American Aspiration

I realize I've been dormant for a long time on this front.  Since last I wrote, Representative Scott Garrett is still representing the Fifth District, Gov. Chris Christie is still the governor, but Papa Joe was convicted on racketeering.  

I'm writing not because I've moved back into the Fifth district, but because I've published a small book on politics.  I missed writing about politics, and decided instead of a new blog I'd release my thoughts in book form.  American Aspiration: Where We Are and Ways to Get Where We Want to Be is now available in the Kindle Store, with additional formats coming soon.  A little sample of topics and the introduction is below.  Enjoy!

Here's the table of contents:

Introduction. 2

Part One:  Where We Stand. 4

• Facts to Keep in Mind
• Government Deficit & Spending
• Household Wealth and Debt
• Our Lack of Information

Part Two:  Why We Can’t Have Nice Things. 12

• Political Industrial Establishment
• Privatization of Essential Services & No Bid Contracts
• Congress & Our Lack of Participation

Part Three:  How We Begin to Make Things Better. 19

• Vote in the Next Election, and the Next, and the Next
• Get Informed in 10 minutes a Week
• Buy American like Your Job Depends on It
• Take a Breath and Think
• Start Talking To Each Other

Part Four:  Nice Things We Could Have. 30

• Infrastructure
• Vocational Training & Higher Education
• Honoring Those That Serve
• Stuff Others Already Have
• Where Do We Go Now?

Notes. 37

And the Introduction:

Introduction

This began innocently enough as my latest blog creation, and became this collection of short essays.  Like many, I see the direction the country has been moving as troublesome.  Politics has always been a bit of a love/hate relationship for me, I have always believed better things are possible when our system works the way it should, and have rarely seen that happen.  I was a Boys State Senator, ran my county’s Republican office, went to the New Hampshire primaries, ran for Congress as an Independent, wrote a blog visited by the press, as well as staffers in Congress and the White House, and attended President Obama’s Inauguration.  As one of my former Political Science professors noted, I like to get my hands dirty.  

Probably where I felt I had the most impact during my run for office was during my classroom chats.  You got the sense there was optimism and energy in students, despite the cynicism of some of the adults in the room.  Years later, through conversations around the lunch table at work, I realized optimism or even a basic understanding of government is lacking.  It’s not just the millennials, many of my peers and elders have been so overwhelmed by the 24/7 political sniping and institutional ineptitude that they’ve thrown up their hands. 

So, I sat down with the hope/intention of writing something that would make it easy to find the information to make decisions and (hopefully) have readers feel more comfortable participating in the system.  It honestly isn’t that hard if you know where to look, but as I wrote I realized some background and context would probably be helpful.  The idea of telling people to go to such and such a website blind didn’t feel right, so here we are.  The collection is broken into four parts:

• Where We Stand covers some interesting facts like how we’re spending money, the United States ranking 25^th in median income, and how little we know.
• Why We Can’t Have Nice Things reviews special interests, privatization and our lack of participation as it relates to our “leaders” in Washington, our states and school boards.
• How We Begin to Make Things Better dives into voting and becoming informed with an e-mail a week, as well as buying Made in the USA, digesting information and talking politics with others.
• Nice Things We Could Have goes over items many nations ranking higher already have, and asks about the things we could have that we don’t.

 My hope is that you’ll read this, talk about it, and gift it to friends and family on your way to a more involved citizenship.  If you’re already involved, I hope you will recommend or gift it to someone you know is not involved but would be receptive.  While I could have put it up as “just another” blog, the grand experiment is that the insights in this book are enough that it is gifted and paid forward to others. 

While I tried to make it approachable, some of it may seem technical.  I’ve been told by some it’s a quick read, and by others it’s very heavy, so I believe it’s probably just about right.  It’s not intended to be an overly scholarly piece, more of a conversation starter, but I do have lots of end notes for those who may wish to dig deeper.  If nothing else, my hope is that you benefit in some way from reading this.  

CFG, GOP and Specter

I've written enough times about the Club for Growth, and their links to Representative Scott Garrett, that people are aware how wrong I think they are. Now, in the game of finger pointing about why Senator Arlen Specter switched parties, they're finally taking some heat. There are lessons in this for Republicans and Democrats.

From Politico:

(Sen. Orrin) Hatch, the No. 2 man at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Toomey can’t win in a general election in Pennsylvania — and that by chasing out Specter, the Club for Growth and its backers may have cost the GOP another seat in the Senate.

“I don’t think it had anything to do with leadership; it had to do with Club for Growth,” the Utah Republican said of Specter’s switch. “I wish they’d spend their money going after Democrats, rather than Republicans. ... Let’s just be honest about it: In blue states, we’re not going to get conservative Republicans. It’s just that simple.

[snip]

“I would remind Mr. Steele and some of our party leaders: Theirs is a job of winning elections, of increasing party strength, not of forming some sort of party purity police so this grand experiment to shrink the base to its purest form finds us confined to a phone booth,” (veteran GOP strategist John) Weaver said.

The Club for Growth only received 2903 donations from individuals last election cycle. Granted, they raised and spent $3.4 million, but it came from 2,900 people. That's less than seven people per Congressional District.

Yet the Republican Party tolerates their slash and burn tactics. They can't be a player in a general because their message doesn't resonate, so they go in the primary forcing good Representatives like Marge Roukema into early retirement, cost Lincoln Chaffee reelection by burning his warchest, and switches by long time public servants like Sen. Specter.

And what do they get?

They get to pad their paychecks by pointing to things like Garrett's recent vote against clean water as success, wringing their hands they don't have more people like him. They never seem to point to the fact he was only one of ten to vote that way. Such bluntness would probably be too demoralizing or a wake up call to help the CFG faithful realize they're pouring money into a an ideological black hole.

As the GOP continues it's march toward irrelevance, Democrats can't be too certain it can't happen to them as well. Voters saw it in Connecticut with the campaign against Lieberman. Targeted by MoveOn, Leiberman and his 90% Democratic voting record spoke at the Republican National Convention last summer.

Granted, MoveOn crushes the Club for Growth in terms of number of donors and raised ten times as much money last cycle, but it's still only about 11,000 donors. That's a whopping 26 people per Congressional District of 600,000.

The claims by special interests that the locally elected representatives of a District or state have lost touch with their constituents and therefore merit a primary challenge are just that; claims by a special interest they don't like the representative. Sure, there are Districts throughout the nation where the general is won on Primary Day, but the assault on moderates in moderate Districts is a recipe for disaster for either party.

It's what happened to the Republicans, and the Democrats need to guard against it.

Garrett: End Partisanship?

Well, here's to hoping, from Reuters:

"The severity of issues facing our financial regulatory system calls for us to put aside partisan differences and elevate the level of dialogue," said New Jersey Rep. Scott Garrett, top subcommittee Republican, in a statement.

I've written a lot about partisanship, as well as how unhelpful Garrett's normally overly partisan nature is toward getting anything done. Just last week he took to the floor slamming all things Democrat, to the point he engaged in a fight over who started the Federal Reserve a hundred years ago.

Seriously, American families worried about paying their bills don't care who is to blame, and certainly don't care what party did what a hundred years ago. It's petty and pointless, but is a great example of why we'll have to be a more than a bit skeptical that Garrett actually act on this sentiment. That said, here's to hoping he'll act this way, because Garrett's statement is right even if his actions to date are partisan.

Our nation can't afford anymore of this childish bickering over who is to blame. Both parties are to blame, big time, and both parties are going to have to work to get us out of this mess.

Garrett: Let AIG Keep Bonuses

Representative Scott Garrett has been pretty good in opposing all things bailout, but he seems to have lost touch with reality a bit today.

This tax gives the government permission to take what is private property.

Nope, sorry Scott, that's the people's money AIG was handing out and we the people have asked for it back, and 77% of Representatives voting went and got it for us.

The thing is, Garrett's statement comes across as an opposition to the reclamation of taxpayer's money because he was opposed to giving it in the first place.

The pointing of fingers at those receiving bonuses is shifting the blame from who’s really at fault.

Even though these bonuses were given to those responsible for the economic meltdown, Garrett only wants to blame the Democrats for this, we get it. However, two wrongs have never made a right, and for someone who has been so right on opposing the bailouts, it's disappointing to see him so wrong on this.

Representative Scott Garrett found himself on TV with Donnie Deutsch talking about the TARP and other things. It's an interesting session, that Donnie starts off by ripping, albeit nicely, some of Garrett's previous statements.

Gitmo Nimby

Update: clammyc over at Blue Jersey has the whole letter, and a rather interesting/funny take on things.

With the Senate getting all the press the last couple of days, Representative Scott Garrett and the Republican delegation decided to put together a letter to President Obama. Their cause, no Gitmo detainees transferred to New Jersey. From the Courier Post:

The letter also chides Obama for not spelling out what he would do with the prisoners at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, when the holding facility in the base is closed in a year as per a Jan. 22 executive order from Obama.

"We are concerned this could result in the detainment of the terrorists at facilities within the United States. As such, we request you not send any of the Guantanamo Bay detainees to the State of New Jersey," the congressmen wrote, citing legal and security problems associated with such a move and the "understaffed and under-funded" federal prison system in the state.

What's conveniently left out of the press stories (the Express Times picked this up as well), and one has to assume the letter, is that New Jersey doesn't have a maximum security facility in the state.

It's unlikely, should they come, that these guys would be transferred into a rinky dink holding facility while they await trial. And should they be convicted, they'd be shipped to a special little corner of Colorado called the ADX, which was featured on 60 Minutes.

Other than to get a couple press stories (check) and a blog post or two (check), I can't really understand the point of what definitely seems to be a partisan letter writing campaign. Granted, we can't say for certain they won't end up here, along with the jobs needed to upgrade facilities to house them, but the Republican delegation has got to have better things they can spend their time on.

It's Her Party Now

With Republicans voting in Michael Steele as it's new chairman, somewhere Gov. Christie Whitman is smiling. Steele and Whitman worked together on the Repulican Leadership Council to give classic conservatives and moderates who were maginalized within the Republican Party a voice.

I've often written about how the moderates, like Senator Susan Collins, have been attacked from within. Now, with Steele on board, the hope has got to be Republicans will get back to basics. Steele's quote to those who want to continue trying to build the Republican brand through exclusion was perfect:

To those who don't want to be part of Mr. Steele's inclusive party, he warned: "Get ready to get knocked over."

The simple fact is, there are more moderates in this nation than there are liberals or conservatives. Sure, there are differences of opinion between the role of government that is the hallmark difference between the parties, but by and large most of us just want things to work.

While it's too early to tell if the tone will change, it's a good start. At the very least, Steele has a sense of humor. Steele had my favorite campaign ad of the 2006 cycle.

Blast From The Past

Charles Stile of The Record has a great profile of a pillar of the BCRO, Eleanor Nissley. Ms. Nissley was instumental in my attending and one of the people I got to know a bit when I went to San Diego in 1996. Granted, she probably wouldn't know me if she fell over me at this point, it was great to see she's still involved and still stands for the principles Bergen Republicans stood for back in the day.

Here's a bit of her wisdom she shared with Stile:

Despite the past battles, Nissley said politics were far more civil and less partisan than they are today. County chairmen from both parties often socialized and collaborated on relief efforts for a family who lost their home in a fire, for example.

"I feel people are getting lost in the process," she said. "Today it's more about, 'Can I get a job for Aunt Tillie?' " she said. "Patronage is not the name of the game. People are the name of the game."

I hope enough young Republicans, and Democrats for that matter, will look at Nissley's example as how politics used to be and can be now thanks to people like her.

Shulman on Mr. 8%

The campaign of Dennis Shulman released a statement regarding Representative Scott Garrett scoring 75 percentage points below our Congressional Delegation's environmental average. My personal favorite part of the release was this:

As illustrated by the admirable scores of Garrett's Republican colleagues, what matters is not whether an idea is Democratic or Republican, but whether it is good for the country.

Obviously, looking to your right, this is a big part of my personal beliefs.

You have to contrast Shulman's sentiment with the one Garrett offered after the State of the Union; as well as his verbally assaulting moderate Republicans for putting the nation above partisanship; or the fact Garrett refuses to recognize bi-partisan support for bills backing things from AIDS prevention in Africa or health insurance for low income children that he doesn't like.

Shulman is still considered by all the pundits to be a long shot, however one can only imagine what it would be like to go back to the days of Marge Roukema; where a certain amount of partisanship was present, but where it took a backseat to good policy.

Garrett: Damn the Earth

Representative Scott Garrett seems to have gotten a little caught up in the moment down in DC during the fauxtest. US News & World Report quoted him talking about Nancy Pelosi:

"Her goal is to save the planet," Republican Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey intoned. "We need her to save the American family and the American taxpayer and to save the American middle class."

They're not mutually exclusive goals.

If Garrett had an ounce of forethought in his being he'd know that. This is one of those frustrating partisan things about Garrett, and the Republicans running the show lately. President John F. Kennedy had a pretty good quote on this problem:

Extreme opposites resemble the other. Each believes that we have only two choices: appeasement or war, suicide or surrender, humiliation or holocaust, to be either Red or dead.

I've made my feelings clear that both parties are to blame at this point, and Garrett's language only adds to the problem. No person rationally thinking about this issue doesn't see the benefits of a greener economy, and Garrett painting it as an either/or proposition doesn't add anything constructive to the debate.

Since I get new people everyday, it's important to restate that Garrett is the only Representative from New Jersey to vote against every single major energy bill since 2007. It's also important to note that the "drill here, drill now" (DHDN) philosophy will help you out at the pump in about 8 years.

Oh, and there are millions of acres of land the oil companies aren't using, at all. So, unless the DHDN folks get behind the use it or lose it land leases they already voted against, there's no guarantee DHDN will make a drop of difference.

This sort of rhetoric may provide an insight as to why Garrett's voted the way he's voted, since obviously he doesn't seem to put much stock in green energy in terms of strengthening the middle class. Let's go over a few things real fast:

Toyota is building a Prius factory here, creating jobs. Spray-on solar panels are a booming business in Germany, already creating manufacturing jobs here. It would create a lot of construction jobs if Congress incentivize installation like the Germans do. We've got the Pickins Plan, the Paris Hilton Plan, and countless others that point to the job benefits of a greener economy.

Saving the Earth is saving the middle class, as there is no greater manufacturing boom on the horizon.

Words have meaning, and Garrett knows it. Maybe he was caught up in the moment. Maybe he believes you can't have one with the other wholeheartedly. Whatever the case may be, Garrett's sentiments shared during the fauxtest showed, at the very least, a disregard for voters who want real solutions and a penchant for delivering to those voters false promises.

Blame (Insert Party) on Gas Prices

Whether Republican, Democrat, Independent or some other affiliation, we're all getting burned at the pump. To use a phrase, we have all heard that giant sucking sound from our bank account into the gas tank at this point. Just as we are all feeling the pain, we must all accept the truth that neither Party in Congress is actually willing to do anything to help us.

Republicans are blaming Democrats for not allowing a vote on off-shore drilling, disingenuously selling the idea that such a move would provide relief at the pump. Republicans went so far as to stage a protest that the House went into recess without voting on their plan to help you ten years from now. At the same time the Repubs have blocked initiatives to regulate speculation, force companies to use the land they already have for drilling instead of sitting on it, and release oil from the strategic reserve.

Dems, on the other hand, are laying blame squarely on the Repubs. However, because of how they structured the votes on Energy, requiring supermajorities to pass, nothing got through. So they can stand there and blame the Republicans for not voting with them, but they never wanted them to in the first place.

It's this nefarious political stance that the Dems are comfortable waiting until after the Election to try and accomplish anything. Instead of attempting to work with some Repubs, the Dems are telling families to hang in there for at least another six months, and if enough families vote Dem in November maybe they'll be able to help you.

This is part of why I hate partisan politics, and I know I'm not alone.

Both parties are guilty of using gas prices for their partisan gain while the average American is suffering. This sort of self-serving bull manure is dragging the entire nation down.

While they're busy counting campaign contributions, wages aren't coming close to keeping pace with the cost of living. This is the latest from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on wages:

Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings increased by 3.4 percent and average weekly earnings rose by 2.8 percent.

Then there's this on prices:

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)increased 1.0 percent in June, before seasonal adjustment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The June level of 218.815 (1982-84=100) was 5.0 percent higher than in June 2007.

Catch that? Weekly earnings are trailing the cost of living by 2.2%. Energy prices are the driving force behind this problem.

Once winter rolls around, and people in the Northeast have to heat their homes, we could be heading into an even worse economic crisis (either that or Citgo is going to give away a lot of oil, since our own oil companies can't be bothered).

That's part of the reason the idea of waiting until at least the end of January for something to pass is ridiculous. Unfortunately, it seems both parties are more concerned with their six figure paychecks and campaign war chests than with the lives of their constituents.

There's no motivation for them to do anything as long as they're rewarded for "standing up to the obstructionist (insert party here)". The whole lot of them, Republicans and Democrats, they're both guilty. Until voters are willing to take a stand (a tough one) on inaction, ineptitude, and indifference, we're never going to see a difference.

The Garrett that Cried Debt

In his column on Sunday, Herb Jackson made an interesting point about Representative Scott Garrett:

IF A HOUSING BILL to prop up mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ends up being a massive drain on the public treasury, then Rep. Scott Garrett has every right to say, "I told you so."

Garrett's concern that the bail out bill could put taxpayers on the hook is well founded. Some will point to the fact the CBO said we have a better than 50% chance of not owing anything. The companies even have said they don't need the money. But Garrett is still on to something.

The problem is the GSEs are publicly traded and have shareholders. If taking advantage of the taxpayers increases the value of those shares, the GSEs are obligated to take advantage of us. The prospect of owing more money when the Administration has already had to revise the projected deficit next year to an eye popping $482 billion is nothing to be taken lightly.

The problem is, "I told you so" won't help the situation. What we needed was a Representative whose opinion carried enough weight for people to think about this stuff objectively. Unfortunately for us as a District, and potentially America as a whole, we don't have that type of Representative.

There's a pretty good track record of how this happened. Garrett's misleading and patently false assertions on issues like SCHIP and PEPFAR; Garrett's rigid partisanship; as well as ostracizing moderate Republicans on Capitol Hill seems to be coming back to haunt him.

Garrett hasn't released much in the way of misleading information since his new press secretary took over, and I see that as a very good thing (the energy thing is a carry over). Now we have to hope Garrett will realize the cost of what he had been doing.

When we needed him to deliver most, he was at his least effective.

PEPFAR to President

President Bush took today's radio address to talk about passage of PEPFAR this week:

I thank members of Congress from both sides of the aisle for working with my administration to pass this important bill, and I will be honored to sign it into law next week," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

The program is dedicated to fighting AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria around the globe, helping more than 33 million people to date since Bush expanded it the first time.

Back in February, Representative Scott Garrett had this to say about the bill expanding the program to $48 billion:

I hope the Democrats are happy with themselves, because this is just down-right disgusting.

Notice, Garrett only blames Democrats for what the President said was a bi-partisan effort? Granted, his piece was written back in February, but Republicans were working on it then as well.

Garrett's opposition was grounded in opposition to the mythical availability of abortions through the program; as well as his opposition to the very real need to include the availability of condoms as another tool to stem the spread of AIDS. The current version of the bill also requires reports to Congress if spending on abstinence and fidelity education fall beyond certain levels.

I said then this would become a campaign issue, and those running Dennis Shulman's new blog didn't miss Garrett's vote against the program:

However, when it comes to worthwhile Bush Administration initiatives to combat fatal diseases in Third-World countries, he takes a heartless and short-sighted approach.

I'm not sure Shulman's intern even knew the extent of Garrett's opposition.

I've got to believe there will be a 527 somewhere that comes out with something targeting the 115 members of the House that don't understand the practical, moral, and soft power implications of this program on the future. Who knows, maybe the Shulman campaign can get Bono or Matt Damon to do an ad explaining why Garrett's stand is as horrendous as it is.

DCCC Overplay

As a rule of thumb, I pretty much hate cookie cutter political attack ads. Having listened to it, I can say such is the case with the DCCC's Big Oil attack against Representative Scott Garrett. Now I don't have access to the focus groups that said this ad was a good idea, but here's why I think it could backfire.

First, Garrett's become a media darling. He's getting to go on with Blitzer and Cavuto and who knows who else by the end of the week, and talk about how he's being attacked because the Democrats don't have a plan. Here's Garrett's usual comment about the Democrats and energy:

You may recall that when Democrats were campaigning for the 110th Congress, they said that they had a commonsense solution to lower the price of gasoline and energy for the American public. And we are now 18 months , I think, into the 110th Congress. And, well, there is absolutely nothing in the Democrat's plan.

He said that as part of an after hours speech at 9:15 PM on June 11. I don't even know if C-SPAN still covers floor speeches that are unrelated to legislative action, and I'm a political junkie to some degree. Would the average voter have heard it? Unlikely. Among other things Garrett was up against a great episode of Deal or No Deal. However now, Garrett gets to repeat his stance unchecked (because they've already attacked him) and have it rebroadcast to a substantially larger audience at all hours of the day.

Second, they bought ad time on WABC (as well as two stations in Sussex). I'm sure those listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin are the supply/demand disciples who already see Garrett as a hero and his fight to open drilling off the Jersey Shore as a noble cause. 1010 WINS or 880 WCBS could work, but WABC? I guess since Garrett's told his regular core donors he's worried about Dennis Shulman, the DCCC wanted to put those who might donate to Garrett on notice that he needs their cash.

Third, it reeks of the stereotypical political attack that the average voter doesn't want to see this Election cycle. In a year where change and a new kind of politics are in order, we're listening to an ad that simply offers a generalized attack. We're burned out from this junk. People want solutions.
There's more, but I have to head out. I've written a bunch of times (scroll down) about Garrett's poor stand on energy. However, instead of taking the time to really educate voters about Garrett's record the DCCC went the easy, boring, and unproductive politics as usual way.

Quote of the Day

From John McCain:

There have been times where I put the country ahead of my party, and I will continue to do that as president of the United States.

If people like Representative Scott Garrett actually put the nation first, instead of attacking fellow Republicans for doing it, the nation and our district would be in a much better place.

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.

Election Reflection

Most of the elections in our District played out exactly as they were expected to. Voter turnout was in the 30s; Steve Oroho, Kevin O'Toole, and most incumbents cruised to victory; the Republicans won the Legislative races; and the Democrats won Bergen County.

The only eyebrow raiser, if you will, was Sen. Gerry Cardinale's margin of victory going from 12,000 in 2003 to 5,000 yesterday. While the guys over at CWA-NJ count the victory as award worthy, in this "obscure" blogger's opinion, in a Republican year that sort of drop should raise an eyebrow.

I stand by my belief the direction Cardinale took was the wrong path during the campaign. This race was never close. Cardinale has served long enough to make enough friends, and do enough good things for constituents on a personal level that most people I know were planning on voting for him regardless of party. However, taking the route he took, many walked away.

Compare Cardinale's campaign's actions with those taken by Steve Oroho, which I highlighted earlier. At the end of his second debate with Ed Selby, Oroho said the following:

"You've heard some very clear differences between my opponent and myself. It doesn't mean Ed's a bad guy. It doesn't mean I'm a bad guy. It just means we're different," Oroho said. "We should all be happy we live in a country where it's OK to be different."

My hope is going forward more politicians embrace this kind of civility and decency. I realize it may not be flashy, but we're at a point in our State where we don't need flashy. Our state is in serious trouble on a number of fronts, and as shown by voting down the stem cell and sales tax initiatives, the people of our state know it.

It's important to note that we're not in these crises as Democrat, Republican or Unaffiliated: we're in this as Jerseyians. While differences of opinion exist as to how to fix the problem, it's unlikely we'll get anywhere if our politicians do not rise to the challenge in a decent and honorable way.

Garrett Seeks to Increase Premiums on Flood Insurance

More often than not, when you see Representative Barney Frank next to our Representative Scott Garrett, the exchange goes something like this:

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, that, I must say, totally disappoints me. For the third time the gentleman has tried to put words in my mouth. The words ``trust in me,'' the gentleman read that, and the gentleman's distortion, systematic distortion, has gone beyond what I can deal with in a brief intervention. But I will say this: I continually said we should address that in separate legislation. If the gentleman doesn't know the difference between passing legislation which sets guidelines and saying ``trust me,'' then the gentleman understands less in this place than I had hoped he did.

Well, the two of them have teamed up to introduce the HR 3959, to reform the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The Record did a good job of explaining problems with the NFIP program a while back. Here's how Garrett's office described the bill:

The Garrett-Frank bill, H.R. 3959, would require any new purchaser of a pre-FIRM primary residential home that costs over $600,000 to pay phased-in actuarial flood insurance prices using the same phased-in structure that non-residential and non-primary homes are subject to under legislation passed by the House earlier this month.

The bill calls for up to a 15% premium increase every year until the premiums reach actuary equality. The Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (the Big “I”) has come out strongly in support of the bill:

“The Big ‘I’ strongly supports the NFIP gradually moving towards actuarially sound rates,” says John Prible, Big “I” assistant vice president for federal government affairs. “We recognize that the NFIP’s need for financial stability must be measured against fairness to the customers we serve, which is why we believe it is important that this legislation is aimed at homes valued at over $600,000 and includes a phase-in mechanism.”

The one question I do have is how residents in the Fifth will be impacted by this change? This may be the first time we've seen Garrett flat-out advocate increased fees for anything, usually he refers to rate increases as a new tax.

It also may be the first time he's aiming such an increase largely at the Bergen County part of the District, where inland home buyers here may end up subsidizing flood insurance for beachfront homes elsewhere. Flood insurance is mandatory in certain areas, and a look over the flood maps lets you realize how this proposal may further increase the costs of home ownership in our District.

This is a continuation of an amendment Garrett had hoped to introduce last month when Congress expanded NFIP to include wind damage. Here's how the Express-Times described Garrett's efforts:

However, it's likely an increase in premiums for homeowners with houses worth more than $600,000 would have constituted a poison pill, making the bill unpalatable for officials from states with high property values and lots of shoreline, e.g., New Jersey.

Admittedly, flood insurance is something I have a very cursory knowledge of, and so this will be one of those issues requiring follow-up on my part. In the meantime, we can't over look the fact he's working with Rep. Frank.

How Hard Is He Really Trying?

One has to wonder with all his statements about the FAA's plans to redesign our airspace, how hard Representative Scott Garrett is actually working to protect our quality of life. As pointed out by Herb Jackson of the Record, Garrett was the only one in the entire Congressional Delegation not to sign a letter demanding that efforts to elevate JFK's delay problems don't burden NJ residents.

I realize I had pointed out that Garrett was taking credit for an amendment he didn't actually introduce on the flight redesign plan, but this was an easy way to go on record as opposing increased noise. Why wouldn't Garrett sign the letter? Was it because he doesn't actually oppose the increased noise in Bergen County? Or was it because his reputation within the delegation is so bad he wasn't invited to join?

Quote of the Week

From State Senate Candidate Steve Oroho at Thursday's 24th District Debate:

"You've heard some very clear differences between my opponent and myself. It doesn't mean Ed's a bad guy. It doesn't mean I'm a bad guy. It just means we're different," Oroho said. "We should all be happy we live in a country where it's OK to be different."

It's so unusual to hear something like this in these days of hyper-partisanship. It reflects the kind of dialogue that can happen when both sides are being honest about their stances. That's not to say there weren't barbs going both ways, but the coverage of the event from the New Jersey Herald made it seem like a constructive debate.

They also covered the Assembly debate here.