Garrett Against Housing...Again

Considering Representative Scott Garrett sees the housing market as being in good shape; voted against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae helping first time homeowners in our District; against programs to get rural families off of Section 8 housing; and against reforming Section 8 in general; this vote was not a surprise. Garrett was the only Representative from New Jersey to vote against establishing the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

As with the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae vote, Garrett's vote is a vote against North Jersey. The way the formula of funding is constructed largely favors North Jersey. Here's a couple of the criteria:

`(A) The ratio of the population of the State, Indian tribes, insular area, or participating jurisdiction, to the aggregate population of all States, Indian tribes, insular areas, and participating jurisdictions

Advantage: North Jersey

`(C) The percentage of families in the jurisdiction of the State, of Indian tribes, or of the insular area or participating jurisdiction that pay more than 50 percent of their annual income for housing costs.

Advantage: North Jersey - 21% of those living in North Jersey spend more than 50%.

(E) The cost of constructing or carrying out rehabilitation of housing in the jurisdiction of the State, of Indian tribes, or of the insular area or participating jurisdiction.

Advantage: North Jersey

`(G) The percentage of housing stock in the jurisdiction of the State, of Indian tribes, or of the insular area or participating jurisdiction that is extremely old housing.

Advantage: North Jersey

`(H) For the jurisdiction of a State, of Indian tribes, or of an insular area or participating jurisdiction that has an extremely low percentage of affordable rental housing, the extent to which the State, Indian tribes, or the insular area or participating jurisdiction has in the preceding fiscal year increased the percentage of rental housing within its jurisdiction that is affordable housing.

Advantage: North Jersey

It's safe to say this program, if enacted, will benefit our communities. As the Record, Star Ledger, and Express Times reported today, NJ is facing a severe population exodus issue and affordable housing is part of it. We're likely going to lose a Congressional seat in 2012. Considering the rest of our Delegation seems to vote on a bi-partisan basis when the welfare of our State is at stake, and Garrett doesn't, if he's still in office in 2012 he should be the leading candidate to lose his District.

***Update***

Monarch Housing Associates, who does consulting for NJ organizations like the one I used to work for in MI, noted the significance of the bill (and Garrett's vote), on their blog:

The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007. H. R. 2895 would establish a Trust Fund to construct, rehabilitate, and preserve 1.5 million units of housing over the next 10 years. At least 75% of the new resources must produce or preserve housing affordable to extremely low income people. This would be the first new housing production program since 1990 and the only one focused on housing for households with the lowest incomes.

Garrett and Gas Gouging

For those who forgot, last year Representative Scott Garrett voted against protecting consumers from price gouging at the pump. He followed that vote up with another vote against protecting consumers from gouging this year, and then attacked Republicans who voted for such protections. Two price gouging protection bills, two no votes.

I bring this up after reading this article and waiting to see Garrett's vote about the energy bill on the House floor. It would seem, due to simple physics, we're getting ripped off at the pump during the summer. Here's part of the article:

As the temperature rises, gasoline expands, and the amount of energy in each gallon drops. Because gas is priced at a 60-degree standard and gas pumps do not adjust for temperature changes, motorists often get less bang for their buck in warmer weather.

Consumer watchdog groups warn that temperature increases could end up costing U.S. consumers between 3 and 9 cents a gallon at the pump.

[snip]

Almost a century ago, the industry and regulators agreed to define a gallon of gasoline as 231 cubic inches at 60 degrees. But as the mercury rises and gasoline expands, it takes more than a gallon of gas to produce the same amount of energy. The opposite is true when gasoline contracts in colder weather.

Now, one might say that we make up for it when it's colder, and in theory that would be true. However, take Ramsey for example, where the average temperature for the year is 61, with 6 months of the year over 60 and 5 months below it (April is 60). So on average, the people of Ramsey and the surrounding towns are not getting the gallon of gas they're paying for.

The whole situation needs to be looked at, reviewed and reformed. Gas prices are killing small businesses and families, and playing a significant role in holding our economy back. The fact our Garrett would consistently vote against even allowing an investigation into these issues, when it seems we already know the answers, is a little disconcerting.

Letter to the Editor

The Herald News published a Letter to the Editor I sent earlier this week. It was in response to the third letter on this page, which looked an awful lot like this press release from Representative Scott Garrett. Enjoy.

Scott Garrett and the 'family budget'

Reading "Garrett Steadfast on Taxes" (Letters to the Editor, May 18) seemed like something straight out of Rep. Scott Garrett's press room. Much of the spin reiterated by the author has been exposed as being overblown by many reputable reporters in this and other newspapers, including Herb Jackson and columnist David Broder.

Garrett may say he looks after the family budget, but his votes speak louder than his words.

With Garrett's vote against decreasing the interest rate on federal student loans, which he voted to raise a year ago, it seems working families with college kids are not of his concern. Garrett also voted against scholarships for children interested in studying science in college and grants for research professionals beginning their careers.

This eliminates families of those who perform the research and those whose manufacturing jobs are dependent on their findings.

In addition, Garrett voted against a U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed 10 year tax cut package for small business owners, followed by a vote against reforming and expanding Small Business Administration loans to help owners grow their businesses and create jobs, helping owner's families and those they employ.

These are just a few of Garrett's votes since January where the "family budget" was the central question. Garrett joined a small minority (between 2 and 6 percent) in voting no each time. It seems the only family budgets Garrett is concerned with closely resemble an A-Rod post-season hit: few and far between.

Matthew Fretz, Upper Saddle River

Garrett vs. First-Time Homebuyers

In another 12 to Garrett vote, Representative Scott Garrett was the only Representative from New Jersey to vote against reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and providing for The Affordable Housing Trust Fund. There's a lot to write about this bill, but I just haven't had the time. Sandy23 over at Blue Jersey did a nice job of covering the positive impact the bill would have for affordable housing. Here's how her diary started.

Yesterday the House voted on the National Housing Trust Fund. Originally proposed by then Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the bill sets up a Trust
Fund to support building of Affordable Housing nationwide. The funding for the bill comes through surplus dollars at Fannie Mae and FreddieMac.

I added this comment to their conversation.

The bill, which the White House had initially supported, is veto proof with a 313-104 margin.

The Bill also raises the limits of loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are allowed to offer first time home buyers in higher cost areas, like the Fifth District. In addition, it provided a new office to regulate the companies to prevent issues like they've had over the last three years.

I'm not sure how the amendments panned out in terms of White House support, but Garrett proposed an amendment that was crushed. It would have all but eliminated Fannie and Freddie from being able to help first-time homebuyers in the Fifth by restricting the types of mortgages they could offer to exclusively affordable housing stock, and cutting out the ability of middle income families to obtain F&F mortgages.

I feel a bit lazy reposting this here, but I had a really long day at work and am headed to bed a good two hours early. I apologize for slacking.