Garrett Against Small Business...Again

Completely overshadowed by yesterday's vote on Iraq has been a huge victory for small business owners on the House floor. By a vote of 380-45, the House approved HR 1332, which strengthens the Small Business Administration's loan programs and targets outreach toward veterans and rural areas. In another 12 to Garrett vote, Representative Scott Garrett was the only Representative from New Jersey to vote against the Bill.

This is the second time Garrett has voted directly against small business owners in the last three months. The first time was Garrett standing with largely the same 45 Representatives who opposed 1332 to oppose HR 976, the "Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007". Garrett believed it better to provide no relief over 10 years because, according to Garrett's floor speech, the relief wasn't permanent. I'm sure the US Chamber of Commerce weighed that thought for a nanosecond before urging Congress to support the measure, and deciding to include it in their scorecard.

Unfortunately, at this point any speech Garrett may have given to explain his reasons for not supporting increased access to funding for those who provide 50% of the GDP, as well as 60-80% of the new jobs annually for the last decade, hasn't found it's way into the Congressional Record. My guess is Garrett's philosophy on this Bill falls into this category, as restated in a lengthy and must read article published in Inc. Magazine this month about the SBA.

Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in a paper last year. "Bank loans represent only one of many ways to acquire credit."

The article went on to explain the real world implications of this sentiment.

At nearly 12 percent interest, the Castillos' loan struck me as expensive. But it turned out they had financed two other used trucks from local dealers at far more onerous terms: 19 percent interest. Blanca also has a personal loan to repair the trucks--at 29 percent interest. She marvels at the difference the SBA has made. "For $30,000, we're paying $260 interest a month," she said, "and we have a personal loan for only $7,000, and I am paying $190 interest a month!"

The Castillos' panoply of loans and interest rates certainly brings De Rugy's "many ways to acquire credit" into focus. Her credit market is an abstraction, a upernormal (sic) force that is always fair, always rational. In Virginia, at least, the credit market is atomized; its decisions are subject to the biases and whims that rule the lives of real men and women, to ambitions and institutional prerogatives that set the agenda at the office.

That's as real world vs. rhetoric as I've seen in this debate. The article also pointed out how the Federal Reserve in Cleveland found SBA loans to be a good investment of tax dollars.

For instance, assuming the SBA meets its goal of creating one job with every $50,000 of 504 lending--and the SBA says many Certified Development Companies exceed it--the cost per job in 2006 was a mere $188; the Treasury would earn that back many times in a single year's tax bill.

The return on investment for taxpayers probably accounts for why 77% of Republicans supported this measure. It points to the difference between fiscal conservatives, seeking the most bang for the taxpayer's buck, and the anti-government folks like Representative Garrett. At the end of the day small business owners, and those who one day dream of working for yourself, need to realize that when Garrett's in Washington he will vote his personal philosophy over your checkbook every time.

Garrett vs. Education & Economic Competitiveness

Update: Garrett did utter a peep, he actually gave a speech citing cost as the reason he voted against it. It starts here. They didn't print it until this morning.

In a whopping combined vote total of 786-44, the House passed two appropriations bills yesterday to strengthen our nation's economic future by providing funding for science and education. Representative Scott Garrett voted against both measures, without a peep uttered on the House floor to explain his objections on our District's behalf.

The first vote was on HR 362 (passed 389-22), which authorized scholarships in science and mathematics. The bill also approved grants for the purchase of equipment and partnership between high schools and colleges to ensure college freshman interested in the sciences are up to par with the demands of college level research.

The second vote was on HR 363 (passed 397-20), which authorized grants for scientists and engineers in the early part of their career, doing either graduate study or working at non-profit research labs. This is crucial for providing the kind of skilled workforce our corporations seek.

Now, as early as 2005 the catchphrase "engineer shortage" was being shown to be a misnomer, however what needs to be addressed is a shortage of engineers with the skill sets employers need. As technology takes development into warp speed, employers are having a tougher time finding engineers and research scientists that meet their needs. That's where the bill's listed above are crucial for the future economic competitiveness of our nation.

Here's part of the conclusion from a Duke University study on Engineers and outsourcing released earlier this month in Issues in Science and Technology:

Improving education is critical. As we have seen from the success of skilled immigrants, more education in math and science leads to greater innovation and economic growth. There is little doubt that there are problems with K-12 education and that U.S. schools do not teach children enough math and science. However, the degradation in math and science education happened over a generation. Even if the nation did everything that is needed, it will probably take 10 to 15 years before major benefits become apparent. Given the pace at which globalization is happening, by that time the United States would have lost its global competitive edge. The nation cannot wait for education to set matters right.

[snip]

A key problem is that the United States lacks enough native students completing master’s and PhD degrees. The nation cannot continue to depend on India and China to supply such graduates. As their economies improve, it will be increasingly lucrative for students to return home. Perhaps the United States needs to learn from India and China, which offer deep subsidies for their master’s and PhD programs. It is not clear whether such higher education is cost-justified for U.S. students. Given the exorbitant fees they must pay to complete a master’s and the long period it takes to complete a PhD, the economics may not always make sense.

There were other suggestions, however these two findings are directly addressed by the legislation Garrett just voted against. Without a floor speech to figure it out, one can only guess why Garrett was with 5% of the House in opposing strengthening America's competitiveness. I guess those of us in the Fifth just have to be happy the other 95% of the House have an interest in moving America forward.

Garrett and the Ghost of Nor'Easter Future

With Representative Scott Garrett's tour of some of the flood damaged towns in the Fifth, he reports he's seen first hand how hard hit the area is and how extensive the damage has been. I have little doubt his staff is going to do everything they can to help residents get FEMA aid if the disaster area declaration comes down. His staff always receives high marks for fulfilling this aspect of their duty, it's a shame Garrett cannot have the same said about him.

At issue is not this particular flood, there's really nothing that could have changed the outcome of this particular storm. However, over a month ago Garrett voted against providing funding for projects to prevent the overwhelming damage suffered in our District, state and region. While a storm like we just had will cause flooding, the extent of the damage would be lessened with a modern sewer system. With his vote against Representative Bill Pascrell's bill to provide funding to upgrade combined sewer systems, Garrett in essence was voting in favor of more extensive than necessary flood damage.

Garrett visited New Milford, River Edge and Rochelle Park; all of which are served by the Bergen County Utilities Authority. Here's how the State described the need to upgrade the BCUA's pipes.

Due to system capacity limitations, combined sewage surcharges and overflows into SE2 and FW2-NT waters. This results in excessive solids and bacteria levels, and floating sewage during wet and dry weather conditions.

Or in English, here's how the Record described a situation that Rep. Pascrell's Bill seeks to eliminate:

In Hackensack, the city's combined storm water and sanitary sewer system is overwhelmed by heavy rains 30 to 40 times a year, flooding streets and sending untreated waste into the Hackensack River.

Because the pipes from the northern part of Bergen flow south toward the treatment center in Little Ferry by a combination of gravity and pumping stations, when parts of the system get backed up you get what the Record reported happened in New Milford last week:

"It's disgusting," said Jane Sarnicki, whose house on Eagle Avenue in New Milford flooded with both rainwater and sewage during the storm when town sewers were overwhelmed by the volume of water.

There is also this from the Star Ledger:

In Paramus, officials declared a local state of emergency and then a health emergency when water overflowed the town's largest pumping station, disabling it and allowing sewage to back up into stores and a few homes. Many businesses were forced to close.

"It forced us to shut down all the businesses along Route 17, and along Route 4 west of Route 17," Paramus Mayor Jim Tedesco said. "You're talking about literally thousands of businesses. That presented a real problem for us today."

The town borrowed pumps and received permission from the state Department of Environmental Protection to pump sewage into the Saddle River, Tedesco said. The Garden State Plaza mall was closed for most of the day but reopened last night. Paramus Park Mall remained closed because of a power failure, officials said.

So the impact of the storm was beyond just the $180 million in property damage, it was also the shut down of the retail capitol of the North East and probably thousands of other businesses in other towns. Pascrell's bill allowed for roughly $340 million a year for sewer upgrades over five years; which the property damage from this one storm in our state alone equals 53% of that total without adding the economic impact or preventable healthcare costs from exposure to raw sewage.

Fortunately, 367 Representatives disagreed with Garrett, voting to support the fiscally responsible thing to do and invest the money now to prevent unnecessary damage from future flooding, large and small. There would have been flooding with this storm no matter what sewers were in the ground, but the particular problems mentioned above are a direct result of the pipes we have, and the pipes Garrett voted against fixing.

Voting Rights vs. Garrett & Bush

On Saturday I had a chance to watch Democracy Works on PBS, hosted by Steve Adubato. The show was regarding returning ethics to Trenton, and I appreciated the insights Assemblyman Kevin O'Toole and others shared. One of the points by the panel was that we as citizens need to work harder to stay informed and participate so that we get the kind of Representation we want. Truth be told, only 34% of New Jersey voters showed up on election day in 2003, the last election comparable to this year's contest. With property taxes and corruption being the number 1 & 2 things people talk about in New Jersey politics, only 34% of folks voted. Put another way, only 18% of New Jersey's voters are deciding for the rest of us.

Voter turnout, for most politicians is a frustration. When I spoke at the Meet the Candidates forum at Sussex County Technical School, "participate" was a common refrain. One candidate used the example that of all people in the room, the number of people turning out would mean the three folks sitting in the front row were making all of the decisions. True public servants want the feedback because they want to do a good job. However, not all public servants fall into this category.

I've covered Representative Scott Garrett's disdain for upholding the voting rights of naturalized citizens; last year Garrett also voted for a voter ID bill based on several State laws that court ruling after court ruling after court ruling finds disenfranchises voters in the poll tax tradition, and is therefore unconstitutional. Garrett's votes are, at best, deplorable in that he does not passionately believe in the right so many have died and fought to protect.

Garrett's votes to institutionalize disenfranchisement go hand in hand with the efforts of the Bush administration's use of the Justice Department to meet the same end. This was buried in the Record on Friday, but it deserves a read.

Former department lawyers, public records and other documents show that since Bush took office, political appointees in the Civil Rights Division have:

-Approved Georgia and Arizona laws that tightened voter ID requirements. A Federal judge tossed out the Georgia law as an unconstitutional infringement on
the rights of poor voters, and a federal appeals court signaled its objections to the Arizona law on similar grounds last fall, but that litigation was delayed by the U.S. Supreme Court until after the election.

-Issued advisory opinions that overstated a 2002 federal election law by asserting that it required states to disqualify new voting registrants if their identification didn't match that in computer databases, prompting at least three states to reject tens of thousands of applicants mistakenly.

-Done little to enforce a provision of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act that requires state public assistance agencies to register voters. The inaction has contributed to a 50 percent decline in annual registrations at those agencies, to 1 million from 2 million.

-Sued at least six states on grounds that they had too many people on their voter rolls. Some eligible voters were removed in the resulting purges.

In late 2001, Ashcroft also hired three Republican political operatives to work in a secretive new unit in the division's Voting Rights Section. Rich said the unit, headed by unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate Mark Metcalf of Kentucky, bird-dogged the progress of the administration's Help America Vote Act and reviewed voting legislation in the states.

So when Garrett ran for Congress, saying he was a friend of Bush, he wasn't kidding. Folks who don't believe in and actively seek to undermine the fundamental principal of voting have no place at any level of government, let alone in the White House or Congress. If more of us take an active role as citizens, we'd be able to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place.

Happy Earth Day

It's a beautiful day outside, and if you have a minute sit outside and take it in. You can read a quick history of Earth Day here on Wikipedia.

Garrett Doesn't Hate Water This Week

I've hammered Representative Scott Garrett about his past votes against clean water, but this week in a positive flip-flop, he's voted twice in favor of water. First, he voted for Supporting the goals and ideals of World Water Day (HR 196), which is basically the same bill he voted against last year. Second, he voted for the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (HR 1495), which provides nearly $300,000 for Greenwood Lake. Not too shabby.

Garrett Challenged by a Moderate Republican?

With $238,144 sitting in his war chest, Representative Scott Garrett has slightly more than twice as much cash on hand as he did this time last election cycle. My guess is, he's raising money now because he smells a primary challenge. In a post dealing with our Congressional Delegation's Cash on Hand on PoliticsNJ, there was this little nugget of wisdom by PulaskiSkywayConservative:

Garrett could very well be primaried by David Russo or another Bergen Republican if Talarico is gone. He could also lose the general if the top of the ticket isn't Giuliani and the Democrats recruit a good officeholder from Bergen or Passaic.

I have written before about how Garrett and/or Talarico need to be gone in order to save the property taxpayers of Bergen, and I've heard rumblings like this before. The rift between the David Russo and Guy Talarico camps of the BCRO goes back to 2003 when Steve Lonegan led the "Republicans for Conservative Leadership" insurrection via primary against moderate Republicans. Herb Jackson of the Record reported this at the time:

Lonegan believes it's still worth pushing the Republican leadership closer "to President Bush's agenda instead of the opposite direction."

While Russo and fellow Assemblyman Kevin O'Toole absolutely clobbered the opposition, eventually Lonegan backed Guy Talarico's rise to ineptitude and the subsequent near destruction of the BCRO ensued. With Lonegan showing up at O'Toole's fundraiser for State Senate, one has to wonder if Lonegan has realized the error of his ways. We don't even have to speculate about Garrett.

By voting against the 9/11 Commission recommendations, against accountability for the President, and against making student loans more affordable for working families, among other bills, Garrett has continued to attack beliefs held by many voters. Add to that Garrett's unyielding support of President Bush's Iraq policy, including through his silence the mismanagement of reconstruction aid, and you have a bigger issue with unaffiliated voters.

Sprinkle in Garrett's constant co-sponsoring of legislation to completely defund the Department of Education instead of reform it; his efforts last year to do the same with the Department of Transportation (think of life before the new Rt. 4 & 17 interchange); and top it off with a stated desire to do the same to the Department of Energy during our current energy crisis and their being the lead agency against nuclear smuggling. Mix this all up and you've got one train wreck of a voting record and ideological philosophy to defend.

It's only a matter of time before the moderate Republican leaning unaffiliated voters of our District decide Garrett's worn out his welcome. If Garrett keeps voting the way he does, and relegating our District to irrelevance on Capitol Hill, sooner or later he'll face a genuine Democratic challenger of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrat variety and lose.

I've been told several times Republicans don't want to give up the seat, so they back Garrett without a strong Republican alternative. Russo finished second to Garrett in the Primary to replace Marge Roukema in 2002, and with several years to review Garrett's record, I'd be very curious to see how Republicans react to a rematch.