Video of Garrett on Fox

This is exactly what I was talking about in this piece from yesterday discussing why I thought the DCCC ad missed the mark. I have to give credit to Representative Scott Garrett where credit is due. He may have an energy voting record that would infuriate his constituents, but his response to this ad was perfect.

Garrett has gotten better over the last two years at giving these matter of fact interviews; and now he gets to portray himself and those attacked as the victims of an unfair assault in the absence of results by Democrats. And you know what; people will eat that up.

As the "most trusted" news channel in America, it's probably too much to ask the Fox News anchor not to lead Garrett; or maybe she could have pointed out that 85% of our natural resources are not locked up.

While 85% of our coastline may be off-limits to drilling, according to the EIA, there is a little under 25% of our proven reserves that are non-producing in total (whether by corporate choice or regulation). Of that, 9.1% are in Federal waters off shore.

If we were to start producing a million barrels a day from the non-producing Federal area, it would last us five years and off-set imports by less than 10%. Oh, and it will take 8 to 10 years to get there.

However, this info which took about 15 minutes to find, likely won't ever make it in front of as many eyes as Garrett did playing the victim card over the last 48 hours. It's the sad reality of today's politics, and it's part of what needs to change. However, it's the game we play these days and Garrett has gotten very good at it.

DCCC Overplay

As a rule of thumb, I pretty much hate cookie cutter political attack ads. Having listened to it, I can say such is the case with the DCCC's Big Oil attack against Representative Scott Garrett. Now I don't have access to the focus groups that said this ad was a good idea, but here's why I think it could backfire.

First, Garrett's become a media darling. He's getting to go on with Blitzer and Cavuto and who knows who else by the end of the week, and talk about how he's being attacked because the Democrats don't have a plan. Here's Garrett's usual comment about the Democrats and energy:

You may recall that when Democrats were campaigning for the 110th Congress, they said that they had a commonsense solution to lower the price of gasoline and energy for the American public. And we are now 18 months , I think, into the 110th Congress. And, well, there is absolutely nothing in the Democrat's plan.

He said that as part of an after hours speech at 9:15 PM on June 11. I don't even know if C-SPAN still covers floor speeches that are unrelated to legislative action, and I'm a political junkie to some degree. Would the average voter have heard it? Unlikely. Among other things Garrett was up against a great episode of Deal or No Deal. However now, Garrett gets to repeat his stance unchecked (because they've already attacked him) and have it rebroadcast to a substantially larger audience at all hours of the day.

Second, they bought ad time on WABC (as well as two stations in Sussex). I'm sure those listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin are the supply/demand disciples who already see Garrett as a hero and his fight to open drilling off the Jersey Shore as a noble cause. 1010 WINS or 880 WCBS could work, but WABC? I guess since Garrett's told his regular core donors he's worried about Dennis Shulman, the DCCC wanted to put those who might donate to Garrett on notice that he needs their cash.

Third, it reeks of the stereotypical political attack that the average voter doesn't want to see this Election cycle. In a year where change and a new kind of politics are in order, we're listening to an ad that simply offers a generalized attack. We're burned out from this junk. People want solutions.
There's more, but I have to head out. I've written a bunch of times (scroll down) about Garrett's poor stand on energy. However, instead of taking the time to really educate voters about Garrett's record the DCCC went the easy, boring, and unproductive politics as usual way.

Garrett's a Media Darling

I'll have more on this thought later, but Representative Scott Garrett will be on Fox News Channel's Your World with Neil Cavuto at approximately 4:10 to discuss the DCCC Attack Ad. As always, if I find a video or transcript I'll post it.

Garrett on DCCC Attack Ad

I couldn't find a video of The Situation Room, but did find a transcript.

The White House has no response. Republicans, including a New Jersey congressman who's among those targeted, have less of a problem with the impersonator and more with the Democrats who control Congress saying Republicans are at fault for failing to help American drivers.

REP. SCOTT GARRETT (R), NEW JERSEY: What do we get out of the Democrats. Well, we get Nancy Pelosi flying her private jumbo jet back to -- back to California, and putting Congress on recess with no resolution to the energy crisis. And now we get attack ads.

For the record, Garrett takes Amtrak back and forth to DC. Garrett takes the regular regional train, as opposed to Acela. I make the same choice when going back and forth to DC, largely because Acela's price vs. time saved isn't worth it.

DCCC Attacking Garrett on Oil

Update: You can listen to the ad here.

Seems when the DCCC decided to name Dennis Shulman as an emerging race, they meant top 13 in the nation. The DCCC is coming after Representative Scott Garrett in a new radio ad using a Bush Impersonator:

"Wanted to thank you for continuing to support the Big Oil Energy Agenda,” the impersonator says. “‘Preciate you voting to keep giving billions in tax breaks to the big oil companies. Sure, gasoline is over four bucks a gallon and the oil companies are making record profits, but what’s good for Big Oil is good for America, right? I guess that’s why they call us the Grand OIL Party. Heh, heh, heh.

The DCCC has also announced they will also be doing web videos and targeted e-mails in select Districts.

Garrett vs. Speculators

A vote by Representative Scott Garrett that didn't get mentioned by anybody was his vote for the Energy Markets Emergency Act of 2008.

The bill empowers the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to go after those artificially inflating the cost of oil through speculation. I've been very critical of Congress for it's inaction dealing with speculation within the oil markets and the impact it's having on prices at the pump.

While this doesn't deal with the favorable taxation that have brought hedge funds and day traders into the oil markets; it is a very good first step in reversing the trend and I'm glad to see Garrett supported it.

Drill, Baby, Drill?

It's widely documented that Representative Scott Garrett is the only member of our Congressional delegation to support drilling off the Jersey Shore (Record, Star Ledger, Forbes). Here are his thoughts as reported in the Star Ledger:

"Providing states the opportunity to choose deep sea exploration using 21st century technology would help increase American supplies and thereby lower gas prices," Garrett said.

Problem with Garrett's statement is a little thing most of us like to call reality.

The amount of known reserves off limits are vastly below what Garrett and others have claimed. It's also at least 10 years away from adding oil to the market. So basically, this falls into the ideological false promises category. Even if the ban is lifted, there will be no impact on prices.

Even if there were oil out there, as pointed out by fellow NJ Republican Representative Frank LoBiondo to the Star Ledger, there's plenty of supplies available that the oil companies have signed leases for and aren't doing anything with right now:

"With more than 68 million acres nationwide already leased though unexplored for oil and natural gas, we should be focusing on those areas before drilling in sensitive locations such as off the Jersey Shore," LoBiondo said.

We've given oil companies tax breaks, credits, and government funded research as to where and how to drill; however, we cannot make the oil companies drill. It's kind of like we can't make the Saudis open the spigots a little.

The companies and nationals know the price right now is based on wild speculation, their dividends and treasuries reflect it, and there is no motivation for them to increase supply regardless of how much we're hurting.

Maybe that's why Garrett is proposing nonsense solutions; because the market is working as a market will without intervention. The only problem with the current climate that Garrett sees is that the government is saying companies can't drill in certain spots. So, Garrett's trying to convince his base they're paying too much because of the government and not reality.

Problem with being an ideologue is that your statements often have no grounding in reality. Garrett has to know his "solution" won't do anything to lower gas prices, but he's still going after the ideological target instead of pushing for something that will actually help.

It's more of the same from Garrett: cheap talk and useless action.

Garrett's Oily Gazette

Undaunted by the fact the head of the MTA shot down our Representative Scott Garrett about his plan to eliminate Federal oversight for our regional transportation needs, Garrett pressed his plan again in the latest Garrett Gazette.

In true to Garrett form, he's cited a study that I can't find. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means what I could find didn't match his numbers. Here's the statement:

I strongly believe that we need to develop our nation's current resources. We need to begin opening up our own fuel sources here in the U.S. and begin deep sea exploration. The Energy Information Administration estimates that untapped U.S. reserves would provide 1 million barrels per day for 30 years.

By Garrett's math, there would have to be 10.9 billion barrels of oil in untapped reserves (1 million x 365 x 30). However, the only number I could find from the EIA regarding non-production was 5.174 billion in proved non-producing reserves. So, pending a link being sent, Garrett's numbers seem to have been inflated 112%.

Garrett making up numbers and sources is nothing new. However, Garrett is also attempting to make it sound like this would really help.

Even if we fully tapped these reserves to get a million barrels a day, before they ran out in less than 14 years, we'd only be offsetting our imports by 7.4% per day if our consumption was not lowered significantly.

Another key example that Garrett is misrepresenting the truth was this statement:

And to make matters worse, our great state of New Jersey is one of the hardest hit states. For every gallon a gasoline attendant puts in your tank, you as a New Jersey resident will pay 18.2 cents in federal taxes.

We always rank among the 10 lowest states for average gas prices, often the lowest in the nation. It doesn't mean it's not high, but "one of the hardest hit states" is a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact. Juxtaposing it with the Federal gas tax to push his plan is nothing short of malicious misinformation.

If Garrett wants to push his plan, he should at least engage in an honest discussion with constituents. Similar to the SCHIP debate, without arguing from a position of honesty, we can't take any of his positions seriously.

The fact Garrett can't get a bill out of committee shows his colleagues feel the same way.

Who Is Telling the Truth

Big Oil was back on Capitol Hill today, getting grilled about the sky high price of oil and their mind numbing profits. As usual, this is how they explained it:

"The fundamental laws of supply and demand are at work," said John Hofmeister, chairman of Shell Oil Co., acknowledging it is something the oil industry has been saying for some time and that the explanation may sound "repetitive and uninteresting."

However, OPEC sees things differently:

However, Chakib Khelil, president of Opec, said he did not expect output to be increased, adding that “current prices are not based on supply and demand."

So the question then becomes who is telling the truth?

Congress is Full of Crude

With the Senate passage of a halt of contributions to our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, those in Congress somehow believe that 70,000 barrels a day in the market is going to make a difference at the pump. Sadly, this is just an Election year gimmick.


Even though folks like our Representative Scott Garrett champion the idea, it will make even less of a difference at the pump than suspending the 18.4 cent gas tax. The US burns through 20,687,000 barrels/day, making the 70,000 barrels equal to 0.33% of our daily usage.


The retail price of gasoline today is $3.722. Of that money 72%, or $2.680 is attributable to the price of crude oil. In a stagnant market, the increase in supply would lead to an equal decrease in price. So, in theory, the $2.680 would decrease to $2.671.


Your savings on a 16 gallon fill up: 14.5 cents.


That's not per gallon, that's total. Less than a penny a gallon.


If Congress is interested in a real solution, and not one worth less than half a postage stamp, they need to find a way to deal with speculation. It's widely quoted that speculation is adding 25-30% to the price of a barrel of oil.


The first place to look is how oil futures are taxed. The folks over at About.com explain it better than I could, but basically, the current tax code encourages speculation on oil. Unlike stocks that you have to hold onto for a year for favorable taxation, 60% of the profit an individual makes on commodities is taxed at 15%, even if they only held the futures for a few minutes.

While it would be impossible to completely eliminate speculation, if the 30% price increase due to speculation was eliminated, on that 16 gallon fill up, we'd be saving about $12.86.

Just something to think about.

Garrett vs. Future Energy Independence

This was not a surprise.

In another 12 to Garrett vote, Representative Scott Garrett voted against the Energy Bill yet again. This bill was yet another bi-partisan effort Garrett voted against, picking up 63 Republicans from the first vote, as well as President Bush's promise to sign.

On energy matters, Garrett's short on foresight and long on bad stances. Garrett has previously voted against price gouging protection for consumers twice. Garrett also holds the distinction of being the only Representative from New Jersey to vote against investment in alternative energy, while also being the only one to support oil drilling off the Jersey Shore.

I had a chance to listen to some of the debate, and it doesn't seem Garrett got up to explain why he was opposed. If he submitted anything to the Clerk I'll post it here.

Garrett on the Energy Bill

The Record reported what Representative Scott Garrett said about his being the only Representative from New Jersey to vote against the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act:

"I believe it's important to increase our nation's energy availability and address our concerns for high gas prices and dependence on foreign oil," he said. "Last week's energy bill presented on the House floor did nothing to ensure that, so I voted against it."

It's important to note, Garrett did not offer a single amendment to deal with what he perceived as the bill's shortfalls. The bill was considered under an open rule and several Republicans who voted against the bill as a whole did offer really good amendments. One example is Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska, whose amendment was to accelerate the use of geothermal heat for government buildings.

I'm not sure what part of expanding the availability of alternative energy sources does not register with Garrett as increased energy availability. Unfortunately, what I am sure of is Garrett is the only Representative from New Jersey to support drilling off the Jersey Shore.

Fortunately, the rest of our State's delegation understood the important steps this bill takes toward energy independence.

Garrett and Gas Gouging

For those who forgot, last year Representative Scott Garrett voted against protecting consumers from price gouging at the pump. He followed that vote up with another vote against protecting consumers from gouging this year, and then attacked Republicans who voted for such protections. Two price gouging protection bills, two no votes.

I bring this up after reading this article and waiting to see Garrett's vote about the energy bill on the House floor. It would seem, due to simple physics, we're getting ripped off at the pump during the summer. Here's part of the article:

As the temperature rises, gasoline expands, and the amount of energy in each gallon drops. Because gas is priced at a 60-degree standard and gas pumps do not adjust for temperature changes, motorists often get less bang for their buck in warmer weather.

Consumer watchdog groups warn that temperature increases could end up costing U.S. consumers between 3 and 9 cents a gallon at the pump.

[snip]

Almost a century ago, the industry and regulators agreed to define a gallon of gasoline as 231 cubic inches at 60 degrees. But as the mercury rises and gasoline expands, it takes more than a gallon of gas to produce the same amount of energy. The opposite is true when gasoline contracts in colder weather.

Now, one might say that we make up for it when it's colder, and in theory that would be true. However, take Ramsey for example, where the average temperature for the year is 61, with 6 months of the year over 60 and 5 months below it (April is 60). So on average, the people of Ramsey and the surrounding towns are not getting the gallon of gas they're paying for.

The whole situation needs to be looked at, reviewed and reformed. Gas prices are killing small businesses and families, and playing a significant role in holding our economy back. The fact our Garrett would consistently vote against even allowing an investigation into these issues, when it seems we already know the answers, is a little disconcerting.