The Budget Spin Cycle

Well, with passage yesterday of the House Budget, the spin season officially began. From now until every expenditure bill is passed, we'll have pleanty of spin to point to. Garrett and the entire Republican delegation from New Jersey voted against the budget. At issue is the lack of an extension of the Bush Tax cuts, so let's see what Representative Scott Garrett's website had to say about the budget (underlining his).

So what does this Democrat plan mean for taxpayers in North Jersey? According to the non-partisan taxpayer advocacy group, Americans for Tax Reform, the average New Jersey taxpayer will see their taxes skyrocket by an average of $3,780.

Sounds and looks scary. Obviously, Garrett touting a study by the New York Times that I'm really starting to think doesn't exist wasn't scary enough. So, in an effort to ratchet up the fear factor Garrett turned to Americans for Tax Reform. They're about as non-partisan as I am when the Mets play the Braves or my best friend is when the Yankees play the Red Sox. They started the scheme known as the K Street Project and were the middle man for Jack Abramoff's defrauding of Native American tribes. In my completely non-legal yet morally grounded opinion ATR's Executive Director Grover Norquist belongs in jail with his good friend Jack Abramoff. However, these are the folks Garrett looks to for information.

Here's what the AP says about the future of the tax cuts.

As a practical matter, the future of the Bush tax cuts will likely be decided after the 2008 presidential election, with their fate depending on the balance of power after the election and on the fiscal outlook at that time.

Basically, your taxes aren't going up next year or the year after (unless you're pinched by the ever expanding AMT). The question will be what is done before the tax cuts expire after 2010. In an effort to deal with it before then, unlike the last few years, a Republican budget plan was put forward that preserved the tax cut as is. Here's what Garrett's site had to say about that.

In contrast to the Democrat budget, Congressman Garrett supported a budget alternative that would have balanced the budget and stopped the raid on Social Security funds without raising taxes.

Sounds pretty good, especially if you consider Garrett had previously supported the Bush Budget which, as I've pointed out before, would have raided Social Security to balance the budget. Yet here, from the AP once again, is exactly how that proposal balanced the budget.

Republicans countered with an alternative plan cutting $279 billion from federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years — far greater cuts than Bush proposed in February.

So to save Social Security, the alternative budget attacked the elderly and the defenseless more than the original Bush Budget. The vote was actually a Garrett to 12 on this one, with the rest of our fair state's congressional delegation voting against the alternative. Garrett obviously didn't get the memo, but I'm glad to see the rest of our delegation accepts the fact that the budget shouldn't be balanced on the backs of our society's most vulnerable members.

Eventually, some version of the Bush Tax cuts will be enacted with some major revisions. In all likelihood, gone will be the provisions that trap more families with the AMT; gone will be the provisions that give foreign companies an advantage over domestic ones; and gone will be the myriad of loopholes that have those with incomes over $1 million (240,000 filers in 2004) paying a lower tax rate than those making $500,000 - $1 million (433,000 filers in 2004

I realize as a co-sponsor of the 2003 cut, Garrett either isn't allowed to acknowledge or can't see these issues as a problem. He'd have the tax cuts reenacted as they are, and continue indefinitely the errors he and others made with the original round. Fortunately, the majority of Republicans and Democrats largely acknowledge the benefits of the tax cut in certain areas and the problems with it in others. Rhetoric like Garrett's doesn't help fix the problems and further isolates him from the negotiating table when making the tax cut better comes up

Good Votes, But We need a Source

So far, it's been a pretty good week for the Fifth. Representative Scott Garrett has voted pretty much the way I think most of the people in our District would have, with the exception of a vote against outlawing blades used to make cockfights more gruesome. Other than that, we've seen him vote for environmental protection, money for transit security (as a daily rider of NJ Transit, this is a big one for me), more money for disabled veterans, and probably most surprising, his vote for limiting the term of interim Federal prosecutor appointments.

As great as all this is, one thing about this week is more problematic than supporting the cockfighting blades. In both the Garrett Gazette and on the floor the other night, Garrett imparted this little bit of "wisdom."

Let’s take a look at what the Democrat budget proposal would do to a family of four from Bergen County earning $70,000 per year. According to a study done by the New York Times, that family saw their tax bill slashed by 20% after the Republican congress passed tax relief measures between 2001 and 2003. To roll those tax cuts back now would take around $1,500 out of that family’s budget today.

The reason I used the quotes up top is because I can't find the article. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just can't find the article. I've searched the New York Times website using several keywords including "Democrats Budget", "Bush Tax Cut", "House Budget", "Bergen Family of Four" and "$70,000".

The search turned up a lot of recent stuff, including: The Garrett co-sponsored 2003 Bush Tax cuts are giving foreign businesses a competitive advantage over domestic ones; The Democrats balance the budget without providing AMT relief (same as Bush); The AMT now impacts 23.4 million of the nation's 90 million taxpayers with help from the Bush tax cuts; and a story about how long term health insurers are denying care for thousands of senior citizen policyholders. With all of this and much more, I couldn't find the study Garrett cited.

My hope is that this is not another example of Garrett misrepresenting the truth after having such a good start to the week. A link or where we could find the article in a hard copy would be helpful if somebody has one. With all sides firing up the spin machines over their budget proposals, I'll have enough to write about without needing another example. However, if in fact the article doesn't exist, that opens up a whole new can of worms.

A Small Step Forward for Rep. Garrett

One of my most consistent criticisms of Representative Scott Garrett has been his complete lack of accountability. Whether it was as one of the earliest parts of my platform last year, to recently writing about yet another mysterious vote against the victims of Katrina, Garrett's evasiveness is one of his greatest failings as a Representative that I feel has earned constant criticism.

Today, in what can only be described as a step in the right direction, Rep. Garrett's website posted this week's tentative legislative calendar. While it doesn't list how he's leaning on voting on the different resolutions, it does give constituents the opportunity to go to THOMAS, look up the bills, and contact Garrett if they are so inclined. While this is a far cry from the ideals I have about communication between Representatives and constituents, it is a small step forward.

While he's made progress in this regard, Garrett chose to regurgitate his spin about the Bush Budget in this week's Garrett Gazette. As noted in an earlier post, The Bush Budget plan can only achieve balance by raiding the Social Security Trust and eliminating AMT relief. I haven't had a chance to read the Democrats' budget, which prompted Garrett's message; however it's been widely established that Bush's Budget is a raw deal for New Jersey. If Garrett would take a small step back, as with communication, maybe he could see what others already know and stop advocating a budget proposal that will hurt North Jersey's taxpayers, emergency responders, hospitals and seniors.

Don't Throw Rodney Under the Bus

Here's a lesson for those who may seek a nomination for a State or County office: don't throw a sitting member of Congress from your own party under the bus.

I had great hope for Steve Oroho, a Sussex County Freeholder talking about being a "true conservative" and doing things differently in his campaign for the State Senate in the 24th District. In looking at what Representative Scott Garrett is doing in Congress and how Guy Talarico has hurt the Republican Party in Bergen County, the 24th District having the last remaining Mountain Man as their primary voice in Trenton could be a bad thing. I've written before about the need to work with the other party, and Guy Gregg's philosophy is not one of cooperation. Oroho seems to have a good team and a blend of moderate to conservative candidates on his ticket, with a realistic view of representation.

However, at the first sign of "trouble", the dual endorsement of Gregg by both Congressmen serving the Legislative District he hopes to represent, Oroho decided to descend quickly into the labeling and trashing of Representative Rodney Freylinghuysen. While attempting to discredit Gregg, who is as conservative as Garrett, Oroho attacked Rep. Freylinghuysen on his abortion and gun voting record. It was the classic ridiculousness of the "Republican in Name Only" (RINO) attack that's been going on for the better part of a decade now. However, because Freylinghuysen is who he is, GOP leaders are demanding an apology.

Morris GOP Chairman John Sette and Morris County Freeholder Director Margaret Nordstrom said Oroho "went too far" in criticizing Frelinghuysen after he and Rep. Scott Garrett (R-5th Dist.) both endorsed Gregg this week.

"He owes Rodney an apology," said Nordstrom. "He should know there's a grown-up way to act if someone doesn't endorse you."

In my hope for a change in the direction politics has been going the last few years, it's an unfortunate development. With State Senator Lorretta Weinberg and her slate running against Papa Joe's machine in the southeast corner of the District, I was hopeful there would be a solid ticket of folks running in the northwestern part of the District against the overly caustic conservative cannibalism that's been going on the last few years.

With retiring State Senator Robert Littell as his guide, who has a distinguished career and record of serving his constituents while practicing bi-partisanship, Oroho could have worked to change the nature of the Republicans' race to the right and change the focus to results instead of rhetoric. However, it doesn't seem that's the case. Obviously, this isn't over yet, but as of now at least it seems to be more politics as usual.

The Gardasil Debate

When it comes to decisions about kids, I believe parents have the ultimate right to decide how things are going to go as long as they're not putting the kids in harm's way (beating them, pumping them full of cocaine, etc.). That's part of the reason the way Merck was lobbying to have Gardasil be mandatory for young girls to attend public school made me uneasy.

If God blessed me with a daughter, despite genetic predisposition to sons, I know I'd get the shot for her. As a vaccine it is 100% effective against certain strains of HPV that are known to cause cervical cancer, and over 70% effective against other strains which may also lead to cancer. The vaccine seems to be a no brainer to me.

As uncomfortable with with the government mandate as I am, it's come to my attention how some folks don't quite understand what's at stake here. You'll see comments like this from fathers:

When you are talking about 8, 9, 10, 11-year-old girls who are not sexually active and most likely will not be sexually active until their maturity, there is no medical necessity for that.

or this:

Parents are going to know the difference between that child, who, as you described before, may be 11 years old and in many circumstances no way, shape or form is going to be sexually active; and parents know other children, 15, 16 years old have been, are starting to be sexually active, in which case this treatment, the shot or what have you, would be appropriate.

There are several issues with this logic. First, it shows a complete lack of understanding of what a vaccine is. With Gardasil, as with any vaccine, a woman has to have it before contact with the HPV virus. Vaccines are for inoculations, and this particular one takes shots spread over a few months to be effective. It's not like picking up antibiotics at the pharmacy and all of a sudden you're inoculated. If the daughter has become sexually active, and she comes in contact with a "dirty dog" who either hasn't been truthful or hasn't been tested, it's game over. Since guys don't usually show any signs of the cancerous strains, they won't know they've got it and the vaccine is the only way to be sure a woman won't contract those strains.

The second issue is that both of these quotes were said by our very own Representative Scott Garrett the other night on the House floor. Obviously, I would hope my Representative would understand what a vaccine is. In addition, it is hypocritical that Garrett votes against a bill protecting parents from being forced to administer overprescribed drugs like Ritalin, but then say they can't be forced to prevent their daughters from getting cancer. Also, I would have hoped after the Terri Shiavo disaster we would have seen the last of members of Congress dispensing medical advice on the floor.

I still don't support the mandate, but with potentially fatal ignorance being entered into the Congressional Record I'm starting to have second thoughts. If you've never read a testimonial of those going through cervical cancer you can go to the National Cervical Cancer Coalition and read lots of them. No matter what level it is, it sounds terrifying. Granted, not everyone gets it like this, but ignorance is no excuse for not preventing this now that we have a vaccine:

I was diagnosed in April 2006, and underwent a radical hysterectomy in May 2006,
removing my uterus, cervix, upper part of my vagina, and some lymph nodes and additional tissue. Unfortunately, the lymph nodes and the upper part of my vagina came back positive for cancer, and I underwent 5 doses of Cisplatin chemotherapy and 28-30 doses of external radiation and 3 internal doses. That finished in July of 2006, and I thought all was well. In January of 2007, my pap came back abnormal. Then the DR. took more biopsies, and those and my CAT scan showed that my cancer had returned. I am now scheduled in early March to undergo a procedure called Pelvic Exenteration - where the Dr.'s remove my bladder, vagina, and rectum, leaving me with a urostomy to replace my bladder, and a colostomy to replace my rectum.

Garrett as Usual

As I pretty much expected, Representative Scott Garrett still hasn't posted an explanation on his website and said nothing on the House floor about why he'd be voting against the Katrina Aid. It's another insult to those who lost everything, another insult to those from our District who have recognized the need for Americans to help Americans, and an insult to those who expect accountability from our Representatives.

Garrett votes against Katrina Victims Again

In another 12 to Garrett vote, the New Jersey delegation stood up with our fellow Americans impacted by Hurricane Katrina. Once again, Representative Scott Garrett has voted against providing support to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Without a press statement, I don't want to put words in his mouth. I'll post more on this tomorrow after I have the chance to see what if anything he said on the floor before he voted against the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007.