here with a track record to stand on, as does the gentleman from Texas, as well, when it comes to saying we want to be fiscally responsible.

I'm not sure what budget Garrett is talking about, but his voting record certainly doesn't match his words. Considering this is the basis he has given for his vote against renewing the State Children's Health Insurance Program yesterday, he really is full of it.

Broke Phi Broke

Jersey's broke, broke broke phi broke...we ain't got it.

The news that New Jersey is going to have to borrow $2 billion to give $2 billion of tax rebates begs the question: can we afford the rebates? Most reasonable people would say no; however I realize many politicians don't seem to concern themselves with the details.

Whether it be the Republican Congress in Washington granting the first tax cuts during war in our nation's history, ramping up debt at rocket speed (the Chinese thank them daily); or the Democrats in Trenton talking about leasing or selling the Turnpike while borrowing $2 billion to send "rebate" checks to voters right before election day, fiscal irresponsibility seems to be a truly bi-partisan issue.

2 Recalled Toys Per 5 Kids

Forbes put up a rundown of bad Chinese toys over the last few years, just for lead paint and small magnet recalls. The whopping total of over 16 million toys works out to roughly 2 bad toys for every 5 children under the age of 10.

Put another way, 40% of kids under 10 could have a toy that could cause them harm, all were manufactured in China. Even though China has guaranteed the quality of their products, and mounting evidence to the contrary, our government hasn't done much.

Part of the silence has to be due to the fact China has already loudly been talking about using the $900 billion in treasury bonds they hold as leverage in trade talks. Their holding is roughly 10% of our total national debt ($8.9 trillion), and if we should come down too hard on them their liquidation of our bonds would lead to a crash in the dollar. Our inability to force China to stop sending us tainted goods points to the fact that our creditor dependency, like our foreign oil dependency, is a national security issue.

It's also important to note that when the National Debt Clock turned off in 2000, it read $5,676,989,904,887. That works out to roughly $25.3 billion of debt per year of our nation's 224 years of existence to that point. From that point to today, the debt has risen more than $3.2 trillion, or more than $470 billion a year.

Granted, the $25.3 figure is not adjusted for inflation. However, when you consider our government went from repaying over $100 billion of debt in 2000, to adding over $470 billion a year over the last seven years, it is damning testimony of the fiscal mismanagement our nation has endured.

The Record Covers the Budget Spin

Herb Jackson of The Record wrote a good article about the threat of taxes going up. Here's my favorite quote:

A review of the facts and interviews with budget experts shows that Garrett, whose district includes parts of Bergen and Passaic counties, is exaggerating, while Pascrell is telling only part of the story.

That's a polite way of saying both sides are using spin. I covered a bit of the spin being used by Representative Scott Garrett, and the realities of the budget just passed, the other day. One point that I don't think I stressed enough was made in the article by Stanley E. Collender, a former aide to both the Senate and House Budget Committees.

"It's a little disingenuous for Republicans to blame Democrats for not extending the tax cuts when they didn't extend them themselves," Collender said. "All this budget does is reflect current law, which shows those things expiring."

So, in theory, if someone wants to shoot Garrett's spin down they could say "Representative Garrett, since you and your fellow Republicans didn't extend the tax cuts, didn't you vote to raise taxes $392.5 billion three years in a row?"