Props to Menendez & Garrett

In my earlier post about the '08 hopefuls health care plans, I noted that no one makes a strong case on our behalf about the differences in cost of living when it comes to Federal programing and tax rates. Well, our own Senator Bob Menendez did make the case with regard to the State Children's Health Insurance Program. He distributed a chart showing the differences between several locales and it was reprinted in the Record.

And, for all of you who enjoy Greenwood Lake or rely on it for your business, Representative Scott Garrett secured $250,000 in funding to help clean it up. In his press release he had this to say:

“I’m proud to be a part of this community-wide effort to preserve and protect Greenwood Lake. The growth of the aquatic weeds has reached a critical state, putting the Lake at risk, and with it, the creatures that inhabit it and the businesses that rely on it as a regional tourist attraction.”

On these issues, we have been well served by our representation down in Washington.

Calling the Kettle Black

In looking for a floor speech on the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) expansion, I found that Representative Scott Garrett once again was without substantive comment. Before Garrett voted to continue raiding the Medicare trust fund to subsidize insurance companies and cut Medicare payments to doctor's 10%, he did give a soundbite to Herb Jackson of the Record, but no Floor speech.

Despite the fact we once again have to wait to see if Garrett submitted a written essay to the House Clerk instead of giving a speech, I did find this minute long speech he gave yesterday.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. America, your freedom of speech was trampled on yesterday. This new Democratic leadership quashed any semblance of free speech here on this House floor. This is not just a procedural matter, mind you. This is a matter for all Americans.

You see, each Member of Congress represents 600,000 constituents. That is 600,000 American voices that were quashed yesterday. As I say, this is not just a Republican issue, for their voices were quashed, but so were Democrat and Independent voices as well.

But in fact, this is nothing new for the new Democrat leadership. Just a week ago we had to come to this floor to make sure we could fight to keep the radio waves and the media opening dealing with the Fairness Doctrine. Prior to this, we had to fight to make sure that the centuries-old tradition of bipartisanship would not be broken. Prior to that, we had to fight to make sure that there would be transparency in earmarks, and all the Republicans fought on the side of openness and freedom of speech.

The Democrats say they tolerate all diversity, but apparently diversity not of thought and speech.

Garrett really does go out of his way to make a hypocrite out of himself sometimes. This from the man who attacked a member of his own party for not following in lockstep. This from the man who came to Washington during the Tom DeLay authoritarian era, and followed along faithfully enough to have a voting record more conservative than 97% of his colleagues.

Also, one cannot forget Garrett praised the President for not reaching out to Democrats and Independents during the State of the Union; even though Independents outnumber members of both parties in our District combined.

Where was this criticism when the Republicans maintained a majority of the majority rule to bring forward a bill? Where was this criticism when committee chairmanships were no longer doled out based on seniority, but instead whether you kowtowed the party line? The sad reality is that the Republicans did more to destroy the centuries-old tradition of bi-partisanship than anyone could have imagined; but you didn't see Garrett standing on the floor defending the right of the Democrats to be heard.

It's unfortunate the House Democrats limited debate on SCHIP, as once again they don't have a bill that can withstand a veto. The Senate version is bi-partisan in nature and has much broader support (the AMA, AARP, and the Insurance Industry). In all likelihood the final bill sent to the President will more closely resemble that one.

In the meantime, Garrett has once again slammed the Democrats for mildly repeating the sins of the Republicans over the last six years. I'm not sure if it's institutional amnesia or not, or if Garrett just likes to call the kettle black.

No Oops; Garrett Does it Again

As noted last week, our Representative Scott Garrett has disingenuously positioned himself as the lead dog on fighting the FAA's airspace redesign plan for our area. In his initial release, he made it sound like he introduced Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen's amendment to squash the plan. However, he did mention Frelinghuysen and Representative Shays, who also co-sponsored the Frelinghuysen amendment.

This is the start of Garrett's latest Garrett Gazette:

Last week, I offered an amendment that would have prohibited the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from implementing its preferred alternative forairspace redesign in the New York-New Jersey area.

So not only does he take sole credit for Frelinghuysen's amendment, he doesn't even mention him. That's just not right, but that's our Garrett.

I was getting ready to write about no Gazette this week, thank goodness it got e-mailed to me.

Health Insurance & Taxes

Well, Rudy Giuliani sent out his health care plan today. so there are now three visions for voters here in the Fifth and the rest of the nation to pick from.

Giuliani's plan hinges on a $15,000 tax credit for families to buy their own insurance. I'm not sure if Giuliani's staff realizes the median gross income for families in the United States was slightly over $46,000 in 2005. The idea of half the nation having to put up roughly 32% of their income up front and wait for a refund check the following year could have disastrous implications for the economy. To me, it seems this is another area where a theoretical fix doesn't meet the reality of the situation.

Right now, we have 15% of the nation uninsured. How many more would lose their coverage and not be able to front the $15K is a mind blowing figure to contemplate. It's tough to gauge how many people that is, but even if the plan is more like TransitChecks there is only so much a family can lay out for health care up front. Would lack of demand for services start to bring costs down? Maybe, but it's more likely more people would have to wait until they're in the emergency room and the hospital crisis would worsen at light speed.

Speaking from personal experience, this plan is a non-starter for me. If my employer chose to drop my health coverage since I get a $15,000 tax cut, I wouldn't have insurance due to cost. It's that simple. On another angle, a small family business owner I know currently pays over $60,000 a year for his coverage, so it's a start for him but once again he's laying out a tremendous amount of money.

I'm still working through the John Edwards plan and the Barack Obama plan. From a practical standpoint, even with their shortcomings each seems more likely to work in the real world. However, of concern to our District is that both candidates intend to fund their respective plans by allowing tax breaks to expire that particularly affect our District.

Whenever the national discourse turns to wages and income, no one ever talks about cost of living. If I made what I make and still lived in West Michigan, I'd own a small house as opposed to looking for an apartment with my brother. It costs roughly 34% more to live in North Jersey than in West Michigan, not including the astronomical property tax difference, and 40% of households achieve what the IRS deems as the top 10% of earnings (over $104,000). Simply looking at the numbers blindly doesn't work if we're talking about fairness and shared responsibility.

The government has formulas to determine government aid caps based on location. If income taxes are how we're going to fund healthcare, then there needs to be a better formula of taxation as opposed to simply looking at numbers on a page. If that gets developed, the AMT would also need to go away otherwise the reforms wouldn't apply to our District.

As far as our District goes, the fact our current Representative Scott Garrett ranks in the bottom 5.5% of the influence on Capitol Hill is not going to help us make the case for some sort of cost of living adjustment to be in there. The fundamental questions for our District should be what do we want, and do we have a Representative capable of getting as much of it as possible? Right now, the answer to that second part is probably not.

Health care reform is coming, one way or the other. It has to, as costs are wrecking the budgets of families and our nation's economic competitiveness. It should be an interesting debate to watch.

GOP Hopefuls Disrespecting Voters

I'm pretty much a huge fan of anything that gets more people involved in the political process, especially young people. Voter turnout in our country is abysmal, and politics as usual bred apathy is a huge part of the reason. So when an event like the YouTube Debate on CNN averages 2.6 million viewers, and is very successful in attracting youth, it is a good thing in my mind. Here's how they did:

Included in the latest viewership numbers were 407,000 viewers in the coveted adults 18-34 demographic, which topped the previous record of 368,000 for the New Hampshire debate. Both are higher than the previous record holders, CNN's February 15, 2000, GOP debate (357,000), Fox News Channel's January 22, 2004, Democratic candidates debate (340,000) and MSNBC's South Carolina debate on April 26, 2007 (327,000).

When you add together that people can watch the debate at their leisure (it'd be nice if YouTube would post how many folks have), and the fact that almost 3,000 people submitted questions, few can argue that the event wasn't a huge success in engaging the public.

As great as I think the YouTube Democratic Debate was is how pathetic I think it is that the Republican front runners are bailing on their YouTube debate. Mitt Romney has formally declined, and Rudy Giuliani has something better to do than take questions from voters.

Speaking in his own defense, Mitt Romney has been quoted in a number of stories saying that getting asked about global warming by an animated snowman was demeaning to the candidates. Does Mitt Romney have any idea what kind of time it took to animate that sequence? It's not like it's not a question on a lot of people's minds and one that you will be asked, what's wrong with it being asked creatively? What part of people going out of their way to be involved in the process is demeaning to Romney's apparently overly delicate ego?

None of the questions were something a candidate for President in either party shouldn't already know their answer to. It's not like the Republican field has to take the "are you black" or "are you woman" enough questions. They've already covered their view on evolution in a previous debate, and lightning seemed to strike the building when Giuliani was talking about his social views. What, they don't want to have to say something nice about the person standing to their right?

Even though I can understand the reason, I don't respect our Representative Scott Garrett for his lack of willingness to debate. With this being one of the biggest Presidential elections in 100 years, I certainly won't vote for a coward for President. I tend to pick one or two candidates from each party to follow with the idea I'll eventually volunteer in the get out the vote operations (yes, I've done both parties in the same year). One of my picks is one of those disrespecting voters, and there are no words for how utterly disappointed I am in this position.

If the Republican Party wants people to take them seriously again, they need to meet people where they are at, and embrace the opportunity to engage young voters. You're going to get questions about Iraq, health care, gas prices, immigration, Bush, corruption, the economy, education and probably a question about faith in politics. If you have answers people may not like, but they're how you really feel, people will respect that. If you don't have answers, get out of the race.

I'm looking forward to seeing Senator John McCain and Representative Ron Paul on September 17th, and would hope CNN wouldn't reschedule for Giuliani and Romney if they don't want to embrace people they hope will vote for them. Forget them. The forum is there, if Giuliani and Romney are too disrespectful or afraid of voters to attend that's their own problem that voters will remember. Debate on, with or without the frightened ones.

Garrett's Positive Flip Flop

After voting against implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission back in January, yesterday Representative Scott Garrett voted for the bill agreeing to the version worked out between the House and the Senate. He didn't offer any reason for his change of heart, so whether he no longer feels it's too expensive as he did then; or this is just a move of political survival; or he just came to his senses we may never know. Whatever his reasons, the bottom line is he voted for the final bill.

Oh Come On, Garrett

This from the press office of Representative Scott Garrett yesterday:

Today, U.S. Representative Scott Garrett introduced an amendment with the support of Representatives Frelinghuysen (NJ) and Shays (CT), to prevent the FAA from implementing their inconsiderate and ill-advised Preferred Alternative for the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign.

Definitely makes it sound like Garrett introduced the amendment, yet he didn't. This from the Congressional Record.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment on my own behalf as well as Congressman Garrett from New Jersey, my colleague; and Congressman CHRISTOPHER SHAYS from Connecticut.

As a matter of fact, the amendment that was heavily voted down was titled the Frelinghuysen of New Jersy Amendment. Had Garrett introduced it, it would have been called the Garrett Amendment.

It's unfortunate that this amendment went down. As anyone who has been outside during a storm when the planes are being rerouted due to weather down the Saddle River Valley or Pascack Valley knows, it gets really loud. The other night I thought a plane was landing in my house, and the idea of it being a permanent thing is not something I'm looking forward to.

On a sidenote, the number of people that attended seems to go up with each Garrett release talking about the event. That being said, with hundreds showing up at the last public meeting to protest the change, it's a hot button issue for a lot of people.

Regardless of the final headcount, it's truly disingenuous for Garrett to take credit for the work of others on this issue; making it seem like he was the lead dog on this when it's so easy to figure out he wasn't. It's another example of how he misrepresents the truth when addressing his constituents.