Garrett vs. Lowering the Deficit

What is the one plan that successfully lowered the federal deficit?

PAYGO.

What does our Representative Scott Garrett consistently vote against?

PAYGO.

I've written about this before, especially lamenting what happened to the Republican Party.

As the Tea Party people start their convention, if they really are mad as hell about the size of deficits, they need look no further than Garrett and his fellow Republicans that served from 2002-Present (including Dick Armey). They were the ones to abandon PAYGO, allowing the deficit to grow, and they are the ones who keep voting against it.

While Garrett has previously said PAYGO only justifies increasing taxes, history tells another tale. When instituted by REPUBLICANS, it took a few years, but in the late 1990's we actually started running surpluses and paying down our debt. Garrett's brand of Republicans decided in 2002 this wasn't a good idea.

Here's how Alan Greenspan explained it:

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.

As I've noted before, it was Garrett's freshman year in Congress that he went along with the Republicans and their "Deficits Don't Matter" mentality.

Now, Garrett and the others are trying to tap into the populist outrage against government debt, while continuing to vote against the only thing that really works to reduce the deficit. It is the height of hypocritical political opportunism, and if these Tea Party people actually care about facts, they need to call out all 179 Republicans that voted against PAYGO.

Unfortunately, I doubt that will ever happen, because the Tea Party's "esteemed" leader was the one running the show when PAYGO was canned to begin with. I don't doubt these Tea Party people really are outraged, what I doubt is that their leadership's intentions are more than simply lining their own pockets, like Ralph Reed opposing Indian casinos.

Garrett Spins Again

Due to a number of reasons, I've been away from covering Representative Scott Garrett for longer than I ever would have imagined. However, after receiving an e-mail from a reader, I was snapped back to reality. Garrett has spinning again, big time.

At issue, is this week's Garrett Gazette, with it's title "Has Stimulus Failed New Jersey?" Here's the offending statement:

As President Obama prepares for his State of the Union address, unemployment remains at record highs for Americans. The White House claims their stimulus bill “has already created or saved up to 2 million jobs,” but the table below compares the White House's recent claims of state-by-state job creation with the actual change in state payroll employment through December 2009, using data announced on Friday by the U.S. Department of Labor. According to the data, 49 States have lost jobs since stimulus was enacted in February 2009. Only North Dakota and the District of Columbia have seen net job creation, and even those levels fall short of White House claims.

Garrett's playing semantics games again. The White House has never claimed that the stimulus eliminated job losses, only slowed them down. Here's what the White House actually reported:

Citing its own analysis plus a range of private sector summaries, the council estimated the annual growth rate last year would have been roughly 2 percentage points lower, and there would have been 1.5 million to 2 million fewer jobs.

So while Garrett would like you to believe the promise was job growth, all that was promised and delivered was that things would be better than without the stimulus. And that's what happened. Less unemployment and greater GDP.

Whether or not you agree with the stimulus, the least we should expect of Garrett and the Republicans is that they discuss the results honestly.

****

Just a quick note to readers: As I've started getting e-mails from a few of you asking what's going on, I'm healthy, just super busy. I have a number of side projects going on that have gotten in the way.

Garrett's $339 Billion Distortion

It's been a while since we've needed a piece like this, but as the Health Insurance debate heats up, one had to guess at some point Representative Scott Garrett was going to start spinning like a top again.

At issue is a floor speech made yesterday, that will also likely be included in this week's Garrett Gazette to mislead constituents. The focus of the speech is a report by HHS Chief Actuary Richard Foster. It has become a rallying cry to those opposed to the health insurance overhaul.

Might as well get into the speech:

According to that chief actuary whom I just mentioned, total spending on health care would actually increase by $750 billion more than if we did nothing at all.

This is the second to last true statement in the speech, an average of $75 billion a year for 10 years.

From Garrett:

You see, the real overall cost of this bill would be $1.2 trillion.

From the Actuary:

We estimate that Federal expenditures would increase by a net total of $861 billion.

That's the $339 billion distortion. Not only is Garrett's gross cost more than $100 billion higher than the Actuary's gross ($1,035 billion), he doesn't mention the savings. It's wholly dishonest of Garrett not to mention the savings.

From Garrett:

After all of this spending, there would still be around 20-some-odd million uninsured Americans. So, for those folks who are trying to keep score of all of this, that comes out to be about $35,000 per uninsured person out there.

First off, the "20-some-odd million" includes illegal immigrants, per the Actuary, so I guess it's nice Garrett's calling them Americans.

Second, based on the above correction in numbers saying that all of the money spent is only to insure the uninsured (which it's not), the cost OVER TEN YEARS is roughly $25,000 per person, or an average of $2,500 per year per newly insured person. Garrett seems back to making up five figure distortions again.

From Garrett:

Now, another promise that the President made was that he said, ‘‘if you like your current coverage, you keep it.’’ Well, again, look back to that government actuary whom we talked about before. According to that chief actuary, that’s not true if you’re a senior on Medicare, because 8.5 million seniors on Medicare today would lose their current coverage, and they would be forced into some different coverage.

This is Garrett scaring seniors again. Readers may remember Medicare Advantage is one of Garrett's favorite taxpayer fleecing programs. He conveniently left out Advantage, from Medicare Advantage, when saying these words.

The reason is because it's inconvenient for him to acknowledge that, according to the Actuary, once insurance companies can't charge the government up to a 40% mark up on the same services provided as Medicare they're likely to reduce their available plans.

Seniors will be able to get the same services, it's just that Medicare won't be billed 40% extra for the same services, thus saving taxpayers money. The Actuary and the CBO see this as a good thing. And Garrett claims to be a fiscal conservative?

From Garrett:

The chief actuary says the cuts could force such organizations, such as nursing homes and home health agencies, to leave the Medicare program and, thus, ‘‘possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries.’’

Readers have to remember that if Garrett had his way, nursing care could be dropped by insurers anyway. Kind of a tough call, but as the Actuary actually said that we'll give this one to Garrett.

I've written before how this speech structure is an effective way to misrepresent the truth: book-ending the misrepresentations with facts to give credibility to the misrepresentations. The added twist here is that Garrett's talking about a report based on a bill that does not exist anymore, and won't be voted on.

And the spin goes on...

Garrett Talking Health Care

Representative Scott Garrett was on CNBC chatting about President Obama's health care reform plan.

Morons At The Gate

If significant health care reform is defeated, and people's bills continue to rise with more and more of the GDP being eaten without improved outcomes, idiotic mentality will be a leading cause. As promised, the NJ Tea Party folks visited the town hall meetings of Rep. Steve Rothman yesterday, and as The Record reports, it got a bit rowdy.

However, the lack of commonsense in those protesting could not be overlooked:

When a supporter of universal coverage declared “all Americans are entitled to health care,” he was greeted with a chorus of boos.

“Everybody does have health care,” someone shouted from the audience. “Go to the hospital and get it!”

PricewaterhouseCoopers just released a study estimating that logic costs those of us with insurance an extra $14 billion a year.

"This is an inappropriate use of the ER," said Dee Swanson, president of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. "You don't go to the ER for strep throat."

Since emergency rooms are legally obligated to treat all patients, Swanson said providers ultimately find ways to pass on the cost for treating the uninsured to other patients, such as to those who pay out-of-pocket for their medical care.

[snip]

"Going to the doctor for strep throat would cost $65-$70. In the ER, it's $600 to $800," he said.

So, the Tea Party folks seem to advocate wasting money. To be fair, I suppose it's one, but based on the previous e-mail I was forwarded, it's fair to wonder how widespread the lack of sense is.

In all, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates we waste $1.2 trillion of our $2.2 trillion spend on health care. Around 20% of this waste has been directly created by the very private insurance companies the Tea Party people are defending:

"Every insurance company has its own forms," McGenney said. "Some practices spend 40% of their revenue filling out paperwork that has nothing to do with patient care. So much of this could be automated."

Dr. Jason Dees, a family doctor in a private practice based in New Albany, Miss., said his office often resubmits claims that have been "magically denied."

"That adds to our administrative fees, extends the payment cycle and hurts our cash flow," he said.

Dees also spends a lot of time getting "pre-certification" from insurers to approve higher-priced procedures such as MRIs. "We're already operating on paper-thin margins and this takes times away from our patients," he said.

There's that private rationing again. In all the rhetoric the Tea Party people throw out about the bureaucrat rationing care, there's no mention in their talking points about the corporate bureaucrat rationing care. They have no solution for it, because there's no accountability required by health insurance companies other than to their shareholders.

When there are problems with Medicare (ex. The Donut Hole), Congress is forced to deal with it or face the ire of their constituents. One would think the very Tea Party slamming the health care bill at town hall after town hall would prefer to have someone they could directly deal with as opposed to a faceless claims processor at an insurance company.

The problem with that statement is that it makes sense. As so much of the debate has proven so far, making sense is less important than scoring points for the press and donors. Obviously, there are legitimate concerns and questions about the proposed overhaul, but when people are circulating memos on how disrupt instead of engage in the conversation, we're not going to get anywhere.

Spinning Tea

While our Representative Scott Garrett distorted numbers recently to scare people about health care reform, the Tea Party people are going from distortion to flat out lies. This is a long post, but if the mainstream media isn't going to do this, someone has to.

It's been well publicized at this point that those who are part of the Tea Party movement are packing town hall meetings to disrupt instead of discuss health care reform. There are legitimate concerns about the proposal, but the tactics being used by these folks not only drowns out those with legitimate concerns, but also discredits the very views they're supposed to be standing for and makes their opposition seem baseless.

As Blue Jersey predicted, the NJ Tea Party group is attempting to get members to Representative Steve Rothman's recess town hall meetings. To encourage members, and fire them up, they sent out an e-mail recently. With the miracle of the searchable PDF, anyone willing to ask "is that true" can go through the e-mail and shred it.

(A note, I've cut and pasted straight from the e-mail, grammatical and spelling errors are strictly the tea party people's fault)

You know the provisions of the public healthcare plan contain concerning features including the following:

You will not be able to keep your private plan (no matter what they say, it’s in the bill).

Where, exactly? That's the question that any thinking person should ask. People point to Section 102, because it prevents new enrollments in plans that don't meet the minimum requirements of coverage. This has no impact on people's current insurance.

In fact, had the Tea Party people scrolled down they would have seen Section 112, where insurance companies are required to renew grandfathered plans. Your coverage is protected as long as you pay for it. But obviously, that reality doesn't help the opposition's fund raising, so I'm sure the oversight was intentional.

Seniors will be compelled to attend counseling every five years to receive information on how to end one’s life with dignity --- this is code for you’re not going to get the surgery or drugs you need, so end your life sooner ---this is the culture of death.

It's amazing the Tea Party people would rather have seniors be uninformed and not know what their options are. Section 1233 absolutely wants people to know about living wills and medical proxies, options and resources regarding palliative care and hospice, and resources available in the state in which the patient lives.

Health care costs will be passed along to you in the form of increased taxes, or loss of jobs due to small employers having to eliminate jobs to pay the additional 8% on their payroll….think of it 20 employees making an average of 50,000 annual salary = $80,000 to that small employer in tax……that employer has to eliminate two jobs for every 20 people to stay even.

What they leave out in this section is that the tax only applies if the small business does not already provide benefits. If benefits are provided, there's no tax. So no one working a job at a small company that provides benefits has anything to worry about in terms of taxes costing them their job.

You will pay for all families – illegal aliens too.

This is the only true statement in the whole thing. Yes, everybody else will be paying for you.

Also, where people get the delusional thought that we don't already pay for illegal aliens is beyond me. This is true, and it will always be true whether we have private or public care. When people show up to an emergency room or the equivalent they are going to get treated and then we bill whatever national plan they're under.

You will also have your tax dollars funded toward abortions even if you are opposed to that form of birth control. That means also late term abortions…up to the day before birth!

Partial birth abortions are illegal, and whoever wrote this e-mail is intentionally misleading people. It also ignores the fact that the committee votes prevent any abortion funding.

I haven't written a post this long in a long time, but the health care debate is too important to let small groups of people using misrepresentation and intimidation to disrupt what is a vital discussion. I realize there's not a lot of money to be raised by the special interests by being truthful and having a meaningful conversation, but that's what we need right now.

There's a lot of good in this bill, but it could be a bit better. There are also good ideas that have come out of the Republican party, like allowing churches and industry groups pool together, that get drowned out by the Tea Party people.

Whether you're for or against the health care reform as presented, arguing your points needs to be based in fact. Otherwise, what may be a very good idea will either be dismissed or missed because someone decided to be disruptive instead of constructive.

Garrett's Health Care Funny Numbers

Here we go again.

Representative Scott Garrett's streak of not misrepresenting numbers has officially come to an end. In this week's Garrett Gazette, the full court press to scare people out of us becoming more competitive with the world by implementing a better health insurance system stepped it up a notch on the spin cycle.

The health care plan proposed by the Democrats will cost American families more than $1,000,000,000,000, and yet will cause as many as 114 million individuals to lose their current coverage under the bill, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group.

Sounds scary. Not only does Garrett fail to acknowledge much of the $1 trillion is already in the system, and would be shifted as opposed to being new costs; by Garrett's statement our number of uninsured would climb to 162 million. There would be no debating that would be awful, if that's actually what Lewin said.

However, if you look at the testimony, this is what they said:

Beginning in the third year, the newly established “Health Choices Commissioner” would be permitted to extend eligibility to include all employers. If the plan is opened to individuals and all employers, the number of people in the public plan would rise to 122.9 million people. Private coverage would decline by about 113.5 million people.

That's right. If the public option was made available to all individuals and employers 113.5 million would shift the way they're covered, not lose it. Why would so many people shift? Because they're choosing the lower cost option.

By entering a larger insurance pool without a profit motive, costs would drop for those who choose it. It's how insurance plans are supposed to work.

If people wanted Cadillac plans they could still get them. The thought of people actually having the freedom to choose to not to get ripped off is why former insurance lawyer Garrett and others who back the industry are fighting so hard to scare the hell out of people, and spending over $1.4 million a day to lobby Congress. They're terrified because they know if people have an honest choice, they will in fact choose the lower cost.

It never ceases to disgust me to see how untruthful the politics of health reform gets. The status quo advocates have a simple playbook: Misrepresent as much as possible to scare the hell out of people.

The debate over costs is being worked out in a pretty transparent and straight forward way by the Blue Dogs. Unfortunately, Garrett's type of argument doesn't serve as a productive addition to the discussion. It just stirs up misinformed rage.

Garrett should stick with the Financial Services sub-committee and leave health care to those whose voice can actually be heard and genuinely want us to stop having a competitive disadvantage to other nations.

Health Politics of Fear

Well, at some point we had to expect our Representative Scott Garrett to weigh in on the health care debate. In this week's Garrett Gazette he did, and his message is to be terrified of choice.

That's literally what the health care debate is over. Cut out all of the horror stories from other nations that don't apply, because that's not what we're talking about, and it comes down to choice. Even though Garrett and his fellow Republicans scream about rationing, most honest brokers acknowledge it already happens. We're talking about having an extra choice in our insurance options.

At about $100 billion a year, citizens are going to have to get health insurance, providers are going to have to become efficient, and citizens can shop for the same sort of plan Garrett and other Federal employees get.

Obviously, this scares the hell out of those spending $1.4 million a day to lobby against the effort. See, if insurance actually works as the market should dictate, instead of as a scam, the more people in an insurance pool the broader the risk is spread and the lower the cost.

Unfortunately, that's not how the system has worked. While Republicans have dusted off the early 90's playbook against health care, and are rehashing some of the misrepresentations of truth from the SCHIP debate; there are as many if not more horror stories generated by our current health care system. From hospitals dumping patients in alleys to insurance companies arbitrarily deciding people's access to care, we're living in a rationed system now.

Everyone knows at least one person who has had an issue with an insurance provider. And lets not forget that all of us who have insurance have to pay more for critical treatment of what could have been preventable when the 47 million uninsured need something.

However, we know that Garrett will vote against this based on "principle." However, as with his opposition to SCHIP, Garrett's belief that states should get to decide things for themselves, as he often cites the 10th Amendment, goes straight out the window:

Removing burdensome state coverage mandates and opening up the health care marketplace to competition across state lines could dramatically reduce health care costs in New Jersey and across the country.

So, the mandated coverage that states have decided their citizens should have needs to be removed by the Federal government. But isn't Garrett the one that argues states should be allowed to set their own standards for, well, everything else but health care?

To his credit, Garrett does address some of the things in the mammoth 1,000 page bill as being good ideas. From the Gazette:

Effectiveness: The current health care system reimburses the number of procedures rather than the quality and efficacy of the care. While doctors are compensated for extra tests and hospitals visits, they are not paid for offering telephone consultations or implementing health care IT. By encouraging quality over quantity of care, we can down on over testing and strengthen the doctor-patient relationship

This is part of what Mike Huckabee talked about when he said we have to go from a treatment of the sick mentality to a prevention and well-care mentality. It's a good idea, which is probably why steps are taken in the bill in this direction. Good ideas are good ideas regardless of party.

With Garrett being the only member of our Congressional delegation to oppose the SCHIP expansion, it makes sense that President Obama would come to our state tomorrow in support of Jon Corzine. Our program works, and reading what I have of the bill, it seems to be a further expansion of the good practices we have here. Every Republican except for Garrett believed enough in what we do here to vote for it to continue. We're a model for once. While Obama can boost Corzine, having an example that works boosts Obama.

Is the bill perfect? No. Will the Dem leadership have to capitulate to the Blue Dogs demands for some fiscal sanity? Absolutely. But while the fiscal conservative Democrats and the socialist Democrats find middle ground to move our nation forward, the fear mongering of Garrett and his Republican brethren mean once again our District doesn't have a seat at the table. They're not willing to honestly talk about the debate to their counterparts on the other side of the aisle or their constituents. So, we're going to be left out. Is that representation?

Moron for Kansas 1

I realize I haven't been writing much of late, but this was just too much to pass on. Somehow I got on the mailing list for Rob Wasinger, who is running for the House in Kansas's 1st Congressional District.

One of the things that started my running and writing about our Representative Scott Garrett was his blatant misrepresentation of facts a few years back. To his credit, he and his new staff seem to have dropped the habit of late. However, that doesn't mean others won't mislead voters in order to win favor.

Such seems to be the case with Mr. Wasinger. In a roughly 500 word diatribe against Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Wasinger drops a few gems ignoring a fundamental fact: The House Doesn't Vote on Judges.

Here's what I mean:

I am running for Congress because of our shared conservative values,especailly our belief in a judiciary that upholds the Constitution and does not legislate from the bench.

I've been in the Court battles. As the former chief-of-staff to Senator Brownback, a member of the Judiciary Committee, I've seen first-hand the growing power of the judiciary and know how to stop it.

And I pledge to you: I'll always put principle above politics.

It'd be nice if one of his principles wasn't to misinform voters in the process.

My personal favorite is this one:

Let's weaken Obama in 2010 by taking back Congress to ensure we have enough votes to block liberal appointments to the federal judiciary.

Not only does the House not vote on Judicial appointments, but Kansas 1 hasn't had a Democrat holding the seat since 1955.

This is exactly the sort of partisan misinformation campaign that really destroys our ability to move forward. Who knows, Wasinger could be the next Representative from Kansas 1. But at some point, we as a people have to stop electing people who blatantly misrepresent the truth.

And Republicans, should they ever want to gain national trust again, have to stop accepting this kind of behavior.

Garrett's Statement On His Mortgage Vote

As noted earlier today, if Representative Scott Garrett decided to shed some light as to why he joined 14% of voting Members in opposing cracking down on predatory lending and fraud I'd post it. It's roughly the same "if we take the fraud and dishonesty out of the process, you the consumer will be hurt" line of logic he used justifying being opposed to credit card reform.

Here's his statement:

“At a time when millions of Americans are still feeling the pain from the credit crisis, this bill will further restrict credit options for consumers and decrease liquidity in our nation’s mortgage markets.

“Additionally, it’s unfortunate that this bill does not do anything to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As these two entities have been identified among the leading causes of the financial crisis, it should be a top priority to address the problems with them as soon as possible.

Garrett had issued this statement on an earlier version of the bill that I had missed:

“The intent of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act is to improve mortgage lending regulation. Unfortunately, this legislation has the potential to limit the accessibility of home financing options for consumers, while increasing the cost of credit. Due to its breadth in scope, there is the potential for many unintended consequences in the marketplace, as the legislation affects everyone from the mortgage originators that make loans to the securitizers that package the loans in the secondary market.

“I do appreciate the intent of the bill, which is to increase underwriting standards and protect borrowers. In actuality, though, this bill is flawed in many ways, as it contains a weak safe harbor provision, increases the liability for assignees and securitizers and places a larger class of loans under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act’s (HOEPA) high-cost provisions.

“In addition, the risk retention requirements as structured will force lenders to markedly increase their capital, which will further narrow credit choices and increase the cost of borrowing for consumers. I applaud Chairman Frank for his efforts in trying to address the important issue of risk retention, however, I believe there are ways to construct this provision more effectively. I look forward to working with him to find solutions for this matter, possibly in the form of covered bonds, which have the potential to aid in returning liquidity to the mortgage market with their high underwriting standards and may also serve as an alternative to securitization.”

Garrett Shows Hedge Fund Love

Representative Scott Garrett released a statement criticizing President Obama for pointing out that it was hedge funds holding the debt of Chrysler who wouldn't budge enough to prevent bankruptcy. I've put the whole statement below, but here's the kicker of Garrett's statement:

Many of those invested in these funds were seniors, school teachers, and others whose pension funds are an important component in maintaining a healthy standard of living throughout their retirement.

The line, although nicely dressed up, is pretty much pulled straight from the statement the hedge funds put out to defend themselves:

We have a fiduciary responsibility to all those teachers, pensioners, retirees and others who have entrusted their money to us.

If hedge funds actually had to file who was investing in them, it might be possible to prove their statement, but alas they don't and we can't. One can have a healthy amount of skepticism though, as hedge funds are limited in size by both number of investors (100) and net worth requirements (typically at least $5 million).

So it's interesting to see them spin this like they're some kind of social safety net, when they were given their privileged status because their investors are at less risk than most folks. The funds themselves are so unregulated, and charge so much in fees, states like New Jersey either won't allow or severely limit the amount of public pension that can be invested in them (you know, for teachers, etc.).

However, as long as they have people in Congress like Garrett to turn to, they'll have their champions.

Those that pay the AMT have to remember folks like Garrett voted against taxing hedge fund managers like normal people to patch the AMT. As I noted at the time, doing that would have provided a blue print for permanent repeal. Garrett put 5,000 of these fund managers above the millions who are subjected to the AMT. At least he's consistently supportive of the funds.

Here's Garrett's full statement:

“I am troubled by President Obama’s statements that single out a certain class of Chrysler’s creditors. The president’s comments display complete disregard for the rule of law, as well as the practices which govern our bankruptcy code.

“The actions of the hedge fund managers in exercising their fiduciary responsibilities to their investors is not the reason why Chrysler is in jeopardy, and their acceptance of the government’s offer would not have guaranteed the company’s success. I think the president should think about who he's attacking when he makes these statements. Many of those invested in these funds were seniors, school teachers, and others whose pension funds are an important component in maintaining a healthy standard of living throughout their retirement.

“This demonization of investors comes at the same time when the administration’s Treasury Department is begging for participation from the private sector in its Public-Private Investment Program. The president’s comments beg the question: why would private investors enter into a partnership with the government when there is the future possibility of being publicly scolded for making business decisions the government dislikes?

“It’s time for the government to stop interfering in the marketplace. It simply creates greater uncertainty, facilitates the choosing of winners and losers, and prevents private capital from entering the marketplace.”

Garrett's Reading List

Politico has an interesting article about the Republican Party's new favorite book: The Forgotten Man. The book has been hailed and derided for it's approach to covering the New Deal from the perspective of the wealthy. It's subtitle is telling: A New History of the Great Depression

Our own Representative Scott Garrett and staff are prominently featured in the Politico article.

“It’s been suggested as required reading for all of us, I think,” said Erica Elliott, press secretary for Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) — who himself notes that his chief of staff “stole” his hardback copy, so he had to purchase a paperback.

Garrett said the book “is a good read” that details, among other things, “how FDR engaged in vitriolic demonizing of Wall Street and Big Business to advance his agenda.”

Also, he jokes, “it had good pictures when you get to the middle.”

Here's a little lesson from the book that Politico pointed out:

Of course Hoover and Roosevelt may have had no choice but to pursue the policies they did. They may indeed have spared the country something worse — an American version of Stalin’s communism or Mussolini’s fascism.

It should be interesting to see if the Republicans butcher the intent of the book, or simply ignore the parts they don't like, kind of like Scripture or Goldwater's The Conscience of the Conservative. Looking forward to reading this one.

Republican Budget Bonanza

Well, with the Budget Spin wars going in full steam, I figured I'd print off the President's Budget, the CBO's estimate on the President's Budget, and the Republican Alternative introduced by Representative Scott Garrett and his Republican colleagues yesterday. It's interesting to sit and have all the documents on the desk at the same time.

Both proposals are disappoinging in that neither even pretends to attempt to balance the budget. As I wrote in an earlier post, both parties are addicted to deficit spending, it's just a matter of what they're borrowing for.

While Obama's budget has been scrutinized a lot, we knew where he was coming from because he's been talking about it since 2007. Even though there's no shot of the Republican Budget passing, it's interesting to now see where their conversation starts:

The budget gives priority to the Federal Government’s most important obligations, national defense, veterans’ benefits, and homeland security activities. All other appropriated spending is level-funded for fiscal years 2010-14, and then increased at a moderate rate through 2019.

So the party of Eisenhower and his warning against the military industrial complex has completely embraced a defense only spending mentality. It's unfortunate that Republicans see our military spending as a jobs programs. Money to get more teachers? Doctors? Green Collar? Nope.

It's also interesting to see their views on return on investment. In their argument in support of more drilling and against the cap and trade proposal (which, thankfully, is going nowhere fast), they cite "studies" that for every $1 billion invested in big oil, 5,400 jobs are created. That's spending $185,000 to create one job.

The SBA, whose budget is frozen by the Republican "vision", creates a job for every $50,000 lent, at a cost of around $200. Either way you look at it, Republicans are embracing a jobs figure that costs between 370% to 92,600% more to create a job.

That's not ensuring our tax dollars are being spent wisely, but it's consistent with other schemes like Medicare Advantage or hiring Blackwater to handle security, where taxpayers pay more for service than if the government did it itself. That's not fiscal responsibility, it's fiscal fleecing, and Republicans want to return to being trusted stewards?

Adding insult to injury is their tax proposal, which throws everyone into an AMT like structure by eliminating deductions, credits, etc. It also makes permanent things like the competitive advantage they gave foreign companies and taxing firefighters at a higher rate than hedge fund managers.

No one can argue that Obama's budget is fiscally responsible, doubling the national debt in ten years, although still less than Reagan in terms of percent. Unfortunately, the Republican alternative still adds roughly 50% to the debt over ten years, while continuing many of the policies and objectives that got us in this mess in the first place.

At some point, somebody is going to have to put our fiscal house in order, maybe before our grandchildren die.

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.

Will Garrett Be Full of SCHIP again?

Update: The SCHIP expansion was approved, and it was a 12 to Garrett vote among the New Jersey Delegation.

It sounds like the SCHIP expansion legislation may come to a vote today. The Courier Post gives a nice summary of the program:

It is meant to enroll children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor, but too little to afford private health insurance if employer-provided coverage is unavailable.

Those of you who have been reading for a while got to witness me shred Representative Scott Garrett for his misrepresentations of the truth and flat out lies about what the program does and who it serves.

Now, as expanding SCHIP will likely sail to passage yet again; we have to expect Garrett to vote no, again.

Garrett is philosophically opposed to SCHIP, which he has the right to be. Unfortunately, Garrett used falsehoods and fear to try and get people to see things his way. Basically, he and his colleagues attacked children using lies.

The question is what, if any, explanation or speech he will give when he votes no this time. Garrett has replaced key staff since 2007, and the hope is they won't stuff him full of bad information. The greater hope is that he won't regurgitate the bad information he received last time. We'll have to see, but for the quarter of a million families on SCHIP, it should be comforting that Garrett will once again be in the minority.

Garrett Bailout Op-Ed

Representative Scott Garrett published an interestingly sarcastic Op-Ed in the New Jersey Herald over the weekend. I don't have time to dissect this right now, but here it is for folks to read.

Bear Stearns bailout. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout. AIG bailout. $700 billion bailout. Auto industry bailout. Medicaid bailout. Where do the bailouts end? Depends. How much money can you, the taxpayer, afford to pay?

Every bailout is the government committing you the taxpayer to pay more money. Thought you were saving for your children's college fund? Nope. That money is going to save Detroit. Thought you were going to save up for a house? Nope. That money is going to help people who bought houses they couldn't afford in the first place.

I have fought against all of these rash bailout measures, calling on my colleagues to stand against this commitment of your money with little or no government oversight. With the support of many of my colleagues, I called on President Bush for an increase in transparency to provide the American people and Members of Congress insight into the decision-making process that yielded the $700 billion bailout plan. I also backed the bill that was introduced as the alternative to the $700 billion bailout, the Free Market Protection Act. This Act contained many efforts to fundamentally address the systemic issues affecting the financial markets while preserving free market principles.

Every year, the government goes through an appropriations process of determining how much money will be budgeted for spending over the next fiscal year. There are hearings, there are debates, and while there could always be more oversight, there is at least a degree of accountability for how we are allotting money to be spent in the federal budget.

With these bailouts, however, there is no oversight. There are no hearings. There's a degree of exigency that started with Bear Stearns ("Too big to fail!") that has carried over to every other bailout proposal ("We bailed out Bear Stearns, why not Fannie and Freddie?!"). As a result of this "sky is falling" pressure to pass these bailout initiatives, Congress has spent almost as much in bailouts alone this year as it has in the federal budget. And has certainly ignored any attempt at the preservation of the free market.

Congress is currently discussing a "Stimulus II" package, to potentially be voted on next week. The word "stimulus" is really a misnomer, used to shore up public support for yet another bailout. In reality, it's "Spending II: Bailout Returns." It's unclear as to whether Nancy Pelosi will be fighting Apollo Creed in this bailout sequel, but by the end of the 110th Congress, there will be more chapters in the bailout saga than there are Rocky movies.

The line for a piece of the bailout pie is growing as businesses see an opportunity for free money from the government (aka: you, the taxpayer). American Express is faltering because of high credit card default rates. Their bailout handout means that you are writing a check to cover the people who aren't paying their credit card bills. The "Big Three" auto producers, Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, received a $25 billion bailout in September. Now, they're back for more, claiming they need money to fund "innovation." You, the taxpayer, are writing a check to get them through this creative rough patch. Ethanol producers are also eagerly awaiting your money, as is the Medicaid program.

I am working diligently to find real and effective solutions to this economic crisis. There are other alternatives to constantly turning to the American taxpayers to bail out struggling companies, and I assure you I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find ideas that are in our best economic interest, both in the short and long term.

Robo-calls for Shulman

President Bill Clinton and Mayor Mike Bloomberg are doing robo-calls for Dennis Shulman. I tried to post the audio, but for some reason it's not working.

In response to the Steve Forbes endorsement of Representative Scott Garrett, Shulman's campaign manager Jeff Hauser showed he still has some bite left in his remarks:

"Garrett's earth shattering endorsement from Steve Forbes, who almost but not quite earned a delegate per million dollars of his father's money he spent running for President, indicates that Garrett is seeking to shore up his base of support. What's Garrett's base? People like Forbes and Garrett who inherited millions upon millions of dollars in cash or fake farms.

On the other hand, Dennis is proud to have earned the endorsement of groups who don't always endorse members of his party -- the Firefighters, the nation's best respected Independent (Mayor Bloomberg), and of course the school children of Garrett's home town of Wantage. Yes, indeed, the Wantage Schools children voted last week, and in a landslide, Shulman beat Garrett 350-250. And while those school children are nowhere near as wealthy as Forbes, Mayor Bloomberg is actually wealthier -- and earned it himself."

Garrett Claims Victory

Surprisingly, I didn't get a press release from the Dennis Shulman campaign after last night's heated debate. However, as one would expect, Representative Scott Garrett has claimed victory.

Congressman Scott Garrett was at the top of his game on Wednesday night in his second debate against Dennis Shulman, hosted by the New Jersey Herald at Sussex County Community College.

Garrett was again able to tout his strong record as a taxpayer advocate, highlighting that he has received the Americans for Tax Reform “Hero of the Taxpayer” award every year he has been in Congress. Additionally, Garrett discussed his commitment to the ideals espoused by Citizens Against Government Waste, as well as the National Taxpayers Union.

Garrett also referenced the negative campaign tactics employed by his opponent, urging audience members to participate in an active listening exercise. “Every time my opponent makes an attack against me put a check in one column,” Garrett said. “And every time you hear my opponent offer a solution, put a check in the other column. I thinkyou are going to hear a lot of attacks but not a lot of solutions from my opponent on important issues that affect all of our families; solutions to thehigh cost of energy, or solutions to high taxes or solutions to end wasteful spending. Tonight, I will provide you with solutions because for the past six years I have been your Congressman I have fought for these important issues.”

True to Garrett’spredictions, Garrett stuck to the issues, Shulman hurled wild accusations. After 60 minutes of debate this evening, voters still do not know where Shulman stands on solutions to high taxes, illegal immigration, the energy crisis, healthcare, or any other number of issues.

Not Surprising, Both Claim Victory

One has to love press releases. Not a surprise, both the campaigns of Representative Scott Garrett and Dennis Shulman both claimed victory in last night's debate.

First, from Garrett's campaign:

Congressman Scott Garrett scored a decisive victory in Sunday night’s debate against challenger Dennis Shulman at Temple Emanuel. In the first of three debates, Garrett was afforded the opportunity to share his message of fiscal responsibility and limited government, as well as to refute attack claims made from his opponent.

“I am probably bestknown for my fight against higher taxes and my efforts to control wasteful spending,” said Garrett in his opening statement. “Frankly, I don’t think the government can make better decisions about how to spend your money than you can.”

The debate centered around questions relating to Israel, Iran, healthcare, and the economy.

Fresh from his endorsement by the Express-Times newspaper, Garrett seemed at ease in his role as the favorite to win re-election in the race for the 5th Congressional District.

“As I travel around NewJersey, I meet with families who are concerned about our nation’s economy and future,” Garrett said. “People are worried about their retirement accounts and funding their children’s college funds. I share your concerns and havebeen fighting against the Washington establishment. We need to find new solutions to the problems that face our nation, not the continued failed policies that helped to cause the problem.” Garrett closed with observations about what makes the United States unique.

“This is what makes America different from the rest of the world. We fully embrace the rights of all Americans to pursue happiness and to succeed. It does not matter if you are Joe the Plumber or Joe Kennedy—all Americans have limitless opportunities.”

The second debate in this series will be held at Sussex County Community College on Wednesday,October 22 at 7pm.

And now the Shulman camp:

In the first of three debates, Democratic challenger Dennis Shulman kept incumbent Republican Scott Garrett on defense while scoring the most memorable lines of the evening. Here are some of the highlights from last night and some questions that remain unanswered:

Garrett continued to stonewall on the investigation into whether he is improperly taking a farmland assessment meant for real farmers. Garrett clearly said that his property is used as a "Christmas tree farm." However, Garrett has had to swear to an oath on his official New Jersey farmland assessment papers concerning what he farmed, and he swore that his farm is a "tree and shrub" farm, rather than selecting the "Christmas tree farm" category.

If Garrett is farming Christmas trees over the required 5.20 acres, why will he not invite reporters to visit the estate? Why does he classify the property under the more vague "tree and shrub" label when "Christmas trees" is a clear option on the form? Is it because the casual observer can more easily identify whether 5.20 acres are in fact being used to farm Christmas trees? Most critically -- why hasn't Garrett filed the environmental impact statement legally required for a "tree and shrub farm?"

Garrett refused Dennis' invitation to pledge not to take contributions from the industries he is charged with overseeing in Congress. As a member of the House Financial Services committee, Garrett has taken more than $1,000,000 from banks, insurers, and other special interests he is supposed to be regulating. Why won't he join Dennis in taking this pledge?

In a rare moment of honesty, Garrett defended massive tax breaks for Exxon-Mobile while talking about energy policy. Garrett has taken tens of thousands of dollars from Big Oil, and he has been one of their best friends in Congress. Garrett thinks it is just and appropriate to heap massive tax breaks on Exxon Mobile and the rest of Big Oil despite the record profits these companies are making at the expense of American taxpayers and consumers. Why should Fifth District voters trust a Big Oil crony like Scott Garrett to lower gas prices and invest in a sensible energy plan?

Remarkably, Garrett accused Dennis Shulman of misquoting scripture. During an exchange about healthcare, Dennis accurately recited from Matthew 10(http://kingjbible.com/matthew/10.htm) when he said, "Even your scripture, Scott, says heal the sick and cleanse the leper." Why does Scott Garrett think that the government should guarantee healthcare for his family but not yours?

Garrett discussed his radical, out-of-step opposition to embryonic stem cell research. In contrast, Dennis Shulman discussed his dedication to funding all potential cures for disease, invoking his first-hand experiences with patients and congregants. Shulman also chided Garrett for his anti-science views and dismissal of research. How can voters trust Scott Garrett to represent them responsibly when he dismisses unbiased research in favor of extreme ideology? Why won't he support federal funding of stem cell research?

When Shulman discussed Garrett's corrupt ties to special interests like Countrywide Financial, Garrett changed the subject by discussing Senator Chris Dodd's personal mortgage with Countrywide. Garrett has taken thousands of dollars from Countrywide Financial alone, his taxpayer-funded chief of staff is a former lobbyist for Countrywide, and Garrett's economic plan would have expanded the role of disgraced lenders like Countrywide prior to the economic crash that Countrywide caused. Why won't Garrett release a copy of his own personal Countrywide mortgage?

If I Could Sue Garrett I Would

Representative Scott Garrett may have earned some praise from me lately regarding the bailout, but that doesn't mean it doesn't aggravate me to see him use my party name from 2006 yet again. In the first campaign mailer of his I've seen, once again he uses my "An Independent Voice" as his own, albeit, tagging on "For Change" at the end. For both infringement on my brand and false advertising, if I could sue Garrett I would.

At the heart of the matter are my own undecided political intentions. If I ever were to run again at any level, An Independent Voice is my brand. Over 100 people signed my petition stating that and about 2,600 voted for that brand. First time out of the gate, with no budget, we felt we had done pretty well with that. Yet Garrett's campaign uses my brand as it's own.

There's also the "truth in advertising" aspect that I feel is very important to fixing what's wrong with politics. Garrett votes the party line over 90% of the time, so he's hardly independent. When Garrett doesn't, he is often one of a few dozen lawmakers voting AGAINST CHANGE in the form of improvements to programs.

The Washington Post keeps a record of such votes and here a few recent ones:

• Garrett was one of 28 Representatives to vote against Elder Abuse Prevention.
• Garrett was one of 47 Representatives to vote against parity for coverage of treatment for things like autism and alcoholism.
• Garrett was one of 55 Representatives to vote against improving bridge inspections on interstate highways.
• Garrett was one of 59 Representatives to vote against improving Medicare.
• Garrett was one of 23 Representatives to vote against establishing an FBI mortgage fraud investigator to investigate the types of fraud that have contributed to the financial meltdown.

There are a number of examples of this, and I plan to do a more comprehensive review later. However, it really points to what most people hate about party politics when a campaign piece like Garrett's makes completely unfounded claims about their candidate. His claims of accomplisment within the mailer will take more time to discect as false, however they're stretching the truth or flat out misrepresenting his record as well.

Had Garrett's people just stolen my brand, they still could say he's bucked the party from time to time. However, adding for change on the end, when it seems the only time he bucks the party is to vote against change to improve programs is a complete misrepresentation of his voting record and patently disingenuous.