Websites of Interest

Update: best4bergen.org is back up.

Well, a number of new websites have come to my attention related to our District.

First, Camille Abate has a new website for her 2008 bid to be the Democratic Party nominee to take on Representative Scott Garrett. It's complete with blog and upcoming events sections. With several fundraisers planned for this fall, Abate seem to be working to widen her lead in cash on hand over 2006 challenger Paul Aronsohn.

Aronsohn hasn't updated his website in about a month, despite still generating interest in a rematch.

The Bergen County Republican Organization has a new site (h/t Red Jersey), less than a month after new Chairman Rob Ortiz pledged to make better use of technology. It is a really good site, although having a little more info on the candidates would be beneficial to voters.

In related news, it seems the website that had be running for the Bergen County Republican slate of candidates (best4bergen.org) has been taken off-line.

And, when seeing if Steve Oroho had finally gotten his website up and running for his bid for to represent the 24th District in the State Senate, you get the most basic of welcome messages. This is a bit behind his opponent Ed Selby.

CFG Still Loves ESG

Representative Scott Garrett was the only member of our Congressional Delegation to receive a 100% ranking from the oxymoronically named The Club For Growth (CFG) regarding earmark voting. The reason I say that about their name is that they oppose government spending on pretty much anything, including programs that generate growth or increase efficient use of taxpayer dollars (more on that below).

After reviewing the list of votes chosen by one of Garrett's most consistent campaign backers, several I agree should have been stripped. For example, taxpayers shouldn't be funding a "perfect Christmas Tree" project or an institute named for Representative Charlie Rangel with an earmark from, you guessed it, Representative Charlie Rangel.

However, at least three of the items on the list will actually generate growth and protect the taxpayer dollar. That's why it makes no sense as to why they are on the list or why a group claiming to be pro-growth would praise Garrett for voting against them.

Here were the first two that raised an eyebrow:

House Vote 590 - Bars funding of $231,000 for the Grace Johnstown Area Regional Industries Incubator and Workforce Development program in Pennsylvania. Amendment failed, 87-335.

House Vote 594 - Bars funding of $231,000 for the West Virginia University Research Corporation's renovation of a small-business incubator. Amendment failed, 101-325.

Once again, Garrett (with the CFG cheering him on) backed the elimination of funds to help small businesses thrive and strengthen their community. That's about as anti-growth as you get, considering small businesses generate roughly 75-80% of new jobs and account for more than half of the GDP.

And the other:

House Vote 699 - Bars funding of $400,000 for the North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission in Wausau, WI. Amendment failed, 68-356.

Regional planning Commissions coordinate the efforts of a region so that Federal, State and local money being used in that region is used in the most effective and least wasteful manner. They ensure that those receiving funds are not duplicating services and make sure there is a need for the proposed projects. So in reality, Garrett voted against funding an agency charged with protecting taxpayers. Go figure.

Vets Finally Getting Fire Alarms?

Back in October, Representative Scott Garrett announced that The Veteran's Memorial Home in Paramus would be getting a $590,000 grant to update their fire alarms. Then, the Republicans decided after losing the elections in 2006 not to pass any spending bills, leaving it to the new Democrats, who in turn passed one massive bill without any earmarks.

At the time, I commented on Garrett's reaction to this move by Democrats by saying it was misplaced rage, because had the Republicans passed the bills they were supposed to pass the funding for things like our Veterans in Paramus wouldn't have been in jeopardy.

Today, the Record reported that the VA has announced the Veteran's Home grant was back on. Hopefully, they are actually getting the check this time.

Garrett on the Energy Bill

The Record reported what Representative Scott Garrett said about his being the only Representative from New Jersey to vote against the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act:

"I believe it's important to increase our nation's energy availability and address our concerns for high gas prices and dependence on foreign oil," he said. "Last week's energy bill presented on the House floor did nothing to ensure that, so I voted against it."

It's important to note, Garrett did not offer a single amendment to deal with what he perceived as the bill's shortfalls. The bill was considered under an open rule and several Republicans who voted against the bill as a whole did offer really good amendments. One example is Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska, whose amendment was to accelerate the use of geothermal heat for government buildings.

I'm not sure what part of expanding the availability of alternative energy sources does not register with Garrett as increased energy availability. Unfortunately, what I am sure of is Garrett is the only Representative from New Jersey to support drilling off the Jersey Shore.

Fortunately, the rest of our State's delegation understood the important steps this bill takes toward energy independence.

Doherty Out

PoliticsNJ is reporting that Assemblyman Mike Doherty is dropping his bid for the Republican nomination for the US Senate. From our very own Fifth District, the Warren County native had Representative Scott Garrett serving as his Exploratory Committee Co-Chair.

Garrett, My Mom and NCLB

In Representative Scott Garrett's latest franked mailer, it seems he's targeting the women of our District to talk about his education "reform bill", including my mom. He goes after No Child Left Behind with a vengeance, and even includes an op-ed he posted over at HumanEvents.com. From forcing teachers to teach to the test; no exceptions for special needs students; no exceptions for failing to meet the guidelines in lieu of the glaring shortfalls in funding; and the added bonus of corruption; no one I've talked to likes NCLB.

What most people don't realize is that when NCLB was enacted, it was actually a reauthorization of, and amendment to, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. They think of them as separate bills, or don't realize the new requirements everyone hates were added to the programs people know. While Garrett's letter to my mom and others talked about all the NCLB failings people associate with the Bill, what he doesn't mention is what his bill is really seeking to do: defund almost the entire Department of Education.

Here's the purpose of Garrett's bill:

To allow a State to opt out of K–12 education grant programs and the requirements of those programs, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a credit to taxpayers in such a State, and for other purposes.

And here's the key definition:

(1) The term ‘‘K–12 education grant program’’ means any grant program carried out under any title of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, except for the following:

(A) INDIAN, NATIVE HAWAIIAN, AND ALASKA NATIVE EDUCATION.—Title VII (20 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
(B) IMPACT AID.—Title VIII (20 U.S.C. 11 7701 et seq.).

As early as the 2002 Primary, Garrett was talking about ending the Department of Education. He repeated that desire at CPAC this year, even being straight forward about his desire to end Title I funding, which helps out schools with predominantly poor children. If you look at the table of contents of the entire original bill you realize just how far Garrett wants to go. None of that was brought up in the letter.

I suppose, on some level, Garrett should be given credit for being true to his word about trying to end the Department of Education. Not being truthful to the mothers of our District about the extent his Bill seeks to go is another story.

Garrett Full of SCHIP

Well, Representative Scott Garrett has posted again over at Townhall.com. This time he writes about his opposition to the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It's an interesting read, and a prime example of rhetorical spin at it's finest if you're a fan; or worst if you just want politicians to tell it like it is. You can read the complete text here.

For those not having the time to read the whole thing, here are a few inaccuracies right off the bat:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 2.1 million people who are currently covered by private health plans will be forced into this nationalized health care.

Nowhere in either the CBO report to the Committee on Ways and Means or to The Rules Committee is that said. What they do say is that 2.1 million people who are not eligible will be eligible with increased funding and are likely to enroll. Forced is powerful word meant to be used as a scare tactic, but it's simply not in the report.

Interestingly enough, the SCHIP bill balances the new entitlements on the backs of our nation's vulnerable seniors with $37.1 billion in cuts to Medicare providers. It makes cuts for hospital care, skilled nursing care, home health care, oxygen therapy and imaging. It even limits access to wheelchairs.

The Bill stopped taxpayers from having their Medicare dollars used to ensure corporate profits instead of providing medical care. In a separate CBO report they had this to say about the over-payments taxpayers are making to private Medicare vendors:

Such growth, under current payment policies, increases net costs to Medicare because payments made to Medicare Advantage plans exceed costs under the traditional fee-for-service program.

As a "Hero of the Taxpayer", one would expect Garrett to protect us from paying too much for things, however time and time again Garrett has lately put corporate welfare above the taxpayer's interest.

Between the $37.1 billion of over payments he's defending here, and his opposition to the elimination of $19 billion in bank profit-subsidies by the College Cost Reduction Act; in under a month Garrett has signaled his blessing on $56.1 billion in corporate welfare (roughly $183 per citizen).

And last but not least:

And, according to a non-partisan Congressional Budget Office report, an estimated 3 million seniors will literally lose their coverage altogether, including more than 6,700 seniors in New Jersey's 5th District.

Ok, once again, not in either CBO report and simply meant to scare the hell out of senior citizens. My guess is, that particular number, is in relation to the shifting coverage from one program to the other that the CBO notes. However, I'm not sure where he got the figure and considering Garrett's history of making up stats we can't be sure if such a study exists or not.

It's unfortunate that Garrett's entire argument against the legislation is based on distorting pretty straight forward reports and backing corporate welfare. It's not what voters expect of someone with a reputation as a straight shooter and being a fiscal conservative. However, for the time being it's what we in the Fifth have got.