Why Deficits Matter

The news today about Social Security should remind all of us why deficits matter. From the AP:

The retirement nest egg of an entire generation is stashed away in this small town along the Ohio River: $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the federal government, payable to the Social Security Administration.

It's time to start cashing them in.

For more than two decades, Social Security collected more money in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits — billions more each year.

[snip]

For more than two decades, regardless of which political party was in power, Congress has been accused of raiding the Social Security trust funds to pay for other programs, masking the size of the budget deficit.

This is part of the reason I'm so frustrated with the Republican Party. Yes the Republicans. When the calendar flipped to January 2001, they supplanted the PAYGO Republicans of the '90's with the "Deficits Don't Matter" Republicans of the 2000's, many of whom are still there.

Repeatedly voting for deficit spending, the news on Social Security is a reminder that each one of the caucus who held office in the 2000's should be removed. Representatives like our own Scott Garrett voted to add $1.8 trillion to the on-budget deficit himself. That was in just four years, and doesn't include Iraq or Afghanistan.

Now out of power, the Republicans on the Hill have taken a "Born Again" deficit-hawk stance in the press that's about as flimsy as wet newspaper. Garrett and others still assail PAYGO budgeting, preferring to borrow instead of plugging tax loopholes. They also completely ignore, and even defend, the harmful financial consequences of programs like Medicare Advantage.

While it's nice that Garrett and the Republicans feel an election year is a good time not to pursue earmarks, most of these Representatives were the biggest pigs at the trough for the better part of a decade. One can't forget Garrett acquired earmarks for a program after the Army had ended the program and the recipient announced the end to their stockholders.

I'm sure the Republicans will grab this report and run with it in their fiscally irrational stance against health insurance reform. If they really cared about deficits, they'd look at the billions in deficit reduction as a good thing.

But what are facts but a nusance to the practitioners of partisan politics? Voters need to be reminded of this, constantly, heading into the fall.

Call an Earmark an Earmark

I've used this title before, but Representative Scott Garrett made it into the Warren Reporter for getting a "grant" again:

This Institute was made possible by a grant of $894,348 awarded to Centenary College from the U.S. Department of Justice to develop a fully-integrated incident response and crisis management training for law enforcement agencies and first responders in small rural and suburban communities in Northwest New Jersey, as announced by Congressman E. Scott Garrett in June.

This was an earmark. The problem is that calling these things grants gives the impression that the program beat out other similar programs for funding because it's a superior use of taxpayer money. This simply isn't the case.

I have nothing against Centenary. It's a excellent school that I was fortunate to visit during the campaign a few years back. The problem is with the earmarking practice as it relates to taxpayer money.

Could another NJ college provide this same program at a lower cost? Could another college have better outcomes? Is another college more qualified?

We'll never know the answers to these questions because there was no competition for these funds. With Garrett bestowing the money, we lose the guarantee of a review beforehand, and the reporting requirements on an earmark are less than for a grant after the fact.

I have no doubt Centenary will do a fine job, but let's call and earmark an earmark.

Garrett Discloses Earmarks

Due to my recent trip to Transparency Camp, and the work week since, I did not see that Representative Scott Garrett once again entered his earmarks into the Congressional Record. He declared what he had received from the pork stuffed Omnibus Bill.

Garrett's share of the $7.7 billion in earmarks: 0.052%

Garrett's been pretty good about submitting these disclosures, and despite a number of votes against transparency and accountability, he's transparent about this.

My Weekend @ Transparency Camp

Those that read regularly know how important I think transparency is when it comes to making our government work the way it’s supposed to. I was fortunate this weekend to go to an event called Transparency Camp, where people from all over the nation with the same basic belief came together to figure out where we are and where we need to go.

At the event, I was able to meet all of the people responsible for the sites I use all the time when talking about Representative Scott Garrett (OpenSecrets.org, Tax Payers for Common Sense, Govtrack.us); as well as some I hadn't fully explored (FollowTheMoney.org, OpenCongress.org, Sunshine Week). It was truly one of those amazing life experiences.

What I took away from the convention was a better understanding of how all of these sites worked, internal government issues getting in the way, as well as what to look forward to (there’s a doozey dropping in a few weeks) and a renewed sense of purpose.

A few projects of particular interest to are:

• Readthebill.org: Requesting bills to be posted 72 hours before voting (sign the petition).
• 50 State Project by Sunlight Labs: Every bill, every vote, every state.
• Show Us the Data: Joint effort between the Open The Government and the Center for Democracy and Technology to unlock government data we should have.

One thing that was said in a number of seminars I attended was that bloggers hadn’t earned the general public’s trust at this point, largely because there was so much garbage out there. This is true, and as a community we have to raise our game.

With newspapers dying, and television becoming more of a reactionary as opposed to pro-active force, we’re what’s going to be left. In that sense, I really hope those of you that do blog will take advantage of Sunshine Week, to learn about the tools they have available.


At the end of the day it’s our government, our money they're spending, and our data that could save lives. It was an amazing weekend, and I hope if nothing else, my attendance will make this a more useful and accurate source of information than folks have already told me it is.

Garrett Gets $14.7 Million in Earmarks

Today, Representative Scott Garrett did two things: He called on President Obama to cut more spending from the budget, and voted against the $410 billion spending bill with some of Garrett's $14.7 million in earmarks for FY 2009.

Here's Garrett's quote to Jessica Coomes of the Express-Times:

"Let's start it right now," Garrett said about trimming the debt. "...That would've been a great way to add some substance to his remarks last night; unfortunately, he didn't do it."

Practice what you preach. Garrett had initially touted requesting $24.8 million.

It's been shown time and again that earmarks don't make certain taxpayer dollars are being spent most efficiently or that we're even spending on things the agencies want. The whole process raises questions:

• Why was Hackettstown Community Hospital chosen instead of Valley or Pascack Valley?
• Other than being born there, why choose out of district Englewood Hospital's bloodless surgery program over Hackensack University Medical Center's, which has a branch in District?
• Why does Garrett keep getting money for a program the Army ended two years ago? Or is it something pushed by a lobbyist that Garrett agreed to without consulting the Pentagon, again?
• What about the other $10 million he signed on to? Does the Pentagon actually want what he bought them?

To be fair to Garrett, he wasn't alone in requesting many of these earmarks. In addition, many of the programs sound worthy, which is often a hangup for folks, including myself at times. Garrett also isn't the worst, by far, about earmarking.

All of that said, the bottom line is that we're talking about a systemic problem of allocating money with no accountability for results. As much good as some of these earmarks may do, we can't be assured we got the best bang for our buck.

Garrett, Earmarks and Donations

Over at the NJ.com, Thurman Hart has a great story about the impending doom several of our Representatives face in what appears to be a donation for earmarks scandal. Our own Representative Scott Garrett received $500 from the PAC associated with this group. However, there doesn't seem to be an easily traceable link between Garrett and PNA.

That said, there is a fairly easy link that can be established between the $1 million and $1.5 million dollar earmarks I had written about a while back: Both Imperial Machine & Tool, Inc and Dewey Electronics had Capitol Resources Washington Representation LLC listed as their lobbyists in the House.

Readers may remember, Dewey Electronics received Garrett's earmark after the Army had already informed them two years ago that they were ending the program. Garrett had received $4,500 in donations from Dewey's executives over the years. While donations from Capitol over the years come to $500, a lobbyist of record in the Senate for Dewey was SISCORP.

At one time SISCORP had an individual named Robert M. Meissner working for them, who has donated $3,455 in recent years to Garrett listing SISCORP as his employer. However, Robert M. Meissner is only currently listed under Capitol as a lobbyist, a company which he founded. Senate records indicate Capitol set up shop back in 2002.

This just seems incredibly shady, especially since SISCORP's Robert M. Meissner donates from a street address in Fairfax; while Capitol's donates a few dollars here and there (none to Garrett) from a PO Box in Arlington.

Kind of fishy, don't you think?

I'd like to believe Garrett wouldn't work to secure an earmark for $8,500 in donations. I'd also like to believe that Meissner isn't intentionally trying to skirt FEC, House and Senate regulations. There could actually be an easy explanation for it.

Unfortunately, because the entire process is so tainted at this point the questions alone need to be raised in the interest of good government.

Congress needs to accept responsibility for us even having to wonder. Back in November, as part of the election, people demanded more transparency. Obviously, we're starting down that road, because a couple of years ago this post would have taken me two months instead of a couple of hours. However, we have a long way to go.

Garrett Wins Award

Representative Scott Garrett has once again won the "Taxpayer Hero" award from the Citizens Against Government Waste. I'm actually a very big fan of this groups Pork Book. As reported by Herb Jackson:

Votes defined by the group as pro-taxpayer included extending tax cuts, blocking expansion of children's health insurance, and eliminating funds for a museum dedicated to the Woodstock festival.

It's important to remember, this is an award based on votes, and doesn't take away points for wasteful earmarks, like Garrett getting money for a research project the Army had informed the manufacturer they didn't want. That said, while so many groups base their rankings on a handful of votes, CAGW uses 100 to come up with their score. I don't agree with a handful on the list (they're against deficit neutral bills), but you can read the list here and decide for yourself.

Call an Earmark an Earmark

Part of the problem with the fight against earmarks is that, when they are presented to what most people deem a worthy program, the press refers to them as grants.

Such is the case with the The Express-Times story talking about our Representative Scott Garrett's earmark for a rural police training program to be conducted at Centenary College in Hackettstown:

A $894,348 federal law enforcement grant is bringing rural police training back to the local level. U.S. Rep Scott Garrett announced the award of the three-year U.S. Department of Justice grant Monday at Centenary College, which will develop the program.

For those that aren't familiar with Centenary, it is a great school. Unfortunately, the nature of the earmark process does absolutely nothing to validate that reputation.

In addition, the fact much of our rural District falls within the Highlands region providing the vast majority of NJ's drinking water makes us particularly susceptible as a soft target. So, it sounds like a valid program, and on face value this seems to be a noble deed.

That said, the press calling this a grant implies Centenary won the funds in a competition against their peers. In fact, Garrett sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee requesting $750,000; Appropriations approved $940,000; and, on a side note, somehow $46,000 vanished in Washington.

The problem with the press calling earmarks grants is that then there is no accountability for Garrett in the public's mind? What was his vetting process? Could either Warren or Sussex County Community Colleges have provided the same classes at a better cost? Would another college, in say Pennsylvania or New York, done even better?

We'll never know. The only thing we know is that Garrett is very comfortable railing against earmarks in Washington; probably because he knows most folks don't realize that's exactly what he's doing with these "grants".

The RSC Action Plan

I was looking over the new Action Plan from the Republican Study Committee, and noticed something odd. Part of the action plan is the following:

We will not wait on the Democrat Majority to end "Bridges to Nowhere" and "Monuments to Me"—we declare an immediate earmark moratorium and pledge to reform the system.

On their website, the RSC has a list of members who have sworn off earmarks. What's interesting about the list is our Representative Scott Garrett has not taken the pledge. I suppose it would be difficult for him to take the pledge when he's advocated for a $1.5 million earmark for a program after the Army ended it.


Beyond that, the Action Plan seems to be little more than a commitment to the Bush priorities over the last few years. Herb Jackson summed up the plan on Sunday in The Record.

The right-leaning Republican Study Committee issued an action plan that, among other things, calls for tighter controls on spending, looser controls on oil companies and agencies gathering intelligence on suspected terrorists, eliminating the alternative minimum tax, putting welfare-like restrictions on food stamps and housing assistance, and requiring people who are not elderly, young or disabled to work to get government help.

Among other things, it's disturbing to me that in a time of economic downturn, the RSC would advocate taking food stamps and Section 8 housing away from families in need. Here's how the RSC sums up their belief:

Such reforms will ensure a more stable environment for low-income children by encouraging their parents to marry and raise them in two-parent homes.

Nothing like stigmatizing those who need help in these economic times. The USDA has a fact sheet here, which highlights among other things this little tidbit of information:

The Food Stamp Program is a program that supplements the food purchasing power
of low-income Americans. The average time a food stamp recipient stays on the program is 9 months.

The RSC is declaring war on a largely short term, underutilized program (65% of those eligible), where 75% of the participants are children. Average monthly participation in the Food Stamp program has increased 50% since 2001, now covering 1 in 11 Americans in a given month. A large part of the reason for the increase are the very economic policies the RSC fought for.

This is the classic political bait and switch. Unfortunately, history shows this is an effective way to distract voters from things like the $15 billion in fraud the RSC allowed to occur or the deficit they exploded while in the majority.

Although touted as returning Republicans to their roots, there's nothing about balancing the budget, staying out of individuals' lives, or defending the Constitution involved in the plan. In a number of instances, it's the exact opposite. Since the RSC can't stand on their record, it's interesting to see them attack the results of the policies they have implemented over the years.

I guess we'll all have to wait and see how short term the American voter's memory is.

And the Pork Goes On

This is disappointing: There won't be a one year moratorium on pork projects coming out of Washington.

The response to the Senate vote from rank-and-file lawmakers: They sent in so many last-minute earmark requests that a House Appropriations Committee web site seized up and the deadline for requesting pork had to be extended.

And then there are the explanations. This from Representative Nancy Boyda:

"Earmarks allow members of Congress to devote funds to projects that are important to their district — and representatives can better judge their districts' needs than some bureaucrat," Boyda wrote her constituents. "I want to make sure that Kansas taxpayers are getting their fair share of funds returning to Kansas projects — research at our universities, investment in our infrastructure and growth at our military bases."

I've heard this said by a number of Representatives and Senators, and if that's really the goal, then lower taxes so more of the money never leaves where it's supposed to be going in the first place. Unfortunately, too many on Capitol Hill have sipped this putrid Kool Aid.

It is also a fact that earmarks are completely open to fraud and waste, placing the power of the purse in the hands of a single person who may or may not have a clue. Our own Rep. Scott Garrett proved this fact with flying colors last funding cycle by requesting a $1.5 million earmark after the Army had ended the program Garrett was funding.

Did Garrett think he was doing right by the District? Probably. Did he know the Army had ended the program? Probably not. Should he have had an inkling? Absolutely.

If the project a lawmaker wants to fund can't stand up in an open granting process, it shouldn't be funded. Earmarks need to end, plain and simple. Anyone who says otherwise should be voted out of office.

$1 Million Earmark Figured Out

The $1 million earmark granted Representative Scott Garrett in FY07 (of $2 million requested) highlighted by David Heath's Favor Factory for the Lightweight Munitions and Surveillance System (LMSS) for Unmanned Air & Ground Vehicles took a bit longer to figure out.

According to Earmarkwatch.org, which is a partnership of the Sunlight Foundation and Taxpayers for Commonsense, Garrett was the only member to request $2 million in FY08 for the same project the Army didn't ask for to be sent to Imperial Machine & Tool, Inc.

The Joest family, owners of the business, gave $1,500 to Garrett while employed with the company. However, where things get interesting is if you plug the Joest name into an engine like Opensecrets.org.

While it's not as direct, Garrett's Joest haul increases to $14,500 largely on the checks of women living at the same addresses as the men listed as owners of the company.

If you read the earmark request letter, Garrett makes an interesting statement which I'm sure is required:

I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

I suppose, since this little series started with questions it should end with questions as well:

1. How is $14,500 in campaign cash not a financial interest?
2. Why request earmarks for programs and contracts the Army hasn't asked for?
3. What programs requested funding but were denied because of these $8.5 million in earmarks over the last two years for programs the Army didn't ask for?

$1.5 Million Earmark Figured Out

So, I asked some open questions about the earmarks Representative Scott Garrett handed out in FY2007 where a recipient could not be found. However, doing a little digging, it seems that the $1.5 million for 2kw Military Tactical Generator Improvements that the military didn't request seems to go to Dewey Electronics. This is based on their annual report to shareholders and a press release from Senator Frank Lautenberg back in 2006 describing his acquisition of funds for a project with the same title.

According to the FEC and Opensecrets.org, Garrett received $4,500 from Dewey Electronics executives. While that may seem like something, and to some extent it is, here's the really interesting part from Dewey's Annual Report:

In late January 2007 the U.S. Army informed the Company of a significant change in Army staff and priorities related to the 2kW Generator Program and an end to additional funding under the research and development contract the U.S. Army awarded us in 2004. As a consequence, the Company wrote-off all of its capitalized development costs totaling $703,799 to costs of revenue in the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007.

So Garrett sought a $1.5 million earmark in FY2007 for a program in addition to a contract to a supplier already getting paid for the work; and for a program the Army knew it was going to end.

To make matters worse, Garrett was joined by Representatives Rodney Frelinghuysen, Bill Pascrell and Steve Rothman in asking for an additional $3 million for the project in the FY2008 budget (h/t Herb Jackson) after the program had been eliminated.

This is why earmarks are such a problem. By law, our money has to go to Dewey even though the Army doesn't want the research done anymore. What exactly they'll use it for and why our Representatives decided they needed the money may be a mystery forever.

Garrett joins his colleagues every year to talk about budget boondoggles, one has to wonder if this will make the list next year. One also has to wonder how his buddies over at the Club for Growth will react to him seeking $4.5 million over two years for a program the Army doesn't want anymore.

Open Questions for Garrett

A while back I wrote about Representative Scott Garrett sending the vast majority of the earmarks he requested out of district. After watching Bill Moyer's Expose covering investigative reporter David Heath's efforts to compile the first full accounting of earmarks in a Defense Appropriations bill, I decided to check out Heath's efforts.

Of course I looked at Garrett's page. So here are the questions:

1. Who were the $2.5 million in mystery earmarks of which you were the only sponsor sent to?
2. What process was used to determine these mystery earmarks were in the best interest of taxpayers in our District?
3. What projects within the District did you not attempt to fund as a result of going after these two mystery earmarks knowing you were approaching the average amount of earmarks for a Republican House member?

If either Garrett or his staff would like to provide answers for publication you can send me an e-mail or letter.

Garrett Spotted in Bergen

Work's been brutal, so I'm trying to catch up.

In a lengthy piece speculating about County Clerk Kathe Donovan's absence at the BCRO meeting last week, Inside Bergen made another observation: Representative Scott Garrett took the stage.

Also notable was Congressman Scott Garrett's presence at the meeting. Garrett took the stage with Ortiz and presented his update from Washington. Their joint appearance allays some of the rumors of a pending feud between the BCRO and Garrett.

That's really too bad. As I noted earlier, Bergen County received 6% of the earmarks Garrett fought for in the appropriations process, while sending 70% out of District. Bergen represents 60% of the District's population. Garrett popping into a meeting once in a while doesn't change the diminished stature of the BCRO in the county since Garrett took office. Part of that is that he doesn't fight for us.

One would hope the BCRO would hold Garrett accountable, so as to really challenge the pay-to-play BCDO, for all of our sake.

Garrett's Out of District Spending Spree

With President Bush's signing of the massive Omnibus spending bill today, about $10 billion worth of earmarks are now about to be handed out. Of that amount, our Representative Scott Garrett is responsible for $8.77 million (h/t Herb Jackson).

The extremely small amount of earmarks could lead one to believe that Garrett is sticking to his guns about only getting earmarks for the District and opposing everything else. However, as with most things Garrett, appearances are deceiving.

In fact, 70% of Garrett's earmarks appear to be out of District in nature. From military research at undisclosed locations ($6 million) to an earmark for Englewood Hospital, Garrett spread the majority of what little wealth he went after outside of the District.

What's also interesting is Garrett's geographic spread of funding within the District. Here's how the in-District funding broke down:

1. Sussex: 44%
2. Warren: 31%
3. Bergen: 22%
4. Passaic: 3%

I guess, if Garrett really were trying to represent the District as a whole he would try for a little more population parity. Also, Warren County's numbers are a little distorted by one $750,000 earmark (Garrett's largest non-military) to Centenary College. While I have little doubt of the quality of Centenary or the program there, this points to Garrett's failings as an overall Representative.

Why is it Rep. Steve Rothman had to secure money for Bergen Community College (which is in our District; and serves the population of 60% of our District)? Why didn't Garrett think Warren County Community College, Sussex County Community College or Ramapo College deserved funds?

While sending dollars to the hospital of your birth is usually reserved for an endowment fund out of your personal checkbook, Garrett decided to send $150,000 taxpayer dollars to Englewood. What about hospitals like Valley in Ridgewood, Bergen Regional, Warren Hospital in Phillipsburg or Hackettstown Memorial?

If Garrett, by his own "principles" isn't going to go after earmarked funds, we need to take a hard look at how he goes after the funds he does. It's one thing to say you're against earmarks, it's another thing to say by your funding choices that you're against your own constituents. It's a matter of putting taxpayer dollars where Garrett sees fit, and overwhelmingly that's not in our District.

New Accountability Toy

Oh, this is good. OMB Watch has a fun website I hadn't seen before: FedSpending.org.

It has a lot of great information like:

• So far this year there have been $20,244,923 in Federal contracts awarded to our District. Of those;
• 75.8% have not been competitively bid;
• 12.4% have been open bid, but only one bid was received;
• Over $1 million can't be determined how it was awarded.

The site also lists the names of contractors. If I had the time, I'd be curious to see how the contract awards match up with campaign donations listed over at the FEC website.

FedSpending also breaks down program assistance within the District. The last full year they have is FY2005, where the District received $603,549,754 in Federal funds. This includes everything from Social Security payments to SBA loans and $1.9 million in SCHIP funds. As a District, we ranked 245 out of 435 in total amount received.

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, the Big Spender

OK, that's a joke.

Actually, our Representative Scott Garrett got a pretty good amendment through yesterday. He secured an extra $20 million for cancer and autism research ($10 million each), while eliminating $49 million from a program being phased out that for some reason was still in the budget. Garrett's been criticized in the past for his lack of effort when it came to the autism community, so this is a nice olive branch.

One thing that seemed a little odd was how flippantly the amendment was accepted. I have a lot of respect for Representative Dave Obey, Chair of the Appropriations Committee, largely because he'll put his foot down and yank earmarks from bills if people are being less than productive in their discussion. However, here's what he said regarding the amendment offered before Garrett's and of Garrett's:

Mr. Chairman, because we are trying to get Members out of here for their planes, I would be happy to accept the gentleman’s amendment.

[snip]

Again, the same deal, if we accept the amendment. We are trying to help get Members out of here.

Good for Garrett on the amendment and hopefully everybody had a nice flight home.

Garrett vs. Young - Observations

So Representative Don Young exploded on our Representative Scott Garrett. Young has a reputation as a brawler, and also the King of House Pork. His "my money" thing is how he operates, and the threats are normal for him.

Rolling Stone ranked Young third on their list of 10 Worst Congressmen. From that article:

Such coarseness is a Young hallmark. He once called environmentalists a "self-centered bunch of waffle-stomping, Harvard-graduating, intellectual idiots" who "are not Americans, never have been Americans, never will be Americans." And during a debate on the right of native Alaskans to sell the sex organs of endangered animals as aphrodisiacs, Young whipped out the eighteen-inch penis bone of a walrus and brandished it like a sword on the House floor.

If, in fact, Garrett introduced this amendment without talking with Young about it, a Republican known for this sort of stuff, how could anybody be surprised by his explosion?

What agitates me the most about this isn't Garrett's act to pull the funds; Garrett doesn't want the Federal government involved in education and he hates earmarks, so this action was his standard operating procedure (SOP).

However, this event highlights other SOPs of Garrett that should worry the rest of us:

First, you have the fact he would target a fellow member on the House floor, of his own caucus no less, without giving the courtesy of a heads up. Garrett should have talked to the Representatives of Alaska and Hawaii first, or introduced an amendment to strip all the earmarks.

Second, you have his initial weak, confused and self-centered response. Try as they might, his aides could not take the deer caught in the headlights look off his face. A member of the House slams the reputation of our State and our Congressmen and the first thing Garrett tries to do is defend himself. Give me a break. I appreciated the response that came later, and I'm hoping it had some passion with it as opposed to Garrett's usually flat delivery.

Third, and this is a big one: institutional ignorance. When Young talks about "killing" other Congressmen, he's not kidding. Young is a prolific fundraiser, and he spreads a lot of cash around to other members running for office and the national party. Last election cycle, his campaign committee doled out $231,000, with his Leadership PAC handing out another $159,328; compared to Garrett's $0 from his campaign and not having a Leadership PAC. Also, Young's total does not include the lobbyist directed funds from those lobbyists he has relationships with, such as big oil.

As wrong as it is, and symbolic of how sick Washington has become, this is where Young derives his power from on the Hill and how he's been able to get all those pork projects at the expense of New Jersey's taxpayers. With Republicans only getting 40% of earmarked funds at this point, now the projects our District needs federal funds for (like the 287 and Rt. 17 exchange renovation) have a bulls eye on them.

Garrett needs to fight for reform, but he has to be smart about it: you don't do it by surprise and you sure don't pick your first fight over funding for poor kids. The manner in which Garrett did this was a first week Freshman Representative's error that our third term Congressman should have had the foresight to realize his actions have the distinct possibility of further hurting our District. Garrett's amendment went down in flames, with even the rest of the New Jersey delegation voting against it. However, the damage this effort could do to our District may last much longer than a ten minute spitting match on the floor of the House.

Thanks, Scott.