2nd Quarter Cash: Abate, Aronsohn, Garrett

While the Presidential candidates get all the press, here in our 5th District the dash for cash also had reports published on the web today.

Last quarter, announced candidate Camille Abate brought in $34,859 and has $18,872 cash on hand. Paul Aronsohn took in $1,823, leaving him $14,777 after spending $8,765. Aronsohn had promised an announcement of his intentions in late spring, which still hasn't happened. Whether or not Aronsohn's running at this point, when re-match seekers like Linda Stender and Tom Wyka have already announced their intentions, may make people (like me and others I've spoken with) wonder.

The numbers for Representative Scott Garrett are unclear. Herb Jackson, of The Record, reports Garrett's contributions for last quarter at $127,438 and cash on hand of $ 476,515. However, the link he gave is to Garrett's old report citing the $238,144, I wrote about earlier this year. I searched the site for the current report, and it wasn't there.

If Garrett's campaign spent nothing, the difference between the $365,582 he could have and the $476,515 is a good chunk of change. However, campaign accounts often invest their funds to gain interest, and if the return was that large over three months, everyone should ask Garrett's people where they put their money.

As soon as the link is updated I'll update the figures in this post.

The Iraq Vote

It's not a surprise that the vote on the resolution to begin redeploying troops went pretty much along party lines. Our Representative Scott Garrett joined most of the Republicans in Congress opposing the resolution. The partisan talking points are expected, and if Garrett said anything in the four plus hours of debate I'll post it here tomorrow in its entirety.

We already know that the Administration underequiped the troops, has not been able to stop corruption in Iraq, and has wasted taxpayer dollars paying billions to contractors for jobs Iraqis can do themselves. What evidence are the Republicans waiting for to change their minds?

At this point this vote is primarily about supporting the troops, and acknowledging this may be the worst managed war in American history. It's not the soldiers' fault, it's the very bureaucrats and politicians saying the war shouldn't be run by politicians and polls. Our troops have been willing to answer the call while the politicians and political appointees on the other end of the line don't respect their lives enough to protect them.

Just yesterday, the AP detailed the Inspector General of the Pentagon's report detailing just one of many areas where the Administration failed to protect our men and women in harm's way and Congress's abdication of their oversight responsibility over the last few years cost lives:

The Defense Department put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk by awarding contracts for badly needed armored vehicles to companies that failed to deliver them on time, according to a review by the Pentagon's inspector general.

[snip]

Force Protection failed to meet all delivery schedules, according to the report, and acquisition officials knew there were other manufacturers that might have supplied some of the vehicles in a more timely fashion.

[snip]

The report, not yet publicly released, also criticizes the Army's award of a $266-million contract for crew protection kits to Simula Aerospace and Defense Group, a subsidiary of Armor Holdings of Jacksonville, Fla. Simula lacked the internal controls necessary to ensure delivery of the kits, which were needed to make military vehicles less vulnerable to roadside bombs and small-arms fire, according to the report. The Army received kits "with missing and unusable components, which increased installation time and required additional reinspection of kits," according to the report.

There is next to nothing that inspires rage in me like reading about stuff like this. I've listened to my friends talking about their time over there, either participating in or knowing those who had to scavenge scrap metal. Instead of being provided with the equipment they needed, our soldiers made do by welding hunks of metal and lining the floors of their Humvees with sandbags to try and stay alive. For the majority of our 3,160 deaths in Iraq having to make do was fatal, for the tens of thousands injured it didn't work out so well either.

Compare the reality of the situation with the "support the troops" campaign rhetoric espoused by Garrett, as reported by The Record last year:

He became impassioned when he was asked about voting in favor of defense appropriations. "I wish they were home right now," he said. "I wish this whole war was over. I wish we were successful, but as long as our sons and daughters are in harm's way ... by golly, I'm going to make sure they have every darn thing they need."

By golly, they haven't had every darn thing they've needed since the beginning, and Garrett knew it when he said this and he knew it today. How is voting to continue the current mismanagement of the war anything less than letting the troops down?

Adding insult to national injury, you have the report released today dealing with the benchmarks. The Iraqis have failed to make satisfactory progress on the more than half of the benchmarks set forth, and they're complaining about our focus on results. We're spending $10 billion a month, and the Administration wants us to be heartened by the fact they've spent a total of $7.6 billion on reconstruction.

If that's the case, then that means the $8 billion reported to be missing earlier this year was almost all our money. As I noted at the time, that's not even the whole amount stolen from US taxpayers because the Iraqis have it in their Constitution that Cabinet ministers can block corruption investigations. So, in essence, continuing to vote to support the Administration's methods is a vote to continue giving taxpayer money to those who feel they have a Constitutional right to be corrupt.

Then of course you have the cost of the war being inflated by no-bid contracting of civilian contractors, and the implication that plays in making employment in a militia appealing to Iraqis. KBR, the largest private contractor in Iraq, had over 1,000 jobs available in Iraq on their website this evening. Not only are taxpayers paying a salary premium for the danger involved, we're paying an administrative fee to KBR for finding the individual. How many of those jobs could be filled by Iraqis at much less of a cost to taxpayers?

With all of this information available to Congress before it's available to us, it's mindblowing that Garrett and others continue to vote to keep doing the same thing. What is it going to take for those like Garrett to vote to support the troops and protect taxpayers?

Harriet Miers, Going to Jail?

As she said she would, Harriet Miers skipped the House hearing she was supposed to attend regarding the firing of US District Attorneys. Now, the committee has cleared the way for Contempt of Congress charges to be filed. An earlier AP report I read cited the fact that the US District Attorney in DC would have to prosecute such charges, and it would be unlikely Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez would authorize such a prosecution as he is the one being investigated.

However, in an article written by John W. Dean two months ago about the contempt that Gonzalez and the Administration have for Congress, he pointed out another avenue they could take:

Congress has two routes to travel, once it holds any person in contempt. It can proceed by the statutory route, which requires the Department of Justice to handle the prosecution. But since the Attorney General could block that route, the Congress would have good reason to use its inherent powers and procedures, instead.

Thus, Congress could --taking a page from Gonzales's playbook -- send fifteen plainclothes Capitol Hill police officers to arrest the Attorney General and take him into custody. Either the House or Senate, alone, would have the power to hold him until the end of the 110th Congress. In truth, a majority of either chamber of Congress has more power than a president, the Department of Justice, and federal courts to take summary actions against those who refuse to honor its processes.

Of course, this is not likely to happen. Congress has the power to do so if it so chooses. But because most of those in Washington with experience do not think like Gonzales, they will exhibit respect for interbranch customs instead of simply jailing the Attorney General.

Will this latest play by the President push those holding restraint and maintaining institutional respect past the tipping point? It should be interesting to see how this all plays out; but considering they've already taken the first steps to start the contempt proceedings it seems Congress's patience with the President has worn out.

Garrett vs. Education, Again

So, I'll be curious to see what if anything Representative Scott Garrett had to say before voting against HR 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. The primary victory for working parents and their college bound children is an interest rate cut of 50% (6.8 to 3.4%) and an increase in Pell Grant amounts. Here's a summary of some of the other perks, from the AP:

- Provides scholarships worth $4,000 a year to college students who agree to teach hard-to staff subjects, like math, in low-income schools.

- Offers $5,000 in loan forgiveness for college graduates who go into public-service
careers.

- Caps annual loan repayments at a percentage of a student's income, which is aimed at preventing people from having to pay back more than they can afford.

In the finest traditions of PAYGO, which Garrett also voted against reinstituting, this Bill achieves these tangible benefits for working families by eliminating something: $19 billion dollars in corporate welfare.

This is actually the second time Garrett has voted against decreasing the interest rates he voted to increase back in 2006. So the next time you hear him talking about looking out for the family budget; it's important to remember Garrett has directly voted against working families, who have dreams of a college education for their children, 3 times in the last year and a half.

I'll post anything Garrett said tomorrow.

No-Bidding Bergen: $125,000 Grapevine

Today, The Record ran a story about the new lobbying firm started by former NJ Transit Chief George Warrington, along with former McGreevey Cheifs of Staff Jamie Fox and Eric Shuffler. Turns out, the Democrats running Hackensack awarded these three a $120,000 no-bid contract to act as our county's lobbyists. Their firm was the only one to apply for the job:

Shuffler said his firm heard about the advertisement "through the grapevine," and later checked the county's Web site for details. Its principals had no contact with county officials before the contract was advertised, Shuffler said.

The corruption of the Papa Joe Ferriero run Bergen County Democratic Organization makes the first instinct when you hear something like this to think they must have given a campaign donation. When the grapevine thing came through, then you almost have to think that Papa Joe pulled some strings. After checking the ELEC website, as of right now it doesn't appear the donation theory holds.

Instead, this appears to be a case of the Democratic party paying back Democratic operatives (Fox & Shuffler) for years of service, and using taxpayer dollars to do it. We already pay over $1.4 million in salaries for state legislators to handle Trenton, and $330,000 for Representatives Scott Garrett and Steve Rothman down in Washington. Are they not advocating for us?

What about the Freeholders themselves, or our County Executive? They can't get their behinds down to Trenton or Washington to advocate on our behalf? It was noted in the article that the county has been disappointed with their ability to get funds in the past; there are a lot of ways to improve upon that, but using taxpayer dollars for lobbyists is politics as usual garbage.

There is simply something perverse about politicians hiring lobbyists to lobby politicians.

Happy 49th!

Just a quick note to say Happy Birthday to our Representative Scott Garrett.

Hope it's a great day for you, and your staff remembered to get you a cake.

Live Earth - Now What?

So the show is over, the bands and fans have gone home, and there were some 1,800 articles listed on Google News about the whole thing. So what does it really mean? What happens next? Will it make a difference?

Probably the most blistering speech given was by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr at the New Jersey show. His point was basically that all of us can and should do all of the little things they recommend to reduce our individual impact; however national public policy can only change when the politicians in Washington do it.

For those of us here in the Fifth, we already know Representative Scott Garrett is against Congress taking action on climate change. Garrett recently was the only Representative from New Jersey to vote to strip the following language from an appropriations bill (h/t Scott in NJ):

SEC. 501. (a) The Congress finds that--

(1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability and are posing a substantial risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity of floods, droughts, and wildfires;

(2) there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere; and

(3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. (b) It is the sense of the Congress that there should be enacted a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner that (1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.

I'm not sure why Garrett opposed this language, maybe he read one of the reports written by the scientists hired by the Exxon backed American Enterprise Institute to dispute global warming and is confused. Fortunately, the rest of New Jersey's delegation (Republicans and Democrats) understood the importance of putting this in writing.

The debate over acid rain went roughly the same way. Scientists, those impacted, and those that read about what was going on were screaming for help; while opponents of regulation painted the scientists as idiots, the activists as fringe, and rolled out their own "experts" to confuse the issue.

However, in that case the government went ahead and implemented regulation with stunning success in achieving reductions. The economy didn't collapse, there was a tangible reduction in the release of acid rain causing chemicals and the environment has begun to recover. Now, faced with over $4 billion a year in crop losses, among other things, China has started to close their coal fired plants to combat their own acid rain issue.

So now, we have a choice to make: do we as a District accept the fact that we have a Representative who would rather have us sit on our hands and do nothing about climate change; or do we get a new Representative. This isn't a partisan issue, as the rest of our delegation proved. This is a big beefy issue that needs people up to the challenge, and by all appearances it seems we don't have that kind of Representative at the moment.