Mass Politicization Rundown

As mentioned earlier this week, it seems our Representative Scott Garrett was the beneficiary of a taxpayer funded trip from the ONDCP based on White House political election strategy; rather than Garrett's genuine desire to update our District on what was going on with regard to drug policy. The folks over at Think Progress have compiled a list, with sources, of how widespread the mass politicization has been. (h/t pastordan at Street Prophets).

It is truly an astonishing and nauseating list. If we as a people ever have the misfortune of electing another administration with such contempt for their duty, whether Republican or Democratic, we need to demand this sort of abuse of power will not go as unchecked by Congress as it did for the last six years.

The adminsitration and their supporters whine about the oversight investigations being conducted by Rep. Henry Waxman and others as partisan theater. However, I firmly believe that if the great leaders of the Republican Party's heritage were alive today they probably would have ridden Bush and his cronies out of town on a rail by now.

Garrett, the Big Spender

OK, that's a joke.

Actually, our Representative Scott Garrett got a pretty good amendment through yesterday. He secured an extra $20 million for cancer and autism research ($10 million each), while eliminating $49 million from a program being phased out that for some reason was still in the budget. Garrett's been criticized in the past for his lack of effort when it came to the autism community, so this is a nice olive branch.

One thing that seemed a little odd was how flippantly the amendment was accepted. I have a lot of respect for Representative Dave Obey, Chair of the Appropriations Committee, largely because he'll put his foot down and yank earmarks from bills if people are being less than productive in their discussion. However, here's what he said regarding the amendment offered before Garrett's and of Garrett's:

Mr. Chairman, because we are trying to get Members out of here for their planes, I would be happy to accept the gentleman’s amendment.

[snip]

Again, the same deal, if we accept the amendment. We are trying to help get Members out of here.

Good for Garrett on the amendment and hopefully everybody had a nice flight home.

Garrett vs. Young - Observations

So Representative Don Young exploded on our Representative Scott Garrett. Young has a reputation as a brawler, and also the King of House Pork. His "my money" thing is how he operates, and the threats are normal for him.

Rolling Stone ranked Young third on their list of 10 Worst Congressmen. From that article:

Such coarseness is a Young hallmark. He once called environmentalists a "self-centered bunch of waffle-stomping, Harvard-graduating, intellectual idiots" who "are not Americans, never have been Americans, never will be Americans." And during a debate on the right of native Alaskans to sell the sex organs of endangered animals as aphrodisiacs, Young whipped out the eighteen-inch penis bone of a walrus and brandished it like a sword on the House floor.

If, in fact, Garrett introduced this amendment without talking with Young about it, a Republican known for this sort of stuff, how could anybody be surprised by his explosion?

What agitates me the most about this isn't Garrett's act to pull the funds; Garrett doesn't want the Federal government involved in education and he hates earmarks, so this action was his standard operating procedure (SOP).

However, this event highlights other SOPs of Garrett that should worry the rest of us:

First, you have the fact he would target a fellow member on the House floor, of his own caucus no less, without giving the courtesy of a heads up. Garrett should have talked to the Representatives of Alaska and Hawaii first, or introduced an amendment to strip all the earmarks.

Second, you have his initial weak, confused and self-centered response. Try as they might, his aides could not take the deer caught in the headlights look off his face. A member of the House slams the reputation of our State and our Congressmen and the first thing Garrett tries to do is defend himself. Give me a break. I appreciated the response that came later, and I'm hoping it had some passion with it as opposed to Garrett's usually flat delivery.

Third, and this is a big one: institutional ignorance. When Young talks about "killing" other Congressmen, he's not kidding. Young is a prolific fundraiser, and he spreads a lot of cash around to other members running for office and the national party. Last election cycle, his campaign committee doled out $231,000, with his Leadership PAC handing out another $159,328; compared to Garrett's $0 from his campaign and not having a Leadership PAC. Also, Young's total does not include the lobbyist directed funds from those lobbyists he has relationships with, such as big oil.

As wrong as it is, and symbolic of how sick Washington has become, this is where Young derives his power from on the Hill and how he's been able to get all those pork projects at the expense of New Jersey's taxpayers. With Republicans only getting 40% of earmarked funds at this point, now the projects our District needs federal funds for (like the 287 and Rt. 17 exchange renovation) have a bulls eye on them.

Garrett needs to fight for reform, but he has to be smart about it: you don't do it by surprise and you sure don't pick your first fight over funding for poor kids. The manner in which Garrett did this was a first week Freshman Representative's error that our third term Congressman should have had the foresight to realize his actions have the distinct possibility of further hurting our District. Garrett's amendment went down in flames, with even the rest of the New Jersey delegation voting against it. However, the damage this effort could do to our District may last much longer than a ten minute spitting match on the floor of the House.

Thanks, Scott.

Garrett vs. Young - Video and Text

Over at Blue Jersey, Talking Points Memo, The Hill, and a number of other sites, everybody is talking about how Republican Representative Don Young of Alaska verbally smacked Representative Scott Garrett around like a thirdhand ragdoll.








I don't have video of Garrett's response, but his tepid parliamentary inquiry made him look scared (more on that later). Here's the text though, which could be read as being forceful, however that can't be confirmed. It was split due to his allotted time.

As the Representative from the Fifth District of the State of New Jersey, I remind the gentleman from Alaska that the State of New Jersey has 13 congressional Representatives from both sides of the aisle. And so when the gentleman from Alaska makes reference to our Representatives from the State of New Jersey not doing their job and not appropriately representing the people of the State, I remind him that it is an accusation not against simply this one gentleman who is standing at the microphone right now proposing this one amendment, but it is an entire body of 13 gentlemen from both sides of the aisle who I say, and I commend both Representatives from the Democrat and the Republican side of the aisle, for appropriately and admirably representing the good citizens from the State of New Jersey.

My colleagues from the other 12 districts do not need to be defended against these rash accusations by the gentleman from Alaska. But I do come to the floor now to appropriately defend them, nonetheless.

[snip]

I also take up the comment that the gentleman from Texas was just making reference to which the gentleman from Alaska stated in his statement what was ``my money'' or it is Alaska's money. Well, maybe that is the problem we have had in this Congress for too long, even when Republicans were in the majority and now that the Democrats are the majority, too. Too many Members of Congress see the dollars that we appropriate here not as the taxpayers' dollar, but see it as their very own personal checking account. Maybe that is the fundamental problem that we have with why we spend more and more each year.

I remember when the Democrats were running for office this past election. They were railing against the Republican Party, that we were the party out of control, spending more and more and more. If they were elected to office, they would come here and rein things in when it came to spending. And I served on the Budget Committee when the Democrats were in the minority, and how they railed against us from the other side of the aisle. And at times I even agreed with them on some of the charges that they made, that we were spending too much money.

And now when the Democrats take control, what do they do? Give us the largest tax increase in U.S. history, and we see spending continue to go through the roof. Where do those dollars come from? They come from American taxpayers, from the family budgets, from men and women in Alaska and New Jersey and across this country, working hard just to get by, and yet they are being forced by the Democrats' tax increases to send more dollars here to Washington.

When the gentleman from Alaska comes forth and says it is "my money,'' maybe that is why in some respects when there are projects that are appropriated such as bridges to nowhere and the like, the American public says that is our dollars going to Washington, and it shouldn't be looked at for just such frivolous things as this.

The amendment that's before us right now is an appropriate amendment to say that the hard-earned tax dollars should go to programs that are necessary but be spent in an effective manner.

Members from all 50 States see the need to educate our children. Members from all 50 States, including the State of New Jersey, see the need to deal with the issue of Alaska native students, and that is why this administration has already requested appropriations of $1 billion for that, $118 million in other categorical aids such as that. So all we are doing is saying make sure that those dollars that come from New Jersey and elsewhere are spent effectively.

Finally, to close on this point of ``my money,'' maybe the gentleman from Alaska was not listening at the opening of my comments when I said that New Jersey taxpayers send a dollar to Washington and only get 63 cents back on the dollar, whereas his constituents, yes, they do much better. They send a dollar to Washington and then they get $1.80 back.

I would ask the gentleman from Alaska and other Members from the Democrat side of the aisle, where do they think that other 80 cents on the dollar is coming from? I will tell you it's coming from the good, hardworking taxpayers from the State of New Jersey and Connecticut and New York that are donor States to States like Alaska, that we are subsidizing their programs.

I would ask the gentleman from Alaska to refrain from, therefore, referring to it as his money. It is the taxpayers in the Fifth Congressional District and the rest of New Jersey, whether you're in a Democrat district or Republican district, who are helping fund these programs.

Garrett, Rove/Taylor & the ONDCP

Well, it looks like the White House was worried about our Representative Scott Garrett last year after all. In the on-going investigation into the politicization of every Executive Branch department, Rep. Henry Waxman and his committee uncovered a memo where former White House political director Sara Taylor reported on the progress of events the Directory of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and his deputies were "suggested" to attend.

Right there, listed on July 22, 2006 were the events Garrett held in Paramus and Augusta, that Garrett invited people to through a Garrett Gazette, was touted by the Bergen County Republicans, and if memory serves, received coverage in the NJ Herald for the Sussex part of the trip.***

At the behest of the White House's political director, taxpayers footed the bill for Garrett to have a meet and greet with the Deputy Director of the ONDCP. The overall program was so successful, an e-mail was sent out to everybody who participated. Here's a taste:

I just wanted to give you all a summary of a post November 7th update I received the other night. Presidential Personnel pulled together a meeting of all of the Administration's White House Liaison's and the WH Political Affairs office. Karl Rove opened the meeting with a thank you for all of the work that went into the surrogate appearances by Cabinet members and for the 72 Hour deployment. He specifically thanked, for going above and beyond the call of duty, the Dept. of Commerce, Transportation, Agriculture, AND the WH Drug Policy Office.

The WH Drug Policy office is the ONDCP. Now, while one might think that this is a coincidence, the e-mail that probably best explains how the system works was one sent from the USDA (Agriculture):

We would like to hold a briefing for our political appointees on the strategy we should focus on over the next several months. Everyone knows the general strategy, but I think people need a pick-me-up reminder.

[snip]

Specifically, I feel like people need to hear the message about resisting the urge to travel to the districts of key committee chairmen and members for the sake of building relationships...that the White House determines which members need visits and where we need to be strategically placing our assets.

Wow. Taxpayer funded "asset placing", to White House determined members needing visits. Sounds an awful lot like Garrett got some taxpayer funded campaign help from the ONDCP. We'll see what, if anything, comes of this; however it's fishy as hell and our Garrett is caught in the stink.


***I can't get their archive search to work, but as soon as I have a link I'll put it up

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?

Garrett Cash Update

The report was finally updated.

Representative Scott Garrett raised $280,155 last quarter, and has $300,555 cash on hand. This is a pretty large sum, which gives him roughly $110,000 more than he had this time last election cycle.

One question though, his last report ended with him having $238,144 cash on hand and this one says he started with $191,044. What happened to the $47,100?