Garrett Responds to the Humane Soceity

Representative Scott Garrett shot back at the Humane Society Op-Ed I republished yesterday. As reported at the end of this column by the Washington Post:

Garrett seems to think the group has more bark than bite, and he resents being compared to the disgraced Atlanta Falcons quarterback.

"Michael Vick has committed egregious acts towards animals and should get punished for his crimes," Garrett told us in an e-mail through his spokeswoman, adding: "My previous vote in regards to animal fighting was to keep federal law enforcement from taking over state crimes. Prosecutors and officers are already stretched thin. For instance, over the last 10 years, federal courts have dealt with a 172% increase in sexual offence cases, largely due to increases in prosecutions for sexually explicit materials such as child pornography. With almost 70,000 victims and families waiting for justice across the country (over 1,000 in New Jersey alone), it doesn't seem reasonable to prolong their suffering by creating a law that would make actions that are already illegal and prosecutable under state laws, a federal offense."

On this one, Garrett's reinterpreting his Constitutional obligations as a member of Congress. Among the powers relegated to Congress comes this from Article I, Section 8:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

The Bill stiffened the penalties for the INTERSTATE transport of dogs, and banned INTERSTATE transport of fight specific items (cockfighting blades, rape stands, etc.). No, this was definitely in the Federal jurisdiction from the beginning.

Garrett may want to rethink his lack of defense before election time next year. Otherwise, the Humane Society who used the end of the Op-Ed to give him a chance to redeem himself might bear their teeth.

Ferriero's Dare...Any Takers?

After Tuesday's story by Charles Stile about the BCDO planning to sue to eliminate pay-to-play restrictions, State Senator Loretta Weinberg fired off a letter challenging Papa Joe Ferriero's ability to do this without the consent of the other leadership of the BCDO. Stile had his own follow-up column on the subject today, where Papa Joe had this to say:

"It's an absolute absurd assertion to say that because people contribute to an election that it increases the costs,'' Ferriero said. "And I would defy anyone to prove that."

Anyone? Am I anyone? Are you anyone?

I'm not sure if Papa Joe was talking strictly about Bergen County or not, but there is plenty of evidence where the politically connected donor has padded a no-bid government contract at taxpayer expense. We'll give Ferriero the benefit of the doubt that he hasn't read any of the GAO reports on Iraq or Katrina, but those are a good place to start.

I won't have time to compile those this weekend, maybe someone else will, but I know the evidence is out there. If he's strictly talking about Bergen County, I've already raised some questions about the no-bids.

I'm sure with the time I could find more, but I simply don't have it right now. Hopefully, the Record will take Papa Joe up on his dare. Or someone. It's this sort of sheer arrogance that brought down Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff. Time will tell if Papa Joe will suffer the same fate.

A Solution to Primary Leapfrog Idiocy

With the Wyoming GOP announcing their intention to move their delegate selection contests to January 5th, it is now conceivable that New Hampshire will hold its primary on December 18th, with Iowa going December 10th, due to each state's laws dictating their position in the process and the fact that both Christmas and New Year's Day are on Tuesdays.

Nothing says Presidential elections like hot chocolate and candy canes. How will primary voters react to the carolling of the candidates? Fred Thompson may not even be in the race at that point, but I bet he does a heck of a rendition of "We Three Kings."

From the AP story:

"We're first in the nation," said Tom Sansonetti, the state party's 2008 county convention coordinator. "At least for the next couple, three weeks until New Hampshire and Iowa move, which I expect they will."

[snip]

"Ultimately the goal here is to look beyond 2008 and fix the system, because the system is broken," Sansonetti said. "Ultimately the goal here is to look beyond 2008 and fix the system, because the system is broken," Sansonetti said. "All this jumping around is because the states feel disenfranchised by letting Iowa and New Hampshire call the shots."

First off, Iowa and New Hampshire don't call the shots: President Bush lost in 2000, Senator Bob Dole lost is 1996 and President Bill Clinton lost in 1992.

Now that we've got that out of the way, here's my solution for 2012 and beyond. However, part of it starts now.

- Iowa and New Hampshire go in mid-January.

- The remaining states are split into four groups of 12, with a geographic distribution so that each region of the nation has 3 representative states in each group.

- Then, the second Tuesday of February, March, April and May one group has a primary.

- This primary rotates every four years, so that the group that goes last one year goes first the next.

(ex. Year 1: 1234 Year 2: 4123 Year 3: 3412 Year 4: 2341)

- The initial order would be determined by overall eligible voter turnout percentage in the GENERAL election of 2008 for the group. The group of states with the top turnout goes first in 2012, with the group coming in second going 4th so they get to go first in 2016.

- Finally, in 2024, after everybody has had the chance to go first, the order is redrawn based on the voter turnout percentage over the last four elections (2012-24), and the process begins again.

It really isn't that hard, and I would think the parties and states could come to some kind of agreement before their conventions in August 2008, which at this rate will be nine months after the first primary ballots are cast.

Humane Society Links Vick & Garrett

This Op-Ed was published today in the Record and is reprinted in its entirety with permission from the Humane Society Legislative Fund.

Putting more bite into animal-cruelty legislation

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

By MICHAEL MARKARIAN

ATLANTA FALCONS quarterback Michael Vick has pleaded guilty to federal dog-fighting charges, but one verdict was already in: America has no tolerance for the cruel and degrading spectacle of dog fighting.

Readers may wonder, then, why Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, was one of about three dozen lawmakers who recently sided with dog-fighting interests. Garrett voted in March against legislation to upgrade penalties for illegal transportation of fighting dogs -- the very crime Vick was charged with -- and he was the only member of Congress from the northeast United States who took that position.

The vast majority of members of Congress supported the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act to put a stop to precisely the type of behavior that Vick admitted to -- participation in a multi-state dog-fighting network. This anti-crime legislation was backed by animal welfare groups, the poultry industry and more than 400 law enforcement agencies. It was approved by 368 of Garrett's House colleagues -- 215 Democrats and 153 Republicans -- before passing the Senate unanimously and being signed into law by President Bush in May.

Garrett, however, apparently preferred to give dog fighters and cock fighters a free pass, rather than strengthen the federal government's enforcement of laws to combat animal fighting. Never mind that dog fighting and cock fighting are both the equivalent of felony offenses in New Jersey. Never mind that the illegal transport of birds for cock fighting has been linked to deadly diseases such as bird flu and exotic Newcastle, threatening public health and the poultry industry.

Animal fighting not only fosters unspeakable cruelty to animals, but also spawns other criminal activity, such as narcotics traffic, illegal gambling, public corruption and violence toward people. When animal fighters can earn tens of thousands of dollars wagering on a single fight, a slap on the wrist is considered just a cost of doing business.

Closer to eradication

The new law brings us one big step closer to eradicating the dog fighting and cock fighting industries, and that goal cannot be achieved too soon.

Ironically, the new federal law against animal fighting was enacted just after the crimes had been committed by Vick and his co-defendants, and they narrowly escaped the imposition of even more onerous penalties. Federal prosecutors have delivered some felony charges against Vick by invoking the federal Travel Act and conspiracy in their first charge. But the second and third charges in the indictment are misdemeanor charges relating to the federal animal fighting law -- penalties that Garrett opposed.

With dog fighting making national headlines, new legislation has been introduced in Congress to crack down on this underground criminal network even further.

In New Jersey, not only is dog fighting the equivalent of a felony, but possession of dogs for fighting purposes and being a spectator at a dog fight also carry felony-level penalties. In some states, however, it is still legal to possess fighting dogs and to attend a dog fight. The new legislation would make these activities illegal nationwide.
Of the 435 congressional districts in the nation, the 5th District has more members of the Humane Society of the United States than all but five districts. Garrett's opposition to the most modest animal welfare reforms, especially in light of the humane-minded constituency he represents, is just perplexing. It's not too late for him to turn around his record, and take a stand to help protect animals from needless cruelty.

Michael Markarian is president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, on the Web at http://www.hslf.org/.

BCDO to Fight For Pay-to-Play

As reported by Charles Stile of The Record, Papa Joe's Bergen County Democratic Organization is going to go to court to fight on behalf of pay-to-play. Their logic, polling shows it doesn't rank highly on people's priorities and the ban has hurt donations from contractors. Toward the end of the article, BCDO lawyer Dennis Oury says the following:

"What makes people think that because I made a contribution, I'm not a good lawyer?" he asked. "Why can't I contribute to a campaign and be a good lawyer and do a good job for the community? Why is it mutually exclusive?

"I think the borough has an obligation to get the best that they can get."

The borough does have that obligation, and handing out contracts on a no-bid basis to donors doesn't ensure that. Whether it's a no-bid contract in Iraq or a no-bid contract for County Jail health care services; without a bidding process there is no guarantee the government is getting "the best they can get."

Suing to support corruption in an election year? Are they kidding?

Wild Speculation Time

Well, it didn't take long for the news that Paul Aronsohn was dropping out of the race to lead to some speculation about who the nominee will be. Before I get into that, I do want to wish Paul well with where life takes him. It couldn't have been an easy decision to make, but it's a sign of character that he put family first.

So, on to the wild speculation.

Right now, Camille Abate is the only declared candidate, and has declared on her blog that she will beat Garrett next year.

In addition to Abate, there are several other names being thrown around. Here's a list of people from different sites:

Blue Jersey:

James Tedesco, Mayor of Paramus
David DeGerolamo, Phillipsburg Council President

2008 Race Tracker:

Mayor Tedesco
Jim Sekelsky - Mayor of Ogdensburg
Anne Wolfe - 2004 Challenger

One has to believe Bergen County Executive Dennis McNerney will think about jumping into the Fifth. McNerney received 69,641 votes last year from towns in the Fifth, topping Republican challenger Todd Caliguire by 9,300. McNerney's total also bested both Aronsohn (62,944) and our Representative Scott Garrett (67,287). Caliguire was an awful candidate, but the returns are impressive in any context.

I'm no fan of McNerney's association with Papa Joe or his embrace of pay-to-play. Objectively speaking; whoever runs on the Dem side would need to pick up a big chunk of the 18,000 vote cushion Garrett gets in the Western part of the District from Bergen in order to be competitive. Name recognition will be a big part of that and McNerney has his name all over the County, albeit at questionable taxpayer expense. I'd be willing to bet he has better name recognition than Garrett in the Bergen towns of the Fifth.

Like I said, this is all wild speculation, but it should be interesting to watch how this all plays out over the next couple of months. As candidates come forward, either Republican or Democratic, I'll let folks know.

Veteran's Expo

This is from the latest Garrett Gazette:

Dear Friends:

Next month, on September 17th, I will be hosting a Veterans Expo at the Paramus Veterans Home from 1:00 to 3:00 pm. This will be an opportunity for area veterans and their families to come gather information on programs and benefits available to our nation’s veterans.

I have invited representatives from a wide variety of agencies and organizations that serve our nation’s heroes. You will be able to:

-Learn more about health and other benefits available through the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs and the New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans Affairs,

-Get glaucoma and blood pressure screenings,

-Talk to representatives about Social Security and Medicare,

-Meet other local veterans and find out about local veterans service organizations,

-Get involved with efforts to help local military families with loved ones in Iraq, and

-Find out more about the Paramus Veterans Home.

If you are a veteran or have a family member who is a veteran, I hope that you will be able to join me and my staff at the Expo on September 17th. Please feel free to spread the word to other veterans you know as well.

Sincerely,

Scott Garrett
Member of Congress