Garrett Hearts Beer Brewers and Drinkers

Here's a measure I hope Representative Scott Garrett can help get passed, and a tax break I think most of us can get behind. The day before Valentine's day, Garrett joined a number of Representatives in co-sponsoring a bill calling for the Federal Excise tax on beer to be slashed in half (Rep. Bill Pascrell was an original co-sponsor).

This is much more about jobs and fairness than the penny or two per bottle the tax costs us as consumers. Using the most recent numbers I could find, as it stands now, the average micro-brewery in the US is paying an average of about $16,584 in federal excise taxes on their product, in addition to their income taxes and myriad of state, county and local taxes.

Beer is easily one of the most overtaxed consumer products in America.

Having known more than a few people that have worked at breweries, especially the micro variety, they are often times staffed by part-timers passionate about the craft and the product they produce. Kids working their way through college. Parents making a little income on the weekend. This kind of targeted tax break could be a huge boost to these small, passionate, job producing businesses.

Garrett and Pascrell taking up this cause now comes at important time for all of us who like well crafted beer. In a time of economic downturn and increased raw material costs, states like Oregon have gone off the deep end by considering increasing their excise tax 1,900% ($49.61 per barrel from $2.61). Other states like Idaho, Kentucky and New York either have or are thinking about increasing excise taxes even further.

With breweries as close as New York threatening to close due to their state's actions, New Jersey's relatively low excise tax could attract new business. If breweries really do close their doors, it's not hard to imagine their equipment finding it's way to New Jersey. Every time I see an abandoned factory here, I think about a brewery I used to frequent in Michigan that was able to turn an eyesore into a community gathering place.

Granted, we'd have to deal with our regulatory mess that somehow has only fostered 14 breweries in a state with almost 9 million people, but that's another post for another day.

In the meantime, cheers to Garrett for joining Pascrell in this effort.

Garrett on Stimulus Pt. II

Representative Scott Garrett is always talking about putting more money back in the family budget. However, when presented with the bi-partisan stimulus package going around Washington he responds like this to Herb Jackson of the Record:

Garrett said he would vote against any stimulus plan that included rebates and no business tax cuts because taxpayers would use too little of the rebate money on spending to make a real long-term difference in the economy.

I suppose Garrett constantly stating his primary goal in Washington only goes as far as how he'd like us to spend it when it comes to getting us our money back.

Good News for Oakland

On Thursday, Representative Bill Pascrell and Representative Scott Garrett attended the ribbon cutting ceremony of the completed flood gates at the Pompton Lakes Dam. Here's The Record's summary of the project:

Exactly 23 years ago to the day, the rampaging Ramapo River was forcing Oakland residents from their homes and sweeping away their belongings. But on Thursday, the river was as well-behaved as human tinkering could make it.

That's because a three-phase $21.6 million project on the waterway dividing Wayne and Pompton Lakes was finally complete. Two steel floodgates at the Pompton Lakes Dam, valued at a total of $1 million, now allow much more water to gush from the waterway's stretch in Oakland into lower-lying Passaic County communities.

This is a good thing for the residents along the Ramapo, and a good example of the positive impact federal dollars can have on a local community.

The Army Corps project was funded with $19.6 million in federal money and $2 million from the state.

It also is, as Garrett acknowledged, what bi-partisanship should look like.

Garrett agreed that "this project is the product of bipartisan cooperation, and it goes to show you what good work can be done when we focus on solving problems."

Now if we can get him to take that attitude from the dam on the banks of the Ramapo back to Congress by the Potomac, we might be in business. Garrett is one of the most partisan members of the House, so I won't hold out hope. It serves our nation and our communities best when we have influence, as opposed to what we have now, and being able to work with the other side helps build the ability to get things done. On this day, Garrett has seen the benefits of cooperation and maybe, just maybe, he can figure out that we move forward as a nation when the parties work together.

Garrett's grudge against drinking water

Update: This bill's passage has major implications for North Jersey. Both The Record and The Herald News carried stories about Representative Bill Pascrell Jr.'s legislation, which was approved among the New Jersey House Delegation, 12 to Garrett.

I've been working on another project this evening and decided to take a break to see what went on in the House today. One bill, and Garrett's vote on it, stood out. He was the only NJ House member to vote against The Water Quality Investment Act of 2007. Basically, it provides grant money to states and towns to help clean up their water by avoiding sewer overrun into streams and such. This was a big problem where I lived in Michigan, where we'd have significant rain and the sewage treatment facilities would overrun and dump raw sewage in the rivers and lakes where people swam and would catch fish for dinner. Fun stuff, huh?

Anyway, Garrett voted against providing money to help fix problems like these, that usual have enormous costs that communities can't afford to fix on their own. At first I was surprised, however, I should have seen this coming, as Garrett has a long running feud with working sanitation and clean water for people to drink and get food from.

Rep. Garrett was one of 14 representatives to vote against "The Goals and Ideas of World Water Day." Here's what was resolved:

(1) supports the goals and ideals of World Water Day;
(2) recognizes the importance of conserving and managing water resources for sustainable development, including environmental integrity and the eradication of
poverty and hunger, and human health and overall quality of life in the United States and across the globe; and
(3) encourages the people of the United States to observe World Water Day with appropriate recognition, ceremonies, activities, and programs to demonstrate the importance of water and water conservation to human kind.

And Garrett voted no.

The other big one was Garrett's vote against the "Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005." It's a bit longer, but lays out the issues and consequences that a lack of clean drinking water has around the world. Basically, it resolves that we should focus our foreign aid on ensuring the availability of working sewers and clean drinking water to prevent, among other things, regional wars and children dying every 15 seconds from preventable disease. Garrett had a few more friends on this one, he was one of 34 to vote against it.

I don't know what Garrett has against providing clean water and working sanitation. Personally, I find his stance on these immoral and somewhat appalling.

If you hate the AMT, vote in 2007

One of the issues I heard the most about, and one I know Rep. Scott Garrett and I believe is desperately needed for our District is Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief. Scott's website sums up the problem for many in the District fairly well:

The Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT, is a parallel tax universe that was initially established to keep high-income taxpayers from avoiding a significant portion of their tax liability. But, the arcane structure has spread into the middle class and applied to more than 4 million families in 2005. These are solidly middle-class families, such as couples that make more than $58,000 a year and itemize their deductions.

The Record also covered the problem recently, with Rep. Bill Pascrell discussing his plans:

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-Paterson, who was recently named to the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, said one of the areas where he would concentrate is on the alternative minimum tax, which in many cases deprives North Jersey families of tax breaks enjoyed by people in other parts of the country who do not pay such high property and state income taxes.

My tax adviser used to refer to the AMT as the SST (Seven States' Tax), because those doing the heavy lifting of this burden largely live in seven states. The reason this has not been fixed is because the majority of the nation doesn't have to deal with this, and therefore there isn't a majority within Congress or the Senate who are willing to tackle the problem.

Effectively, AMT relief for the seven states would likely lead to slightly higher taxes in other parts of the nation. Not a popular proposition among legislators, no matter how unjust the situation is. This injustice also accounts for why our return on tax dollars continues to decline year after year as more middle income families are ensnared. We send more money to Washington in terms of AMT and receive about the same level of funding year after year.

While we wait for Congress to address this problem, we need to take certain matters into our own hands. This year the entire legislature is up for re-election, and lasting property tax relief is the only way to combat the AMT. Only 34% of voters showed up in 2003 (the last off year without a Governor's race). If people want real relief and real reform, people have to show up to vote and hold accountable those ultimately responsible to fix the problem.