Abate Getting Nasty

Well, the earlier dust up over at Blue Jersey definitely pales in comparison to what has being going on for the last 24 hours. Camille Abate sent out a rather nasty mail piece attacking Dennis Shulman regarding his comments made regarding Iraq. In response, there has to be a record breaking number of comments regarding the Abate mailer I still have yet to receive.

While I'm concerned about how easy it will be to paint Shulman with the Federal investigation into the BCDO's top people (I could write the ads in my sleep); Abate's campaign over the last two weeks or so has planted some seeds of concern about the type of Representative she'd be.

First there was the talk on health care from the New Jersey Herald debate:

Shulman said he would encourage bipartisan discussion to establish such a program, but Abate said she would not "because there has been too much talk already," inciting applause from the audience.

I'm not sure why that comment sent chills down my spine, and nobody else has focused on it. The idea of replacing one ideologue with another is rather unappealing. Barry Goldwater understood that politics demands compromise, and it's one of Representative Scott Garrett's worst traits as a Representative that he is so unbelievably partisan.

Second, this whole mailer business. Why?

In a year where a record number of new voters are being brought in or returned to the process with the promise of a rejection of the politics of the past, this type of mailer should have been left on the shelf.

Overselling and underachieving are the hallmark of Garrett's time as our Representative (ex. AMT's still there; our tax dollar return has gone down). As I noted earlier, most voters know that no single Representative has the power to bring the troops home. Therefore, no Representative can be "trusted" to do the job, because "trusting" them to do the job implies a power they do not possess.

My hope is, should Abate win, her campaign will recognize that this sort of mailer won't inspire those undecided people to come to her side.

Dems Getting Heated

Over at Blue Jersey a brawl has broken out over the Democratic nomination here in the Fifth. Two posts by Juan Melli, Editor in Chief, questioning the honesty of the Camille Abate's campaign statements regarding Dennis Shulman's stance on Iraq have led to some testy conversations.

In the first, Melli simply calls the Abate campaign liars. In the other, he questions the Abate campaign manager's attempt to paint Shulman's stance on Iraq and Representative Scott Garrett as one in the same:

I believe our troops have endured far too much bloodshed in the name of a war that never should have been started and will fail no matter how long GeorgeBush, John McCain, Scott Garrett and Dennis Shulman try to keep them there.

With two weeks left to go, it's not surprising that things have gotten heated, but this is a bit of a stretch. Shulman's comment about making sure there was time to repair the damage done in Iraq was a little too politically cautious; but it's light years ahead of Garrett saying the war was justified after we found 12 mustard gas canisters.

Last I checked there were about 15 to 20 out of 435 who vote "end it now" on funding bills and such. Often times, they vote with the Republicans against timetables and things because it doesn't end the war fast enough in their mind. Someone should find out if Abate would join this crowd or not.

The bottom line is, and most voters know it, no single Representative has the power to bring the troops home now. What's important to find out, and probably would throw cold water on this thing, is how they would have voted on several of the bills over the last year.

If it turns out they both would have supported the various time lines, then there isn't an issue. However, if Abate would have voted with Garrett against these measures because they didn't do enough fast enough, then it would be Abate and not Shulman who would be keeping the troops there.

$7.8 Billion Iraq Fraud

Update: It looks like it's actually $15 billion.

Well, it's nice to know that the Bush Administration still loves to drop bad news on Fridays when no one is paying attention. Even better, a holiday weekend when people really aren't paying attention. Anyway, here is the news:

An internal audit of $8.2 billion paid to U.S. and Iraqi contractors found that nearly every transaction failed to comply with federal laws or regulations aimed at preventing fraud.

In some cases, there weren't even basic invoices explaining how the money was spent.

[snip]

The probe said that during a five-year period — from 2001 through 2006 — $7.8 billion in payments skirted billing rules with some violations egregious enough to invite potential fraud.

I've already written about how fraud in Iraq has led our tax dollars to be used to fund the insurgents killing our troops, as well as how the reconstruction auditors were being phased out after some embarrassing findings. This latest revelation, while by far the biggest in terms of dollars, is just another in a horrendous string of incompetence.

Representative Scott Garrett has joined Rep. Jeb Hensarling in calling for a special conference for the House GOP to come up with an action plan to deal with voter's anger. Maybe they can start with trying to explain why it is that every audit looking at the time when Republicans controlled Congress is showing a lack of oversight and graft unparalleled in the history of our nation.

Garrett, I Understand

Representative Scott Garrett is catching a bit of hell for his vote against the new GI Bill the other day. I think most of us in Garrett's position would have voted for the bill, but I understand why Garrett voted against the bill. It has nothing to do with Garrett's comments on the issue, because as usual he didn't make any. It also has nothing to do with the BS reasons given by the opponents saying it was a tax on small business, because it's not.

No, actually it was one of the arguments by a proponent of the bill. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for (due to her work to reign in private contractors like Blackwater and the abuses and waste they create in Iraq), said the following:

We are talking about people who are making over $1 million to pay a small sacrifice for this war where our military families are paying a huge sacrifice.

I suppose that's what I don't like about how they decided to fund the bill: targeting millionaires to pick up the entire tab. No one denies the way things have gone the last few years that certain income brackets (none of which I'm in) have done better than others in terms of taxes, however, those who serve in the military are all of our responsibility.

I crunched the numbers, and to pay for this bill without adding to the deficit, the average tax bill of $11,081.26 would have to go up $53.79. Basically, if you multiply your taxes paid by 0.004854202 that would be your increased contribution.

I don't know if I'm alone on this or not, but I've often said I have no problem with my taxes going up if I knew it was going to veterans. It's a national disgrace that we have veterans who are homeless, veterans who are lacking medical care, and veterans who find themselves struggling to make ends meet. Veterans have been willing to give their lives so all of us can have our freedoms, and we don't do enough for them.

Unfortunately, partisan politics and ideology have gotten in the way of providing what our troops need. The Republicans want to pass costs on to the next generation, and only support the troops in campaign commercials; while the Democrats want to only go after millionaires when all of us should be helping the troops and veterans. Meanwhile, things don't get better for O-U-R troops and veterans.

In that sense, I simply wish Democrats would show some real leadership and ask all of us to make the sacrifice. The Republicans didn't ask anybody to sacrifice, except future generations and military families, and now the Democrats are saying only millionaires and military families should. I understand the ideology and I understand this is an election year, but I'm sick of our troops being used as partisan political talking points instead of being treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

We all should be kicking in for this, among other programs, for veterans; it's the least we can do when weighed against what they have been willing to do for us.

Don't Like the Audit? Fire the Auditors

It's been well documented on this blog and throughout the news world the sheer amount of our taxpayer dollars that have been wasted through fraud and abuse in Iraq. If you add up all of the waste, fraud and abuse in all of the audits done it's in the billions of dollars. Now, the Bush Administration seems to have found a solution: end auditing.

According to the Associated Press, it seems the Administration is going to virtually end the auditing of USAID programs in Iraq. This from their story:

The U.S. plans to reduce the number of auditors and investigators at its development agency in Baghdad, The Associated Press has learned.

A spokesman for Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican who opposes the plan, said Friday the nine investigators and auditors would be permitted to finish their tours — but would not be replaced.

[snip]

The USAID inspector general's office has had people on the ground in Iraq since August 2004, Dinkler said, and conducted 38 performance audits, as well as 105 financial audits that questioned $64 million in costs. Investigations have come up with $4.6 million in savings, she said.

[snip]

USAID's mission in Iraq has included helping the country with elections, government services, financial management, infrastructure projects, health care and education, according to the agency's Web site.

I really hope Representative Scott Garrett, and the whole New Jersey delegation for that matter, can find a way to join Senator Norm Coleman in vocal opposition of this proposal. Either the inspectors are reinstated or the funds going to Iraq should be frozen.

Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, no one who pays taxes should be happy about this Enron-esque move. It's bad enough our national treasure has been vanishing in the sands of Iraq when people are paying attention, the idea of unchecked graft is obscene.

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.

Number of the Day: 935

That's how many lies the Bush Administration put out there leading up to the Iraq War.


Part of the reason I'm so against our own Representative Scott Garrett is the ease with which his statements and releases use misinformation and lying. We've seen it over the last year with things like SCHIP, his votes on earmark reform, or making up studies to support his positions.

Some would say Garrett's actions are different than those of Bush's, or discount Garrett's as politics. However, Garrett having a penchant for using misinformation is problematic in and of itself, and could have even more troubling consequences down the line.

Nearly 100,000 people have lost their lives as a result of the Iraq War since the 935 lies were told to get us there. Regardless of political ideology, no one should accept this as being remotely acceptable. If we are going to restore our standing in the world, and our own faith in government, we have to eliminate this institutionalized comfort with dishonesty.

The Boss and Media Consolidation

I saw a post over at Blue Jersey about how the latest Bruce Springsteen album, Magic, isn't being played by Clear Channel owned radio stations. I'm one of the many people Clear Channel drove away from regular radio listening due to their poor programing. I tend to listen to streaming music stations on-line or CDs I buy, so I hadn't really noticed. However, when the Number 1 album in the country is not getting any radio play it is a little disturbing.

The folks over at Fox News say it's because Clear Channel has said that Springsteen is too old. The folks at Blue Jersey, and other spots, think it's a repeat of the Dixie Chicks getting blackballed by Clear Channel and other stations after they were critical of the President.

Either reason raises serious questions about media consolidation, and the impact it is and can have in our nation. With the company taking their 1,184 radio stations private, this power to dictate culture and news is now in even fewer hands.

Clear Channel deciding someone is too old to be played, and therefore not allowing them to be heard manipulates the press in a way the Forefathers never imagined. However, because they've done it before, the smart money would be to bet it's politics.

Unlike when the Dixie Chicks exercised their free speech, the nation knows we were lied into war. The actions of the administration and those who mindlessly follow their rhetoric have worn out their welcome. There is no backlash about what Bruce is saying because the vast majority of Americans now know it's the truth.

Now it seems, in an effort to stop a message contradicting the mindless rantings of their Rush "Phony Soldiers" Limbaugh poster child, Clear Channel has quietly banned Bruce. I'm one of the thousands who got up to see The Boss play the Today Show (hence the pics). As I said to a friend, he came out swinging (about a minute in):

As a bonus, The Boss also played one of my favorites with "My Hometown." It was especially moving, and unlikely to be a coincidence, because this was while the Jena 6 were making daily headlines. If you look in the bottom right corner at minute 2:46 you can see my head and eyes. I was singing along, I promise.

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?

It's About Time

Today, our Representative Scott Garrett joined the vast majority of the rest of the House in voting for a bill imposing fines and jail on war profiteers. The question of "what took you guys so long" is a fair question for anyone having taxes taken out of their paycheck or filing quarterly to ask. Reports of contract abuse have been coming out almost since the beginning of the Iraq war and Congress has, until today, turned a very blind eye to the problem.

The Republicans let this theft of taxpayer dollars go on for the better part of 4 years, and the Democrats have waited 10 months to vote on something to deal with this. I'm glad they passed it, and whoever the Republican holding up the Senate version is, they should be seriously leaned on to release the hold. If they won't let it go, or come forward and explain why not, someone should out them. No Senator or House member should defend contractors who are stealing from us.

Garrett Votes To Reign In Contractors

In a good move, Representative Scott Garrett voted today to close the immunity loophole contractors operating in Iraq had. As noted in several places, nobody really knew how to deal with contractors when they broke the law. They're immune from prosecution in Iraq, and nobody here seemed to want them. Garrett voted with the vast majority of Congress to close the loophole and make contractors subject to US law. This is a very good thing.

Limbaugh Argument Continues

Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" thing has now gone into the partisan bickering sphere. Representative Scott Garrett's backing of Limbaugh has been picked up in a number of spots, so my guess is that it's his real thought on the matter. Considering the outrage about the MoveOn ad, the hypocrisy of Republicans defending Limbaugh is disheartening. The folks over at Human Events see this as a great struggle of Democrats vs. Republicans, as if that's all that matters.

What happened to right vs. wrong? Are the Republicans like Garrett so partisan they can't see that?

Maybe, just maybe, the Republicans figured Rush would leave it alone. However, Limbaugh has backtracked and bobbed and weaved on this thing. He's afraid, because he knows this time he's said too much.

Keith Olbermann made a good point that if Limbaugh attempted to apologize for misspeaking it would be one thing, but he hasn't. Instead, Limbaugh metaphorically referred to a Purple Heart recipient who called Limbaugh out as akin to a suicide bomber. Do Garrett and the rest of the Republicans rushing to Limbaugh's defense back that comment, too?

Here's the video:



I'm not a partisan, so this is an issue of right or wrong for me. Limbaugh was wrong at first, but could have recovered. Now, he's making it worse on himself. We'll see how far he goes to try and defend himself, and how far down he'll pull those Republicans that are too blinded by partisanship to actually listen to what Rush is saying. It should be interesting to see when or if Garrett gets to a point he feels he needs to distance himself from Limbaugh.

Garrett Defends Limbaugh? Say It Ain't So, Scott

Over at CWA-NJ: Conservatives With Attitude, a post titled "Allegations Against Limbaugh are Ludicrous" is attributed to our very own Representative Scott Garrett. Here's the post in it's entirety:

Like me, Rush Limbaugh has always been outspoken about his appreciation for our service men and women. This recent allegation that Limbaugh was bashing a war veteran is ludicrous. It’s clear to anyone that read the transcript that Limbaugh was just stating that he is sick and tired of Democrats using soldiers with phony stories to attack the Iraq war and discredit the hard work our men and women in uniform are doing.

If Garrett really wrote this, he has just defended and participated in the sort of character assassination against our skeptical but loyal soldiers he condemned MoveOn.org for using against Gen. Petreaus.

If Garrett really wrote this, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray and Sgt. Omar Mora of the 82nd Airborne both are seen by Limbaugh and Garrett as being a "phony soldier". Each was listed as co-authors of "The War As We Saw It", an Op-Ed critical of the Iraq War published back in August. Each died serving our country in Iraq a month later. Garrett's attacking their patriotism and validity of their sacrifice?

If Garrett really wrote this, the hypocrisy of this is of epic proportions. Garrett calls the ad attacking Gen. Petreaus disgusting; The New York Times has a daily circulation of 1.1 million. Garrett defends Rush Limbaugh's comments made to his average daily audience of 12.7 million.

I did read the transcript, here it is again:

LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq.

I really hope Garrett didn't write that piece. To try and defend Limbaugh's comment as freedom of speech would have been one thing, but to join in on attacking skeptical soldiers is another. I'm as angry about this little clip supposedly written by Garrett as I was about the MoveOn thing and when I heard about the Rush Limbaugh thing.

Say it ain't so, Scott. Say it ain't so.

Blackwater Hearing Observations

I was able to listen to most of the Blackwater USA hearing before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee while doing desk work. It was unfortunate that some of the members on each side decided to use this hearing for partisan purposes. Had they just stuck to the numbers and the facts it would have been a lot better.

Here's what I got from the hearing:

• Blackwater hasn't lost anyone it's been protecting;
• Bizarrely, water bottles seem to be thrown as a deterrent to slow down on-coming vehicles before shots are fired;
• Blackwater employees don't seem to be under any jurisdiction for their actions;
• Blackwater bills taxpayers at a 10.4% profit for their services;
• The average Blackwater employee makes more than General Petraeus;
• 23% of the contractors Blackwater has in Iraq are foreign mercenaries;
• And, probably the most important, the State Department refused to say the services provided by Blackwater could not be done by the government.

Probably my favorite line of questioning was that of Representative Paul Hodes (D-NH). For readers thinking that name is familiar, that's because he was appearing opposite our Representative Scott Garrett when Garrett said the housing market was strong.

Hodes seems to be a dollars and cents guy and he stuck to the numbers. Removing all of the accusations of cronyism and partisanship, Hodes boiled down the issue to what this hearing should have been about; whether or not private contracting gets good results for, and is a good expenditure of the taxpayer dollar.

With Blackwater billing a 10.4% profit, and having been paid $832 million to date as part of their most recent contract, that's $86.5 million tax dollars from their contracts that could have gone to anything else.

Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a longtime critic of the practice of privatizing the military, announced legislation today to phase out the practice. Since the State Department would not say they couldn't do their job without privatization, it should be interesting to see how this debate plays out.

My hope is the Democrats stick to the numbers on this, and skip the partisanship. In addition to the issues of accountability and results, plain and simple, we're paying more as taxpayers than we need to be.

Also, if Representative Henry Waxman's staff reads this, I'd love to know why New Jersey, as a donor State, does not have one Representative on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Eliminating inefficient practices within government to save taxpayers money is a vested interest to our State.

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.

Garrett's Chance Not to Be A Hypocrite

Representative Frank Pallone of NJ has thrown down the gauntlet to Republicans, including our own Representative Scott Garrett, to ensure they hold Rush Limbaugh to the same standard as MoveOn.org (h/t BlueJersey).

After MoveOn.org's ad attacking General David Patreaus, Garrett said to My9 News that the ad was "disgusting," saying it was wrong that our General with the boots on the ground was being called a traitor.

Well, now Rush Limbaugh has called those "boots on the ground" who come forward calling for a change of direction or withdrawal "phony soldiers." This blanket statement from the conservative mouthpiece who has been called a "big fat idiot" in the past, would therefore include the members of the 10th Mountain Division planning on protesting in Syracuse tomorrow (Saturday). This proud Division has been involved since the beginning, and currently have 7,500 of their brothers and sisters serving in Iraq.

So that the "Limbaugh is being taken out of context" argument is not perpetuated here, this is a transcript of the conversation. You can listen to it here:

LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.

As soon as I see public comments from Garrett I'll post them.

Garrett: Housing Market is Good

Representative Scott Garrett and Representative Paul Hodes appeared on C-SPAN yesterday for nearly an hour. Among many points: Garrett said he believes the overall housing market is in good shape (you have to see it to believe it); said he supports the PAYGO rules he voted against; and stared a hole in his notepad while being asked and then completely dodged a question at the end about the fairness of non-working people making $9 million a year from trusts being taxed at 15%.

For perspective on that last one, the median household income in our District is $84,443, putting those households in the 28% tax bracket. With the disproportionate amount of families within our District paying the AMT, that number does not drop off due to deductions.

For those not having time to watch the show (here's the link again), or the inclination, the folks over at Red Jersey have started their own video channel on YouTube. Their first Garrett video has him talking about Iraq, partisanship, No Child Left Behind and the fact he doesn't want Bush to campaign for him next year.

Good Read: Jackson Interviews Garrett

Herb Jackson of the Record has a good interview with Representative Scott Garrett about the Iraq letter and General Patraeus's testimony.

Here's how the interview starts:

Q: Tell me why you're going against the president?

A: When did I go against the president? Did you read my letter?

It's a good read.

Rep. Scott Garrett on Gen. Petraeus

“I first want to commend General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for their work on behalf of our troops and on behalf of our nation’s security into the future. The safety and well-being of our troops and the security for our nation that their mission now provides must always be our guiding objectives, and I am confident that these men share that belief.

"And, this is all the more reason that the Democrat leadership needs to stand with their Republican colleagues in calling on MoveOn.org to apologize for its despicable ad in today’s New York Times, which sought to discredit General Petraeus personally and on the basis of his anticipated report before his report was presented. This ad was disrespectful and utterly uncalled for. I believe in free speech, but this was an irresponsible use of such a sacred right. Not only did it fail to move us toward a bipartisan consensus on progress in Iraq; it may have actually set us back a few steps.

"I was pleased to hear that General Petraeus expects that we can safely bring a brigade home by December of this year, and shortly thereafter he will drop the troop numbers down to the pre-surge level. The men and women who risk their lives for our nation and our security, and the families that await their return, have earned this, particularly given the progress that appears to be being made in Iraq.

"I am encouraged by what I have heard, and remain committed to working with my colleagues to find a bipartisan strategy to stop playing politics with our troops’ lives and our long-term security; to complete our mission and to bring our troops home; and to ensure that no permanent occupancy of Iraq is established. There is simply no need for permanent US military bases in Iraq. And, given the broad bipartisan support that that position has enjoyed in each vote in the House, this may be the place to begin to build that much-needed bipartisan consensus.”

Misrepresention 201: Garrett & The Iraq Letter

Over the last few months, those who have been paying attention have seen the level of misrepresentation of the truth by Representative Scott Garrett rise exponentially.

In some cases, it's bald faced lies like Garrett claiming he introduced an amendment to stop the FAA from implementing the airspace redesign they announced as official today; or using fear-mongering lies to oppose the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Other times it has been more subtle, sin of omission type stuff. Garrett's No Child Left Behind communications are an example, using people's justified dislike of certain parts of NCLB to attempt to defund the entire Department of Education; or Garrett using the tragedy of the Minneapolis bridge collapse to re-introduce his bill to defund the Department of Transportation when we face a multi-billion dollar national infrastructure crisis.

In all of these cases, Garrett has received either favorable headlines or placement of his untruthful op-eds. However, nothing compares to the grand-daddy of them all: the Iraq letter.

I've gone back and forth about this last one today, simply because I didn't know what the letter said. However, now that I've read the text, it's clear that Garrett is either backtracking from his support of the change advocated in the text or was being disingenuous when he signed it. Here's the letter:

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner:

We ask that you, our leaders, work together to put an end to the political in-fighting over the war in Iraq and allow the House to unite behind a bipartisan strategy to stabilize the country and bring our troops home.

Since 2003, over 3,700 American military personnel have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and more than 25,000 have been injured. We have also spent over $400 billion in the course of this conflict. It is clear that the American people want a straightforward plan regarding our involvement and long-term interests in the region.

Next week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will submit a very important report to Congress regarding efforts to quell violence and reach political compromise in Iraq. While we are hopeful that their report will show progress, we should not wait any longer to come together in support of a responsible post-surge strategy to safely bring our troops home from Iraq.

It is absolutely crucial that we stabilize Iraq and transition the combat mission to the Iraqis. Any future legislative proposals considered in the House must reflect a bipartisan approach to this conflict. We ask that you join us in committing to a truly bipartisan dialogue on this issue immediately.

Certainly sounds like Garrett wants to work with the other side to bring an end to this thing, I even commented on the positives earlier. However, Garrett firmly said that wasn't the case, stating simply his signature reflected his belief the politics need to be taken out of the process. A noble thought I agree with, but the language of the letter has been picked up to mean a withdrawal and anyone reading it would come to that conclusion.

we should not wait any longer to come together in support of a responsible post-surge strategy to safely bring our troops home from Iraq.

That is the line that has gotten the attention and generated the headlines, radio talk show chatter, and blogposts like mine. It's likely that is also the line that caused senior Republican leadership to come together today and say withdrawals should be off the table.

It's also likely that's the line Garrett will use to convince the District next year that he wanted change but the votes weren't there, similar to fighting the FAA plan. The question then becomes whether or not voters take the next step and ask themselves how well Garrett is representing them if he can't get anything done.

Or maybe between now and then voters will realize just how dishonest and/or disingenuous Garrett is being with them. However, if the main stream media doesn't pay attention and at least call Garrett out on the blatant lies, it will never happen.