Garrett Against $14.7 Million for Bergen

Here's an interesting fact:

With Representative Scott Garrett voting against the Appropriations for Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development; Garrett could cost Bergen County $14.7 million dollars in Community Development Block Grants. That works out to roughly 3.4% of the County budget.

It's unlikely, when the dust settles, that we'll lose the entire amount, but what's that going to do to property taxes? What about the transportation funds Garrett voted against? How much of the budget are we talking about? If only the Bergen County Freeholders had the decency to put the County Budget on-line I could answer that question.

As the appropriations battle goes forward, none of us should be surprised by Garrett's string of Nay votes. Garrett was the only Republican from New Jersey who signed a pledge to the President to oppose any Appropriations bill the President vetoes. In effect, Garrett has firmly placed the President's philosophy above the interests of our traditionally fiscally conservative District.

Garrett vs. Head Start, Again

Once again, in a 12-Garrett vote, our Representative Scott Garrett has voted against a program aimed at helping children. Garrett joined 35 other Representatives in opposing the Improving Head Start Act. Garrett voted against the House version of the Bill back in May, this vote was on the version which will be sent to the President.

The only thing Garrett did during the debate on the House version was demand a recorded vote on two amendments. If he did anything of substance I'll post it here.

Garrett, The Rabbi, & Polish Jews

Our Representative Scott Garrett seems to be surrounded by Judaism today.

In kind of an odd coincidence, about five minutes after Rabbi Dennis Shulman announced his candidacy formally, Garrett was one of 13 Representatives to vote against Rep. Chris Smith's bill providing assistance for the Museum of the History of Polish Jews.

Fan-Franking-Tastic

Obviously, Representative Scott Garrett realizes his opposition to the State Children's Health Insurance Program isn't popular. After having his Op-Ed against the program apparently rejected by the Record, Garrett's staff decided to send out a taxpayer funded two page mailer on SCHIP.

It's a piece so chock full of "new stats" and new sources it's going to take a day or so to fact check the piece. However, since Garrett's been inventing coverage and income numbers from the beginning, it's likely most of these new numbers will prove equally false. I just wish, instead spinning and lying, Garrett would just level people. Like most things, and I think I'm being fair in stating this, Garrett doesn't believe government should play any role in health care.

The most recent tell on that is on the second page of the mailer, which deals with small business access to health care. Here's what he/his staff, put in the mailer:

Congress and state legislatures continue to add coverage mandates year after year, which make insurance more expensive - in some markets by up to 45%

Here's the most current list I could find of the mandated coverage in New Jersey. There are 31 types of care on the list and I'd love to know which of these Garrett feels need to be cut. By his statement, it would seem all. Here are few on the list, which could easily find their way into a campaign commercial next year:

5. Childhood Immunizations, Lead and Hearing Screening
10. Diabetes
11. Domestic Violence Injuries
15. Mammograms
16. Maternity Without Regard to Marital Status
17. Minimum Maternity Stay
20. Nursing Home Care
23. Pap Smears
27. Prostate Cancer Screening
29. Second Medical/Surgical Opinions
30. Wellness Examinations

It's not to say the rest of the list isn't important, but some how these will touch a nerve. Garrett opposes this care being mandated for coverage. One has to wonder if voters would be concerned that if Garrett had his way what little coverage they have left will be taken away.

Veteran's Day

I don't know how many other people had to work today, I know I did, but we as a nation must get back to the intention of Veteran's Day. To take a pause as a nation and really observe.

THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE
October 8, 1954
Dear Mr. Higley:

I have today signed a proclamation calling upon all of our citizens to observe Thursday, November 11, 1954 as Veterans Day. It is my earnest hope that all veterans, their organizations, and the entire citizenry will join hands to insure proper and widespread observance of this day. With the thought that it will be most helpful to coordinate the planning, I am suggesting the formation of a Veterans Day National Committee. In view of your great personal interest as well as your official responsibilities, I have designated you to serve as Chairman. You may include in the Committee membership such other persons as you desire to select and I am requesting the heads of all departments and agencies of the Executive branch to assist the Committee in its work in every way possible.

I have every confidence that our Nation will respond wholeheartedly in the appropriate observance of Veterans Day, 1954.

Sincerely,
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

Garrett Votes for $1.5 Trillion Tax Increase

For the second time this week, Representative Scott Garrett voted against the people of our District. Today, the House voted against a temporary fix to the AMT to prevent it from creeping further into the middle class of our Fifth District and other parts of the country.

At issue, and why the bill was approved largely along partisan lines, is the provision changing the way 50,000 or so hedge fund managers are taxed. Currently, they pay at the 15% capital tax rate and avoid the AMT. Herb Jackson has the audio of Garrett's statement here, as well as Representative Bill Pascrell smacking his logic around.

As Garrett himself cited, 120,000 taxpayers in our District alone will be subject to the AMT without the patch Garrett just voted against. Here's how the Record broke down the impact not having a patch would have in our District:

If Congress takes no action this year, the alternative minimum tax would hit an additional 21 million taxpayers, including 1.5 million in New Jersey, with higher income tax rates. Here's what that would mean to a family in Ridgewood:

• Married couple, two children, filing jointly with $150,000 in income, $14,000 in property and state income taxes, $20,000 in mortgage interest and $500 in charitable contributions.
• 2006 federal tax bill: $18,690
• 2007 federal tax bill: $21,970
• Difference: $3,280 more

So even if every hedge fund manager in America lived in our Fifth District, which they don't, Garrett would put a $3,280 tax burden on 120,000 taxpayers to protect them? To be fair to Garrett, he has proposed a bill to completely eliminate the AMT. However, Garrett's bill has no chance of getting out of committee because it would cause the national debt to mushroom. This is another example of Garrett's lack of fiscal responsibility.

Playing the semantics game Garrett likes to play, by opposing the tax relief Garrett is in essence supporting a $1.5 trillion tax increase over the next ten years. We can add this to the list of assaults on the family budget by Garrett this year. How many families will see Garrett's lack of support for their family wallet as an issue next year should be an interesting story to follow, if not directly participate in.

Election Reflection

Most of the elections in our District played out exactly as they were expected to. Voter turnout was in the 30s; Steve Oroho, Kevin O'Toole, and most incumbents cruised to victory; the Republicans won the Legislative races; and the Democrats won Bergen County.

The only eyebrow raiser, if you will, was Sen. Gerry Cardinale's margin of victory going from 12,000 in 2003 to 5,000 yesterday. While the guys over at CWA-NJ count the victory as award worthy, in this "obscure" blogger's opinion, in a Republican year that sort of drop should raise an eyebrow.

I stand by my belief the direction Cardinale took was the wrong path during the campaign. This race was never close. Cardinale has served long enough to make enough friends, and do enough good things for constituents on a personal level that most people I know were planning on voting for him regardless of party. However, taking the route he took, many walked away.

Compare Cardinale's campaign's actions with those taken by Steve Oroho, which I highlighted earlier. At the end of his second debate with Ed Selby, Oroho said the following:

"You've heard some very clear differences between my opponent and myself. It doesn't mean Ed's a bad guy. It doesn't mean I'm a bad guy. It just means we're different," Oroho said. "We should all be happy we live in a country where it's OK to be different."

My hope is going forward more politicians embrace this kind of civility and decency. I realize it may not be flashy, but we're at a point in our State where we don't need flashy. Our state is in serious trouble on a number of fronts, and as shown by voting down the stem cell and sales tax initiatives, the people of our state know it.

It's important to note that we're not in these crises as Democrat, Republican or Unaffiliated: we're in this as Jerseyians. While differences of opinion exist as to how to fix the problem, it's unlikely we'll get anywhere if our politicians do not rise to the challenge in a decent and honorable way.