Scott Garrett’s Hypocrisy is No Surprise

Cross Posted from Retire Garrett

IOIYAR.  The First time I saw these six letters strung together on a blog post I was completely confused.  Before heading off to Google, I tried to see if I could figure it out within the context of the rest the blogger’s post.  While I got the general idea from the rest of the post, I did do a quick search to determine that IOIYAR means “It’s Okay If You Are A Republican.”  It’s an acronym designed to show Republican hypocrisy.

RNC Chairman, Reince Priebus can demand the resignation of Anthony Weiner for engaging in inappropriate sexual texting but he can be silent on David Vitter’s penchant to hire prostitutes and dress up in diapers because it’s not okay for a Democrat to send pictures of his genitals to women but it’s fine for a married Republican to pay for kinky sex.  Mitt Romney can complain that the President going to Afghanistan on the one year anniversary of the death of Osama Bin Laden was playing politics of the worst kind.  Mr. Romney making that statement standing next to Rudy Giuliani in a firehouse in New York City is okay because he’s a Republican.

As a loyal Republican Scott Garrett has no problem engaging in this practice as well.  His most recent statements and actions are simply jaw dropping.  Steven Sloan, a reporter for Bloomberg News published an article today entitled “Cost Benefit Analysis Puts the Brakes on Dodd-Frank.”  The article outlines the latest Republican strategy designed to halt Wall Street reform efforts:

Business lobbyists and Republican lawmakers who failed to stop the Dodd-Frank Act from becoming law have managed to put the brakes on many of its provisions a second way: cost-benefit analysis.

Here’s the legal strategy:

A series of legal challenges from business groups against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ended in a federal court ruling last year that the agency didn’t adequately analyze the cost of a new rule. In the months since, the agency’s rule- making has ground to a near-halt, with just 24 SEC economists working full-time to provide cost-benefit analyses for dozens of proposed policies, including 28 unfinished Dodd-Frank rules.

Here’s how Scott Garrett is trying to turn it into a political argument:

The goal, said Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican, is to save taxpayers money while also weakening the ability of regulators to implement Dodd-Frank.

“That may very well be the effect,” said Garrett, who is the chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee with oversight of the SEC. “But if you stood next to me a proponent of Dodd-Frank, they should be willing, ready and able to support legislation that would make sure you’re not wasting money in the implementation of Dodd-Frank.”

I’m not going to get into a cost-benefit analysis of every component of Dodd-Frank because that’s just the thing Scott Garrett wants us to do.  Scott Garrett wins if he can change the focus of the debate.  This “cost-benefit” analysis is a political red herring.  I’ll simply quote SEC Chairman Amy Schaprio who has been questioned at length before House and Senate panels.  “Calculating the cost and benefit of a rule is much harder than it sounds. Quantifying the benefits is particularly daunting because outcomes are often social improvements that are hard to quantify, such as increased transparency or enhanced financial stability.”  Scott Garrett doesn’t care about weighing the costs against the benefits of legislation.  He has no commitment to good government.  Scott Garrett is interested in protecting his Wall Street contributors and halt efforts to reform a badly broken system.

If Scott Garrett cared about cared about cost versus benefit he wouldn’t have voted against providing emergency funding to victims of Hurricane Katrina.  If he cared about the human impact of his decisions he wouldn’t have been the only member of the New Jersey Congressional Delegation to vote against emergency health benefits for 9/11 rescue workers.  If Scott Garrett put the needs of people above his political dogma he wouldn’t support efforts to deny the victims of rape and incest the ability to obtain an abortion.   How would Scott Garrett weigh the damage done to a rape victim forced to carry the baby to term?  Can he quantify the long-term damage?

It is possible Scott Garrett does engage in a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to issues affecting average Americans.  His analysis might be that it’s more important to deny a Democratic President or Congress political credit than it is to help solve our problems.  He might believe the rights of corporations are more important than the rights of individual Americans.  He might believe financial austerity is more important than relieving human suffering.  If that were the case how can he defend blowing gaping holes in the deficit in order to give tax breaks to people who don’t need them?

Scott Garrett’s record demonstrates he doesn’t care about protecting the rights of average Americans.  However, Scott Garrett has proven he will make any argument necessary to protect to the interests of his Wall Street contributors.  In Scott Garrett’s case, IOIYAR doesn’t go far enough.  He will vote against our interests any time if it serves his political interests – which is most of the time.  We need to hold Scott Garrett accountable for the way he votes and the things he says.  We need to replace Scott Garrett.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *