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.

Garrett Fails Purity Test

The announcement of the Republican Purity Test is further proof of how far from an inclusive party the Republicans have gone, and how far the authoritarians written about by John Dean have come. Instead of allowing people to choose their own Representatives, the powerful few want to dictate to the masses from their pirch in Washinton.

How'd that work out for you kids up in NY 23?

If this goes through, gone will be the future Tom Keans. Gone will be the Marge Roukemas and Leonard Lances and Frank LoBiondos. Gone will be the Teddy Roosevelts and the Abraham Lincolns.

Depending on how seriously they took this rule, gone would be Representative Scott Garrett.

While I doubt Garrett would fall from favor with this crowd, let's look at the pledge line by line to see where he gets tripped up, through a strict constructionist view (8 of 10 to pass):

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

Garrett, and every other Republican that voted for a Bush Budget fails on multiple fronts on this one. They exploded the deficit and the national debt. Many also voted against PAYGO, which would make new spending deficit neutral, and in many cases voted against tax cuts for actual small business owners (the non-publicly traded type).

Epic fail.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

Garrett's been clear on all of these, so that's a pass.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

This one is a mixed bag. They supported going to war with less than what the military wanted, but voted for the surge. I suppose, they could say, they'll only listen to the military after the civilians like Rumsfeld mess things up. I suppose Garrett passes.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

In order to contain Iran and North Korea effectively, we need to engage them as Reagan engaged the Soviet Union. While the Republicans interpreting this little test probably won't see it this way, Garrett and many others have been on record against engagement, and therefore should fail this one.

That's two fails.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

Republicans used to stand for all men and women being treated equal, however that's no longer the case. Special interest fundraising based discrimination has turned into party dogma. Garrett's on board with this.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

By arguing the status quo, as they do in point 2, Garrett and the rest of those that would profess these ideals are actively supporting corporate America dictating who gets what care. On top of that, they also fail point one yet again with point two, because it protects taxpayer rip off programs like Medicare Advantage.

The third fail.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

Really? With a blanket statement like that Republicans seem to want to arm every convicted violent criminal on parole? Wow. Since I don't know if Garrett would back that, we'll leave this one as an uncertain.

As I said, those who would dictate from the top what the party means instead of leaving it to their members, are unlikely to boot Garrett. That said, it's also important to look at this pledge with what it's missing:

• No commitment to a balanced budget;
• No commitment to eliminating waste;
• No commitment to veterans;
• No commitment to innovation;
• No commitment to education;
• No commitment to the environment;
• No commitment to a brighter future, only opposition.

This little Purity Test simply reinforces the image of Republicans as the party of No.

It also is a dangerous development. More on this topic to come soon...

Blue Dogs Step Up on Health Care

Even though they have been drowned out this weekend by an interestingly timed explosion of stories about the CIA, the Blue Dog Coalition put out a comprehensive letter about why they couldn't support the current Health Care reform package as written. Without the Blue Dogs, a reform package cannot get through the House.

Although some on the left may see this as obstructionist, the reality is the program's price tag needs to give us all pause. We're talking about a trillion dollars here, and as our last trillion dollar mistake should have taught us, if we don't plan well now, we'll be paying more later.

Fiscally conservative in the true sense, readers have to remember that it was the Blue Dogs that called out our own Representative Scott Garrett for refusing to support pay as you go reform and certain balanced budget initiatives. I'm glad they had the courage to put this out there. It was needed.

Here's the letter in it's entirety, as they raise some excellent concerns:

July 9, 2009

.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer:

As members of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, we write today to express our strong reservations about the process and direction of the draft tri-committee health care reform proposal. We share President Obama’s deep commitment to passing comprehensive, deficit-neutral health care reform that lowers costs for American families and businesses, increases the quality of care provided, and expands access for every American. We also believe that the process by which we get there is critically important if we hope to develop responsible health care reform legislation that accomplishes all of these goals.

After reviewing the draft tri-committee health care reform proposal, we believe it lacks a number of elements essential to preserving what works and fixing what is broken. Following are our initial thoughts, and we hope to see a draft at some point that substantially addresses each key item:


Deficit Neutrality – President Obama has repeatedly called for a health care bill that “must and will be paid for.” We do not support health care reform that is not deficit neutral. We have to take steps to control the cost of health care if we ever hope to put our country back on a fiscally sustainable path. As the Senate has done, this may require us to pare back some of the cost-drivers in order to produce a bill that we can afford. We also firmly believe that paying for health care reform must start with finding savings within the current delivery system and maximizing the value of our health care dollar before we ask the public to pay more.

Delivery System Reform – We must be much more aggressive in bending the cost curve. The discussion draft fails to include adequate structural changes that will succeed in lowering costs and increasing value. We cannot simply “add” new consumers to a broken system. The inclusion of pilot programs on Accountable Care Organizations and Medical Homes are good first steps, but innovative delivery system reforms, such as value-based purchasing and the value index, would properly realign incentives to promote high quality, efficient care.

Small Business Protections – Any additional requirements for employers must be carefully considered and done so within the context of what is currently offered. Small business owners and their employees lack coverage because of high and unstable costs – not because of an unwillingness to provide or purchase it. We cannot support a bill that further exacerbates the challenges faced by small businesses.


Rural Health Equity – Rural communities face unique challenges in delivering health care, and our reform efforts must not overlook them. The short-term extensions of rural provisions included in the discussion draft are critical, but we must not fail to address the underlying problems and inequities that plague rural providers. A strong rural package is critical to our support.

Bipartisanship – It is imperative that comprehensive health care include the ideas of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. The American public is looking for us to work together, regardless of party affiliation, to pass comprehensive health care reform.


We also wish to reiterate our support for the recommendations previously made by our Coalition regarding how to appropriately structure a public option. In order to establish a level playing field, providers must be fairly reimbursed at negotiated rates and their participation must be voluntary. A “Medicare-like” public option would negatively impact hospitals, doctors and patients. Medicare reimbursement is on average 20 to 30 percent lower than private plans and this inequity is even greater in some parts of the country. Using Medicare’s below-market rates would seriously weaken the financial stability of our local hospitals and doctors.

Finally, any health care reform legislation that comes to the floor must be available to all Members and the public for a sufficient amount of time before we are asked to vote for it. This includes any amendments or changes to the bill included as part of the rule. We need time to review it and discuss it with our constituents. Too short of a review period is unacceptable and only undermines Congress’ ability to pass responsible health care reform that works for all Americans.

From where we are today, significant progress on the draft tri-committee health care reform proposal needs to be made in order to address each of these concerns. We cannot support a final product that fails to do so. We stand ready to work with you to fulfill President Obama’s goal and lower the cost of health care for American families and businesses.

The Borrowers Win

The AMT bill without any offsets to prevent further borrowing was passed by a whopping majority. This is a good thing for the taxpayers next year, but a bad thing down the line. It also does nothing to change the fact 120,000 families in our District already pay the AMT. Representative Scott Garrett voted for the patch, and the continuation of our District's disproportionate share of the Federal tax burden.

Garrett and the AMT Standoff

In the four years Representative Scott Garrett served in the Republican majority he never got a single bill he wrote enacted into law. Of particular disappointment to the people I spoke with last year was the AMT and Garrett's inability to prevent people in our District from being forced to pay it.

Right now, 120,000 people from our District pay the AMT. Garrett's solution is to eliminate it and borrow the money so people's children and grandchildren get to pay compound interest on the debt. Sadly, when the Republicans went from the debt reduction PAYGO party to the tax cut and borrow party, Garrett and those who agreed with him created an awful bind. The second round of Bush Tax cuts, which Garrett co-sponsored, couldn't have been passed without eliminating PAYGO, expanding the AMT, and borrowing TRILLIONS.

The cut and borrow philosophy has caused the deficit to explode a staggering 60% in the last seven years, to over $9 trillion, causing our economic policy to be dictated by the likes of China. When I was campaigning last year, someone reiterated Cheney's "deficits don't matter" line when I was talking about the need to re-institute PAYGO and I reminded them of this from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

The AMT debate has come down to a standoff between the borrowers and the true fiscal conservatives in both parties in both chambers of Congress, and our District is caught in the crossfire. When 20% of the District is impacted by something, one would hope Garrett would be the one to come through with the compromise that gets the job done.

Unfortunately, as usual, Garrett has chosen partisan rhetoric over substantive work. Garrett hasn't offered a deficit neutral solution of his own, he's voted against the Democrat's deficit neutral proposal, and now has come out and slammed the Democrats for inaction on the AMT even though it's the borrow happy Republicans in the Senate getting in the way of the patch getting passed.

This hasn't been funny or cute for a long time.

In his closing remarks about the omnibus spending bill passed last night, which neither Democrats nor Republicans were 100% happy with, Representative David Obey made the following statement:

The difference is that this year we are recognizing that in an adult world, win, lose, or draw, we have an obligation to reach some final decisions. We have an obligation to compromise and move on. And that's what we are trying to do with this legislation. It is a responsible thing to do.

Nearly 20% of the population of our District are about to pay the price for Garrett's entrenched ineptitude. Garrett has an obligation to the 120,000 taxpayers in this District, and to future generations, to work toward a compromise. A compromise involves both sides giving up something.

If Garrett doesn't like 50,000 hedge fund managers paying the same tax rate as everybody else, he has an obligation to propose something else. Not some borrow more scheme endorsed by the Club for Growth and their 3 donors that live in our District; but a solution that can get passed and doesn't continue to cripple the American Dream for future generations.

If Garrett continues to substitute rhetoric for action, this being a Republican district, then the obligation Garrett abdicates falls on the shoulders of Republican primary voters. I cannot believe the Republicans I worked for years ago are pleased with Garrett's ineptitude and deficit exploding stances. There has to be a point where Garrett's reckless stances are taken to task.

Garrett: Housing Market is Good

Representative Scott Garrett and Representative Paul Hodes appeared on C-SPAN yesterday for nearly an hour. Among many points: Garrett said he believes the overall housing market is in good shape (you have to see it to believe it); said he supports the PAYGO rules he voted against; and stared a hole in his notepad while being asked and then completely dodged a question at the end about the fairness of non-working people making $9 million a year from trusts being taxed at 15%.

For perspective on that last one, the median household income in our District is $84,443, putting those households in the 28% tax bracket. With the disproportionate amount of families within our District paying the AMT, that number does not drop off due to deductions.

For those not having time to watch the show (here's the link again), or the inclination, the folks over at Red Jersey have started their own video channel on YouTube. Their first Garrett video has him talking about Iraq, partisanship, No Child Left Behind and the fact he doesn't want Bush to campaign for him next year.

Official What Squad Returns

Representative Scott Garrett returned to the House floor earlier this week for another installment of the the Official What Squad. He and Representative Price seem to be the only members of this crew, and what they say often isn't true.

This week, they were discussing spending by the Democrats. Garrett said the following:

If you additionally listened to the other side, they will talk about and applaud themselves and pat themselves on the back about PAYGO, which you have already discussed, which is a good term described in a very elementary way to say pay-as-you-go, something that all families have to do in this country, and we wish Congress could live by that as well.

Now, as readers know, Garrett voted against re-instating PAYGO. He has also voted against bills that used PAYGO principles to cut corporate welfare to pay for new programing. Once again, the Official What Squad misrepresents the truth of their actions and the outcomes.

Greenspan slams GOP: Will Garrett Understand?

When Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernancke showed up for his first hearing in front of the Financial Services Committee last year, on which our Representative Scott Garrett sits, Garrett made the following comment:

"We can actually understand your answers," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., during the generally cordial hearing.

It was portrayed as a warm welcome for Bernancke, but with a new book coming out from former Fed Chair, Alan Greenspan, I'm wondering if it was being truthful as well. It seems the White House and the Republican run Congress either didn't understand, or didn't care what Greenspan said. Now, Greenspan seems to be taking them to task.

The Greenspan quote from this book that is lighting up news sources around the world is this:

"The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan wrote. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

Here's how the New York Times described the passage:

Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere.

Those rules referred to were PAYGO, which the Republicans had implemented as part of the Republican Revolution of 1994, then abandoned in the "Tax Cut" revolution of 2002, and were reinstated by the Democrats earlier this year. While the quote seems to be Earth shaking, Greenspan started calling for a return for PAYGO more than two years ago:

However, the brief emergence of surpluses in the late 1990s eroded the will to adhere to these rules, which were aimed specifically at promoting deficit reduction rather than at the broader goal of setting out a commonly agreed-upon standard for determining whether the nation was living within its fiscal means. Many of the provisions that helped restrain budgetary decision making in the 1990s--in particular, the limits on discretionary spending and the PAYGO requirements--were violated ever more frequently; finally, in 2002, they were allowed to expire.

Reinstating a structure like the one provided by the Budget Enforcement Act would signal a renewed commitment to fiscal restraint and help restore discipline to the annual budgeting process. Such a step would be even more meaningful if it were coupled with the adoption of a set of provisions for dealing with unanticipated budgetary outcomes over time.

I suppose that's one of Greenspan's answers Garrett didn't understand. As those that read this blog or follow Garrett's website know, when the Democrats reinstated PAYGO, Garrett argued against it saying the following:

"Regrettably," continued Garrett, "the Democrat leadership also chose to approve a change to budget rules that could have no purpose other than to justify tax increases. And, that I could not support. It is a shame that in taking the step forward with strong earmark reform, the Democrat leadership chose to take two steps back in fiscal discipline."

On this one, I'll go with Greenspan. Back in January, I laid out the effects PAYGO actually had on Federal spending:

Under the PAYGO rules of the 90's, the government actually ran surpluses for a short time and held average increases in government spending under 4%. PAYGO expired in 2002 before Garrett entered the House, and since then new spending averaged over 10% and we've had record deficits. Garrett, the "fiscal conservative" recently voted against the reinstatement of PAYGO.

Most reasonable people would say that what has been going on since Garrett arrived in Congress is not fiscally responsible. Although Garrett's often given credit for holding the line on spending, since arriving in Congress, Garrett has voted for every one of the Republican budgets he could (FY 2004, FY 2005, FY 2006, FY 2007). It should be interesting to see how he and the others on the Hill respond to this book.


Kind of like Lee Iacocca's must read Where Have All the Leaders Gone?; Greenspan has nothing to lose with this book. At least one other quote cited by the AP seems to make you think Greenspan's not holding back:

Of the conflict in the Middle East, Greenspan said: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Honestly, I can't wait to read this thing.

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.

Misrepresentation 102 - Devil is in the details

In nearly 7 months of campaigning I was told by exactly two people the minimum wage shouldn't be raised after being stuck for the last decade. Their arguments were the talking points distributed by the US Chamber of Commerce that it would be bad for business. Yet, as Inc. Magazine (one of my favorites) points out, Discovery Financial Services surveyed 1,000 small business owners and 70% said an increase would have minimal impact on labor costs. A separate survey in the article showed that small business growth was actually greater in states with higher minimum wages.

Sometimes politicians take a stance against a bill that is to his or her constituents completely unacceptable. Representative Scott Garrett took such an action when he took the floor to oppose the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. In his less than eloquent wording, he makes a bunch of unsubstantiated and factual misrepresentations grasping for a legitimate argument. Here's his minute on the floor on our behalf:

I rise to oppose this harmful legislation and to oppose the Democrats' plan to interfere with and interject themselves in individuals' personal decisions as to where they are going to work.

I also stand here, actually, in awe of the omniscient view the other side of the aisle has of themselves, this all-knowing, all-seeing view that they know better than families do as to where they are going to work and micromanage their lives. Regardless of whether it is a kid in Iowa after school working on a farm throwing hay or it is a woman in Chicago working at a high-tech plant on an assembly line or it is a man in New York going back as a second career trying to get a job in the finance industry, the other side of the aisle would tell us that each one of those individuals should be paid exactly the same, regardless of their age, regardless of the work, regardless of their experience, regardless of demographics, and regardless of the cost of living in those areas. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is unfair.

And, finally, Mr. Speaker, this body, which has been unable to get its finances and house in order for the last 40 years, is in no position to be telling the American public and the families of this country how they should be getting their finances in order.

There are three points that need to be stressed. First, I'm not sure who he's saying the bill is unfair to. As I mentioned above, small businesses who account for 80% of the job creation in this country are largely indifferent if not supportive. To those who work minimum wage jobs, one raise in ten years hardly seems unfair.

Second, his litany of oddly matched job comparisons was completely devoid of fact. Now I couldn't find what a part-time farmhand in Iowa makes, but an entry level assembly worker at the bottom end of the pay scale in Chicago makes roughly $11.40 an hour and an operations clerk in the finance world in NYC at the bottom end makes roughly $12.26 an hour. The bill increased the minimum wage in the US and our protectorate the Northern Mariana Islands* to $7.25 an hour in three stages over two years (longer for the Marianas). Nowhere in the bill does it call for the aforementioned wage earners to take a five dollar an hour pay cut, and somehow (call it a hunch) I doubt that will be a result.

Third, his castigation of the House was once again devoid of fact. Under the PAYGO rules of the 90's, the government actually ran surpluses for a short time and held average increases in government spending under 4%. PAYGO expired in 2002 before Garrett entered the House, and since then new spending averaged over 10% and we've had record deficits. Garrett, the "fiscal conservative" recently voted against the reinstatement of PAYGO.

This speech is an example of where rhetoric and fact collide, and rhetoric is beaten to pulp. This is what our Representative gave us, gross misrepresentation while grasping for straws. I applaud the rest of the Republicans in New Jersey's delegation for doing the right thing for the working poor and our overall economic strength. It's about time.

*For those that don't know, the Northern Mariana's are a US protectorate, and were a big time source of cash for Jack Ambramoff . Without a meaningful minimum wage, which Abramoff was paid to fend off, it enabled sweatshop operations where the owners could still slap a Made in the USA tag on the products. This arrangement was championed by Scott's former colleague and financial supporter, Tom Delay.

Misrepresentation 101

One reason so many people don't trust politicians is the spin. For an example of such spin, let's take a look at the latest Garrett Gazette, from my Representative Scott Garrett.

Washington, Jan 8 -

Dear Friends:

Last week, the House of Representatives passed the strong earmark reform measures that I have been promoting throughout the last year. The measure takes a great step forward for restoring fiscal discipline to the ways of Washington.

Earmarks are Member-requested funding for local pet projects. Sometimes, the projects are well-worth Federal financial assistance. Sometimes, they are little more than political hand-outs. It has long been my contention that by making all earmarks open to public scrutiny, we could easily weed out the legitimate earmarks from the others, thus preserving taxpayer dollars for real Federal priorities.

Last year, I supported a measure passed by the House that would have required all appropriations bills to list earmarks and the Members requesting them. But, I also offered an amendment to that measure that would have applied those same accountability measures to tax bills and authorization bills, which are also traditionally laden with costly earmarks. In fact, one of the most infamous earmarks – the $315 million Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska – was actually tucked into a highway transportation authorization bill. That same authorization legislation included more than 6,000 earmarks. By contrast, the nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste identified 9,963 earmarks in the appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2006, for a total of $29 billion.

The earmark reform legislation passed by the House last week included the expanded accountability that I have pushed and I am looking forward to seeing how this transparency will help to return the focus to the family budget.

Sincerely,

Scott Garrett

Member of Congress

I put the whole thing up so as not to be accused of taking something out of context, because no where in this official e-mail to constituents does he mention he voted against the reform. Garrett gives an explanation at the very end of a press release regarding the vote, which was posted on the site before the Gazette:

"Regrettably," continued Garrett, "the Democrat leadership also chose to approve a change to budget rules that could have no purpose other than to justify tax increases. And, that I could not support. It is a shame that in taking the step forward with strong earmark reform, the Democrat leadership chose to take two steps back in fiscal discipline."

###

Now I felt, upon reading this that it was a step in the right direction for our overly secretive Rep. because at least he admitted he had voted against the reforms and said why. The problem comes when the Garrett Gazette is e-mailed to constituents, and not the full statement. It makes it seem like his "support" equals his vote for earmark reform, which is universally supported outside of special interest offices. However, the truth is he voted against the provision.

It's this sort of misrepresentation of the truth that makes people distrust politicians at all levels. I may disagree with his sound bite from the press release regarding PAYGO (a post for another day) but I thought for once he was taking a stand and letting us know why he voted the way he did. The incomplete picture in the Gazette points out that in fact no, there hasn't been a change of behavior. So I guess it's one step forward and two steps back for him.