Monday, May 28, 2007
Memorial Day
To all of the men and women who currently serve, thank you.
To my friends getting redeployed, home safe.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Letter to the Editor
Scott Garrett and the 'family budget'
Reading "Garrett Steadfast on Taxes" (Letters to the Editor, May 18) seemed like something straight out of Rep. Scott Garrett's press room. Much of the spin reiterated by the author has been exposed as being overblown by many reputable reporters in this and other newspapers, including Herb Jackson and columnist David Broder.
Garrett may say he looks after the family budget, but his votes speak louder than his words.
With Garrett's vote against decreasing the interest rate on federal student loans, which he voted to raise a year ago, it seems working families with college kids are not of his concern. Garrett also voted against scholarships for children interested in studying science in college and grants for research professionals beginning their careers.
This eliminates families of those who perform the research and those whose manufacturing jobs are dependent on their findings.
In addition, Garrett voted against a U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed 10 year tax cut package for small business owners, followed by a vote against reforming and expanding Small Business Administration loans to help owners grow their businesses and create jobs, helping owner's families and those they employ.
These are just a few of Garrett's votes since January where the "family budget" was the central question. Garrett joined a small minority (between 2 and 6 percent) in voting no each time. It seems the only family budgets Garrett is concerned with closely resemble an A-Rod post-season hit: few and far between.
Matthew Fretz, Upper Saddle River
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Garrett vs. First-Time Homebuyers
Yesterday the House voted on the National Housing Trust Fund. Originally proposed by then Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the bill sets up a Trust
Fund to support building of Affordable Housing nationwide. The funding for the bill comes through surplus dollars at Fannie Mae and FreddieMac.
I added this comment to their conversation.
The bill, which the White House had initially supported, is veto proof with a 313-104 margin.
The Bill also raises the limits of loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are allowed to offer first time home buyers in higher cost areas, like the Fifth District. In addition, it provided a new office to regulate the companies to prevent issues like they've had over the last three years.
I'm not sure how the amendments panned out in terms of White House support, but Garrett proposed an amendment that was crushed. It would have all but eliminated Fannie and Freddie from being able to help first-time homebuyers in the Fifth by restricting the types of mortgages they could offer to exclusively affordable housing stock, and cutting out the ability of middle income families to obtain F&F mortgages.
I feel a bit lazy reposting this here, but I had a really long day at work and am headed to bed a good two hours early. I apologize for slacking.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Garrett and the Immigration Bill
While reading Representative Scott Garrett's statement about the immigration compromise being unfair to legal immigrants; the fact that this was the same Representative Scott Garrett who said he only looked after citizens born in the US while defending his vote against the Voting Rights Act just reeked of spin. Here's part of what he said:
I hear from constituents nearly every day who are legal residents or naturalized citizens who bought into American notions of rule of law, equality, and justice. They’re the first to sense the extraordinary unfairness of amnesty and they’ll be the first to experience that unfairness as well.
Garrett's "unfairness" posturing is pure politics. In January, he was "law and order; anti-amnesty" Garrett, only now he's conveniently thrown in the concerns of legal immigrants who he would deny the right to vote. It wasn't until after his true feelings about legal immigrants were published in the Express-Times that he's repositioned his stance.
It's pretty safe to say that Garrett has no interest in immigration reform, short of attempting to deport 12 million people and building a giant wall. After all, Garrett refused to stand and applaud with most Republicans during the State of the Union address when President Bush challenged Congress to deliver immigration reform.
I haven't read the bill, but the fact that Garrett is calling it amnesty and Senator Bob Menendez is saying it's too hard; it seems to me like the truth is somewhere in the middle. Probably the most honest, if not colorful, conversation I've seen about it happened on the McLaughlin Group on Sunday. It's worth a read, simply because both sides agreed that parts of the plan are completely unenforceable. When Tony Blankley (staunch conservative) and Eleanor Clift (staunch liberal) are in complete agreement for the same reasons, it's worth noting.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Amazing video
Friday, May 18, 2007
Garrett Gets Breast Cancer Award
The National Breast Cancer Coalition appreciates Representative Garrett's leadership and dedication in helping us achieve our goal of eradicating breast cancer. As one of the Senators and Representatives to support all of our priorities, he has shown himself to be committed to substantive breast cancer policy.As I noted in an earlier post, Garrett recently added our District's support to the Federal funding of research centers to study possible environmental factors involved with breast cancer. While it's easy to say that every Representative could get this sort of award, the fact is that they don't. With everything I've written lately about what Garrett is doing wrong, I think in the interest of fairness it is important to point out the good things he does and this is one of them. This is one area where Garrett has consistently been good; and our District and nation are being served very well.