Garrett for Wasting Tax Dollars

One of the perplexing things about Representative Scott Garrett is that he chooses to advocate for practices that waste taxpayer money, while slamming waste in other programs. I've written before about Garrett's affinity for Medicare Advantage, which has been documented to cost taxpayers more than it should. Yet Garrett gripes about Medicare costing too much.

Today, Garrett sent an e-mail defending his opposition to reforming Federal Student loans. Here's part of his logic:

On Thursday, the House passed a bill (H.R. 3221) that will, if signed into law, eliminate private loans with federal guarantees, replacing such loans entirely with the government’s Direct Loan program – in other words, removing the optionality of the public option – at a cost of $1 trillion over the next ten years.

What Garrett conveniently fails to mention is that enacting this policy is actually saving taxpayers billions. From the CBO:

H.R. 3221 would make several changes to the federal student loan programs, including the Federal Perkins Loan Program. As shown in Table 2, CBO estimates that, on net, those changes would reduce federal costs by $40.7 billion over five years and $74.8 billion over 10 years.

So once again, we have Garrett defending taxpayer money flowing into private hands at a higher cost than we should be paying for the service we're receiving.

Adding insult to the injury of honest debate, Garrett relates his argument to the health care debate and justifying his opposition to the public option.

The student loan public option should serve as a cautionary and instructional tale for Congress and the American people as we continue to discuss ways to reform the health care system.

Garrett's right, the cautionary tale here is that without reform, we're going to continue spending more than we should. That's fine with Garrett, the question should be put to his constituents, is that okay with you?

Garrett's Recent Votes

With the focus so much on health care these days, it's easy to forget that the House has other business. Representative Scott Garrett has had a number of votes recently that should interest folks here in the Fifth District. Here's a sampling:

H.R. 3221 Garrett and most Republicans voted no on fully funding Pell Grants.

H.R.3246 To provide for a program of research, development, demonstration and commercial application in vehicle technologies at the Department of Energy. Only member of the NJ Delegation to vote no.

H.R. 22 To reduce the amount that the United States Postal Service is required to pay into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund by the end of fiscal year 2009. This was approved, with Garrett's support, by a landslide.

H.R. 965 This one is aimed at providing funding to those preserving the Chesapeake Bay. Once again, Garrett was the only one from NJ to vote no.

Could Garrett Get Karcher-ed?

Here's a thought I had while looking at the Record's list of cut your own Christmas Tree farms: Could Representative Scott Garrett be subjected to the same sort of attack that helped bring down State Senator Ellen Karcher? Part of what undid Karcher was a tax break she receives for having her property designated as a Christmas Tree farm, contrasted to her votes raising taxes.

While Garrett has never declared income from the farm on his House Financial Disclosure forms (over $200 from any source must be declared), both Garrett's supporters and detractors seem to be of the impression he sells the $500 worth of Christmas trees a year in order to get the property tax break. Garrett doesn't seem like the type to risk an $11,000 civil fine for each report falsified, plus fines from the House itself, so I don't think folks should jump to conclusions about the status of Garrett's property taxes. Plus, people have to decide if this is the sort of thing we want in campaigns.

Regardless of whether or not he gets a break, Garrett's voting record and philosophy do in fact lead to higher property taxes. For instance, Garrett has been on record since at least 2002 as saying he felt that the Department of Education should be eliminated. While it varies on a town by town basis, 8.9% of education funding comes from the Federal government. So, in essence, Garrett's been committed to raising property taxes an average of 8.9% since 2002.

That last bit may be a bit of a stretch for folks, but people need to consider when Garrett talks about eliminating Departments and programs like Head Start; states, counties, and towns will be left to fund them on their own or end them. When Garrett opposes SCHIP funding, leaving the state to cover those children already covered, the money has to come from somewhere. In our state, that means property, income, and sales taxes.

It's something to think about.

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.

What Are The Odds?

Imagine my surprise to our Representative Scott Garrett teaming with Representative Pete Hoekstra for an op-ed on No Child Left Behind.

Hoekstra was my Rep when I lived in Michigan and was the last Republican campaign I worked on, through the Ottawa County organization, oh so many years ago. Hoekstra represents a very conservative District, and as I explained back in February, he is as beloved in his District as Marge Roukema was in ours (he won in '06 by roughly 100,000 votes, compared to Garrett's 22,000). It's a small world.

Without having the time to discect their Op-Ed on NCLB, and compare it to the proposals out there to determine what's spin and what's not, the piece does provide a perfect contrast between a real conservative plan and Garrett's slash and burn philosophy.

As I pointed out earlier, Garrett has sought to prey upon people's feelings on NCLB (from disdain to hatred) to defund the Department of Education. Garrett's plan gives everyone a tax-credit to offset whatever taxes must be raised by their states to offset a loss of education dollars if their states opt out of NCLB. Garrett's plan ignores the role corporate taxes play in education funding, removes all consideration for disadvantaged districts, and would likely gut funding from poorer states without a means to offset the loss of funding. Garrett's plan has absolutely no benchmarks for states and schools to shoot for or to be held accountable to.

Hoekstra's A-Plus Act, on the other hand, allows states to opt out of NCLB in a traditional conservative proposal. It allows states to receive their education funds in block grants, securing more local control, while holding them accountable to reaching the standards set forth for the programs the block grant is related to. Hoekstra's bill also maintains requirements to fund disadvantaged districts and comply with civil rights laws. Hoekstra's bill is not without it's problems; gutting administrative cost to administer the programs funded (1% is a bit unreasonable) and apparently it starts grant levels at what states spent as opposed to what they needed.

Negatives aside, Hoekstra's bill provides the funding, recognizes the need to provide for those in need, but leaves states in control of how to do it. Neither of the bills are supported by the National Education Association, and I doubt either will make it to the floor. While there is no shot of any part of Garrett's bill appearing in the NCLB legislation, my hope is that block grants will appear in some form in the new NCLB legislation somewhere.

I do prefer a block grant approach to funding for two reasons: They allow states to decide how to use their money to meet their needs, and; they limit earmarking because the nature of the grant does not allow members of Congress to deduct funds from a competitive grant pool.

Successful block grant programs like SCHIP and HUD's Community Development Block Grants do point to the successes of federal programs giving states control. If it can work for health care and housing, it's worth considering for education.

Does Garrett Want to End SCHIP?

When Representative Scott Garrett uses the phrase "paper over", it seems he's advocating defunding or eliminating a program. From Herb Jackson, this was part of his statement he released after voting to uphold the President's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program:

I am hopeful that when we do, we don’t simply tinker around the edges – papering over the barriers to access that so many children and families now face, but will take a good, hard look at fixing our healthcare system.

As I've pointed out before, Garrett has a desire to defund the Department of Education. This is what he says regarding No Child Left Behind:

While some in Washington are interested in slightly altering the federal mandates in the law, fiddling around the edges isn’t going to fix the problems our teachers, parents, and students have been experiencing these past five years. That approach will simply paper over some the current grievances without getting to the root of the problem.

Garrett's solution to NCLB's issues is introducing a bill that would defund the Department of Education, including cutting funding for school districts serving poor children. A use of a phrase, or seeing NCLB in the same light as SCHIP?

I've actually seen other examples of Garrett using this phrase, but I can't remember where I saw them. If I find them again, I'll post it. In the meantime, it's an interesting question to ask.

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 vs. Education, Again

So, I'll be curious to see what if anything Representative Scott Garrett had to say before voting against HR 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. The primary victory for working parents and their college bound children is an interest rate cut of 50% (6.8 to 3.4%) and an increase in Pell Grant amounts. Here's a summary of some of the other perks, from the AP:

- Provides scholarships worth $4,000 a year to college students who agree to teach hard-to staff subjects, like math, in low-income schools.

- Offers $5,000 in loan forgiveness for college graduates who go into public-service
careers.

- Caps annual loan repayments at a percentage of a student's income, which is aimed at preventing people from having to pay back more than they can afford.

In the finest traditions of PAYGO, which Garrett also voted against reinstituting, this Bill achieves these tangible benefits for working families by eliminating something: $19 billion dollars in corporate welfare.

This is actually the second time Garrett has voted against decreasing the interest rates he voted to increase back in 2006. So the next time you hear him talking about looking out for the family budget; it's important to remember Garrett has directly voted against working families, who have dreams of a college education for their children, 3 times in the last year and a half.

I'll post anything Garrett said tomorrow.

Now This is Just Cool

An article in today's New Jersey Herald has pointed out the power public education can have on the lives of students, and how fun it can be.

Being submerged in 20 feet of water in order to pilot a submarine with a propulsion system modeled after an exercise machine may seem like a daunting task. However, for instructor Chris Land and his Engineering Technology class from the Sussex Technical School, it is the culmination of a year-long project in which the students designed and constructed their own underwater vehicle.

"We're the only high school in the world to design, build, and operate a human-powered submarine," Land said. "We've been working since the absolute beginning of school."

On Sunday, Land and his class will set out for Bethesda, Maryland, where they will compete in the 9th International Submarine Races; Sussex Tech is the only high school entered, and will face competition from universities and independent builders. This is the third time that Land will bring a submarine to the biennial competition, which will take place at Maryland's Naval Surface Warfare Center from June 24-29.

I had the privilege of speaking at Sussex Tech last year as part of the campaign, and it is an amazing institution with amazing students. I wrote about the experience here, and it still ranks as one of my favorite stops last year. Congratulations to the kids in the program and good luck.

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.

Seriously, You're Going To Have To Call

I've spoken with a few folks about the town hall meeting Representative Scott Garrett is hosting on No Child Left Behind. In this week's Garrett Gazette he gives a reminder, and recommends you call if you have any questions. You just might.

WHAT: Town Hall Meeting on No Child Left Behind

WHERE: Ramapo College of New Jersey Alumni Lounges
505
Ramapo Valley Road
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
WHEN: Saturday, April
21, 2007
4:00 pm to 6:00 pm

To make the most of our time together at this town hall
meeting, I'm asking teachers and administrators to come share their thoughts and
experiences from 6 to 7 pm, and parents and students to
participate from 7 to 8 pm.

I hope you will be able to join me and share your thoughts
on this important issue. If you have any questions, please contact my Paramus
district staff at 201-712-0330.

This isn't a dig on Garrett, this sort of thing happens. It is kind of funny, though. Besides, this isn't nearly as bad as when he put out the statement slamming the wrong country for the Dubai Ports World deal. I think he went after Saudi Arabia, but I'll have to dig up the print out. If you are planning to go, I strongly suggest you call.

Mark Your Calendars - Garrett on NCLB

In a rare public appearance, Representative Scott Garrett is hosting a town hall meeting on No Child Left Behind. Garrett's not a fan of federal involvement in education, and intends to introduce a bill that would allow states to opt out of Department of Education requirements for children. While it wasn't posted on his website, an e-mail Garrett sent out was forwarded to me with a change in date, I'd call his office to confirm.

Unfortunately, as of now, I'll be out of the State this weekend. Here's the e-mail update:

ATTENTION:

CHANGE IN DATE!

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND TOWN HALL MEETING

Dear Friends:

Earlier this week in your weekly Garrett Gazette, I invited you to join me at a special town hall meeting on No Child Left Behind. I wanted to alert you to a change in the date and time for this event:

WHERE: Ramapo College of New Jersey

Alumni Lounges

505 Ramapo Valley Road

Mahwah , New Jersey 07430

WHEN: Saturday, April 21, 2007

4:00 pm to 6:00 pm

As I noted in my earlier invitation, five years ago, Congress instituted some of the most dramatic and sweeping changes to federal education law, called No Child Left Behind. This year, my colleagues and I will be reviewing that law and determining what changes need to be made to ensure that parents and teachers can make the best education possible available to all children.

I want to hear what you think about No Child Left Behind. What have your experiences been as teachers, parents, and also students? How can we make sure that students have the best educational opportunities available to them?

To make the most of our time together at this town hall meeting, I'm asking teachers and administrators to come share their thoughts and experiences from 4 to 5 pm, and parents and students to participate from 5 to 6 pm.

I hope you will be able to join me and share your thoughts on this important issue. If you have any questions, please contact my Paramus district staff at 201-712-0330.

Sincerely,

Scott Garrett

Member of Congress

Garrett vs. Education in a Nutshell

This is from Representative Scott Garrett's speech from his Constitutional Caucus last night:

Contrary to common modern misconceptions, there is no constitutional right guaranteeing each citizen an education.

While it's true that under House Ethics Rules you cannot rebroadcast floor speeches, there's nothing in the rules about quoting the Congressional Record or reprinting it. This may prove to be one of the most damaging quotes Garrett's ever given, and he should get pounded on it in 2008.

Technically, he's correct that it's not spelled out in the Constitution, and whether or not education is deemed by the people to be covered under the "general welfare" part of Article I, Section 8 is fair game for debate (I'd place a bet on where I think most people stand). However, kind of like Garrett's vote against the 9/11 Commission Recommendations, technicalities won't matter. That just sounds awful.

Why Garrett's not inclined to debate

**Update: Garrett voted against the relief, Frelinghuysen voted for it**

It's well documented that Rep. Scott Garrett has an aversion to debating his opponents during a campaign. In the New Jersey Herald today there's an article about how unaffordable college has become and the Democrat's step to cut interest rates on federal student loans. The gem, and insight into why his handlers discourage debating, is in his "prepared statement":

"This bill is typical of what the Democrats have done since taking over and what they will continue to do if left unchecked — try to score cheap political points without solving any problems," Garrett said in a prepared statement. "The fact of the matter is that tuition costs have risen nearly 300 (percent) in the last two decades, and that is the real cause of student debt and the real reason that too many qualified students cannot afford to attend college."

The natural, go for the jugular response in a debate is "You bring up skyrocketing costs, Scott. What exactly have you done to solve the problem, when the Republicans were in the majority?" The answer to the question is also provided by the Herald.

Garrett and Frelinghuysen both voted last year in favor of cutting about $12 billion in federal student-loan programs.

If the prepared statement is the best Scott can come up with in opposition to a very tangible savings for working families (estimated at an average of $2,370 per student), I'd hate to see what he'd say off the cuff. For someone who claims to want to keep focus on the family budget, he certainly failed with flying colors on this one. I guess he needs new glasses.