Taking (most of) December Off

I'm working on a new website right now, so I'm going to be putting most of my energy and sparse spare time into that for the coming month. I'll be back sporadically with news and commentary, with an eye toward climbing back in the saddle regularly around January 5th.

Frank and Garrett

I've often thought about what a great reality show it would be to have Representative Scott Garrett and Representative Barney Frank live together. Their fights on the House Floor often have a hilarious, old married couple feel. From the Boston Daily comes an example:

On Republican Congressman Scott Garrett’s testimony that he had sponsored numerous amendments that would have helped prevent the Fannie/Freddie meltdown if they hadn’t been defeated by Democrats:

“Yes, the gentleman from New Jersey offered amendment after amendment—in his head. This is a serial violator writing on the mirror, ‘Stop me before I don’t legislate again.’ …I know it is a bad feeling not to get your own party with you. Sometimes, [your amendments] were defeated by only 60 percent of Republicans.”

With Garrett getting much more face time with regard to the bailout bonanza, I'm sure we can expect more exchanges in the future of a comic value. Unfortunately for our District, this is the reputation Garrett has. Although, as noted in an earlier piece, because he's become a voice against the bailout bonanza Garrett has the chance to reinvent himself.

Whether it's reinvention or continued comedy, there's a lot to look forward to in the coming months. For that I'm grateful.

Bailout Bonanza

With the news that Citigroup is going to get $300 billion in taxpayer dollars, and that commitments of taxpayer dollars are nearly $8 TRILLION, it's not surprising to see Representative Scott Garrett in the news today. From Bloomberg:

“Whether it’s lending or spending, it’s tax dollars that are going out the window and we end up holding collateral we don’t know anything about,” said Congressman Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. “The time has come that we consider what sort of limitations we should be placing on the Fed so that authority returns to elected officials as opposed to appointed ones.”

Garrett's dead on with this one. And when pressed for more transparency, Fed Chairman Ben Bernancke had this to say:

“Some have asked us to reveal the names of the banks that are borrowing, how much they are borrowing, what collateral they are posting,” Bernanke said Nov. 18 to the House Financial Services Committee. “We think that’s counterproductive.”

I'm sorry, but this isn't Ben's personal piggy bank we're talking about. It's nearly $8 TRILLION in taxpayer money. We have a right to know that the Fed and Treasury are being more responsible with it than the people they seem hellbent to lend it to were with their own institution's money.

The commitments made by the Fed and Treasury (appointed), when added to our existing deficit (Congress), have pushed the amount each man, woman and child owe to over $61,000.

For comparative purposes, the median income for a family of four in the United States was $67,000 in 2007, but their Washington induced debt is roughly $244,000.

We're responsible for it, but without Congressional oversight, we have no way of making sure we get our money back or that we're not throwing money down a hole. In order for the Big Three to get their $25 billion, they have to present a business plan. That's .32% of what the Fed and Treasury are kicking out without having similar conditions.

Something has gone very, very wrong. And we the taxpayer are in line for getting royally screwed.

Garrett Bailout Op-Ed

Representative Scott Garrett published an interestingly sarcastic Op-Ed in the New Jersey Herald over the weekend. I don't have time to dissect this right now, but here it is for folks to read.

Bear Stearns bailout. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout. AIG bailout. $700 billion bailout. Auto industry bailout. Medicaid bailout. Where do the bailouts end? Depends. How much money can you, the taxpayer, afford to pay?

Every bailout is the government committing you the taxpayer to pay more money. Thought you were saving for your children's college fund? Nope. That money is going to save Detroit. Thought you were going to save up for a house? Nope. That money is going to help people who bought houses they couldn't afford in the first place.

I have fought against all of these rash bailout measures, calling on my colleagues to stand against this commitment of your money with little or no government oversight. With the support of many of my colleagues, I called on President Bush for an increase in transparency to provide the American people and Members of Congress insight into the decision-making process that yielded the $700 billion bailout plan. I also backed the bill that was introduced as the alternative to the $700 billion bailout, the Free Market Protection Act. This Act contained many efforts to fundamentally address the systemic issues affecting the financial markets while preserving free market principles.

Every year, the government goes through an appropriations process of determining how much money will be budgeted for spending over the next fiscal year. There are hearings, there are debates, and while there could always be more oversight, there is at least a degree of accountability for how we are allotting money to be spent in the federal budget.

With these bailouts, however, there is no oversight. There are no hearings. There's a degree of exigency that started with Bear Stearns ("Too big to fail!") that has carried over to every other bailout proposal ("We bailed out Bear Stearns, why not Fannie and Freddie?!"). As a result of this "sky is falling" pressure to pass these bailout initiatives, Congress has spent almost as much in bailouts alone this year as it has in the federal budget. And has certainly ignored any attempt at the preservation of the free market.

Congress is currently discussing a "Stimulus II" package, to potentially be voted on next week. The word "stimulus" is really a misnomer, used to shore up public support for yet another bailout. In reality, it's "Spending II: Bailout Returns." It's unclear as to whether Nancy Pelosi will be fighting Apollo Creed in this bailout sequel, but by the end of the 110th Congress, there will be more chapters in the bailout saga than there are Rocky movies.

The line for a piece of the bailout pie is growing as businesses see an opportunity for free money from the government (aka: you, the taxpayer). American Express is faltering because of high credit card default rates. Their bailout handout means that you are writing a check to cover the people who aren't paying their credit card bills. The "Big Three" auto producers, Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, received a $25 billion bailout in September. Now, they're back for more, claiming they need money to fund "innovation." You, the taxpayer, are writing a check to get them through this creative rough patch. Ethanol producers are also eagerly awaiting your money, as is the Medicaid program.

I am working diligently to find real and effective solutions to this economic crisis. There are other alternatives to constantly turning to the American taxpayers to bail out struggling companies, and I assure you I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find ideas that are in our best economic interest, both in the short and long term.

Shulman on the Campaign

Folks have probably already seen this, but for those that haven't, Dennis Shulman wrote a very thoughtful post-mortem on the race here in the Fifth:

This was a remarkable year.

A year that was peopled by thousands.

A year that found me:

In countless county and neighborhood fairs;

In Capitol Hill offices and parties;

At high school football games;

Marching in parades on Memorial Day, July Fourth, and Halloween, surrounded by enthusiastic supporters and some not-so-well-wishers;

On the pages of the New York Times and the New Yorker, on Blue Jersey, the Huffington Post, and the Daily Kos;

In campaign caravans rushing from Alpine to Phillipsburg;

In a union hall speaking to a hundred or so sheet metal apprentices, after investing five years of their life mastering their trade, unsure now if there will be work when they graduate;

In spacious living rooms, sipping champagne and munching hors d'oeuvres with governors and senators;

In Ringwood, touring a desolate track of land poisoned by Ford, surrounded by the Ramapo Mountain Indians who were this land's owners, its victims, its defenders.

This was truly a remarkable year.

And what I heard wherever I traveled this year was that people, whether affluent or impoverished, young or the retired, Republican or Democrat, were worried -- worried about their children, worried about their future, worried about our country.

Political campaigns these days have a way, too often, of getting lost in the contest between the two individuals vying for the seat. They become something closer to a food fight than a comparison of ideas and issues and alternative visions for America'

s future. They become a competition about "Gotcha," and in the process the more personal accusations drown out the political differences that really do matter. There are many reasons why this happens in this political climate, many reasons why this happened in the congressional race between Scott Garrett and myself, but that analysis is for another time and another place.

This race for the United States House of Representatives in NJ-5 should not have been about Scott Garrett or Dennis Shulman. It should have been about the contrasting political ideology and moral vision of the opponents. It should have been about the future of America. It should have been about the soul of our country and of our district.

It should have been about global warming and alternatives to oil and gas -- whether we should support increases in fuel efficiency and investment in wind, solar, and bio fuels.

It should have been about stem cell research -- whether we should provide the scientific community an incentive and the freedom to do the research here in the United States that could offer hope and cure for people with Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injuries.

It should have been about taxes -- whether any representative who voted for a war that is costing us ten billion dollars a month, who voted against the Alternative Minimum Tax every time it came to the House floor, and voted for every one of the Bush budgets could honestly claim to be a fiscal conservative and a tax cutter.

It should have been about healthcare for children -- whether there was any moral justification for a congressman or congresswoman who makes more than 165 thousand dollars a year accepting a premium healthcare plan paid fully by federal funds for his or her family, but votes to deny healthcare to a family of four who makes twenty-five thousand dollars a year living in Dumont or Cresskill or Newton.

It should have been about reproductive choice -- whether the people in this district agree with the incumbent that abortions should be illegal even when the pregnant woman was a victim of rape or of incest.

It should have been about our sacred responsibility to our young men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan -- whether we should support any congressman or congresswoman who would vote against medical benefits and other needed services for our disabled vets, and against tuition and housing benefits for those who returned to us able bodied.

Instead, sadly, incredibly, ridiculously, our election was about whether I was patriotic enough or in league with terrorists, and whether Scott Garrett had a farm or just a tax dodge.

Would the results on November 4th have been different if this election were about the comparative moral vision and political sensibilities of the candidates? I don't know.

But what I do know from this extraordinary year of my life is that everyone I met, irrespective of where they lived in the district and where they sat on the political spectrum, believed that the past eight years have been disastrous years -- that these have been years when our great and beloved nation has lost its way, and that we, as a nation, are certainly better than this.

Although I will not be taking a seat in Congress in January, I am hopeful about our country. I am hopeful that, with a new president and with Scott Garrett's positions becoming even more marginalized in the House, that our country will again find its way.

To all, in this past year, whom I have touched, and who have touched me:

Thank you.

Dennis Shulman

Let My Spaces Go

This has been a growing frustration of mine, the parking garage at the Ramsey Rt. 17 station. Granted, far too few people had discovered how great a set-up it is, and to offset some expense the top floor and a half have been rented to car dealers. I didn't agree with that, but could understand.

Now, it seems they're getting ready to block off more spaces for non-commuters and it's getting packed in there. This is a park and ride, and the harder NJ Transit makes it to park the less people are going to ride. With the new lines going into the Meadowlands, appropriately scheduled trains could make the park and ride an integral part of the bigger picture of reducing traffic into the Meadowlands.

Adding insult to injury, NJ Transit decided to eliminate the 8:13, 9:17, and 10:15 evening trains from stopping at the station. While there may not have been the ridership to justify trains every half hour, why would NJ Transit choose to eliminate the trains with the shorter trip?

Ten (scheduled) to fifteen minutes (reality) may not seem like a lot to NJ Transit schedulers, but you're talking about an extra hour out of the lives of commuters every week.

The Rt. 17 Station has the potential to be the gateway point for north Bergen county transit. More express trains, and less difficulty finding a space are the keys to success there. I can't believe I'm alone in thinking this.

Taxpayers didn't put up a corporate parking lot, they put up a park and ride.

Update: Even worse, some of the spaces have been blocked for parking, others seem to be blocked because the ceiling is falling in. Unbelievable.

Let's Go Red Bulls

With an impressive win last night on the road, the Red Bulls are playing in the Major League Soccer championship game next Sunday. As I've mentioned in the past, I'm a fan, so this is great.