Garrett Against Tax Breaks

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

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

[snip]

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

Blue Dogs Step Up on Health Care

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.

Hope for Garrett

Similar to John McCain, as soon as the financial crisis hit, Dennis Shulman's chances seemed to dwindle. Representative Scott Garrett performed better, in a more hostile environment, because he actually represented the views of the vast majority of our District at a critical juncture. On whether or not the bailout should happen, Garrett was in his element in opposing it.

With a staff that kept him in front of the cameras, Garrett went from the obscure Northeast Congressman voting against the Voting Rights Act and extensions of unemployment benefits, to a leader speaking to the American people. The American people were with him in opposing the bailout, and obviously so was the District.

Now, we get to find out what Garrett's made of, and what kind of Representative we actually have.

In the past, Garrett has been excessively partisan and hyper-critical of bi-partisanship. He's also wasted a lot of time proposing going-nowhere legislation. And let's not forget all of the misrepresenting the facts on issues, which has led to open ridicule within the press and on the House floor. This has made it difficult for us as a District to have a voice that is listened to on the Hill; whether we needed AMT relief or transit funds.

The bailout debate has likely changed that; and as odd as it is to write this about someone who was in the bottom 5.5% of influence a short time ago, Garrett seems to have political capital.

How long that lasts will depend on Garrett and Garrett alone.

In essence, Garrett needs to return to Washington and make the decision as to whether he is going to play well with others. Garrett has the potential to be the leading conservative voice on the Hill, however, there's a pragmatic way to do that and an ideological one. Does he work toward sensible fiscal conservative principles in bills? Or does he do what he's always done?

Here's an example: small business programs and tax cuts. In the past, Garrett's voted against them based on ideology. If his goal is to reduce government, and actually achieve it instead of talking about it, programs which create jobs are important. Such programs and tax cuts reduce government by reducing the unemployed, medicaid, government housing, and welfare rolls. Garrett should be voting for them pragmatically.

Make no mistake, there are going to be a lot of no votes from Garrett in the next two years. That said, I'm optimistic Garrett will realize the opportunity he has, and take our District's vote in the House from an afterthought in the legislative process to one of prominence.

Granted, this may seem too optimistic to most of you, but a year and half ago I was optimistic about having an Obama vs. McCain Presidential race. Every now and again, you get what you hope for. Either way, I'm wildly curious to see how the next few months pan out.

500th Post: Trillion Dollar Lipstick

Well, the Senate decided to pass the $700 billion dollar rescue package, which according to the CBO is actually a $926.5 billion borrowing spree. It's almost like the Senate didn't bother to look at the report. To use that phrase the Presidential candidates love so much, this is trillion dollar lipstick.

Seriously, are these guys kidding. I realize the AP talks about the "sweeteners" added to the bill for passage, but it seems the Senate (at Wall Steet's bidding) is treating the American taxpayer like children at the mercy of the proverbial pervert offering candy in their pocket.

Wall Street doesn't get that they did this to themselves, and this bailout bill doesn't do anything to fix that. On Monday, after the House vote, the Wall Street entitlement complex was on full display in the press.

"How could this have happened? Is there such a disconnect on Capitol Hill? This becomes a problem because Wall Street is very uncomfortable with uncertainty," said Gordon Charlop, managing director with Rosenblatt Securities. "The bailout not going through sends a signal that Congress isn't willing to do their part."

With all do respect to Mr. Charlop, Congress has loosened regulations for the last 20 years because Wall Street has preached they could handle their own affairs. Exactly who wasn't holding up their end of the bargain? Now, after they couldn't put their house in order they expect the People's House to be their personal piggy bank.

No one can guarantee this action will avert the technical recession most Americans have been in for years. If the problem is that there is not enough capital in the market so that the good actors can go about their business, then the funds should be directed to the good actors. Simply giving money to those who couldn't handle it in the first place puts our nation at a greater risk in the future.

I seriously hope Representative Scott Garrett and those who voted against this bill in the first place have the moral fortitude to stick to their guns and vote no again. I actually hope others who claim to care about deficits join them.

We already spend 30% of our taxes paying down debt. Increasing the amount each man, woman and child in this nation owes by 9% in a single vote, with no guarantee of success, is idiotic. If this thing goes through, with no guarantees except for the wink and nod that things will get better, the share of the national debt of every man, woman and child in this nation will rise to about $36,000.

I don't dispute something needs to be done, but Congress can do better than this. It now rests on the House to return some commonsense to this process. Simply because, more often than not, those in Washington seem to care more for sweets than substance, we the American taxpayer are likely going to be hosed.

A Better Bailout?

I'm not sure if my office is typical in how freely we talk about politics, but the bailout proposal has dominated our lunch conversation lately. What's interesting is that no one I know, and I mean no one, is in favor of this thing.

Along with our own Representative Scott Garrett, the skeptics are getting more press and growing louder:

"It's a tough sell to most of our members," said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., after a closed-door meeting with Paulson and Bernanke. "It's a terrible plan, but I haven't heard anything better."

There are a lot of plans out there, and most that I've read or heard are better than putting $700 billion in the hands of those that mismanaged the funds they had. Here's one we talked about at lunch, and while I can't take credit for it, it's an alternative that may appease those concerned about throwing more taxpayer money down a pit:

1. Let the stupid and greedy fail. That's the way capitalism is supposed to work; there are consequences for bad choices.
2. Make the $700 billion available to small banks who didn't get stupid and greedy. This would give them the capital they need in order to meet a greater demand caused by the failure of the stupid and greedy. It rewards discipline and it also would be repaid to taxpayers with interest.
3. Eliminate the tax incentives for being stupid and greedy.

It's far from perfect, but it's an idea. There are options out there, and Congress must consider them all before putting taxpayers on the hook. My hope is that the President's awful image among the American voting public, and general belief we can't trust the guy, will doom this plan when he goes on TV to sell it tonight.

Garrett @ CPAC

Well, I can't find a link on C-SPAN for Representative Scott Garrett's panel discussion today. However, the folks over at The Heritage Foundation have a summary. They also have a "very rough transcript" of Garrett's opening remarks.

When I arrived here this morning I was impressed to see that the hotel had set up tables to provide free coffee and pastries to conference attendees. I loaded up with fruit, a muffin, and coffee, but of course when I got to the end of the table I discovered that the items were not only not free, but that the hotel was selling them at extremely high prices. I immediately returned the items. This is exactly why we face such a crisis in Medicare spending: when consumers think something is free they consume more of it. If that coffee had been free I know I would be seeing a lot more of you in the audience holding cups of coffee right now.

Having read a few of Garrett's speeches at this point, I'd say they did a good job of capturing his speaking style.

I hope someone on the panel talked about the CBO's findings that Medicare Advantage is draining the trust fund faster than expected and putting the whole program at risk. For conservatives who want to save it without raising taxes, that should be the first place for reform.

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 Against $14.7 Million for Bergen

Here's an interesting fact:

With Representative Scott Garrett voting against the Appropriations for Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development; Garrett could cost Bergen County $14.7 million dollars in Community Development Block Grants. That works out to roughly 3.4% of the County budget.

It's unlikely, when the dust settles, that we'll lose the entire amount, but what's that going to do to property taxes? What about the transportation funds Garrett voted against? How much of the budget are we talking about? If only the Bergen County Freeholders had the decency to put the County Budget on-line I could answer that question.

As the appropriations battle goes forward, none of us should be surprised by Garrett's string of Nay votes. Garrett was the only Republican from New Jersey who signed a pledge to the President to oppose any Appropriations bill the President vetoes. In effect, Garrett has firmly placed the President's philosophy above the interests of our traditionally fiscally conservative District.

Mind numbing: $2.4 Trillion for Wars

The Congressional Budget Office has released a rather long report which concludes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may cost $2.4 trillion dollars over the next decade. This is the same CBO which so many misquoted in their fight against the new SCHIP bill, 1.4% of the war tab for comparative purposes, because it is a trusted source of information.

With such a mind numbing figure before us as a nation, so largely attributable to mismanagement and lack of oversight, President Dwight Eisenhower's "The Chance for Peace" speech comes to mind. While the figures may have changed, the point remains the same:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more
than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953. This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace.

It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty.It calls upon them to answer the questions that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?

My 200th Post: What's a Guy to Do?

***UPDATED*** See below.

Considering I'm a one man band, I'm pretty pleased to put up my 200th post in less than a year. It's been fun, and I want to thank those of you who stop by.

If the folks over at PoliticsNJ are right, even though Republicans are starting to complain about Representative Scott Garrett, he isn't going anywhere. It seems I'll have him to write about for a while. However, having Garrett stay in office so I can perpetuate this blog is not a goal. I'd still write no matter who was in office, because as a District we have a right to know what our Representative is really doing down in Washington on our behalf.

The biggest issue with Garrett is that he's so ineffective. An example is how Garrett cites that 120,000 taxpayers in our Fifth District (19% of the population) will be subject to the AMT if it's not changed; yet as Herb Jackson recently pointed out in the Record, Garrett wasn't able to get AMT reform bills passed while Republicans were in the majority. How exactly can taxpayers in our District expect him to get anything done while he's in the minority?

Garrett's ineffectiveness extends to a number of critical issues, from health care reform to energy policy. Garrett effectively removes our District from a seat at the table; we will have no meaningful say in what happens, yet inevitably our District will foot a large part of the bill.

This all has to do with the fact that it's impossible for someone philosophically opposed to government governing to play a role in developing effective government. It's basically like asking me to manage the Atlanta Braves against the Mets, the Braves would likely lose every game.

Garrett makes no apologies for his belief the Departments of Education, Energy and Transportation should be eliminated, when some of our biggest current challenges as a NATION fall into these areas. Major reforms are needed, without a doubt, but simply throwing your hands in the air in the face of sagging test scores, an energy crisis, and collapsing bridges is the slacker's way out. Doctor's don't cut off your arm when you break your wrist, but that's Garrett's solution to everything.

A fiscal conservative Garrett is not; fiscal conservatives accept some role of government and look to make it efficient in order to reduce costs and taxes over the long term. A clear example of Garrett's lack of fiscal conservatism is his stance against PAYGO, which was implemented by Republicans in the 1990's to hold spending down and pay down the deficit. It was working before the tax-cut and spend Republicans supplanted the fiscal conservative Republicans.

Garrett also constantly votes to to defend taxpayer funded corporate profit margin guarantees for those serving government contracts, regardless of performance. This flies in the face of getting the most from the taxpayer dollar, and it's downright anti-competitive.

Those who go after Garrett for his views, which often make Pat Buchanan look like a flaming haired liberal, miss the point. As out of the mainstream as Garrett's views are, they make him so ineffective he can't get any of them implemented anyway. Garrett's about as useful to our District as ice cubes are to the Eskimos whose education funding he voted to cut.

Even though I never declared as a Republican, I worked for them for a number of years during college, and the national party has radically departed from the party I knew growing up. My belief in paying down the deficit and making sure that the government's involvement in an individual's life ended at their front doorstep has never changed. In the 1990's, that was Northeast Republican mantra.

Now, thanks to Garrett and those like him, the Republican party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Gov. Tom Kean, and Marge Roukema is seen by many of my fellow unaffiliateds as the fear-mongering, bigoted, anti-Constitution, corporate profit padding party that's mortgaged future generations to score some political points.

With PoliticsNJ reporting Garrett is unlikely to get a Republican primary challenger, I find it disappointing that Republicans in our District are okay with the image Garrett portrays for them. With Garrett going unopposed by a fellow Republican, it will largely be up to the Democrats to mount a challenge.

There are two candidates running for the nomination, each bringing something different to the table, but they both face the same challenges. While FEC reports aren't available just yet for Rabbi Dennis Shulman, Garrett has $332,116 in cash on hand compared to Camille Abate's $36,556. This is a daunting deficit for any campaign. What's more daunting is the vote deficit in the Western part of the District that any Democrat will have to overcome: 18,000 in an off year and 30,000 in a Presidential.

However, each of the Dems know the odds and they're going for it anyway and that should be respected. Whether or not their message will resonate with enough voters in the the Western part of the District to make a difference is another story.

This all leads me back to what's a guy to do.

As many of you know, I ran against Garrett as the Independent in '06. I've been thinking about what to do next year. There are those who have said I should go again as an Independent or jump in a primary. If I did the latter, which party to pick is the issue; which one would take me is another; and building the infrastructure for a successful campaign in a hurry would be a big challenge.

I'm not walking away from my political views any time soon; however deciding whether or not the Republicans or Democrats best represent my values is still an on-going process. It seems if I go Republican, I'd be what's known in Washington as a Main Streeter; if I went Democratic I'd be closer to a Blue Dog. In other words, I'm a right leaning centrist, who places policy above partisanship, with no place to call a home.

Last time, I wanted voters to have an option between politics as usual and what was being hoisted up by the parties. This time, it would be to hold Garrett accountable to our District. Whether that's best done within a party or as an Indie still needs to be decided, but I will decide in the coming months.

What's a guy to do?

***Update 1*** Based on an e-mail I received, I want to make it clear that I haven't decided whether or not I'm jumping on someone else's campaign or going to run myself. That last paragraph threw somebody for a loop.

***Update 2*** Blue Jersey is reporting that Dennis Shulman outraised Camille Abate in the 3rd Quarter.

Blackwater's Day in The Sun

When modern historians talk about the last Republican Congress being one of the worst of all time, one of the hallmark shortcomings of those on the Hill had been their aversion to performing their Constitutional required duty of oversight. Like Papa Joe's BCDO, the Republicans in DC over the last few years had an affinity for no-bid contracts.

Erik Prince will be testifying before Congress on Tuesday. His company, Blackwater USA, is one of the largest recipients of no-bid contracts in Iraq. Over the last few weeks, a number of accusations have come out that have ranged from less than flattering to down right awful. In advance of the appearance, Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight and Government Reform Committee released a damning memo of the company's performance.

This hearing and the spin around it will likely devolve into partisan bickering due to an ill-advised section on Mr. Prince's family. Had the memo simply focused on Blackwater's performance, the cost of Blackwater's contracts and their breach of contract issues should have inspired bi-partisan rage. Had the Republicans not abdicated their Constitutional duty of oversight, someone would have realized taxpayers have been getting a very raw deal.

From the Oversight and Government Reform Committee report:

One fundamental question that the recent controversy over Blackwater has raised is whether the government's heavy reliance on private military contractors is a wise use of taxpayer funds. According to contract documents obtained by the Committee, Blackwater bills the United States government $1,222 per day for one individual Protective Security Specialist. On an annual basis, this amounts to $445,891 per contractor.

These costs are significantly higher than the costs that would be incurred by the military. The security services provided by Blackwater would typically be performed by an Army Sergeant, whose salary, housing, and subsistence pay range from approximately $140 to $190 per day, depending on rank and years of service. On an annual basis, the salary, housing, and subsistence pay of an Army Sergeant ranges from $51,100 to $69,350 per year. The amount the government pays Blackwater for these same services is approximately six to nine times greater.

First off, this points to the fact we need to pay service people a lot more. Period.


Second, it makes it a little difficult for Republicans to claim the fiscal responsibility mantle when the contracts to one company are costing taxpayers 643% more than what it should. Republicans didn't hold one hearing about it. Then you have the fact Blackwater billed a profit markup on their profit margins and you have the taxpayer really being taken for a ride.

This is reminiscent of the toilet seats costing thousands of dollars and hammers costing hundreds in the 1980's. The fact these contracts are adding to the cost of the war cannot be ignored, as we are having to borrow ever more money from foreign sources to pay for this debacle.

The fact this practice went unchallenged by the Republicans, including our own Representative Scott Garrett, really has to make one wonder how any of them could ever refer to themselves as a fiscal conservative without being disingenuous.

Greenspan slams GOP: Will Garrett Understand?

When Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernancke showed up for his first hearing in front of the Financial Services Committee last year, on which our Representative Scott Garrett sits, Garrett made the following comment:

"We can actually understand your answers," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., during the generally cordial hearing.

It was portrayed as a warm welcome for Bernancke, but with a new book coming out from former Fed Chair, Alan Greenspan, I'm wondering if it was being truthful as well. It seems the White House and the Republican run Congress either didn't understand, or didn't care what Greenspan said. Now, Greenspan seems to be taking them to task.

The Greenspan quote from this book that is lighting up news sources around the world is this:

"The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan wrote. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

Here's how the New York Times described the passage:

Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere.

Those rules referred to were PAYGO, which the Republicans had implemented as part of the Republican Revolution of 1994, then abandoned in the "Tax Cut" revolution of 2002, and were reinstated by the Democrats earlier this year. While the quote seems to be Earth shaking, Greenspan started calling for a return for PAYGO more than two years ago:

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.

I suppose that's one of Greenspan's answers Garrett didn't understand. As those that read this blog or follow Garrett's website know, when the Democrats reinstated PAYGO, Garrett argued against it saying the following:

"Regrettably," continued Garrett, "the Democrat leadership also chose to approve a change to budget rules that could have no purpose other than to justify tax increases. And, that I could not support. It is a shame that in taking the step forward with strong earmark reform, the Democrat leadership chose to take two steps back in fiscal discipline."

On this one, I'll go with Greenspan. Back in January, I laid out the effects PAYGO actually had on Federal spending:

Under the PAYGO rules of the 90's, the government actually ran surpluses for a short time and held average increases in government spending under 4%. PAYGO expired in 2002 before Garrett entered the House, and since then new spending averaged over 10% and we've had record deficits. Garrett, the "fiscal conservative" recently voted against the reinstatement of PAYGO.

Most reasonable people would say that what has been going on since Garrett arrived in Congress is not fiscally responsible. Although Garrett's often given credit for holding the line on spending, since arriving in Congress, Garrett has voted for every one of the Republican budgets he could (FY 2004, FY 2005, FY 2006, FY 2007). It should be interesting to see how he and the others on the Hill respond to this book.


Kind of like Lee Iacocca's must read Where Have All the Leaders Gone?; Greenspan has nothing to lose with this book. At least one other quote cited by the AP seems to make you think Greenspan's not holding back:

Of the conflict in the Middle East, Greenspan said: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Honestly, I can't wait to read this thing.

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.

Garrett vs. Housing & Fiscal Responsibility

Today, Representative Scott Garrett joined 49 other Representatives in opposing two Federal programs that enable rural working families to obtain a piece of the American Dream: home ownership. He was the only Representative from New Jersey to vote against the Housing Assistance Council authorization and against the Rural Housing and Economic Development Act.

In joining only 12% of voting members opposed to these programs, Garrett stood against working families and rural communities that need a hand up. During my non-profit experience I came in contact with both of these programs; the expertise they offer and seed money they provide enables a great return on the taxpayer's dollar through stronger communities and families.

The fact Garrett would vote to uphold $19 billion in corporate welfare, yet he would vote against a combined $45 million going toward strengthening communities so that they will be less dependent on federal aid is ridiculous. Garrett may claim to be a fiscal conservative, and win the awards from the anti-tax crowd; but when he votes against programs that lead to self-sufficiency, stronger communities, and less reliance on the federal government you have to wonder if he has any foresight whatsoever.

Let's be realistic; there will always be Americans who need help. However, in many cases they simply need a hand-up instead of a hand out. By opposing these hand-up programs, Garrett is supporting the perpetual taxpayer funded hand-out by default. How is that being fiscally responsible?

Live Earth - Update 2

So, watching the London show I've enjoyed the intentional set design of having something recycled as the light fixtures. Australia had tires, London has oil drum lids. While one is a product of petroleum, the other is what's used to deliver it. Looks good.

I suppose as I'm getting ready to go pay almost $3 a gallon to fill my car, one of my continuing frustrations with the naysayers on climate change is their complete lack of economic patriotism. Oil prices have been cited as hurting small business, who Inc. Magazine cited as creating 60% of the new jobs in the nation last month. Don't believe in global warming, fine, then take a look at our sagging GDP growth and rising inflation.

Implementing these measures reduces oil consumption and saves money for families and businesses. The oil industry has told us time and again that they're not gouging because prices are based on supply and demand. More recently they've said they're not going to increase supply, so our only recourse is to reduce demand. Kind of like my doing the South Beach Diet, it's not about changing yourself for a short time (ex. drilling off the Jersey Coast), it's about changing your mindset. Individually, as families, and as a nation changing our mindset only has benefits.

There's a lot each of us can do in our own lives to save a few bucks here and a few bucks there, and it will add up. On a government level, any elected representative opposing implementing many of these measures is wasting taxpayer money making taxes higher than they need to be and our national debt worse. I don't know why that's not said more often, but it's the truth.

Live Earth - Update

Ok, Missy Higgins just finished her set and she's good.

I'm less interested in seeing the crowd in between sets and seeing the films they're showing. However, I'm done for the night.

In the event I don't get back on here tomorrow, here's the things they're asking people to pledge to help improve the environment. Environmentalists seem to be particularly verbose, so for the naysayers out there let's put this another way; here are 10 ways you can save yourself a good amount of money.


Courtesy of Conservation International

Do your part to ensure a healthy planet by incorporating these ten simple actions into your everyday life.

1) Replace your incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). Look closely at labels when buying light bulbs. Those marked as CFLs last 10 times longer and use 66 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs while delivering the same light levels. As a result, CFLs accrue net savings between $30 and $45 over their lifetimes, depending on your cost of electricity, the wattage size of the CFL, and the lamp's lifespan (manufacturers make CFLs that last 6,000, 8,000, or 10,000 hours). The return on investment is 15 times higher than leaving your money in a bank account or the average return on Dows-Jones stock investments. CFLs also reduce the release of greenhouse gas emissions and are safer because they burn at a lower temperature (160° F or less) than incandescent and halogen lights, which can burn at temperatures up to 500° F.

2) Turn down the thermostat just three degrees in the winter and up three degrees in the summer. You can prevent the emission of nearly 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.

3) Inflate your car tires. When walking or biking isn't feasible, you can do something to better protect the Earth while driving. Take a step in the right direction by inflating your car tires. Pumping them up can improve your gas mileage by about 3.3 percent -- a savings of about 7 cents per gallon. It's the right thing to do for your wallet and the right thing to do for the Earth.

4) Turn down the hot water heater. Set your water heater to 130° F. While you're at it, turn down your house thermostat during the winter to 55° F when you go to bed or leave home. These simple actions can have enormous positive consequences, preventing the emission of more than 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide over the course of the year, while cutting your energy bill by more than 10 percent. And that's just from you! Get your friends on board, and the benefits will multiply.

5) Choose your seafood wisely. We can't afford to wait until 2008. The world's seafood will be entirely depleted by 2048, according to an early November report in the journal Science. That means the moment to shape up is now. By buying and eating certain types of seafood, you can discourage harmful fishing practices and avoid the more depleted or threatened species. Take a look at Seafood Choices Alliance or Seafood Watch to make smart choices.

6) Purchase EnergyStar-labeled appliances. EnergyStar products are among the top 25 percent most efficient and can provide a 30 percent return or better through lower utility bills.

7) Wash and rinse in cold water. If everyone in the United States alone switched to cold water with their washing machines, we could save about 30 million tons of carbon dioxide each year -- and more than $3 billion in energy costs, collectively. And what's more? Cold water cleans your laundry just as well as hot water.

8) Buy locally produced meats and produce. Sounds like a good idea, but you don't know where to start? Just type in your zip code on Local Harvest's website to see a list of farms and farmers' markets close to home, as well as nearby restaurants committed to supporting their neighbors. Buying locally produced food cuts out the middlemen and the vast amounts of energy required to get your products onto store shelves. Most produce in U.S. supermarkets travels an average 1,500 miles before it is sold!

9) Drink more water from reusable glassware. It's great for your bank account, your health, and your planet. The average American consumed more than 400 beverage bottles and cans in 2006, leaving behind wasted glass, plastic, steel, and aluminum. That adds up to excessive amounts of fossil fuels and hydropower for mining, processing, refining, shaping, shipping, storing, refrigerating, and disposing of those materials. Of course, changing your drinking habits both at home and at work is applicable to just about every other habit, as well. You've heard it before and you'll hear it again: Reduce, reuse, and recycle.

10) Walk, bike, and carpool. In the United States, the car represents one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. However, you don't have to give up your car for a healthier planet, just expand your transportation options. You can significantly reduce your emissions by commuting to work. Try combining trips to minimize emissions, which are greatest at the beginning of a journey before the engine has reached optimum temperature and efficiency. When purchasing your next car, make it a fuel-efficient one. Hybrid cars can get twice the fuel efficiency of the average new car, cut greenhouse gas emissions by half or more, and reduce urban air pollutants. Carpooling saves energy, cuts on additional pollution, and allows you to take a turn as a passenger instead of driving everyday. Car-sharing (not pooling) is available in numerous U.S. cities. Car-sharing enables you to rent a car just when you need it. Each car-share vehicle displaces four to eight privately held cars, requiring less parking area and creating less road congestion. If you live within an hour's bicycle ride to the office (~10 miles), consider biking to work one or more days a week

Garrett Against Small Business...Again

Completely overshadowed by yesterday's vote on Iraq has been a huge victory for small business owners on the House floor. By a vote of 380-45, the House approved HR 1332, which strengthens the Small Business Administration's loan programs and targets outreach toward veterans and rural areas. In another 12 to Garrett vote, Representative Scott Garrett was the only Representative from New Jersey to vote against the Bill.

This is the second time Garrett has voted directly against small business owners in the last three months. The first time was Garrett standing with largely the same 45 Representatives who opposed 1332 to oppose HR 976, the "Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007". Garrett believed it better to provide no relief over 10 years because, according to Garrett's floor speech, the relief wasn't permanent. I'm sure the US Chamber of Commerce weighed that thought for a nanosecond before urging Congress to support the measure, and deciding to include it in their scorecard.

Unfortunately, at this point any speech Garrett may have given to explain his reasons for not supporting increased access to funding for those who provide 50% of the GDP, as well as 60-80% of the new jobs annually for the last decade, hasn't found it's way into the Congressional Record. My guess is Garrett's philosophy on this Bill falls into this category, as restated in a lengthy and must read article published in Inc. Magazine this month about the SBA.

Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in a paper last year. "Bank loans represent only one of many ways to acquire credit."

The article went on to explain the real world implications of this sentiment.

At nearly 12 percent interest, the Castillos' loan struck me as expensive. But it turned out they had financed two other used trucks from local dealers at far more onerous terms: 19 percent interest. Blanca also has a personal loan to repair the trucks--at 29 percent interest. She marvels at the difference the SBA has made. "For $30,000, we're paying $260 interest a month," she said, "and we have a personal loan for only $7,000, and I am paying $190 interest a month!"

The Castillos' panoply of loans and interest rates certainly brings De Rugy's "many ways to acquire credit" into focus. Her credit market is an abstraction, a upernormal (sic) force that is always fair, always rational. In Virginia, at least, the credit market is atomized; its decisions are subject to the biases and whims that rule the lives of real men and women, to ambitions and institutional prerogatives that set the agenda at the office.

That's as real world vs. rhetoric as I've seen in this debate. The article also pointed out how the Federal Reserve in Cleveland found SBA loans to be a good investment of tax dollars.

For instance, assuming the SBA meets its goal of creating one job with every $50,000 of 504 lending--and the SBA says many Certified Development Companies exceed it--the cost per job in 2006 was a mere $188; the Treasury would earn that back many times in a single year's tax bill.

The return on investment for taxpayers probably accounts for why 77% of Republicans supported this measure. It points to the difference between fiscal conservatives, seeking the most bang for the taxpayer's buck, and the anti-government folks like Representative Garrett. At the end of the day small business owners, and those who one day dream of working for yourself, need to realize that when Garrett's in Washington he will vote his personal philosophy over your checkbook every time.

Garrett and the Ghost of Nor'Easter Future

With Representative Scott Garrett's tour of some of the flood damaged towns in the Fifth, he reports he's seen first hand how hard hit the area is and how extensive the damage has been. I have little doubt his staff is going to do everything they can to help residents get FEMA aid if the disaster area declaration comes down. His staff always receives high marks for fulfilling this aspect of their duty, it's a shame Garrett cannot have the same said about him.

At issue is not this particular flood, there's really nothing that could have changed the outcome of this particular storm. However, over a month ago Garrett voted against providing funding for projects to prevent the overwhelming damage suffered in our District, state and region. While a storm like we just had will cause flooding, the extent of the damage would be lessened with a modern sewer system. With his vote against Representative Bill Pascrell's bill to provide funding to upgrade combined sewer systems, Garrett in essence was voting in favor of more extensive than necessary flood damage.

Garrett visited New Milford, River Edge and Rochelle Park; all of which are served by the Bergen County Utilities Authority. Here's how the State described the need to upgrade the BCUA's pipes.

Due to system capacity limitations, combined sewage surcharges and overflows into SE2 and FW2-NT waters. This results in excessive solids and bacteria levels, and floating sewage during wet and dry weather conditions.

Or in English, here's how the Record described a situation that Rep. Pascrell's Bill seeks to eliminate:

In Hackensack, the city's combined storm water and sanitary sewer system is overwhelmed by heavy rains 30 to 40 times a year, flooding streets and sending untreated waste into the Hackensack River.

Because the pipes from the northern part of Bergen flow south toward the treatment center in Little Ferry by a combination of gravity and pumping stations, when parts of the system get backed up you get what the Record reported happened in New Milford last week:

"It's disgusting," said Jane Sarnicki, whose house on Eagle Avenue in New Milford flooded with both rainwater and sewage during the storm when town sewers were overwhelmed by the volume of water.

There is also this from the Star Ledger:

In Paramus, officials declared a local state of emergency and then a health emergency when water overflowed the town's largest pumping station, disabling it and allowing sewage to back up into stores and a few homes. Many businesses were forced to close.

"It forced us to shut down all the businesses along Route 17, and along Route 4 west of Route 17," Paramus Mayor Jim Tedesco said. "You're talking about literally thousands of businesses. That presented a real problem for us today."

The town borrowed pumps and received permission from the state Department of Environmental Protection to pump sewage into the Saddle River, Tedesco said. The Garden State Plaza mall was closed for most of the day but reopened last night. Paramus Park Mall remained closed because of a power failure, officials said.

So the impact of the storm was beyond just the $180 million in property damage, it was also the shut down of the retail capitol of the North East and probably thousands of other businesses in other towns. Pascrell's bill allowed for roughly $340 million a year for sewer upgrades over five years; which the property damage from this one storm in our state alone equals 53% of that total without adding the economic impact or preventable healthcare costs from exposure to raw sewage.

Fortunately, 367 Representatives disagreed with Garrett, voting to support the fiscally responsible thing to do and invest the money now to prevent unnecessary damage from future flooding, large and small. There would have been flooding with this storm no matter what sewers were in the ground, but the particular problems mentioned above are a direct result of the pipes we have, and the pipes Garrett voted against fixing.

Not Another Dime for Reconstruction

Regardless of which side of the Iraq War debate you fall on, one thing should be universally agreed upon: The American taxpayer should not be footing the bill for institutionalized corruption. However, as was pointed out in an AP article yesterday that is exactly what we are doing. Radi al-Radhi, who runs the Public Integrity Commission for the Iraqi government, reported over the last 3 years over $8 billion has been stolen. Here's part of the reason:

Corruption in the country, while traditionally rampant, is encouraged by constitutional clause 136 B, al-Radhi said. It gives Cabinet ministers the power to block his investigations.

So far, he said, ministers have blocked probes into the theft or misspending of an estimated additional $55 million in public funds.

That's right, we are pouring our taxpayer dollars into rebuilding a country that feels it is a Constitutional Right to be corrupt. In January, Stuart Bowen Jr., the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction handed Congress a report detailing some of the issues in Iraq, which included:

Corruption continues to limit the ability of the GOI to manage reconstruction efforts and key areas of economic policy. The Iraqi Ministry of Oil estimates that Iraq loses $700 million of revenue each month because of oil smuggling.

With oil closing at $64.28 a barrel yesterday, that works out to almost 11 million barrels a month that just disappear, or 130.7 million barrels a year. Put another way, that 11 million barrels would be enough crude oil imported to cover all of the needs for the US (gas, plastic, home heating oil, etc.) for more than a day each and every month. That would be impossible to pull off without some kind of consent, and taxpayers are putting up the cash that allows it to continue.

I've written before about the absence of criticism when it comes to Iraq from those who pound their chests about being fiscal conservatives. The extreme anti-government crowd that masquerades as fiscal conservatives, like our own Representative Scott Garrett, rail against providing reconstruction aid to the Americans victimized by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, citing corruption as their reasoning. However, you will be hard pressed to find a single quote about the abuses in Iraq (I know, I've looked). The abuses in Iraq are at least 800% worse than those of the still devastated Gulf Coast region, and apparently are constitutionally protected to continue into eternity.

This sort of abuse isn't a slap in the face to the American taxpayer; it's a kick in the crotch. It needs to come to an end, and come to an end now. Our Congress either needs to demand more accountability, cut off the reconstruction funding until the Iraqis can get their stuff together, or get voted out of office in 2008. The unborn children of my unborn children are going to be paying for this war, with interest, and it is a complete dereliction of duty that Congress continues to allow this garbage to go on.